Challengers urge Supreme Court to uphold Alabama map ruling

Challengers of Alabama's congressional map asked the Supreme Court on Monday to reject the state's request to reinstate a 2023 map that a federal court ruled violated voting rights protections.

Three groups of plaintiffs filed briefs arguing that a lower court's May 26 decision striking down the map on racial discrimination grounds should remain in effect. One group told justices that the federal court "made findings on a full record that remains the definitive account of Alabama's racial geography, racialized politics, and racially discriminatory policymaking."

Alabama asked the Supreme Court on May 27 to temporarily block the lower court's ruling and allow the state to use its 2023 map in 2026 elections. The state argued that the Supreme Court's April 29 decision in *Louisiana v. Callais* supports its position on the map's legality.

In *Callais*, decided 6-3, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana map that created a second majority-Black congressional district. The decision made it harder for challengers to prove that maps violate the Voting Rights Act's provision barring racial discrimination in voting.

The federal judges who reconsidered Alabama's map after the *Callais* ruling found that Alabama's 2023 map "intentionally discriminated based on race in violation of the Constitution." The court ordered the state to use a map created by a court-appointed special master instead.

Challenges to Alabama's map began five years ago. A federal court first ruled in 2021 that an earlier Alabama map violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in 2023, prompting Alabama to adopt the 2023 map. Federal judges then concluded that map was "an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians' voting strength and evade the unambiguous requirements of court orders."

The Trump administration filed a brief supporting Alabama. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that federal courts lack authority to alter election rules so close to an election. He contended that Alabama had legitimate reasons for its map design beyond racial discrimination, including protecting Republican representation and preserving a Gulf Coast community of interest.

Challengers countered that reinstating the map is administratively impossible at this stage. One group, led by Democratic state senator Bobby Singleton, noted that offices in Alabama were closed Monday, June 1, for Jefferson Davis's birthday, leaving no time to prepare for a special primary election in August. The Singleton group said that "hours remain until Alabama's statewide voter registration records must be cemented in place for the 2026 elections."

A second group of challengers, representing voters from three congressional districts, argued that *Callais* changed nothing about Alabama's case. They pointed out that the Supreme Court's recent decision addressed racial gerrymandering claims, while Alabama's situation involves an independent finding of intentional racial discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

A third group, the Milligan challengers, included a Birmingham nonprofit and the Alabama Conference of the NAACP. They emphasized that the lower court's ruling rested on findings of intentional discrimination that remain separate from the legal theories addressed in *Callais*.

Three Supreme Court justices dissented from the court's May 11 order sending the case back to the lower court. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the lower court had also found Alabama violated the Fourteenth Amendment through intentional vote dilution, a constitutional finding independent of *Callais*.

Alabama will file a reply to the challengers' briefs. The Supreme Court could rule on the state's request at any time after receiving Alabama's response.