Redistricting in Alabama

Last updated

Redistricting in Alabama is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for federal congressional and state legislative districts. It has historically been highly controversial. Critics have accused legislators of attempting to protect themselves from competition by gerrymandering districts.

Contents

History

20th century

The Alabama Legislature did not redraw or modify their state legislative districts from 1901 until after the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decision in Reynolds v. Sims , in which the court ruled that state legislative districts must be roughly equal in population.

The 1960 case in Gomillion v. Lightfoot successfully challenged racial gerrymandering in the city of Tuskegee.

The 1980 decision in Mobile v. Bolden held that disproportionate effects alone, absent purposeful discrimination, are insufficient to establish a claim of racial discrimination affecting voting and redistricting. However, after the case was remanded to lower court, subsequent litigation and legislation moved the Mobile City Council from at-large elections to single-winner districts, resulting in the election of African Americans to the city council for the first time since Reconstruction.

Despite advances in voting rights, no African American was elected to Congress from Alabama until after redistricting in 1991, in which the 7th congressional district was redrawn to encompass portions of urban Birmingham and Alabama's eastern Black Belt region. The redrawn district, now majority nonwhite, elected Earl Hilliard Sr. to the U.S. House in 1992, becoming the first Black member from Alabama since Jeramiah Haralson in 1877. [1]

21st century

2010s

In the 2010 election, both chambers of the legislature flipped parties, with many Democratic members switching parties, resulting in Republicans having control over redistricting for the first time in state history. In the resulting 2010 United States redistricting cycle, the legislature moved to protect Republican incumbents.

In Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racial gerrymandering cases pursuant to the Voting Rights Act must be pursued on a district by district basis, rather than by looking at the state as an undifferentiated whole. [2]

2020s

After the 2020 Census and the 2020 redistricting cycle, the Alabama Legislature largely instituted the same congressional and legislative maps which have been in place since 1993. Soon after, multiple groups of plaintiffs sued, asserting the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs sought the creation of an additional majority-minority district. In Allen v. Milligan , the court ruled 5–4 that Alabama's districts likely violated the VRA, maintained an injunction that required Alabama to create an additional majority-minority district, and held that Section 2 of the VRA is constitutional in the redistricting context. [3] [4]

On October 5th, 2023, a panel of three federal judges ruled that Alabama illegally diluted the Black population of southern Alabama into three separate districts, striking down the maps that were put in place a couple years ago, creating a new Black-majority district in southern Alabama, alongside the one in the north stretching from the city of Birmingham to Tuscaloosa. [5]

In addition, a separate federal lawsuit, Thomas v. Allen. was filed against the state over Alabama's State Senate maps on the same grounds. Litigation in this case is ongoing as of January 2024.

Related Research Articles

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives.". The court had previously held in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that districting claims over racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North Carolina's congressional districts</span> U.S. House districts in the state of North Carolina

North Carolina is currently divided into 14 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. After the 2000 census, the number of North Carolina's seats was increased from 12 to 13 due to the state's increase in population. In the 2022 elections, per the 2020 United States census, North Carolina gained one new congressional seat for a total of 14.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2003 Texas redistricting</span> Controversial redistricting of Texass districts for the U.S. House of Representatives

The 2003 Texas redistricting was a controversial intercensus state plan that defined new congressional districts. In the 2004 elections, this redistricting supported the Republicans taking a majority of Texas's federal House seats for the first time since Reconstruction. Democrats in both houses of the Texas Legislature staged walkouts, unsuccessfully trying to prevent the changes. Opponents challenged the plan in three suits, combined when the case went to the United States Supreme Court in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alabama's congressional districts</span>

The U.S. state of Alabama is currently divided into seven congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives.

<i>Shaw v. Reno</i> 1993 US Supreme Court gerrymandering case

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a "majority-minority" Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued to challenge this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. In contrast, Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5–4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and on the basis that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South Carolina's 1st congressional district</span> U.S. House district for South Carolina

South Carolina's 1st congressional district is a coastal congressional district in South Carolina, represented by Republican Nancy Mace since January 3, 2021. She succeeded Democrat Joe Cunningham, having defeated him in the 2020 election. Cunningham was the first Democrat to represent the district since the 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Virginia's congressional districts</span> U.S. House districts in the state of Virginia

Virginia is currently divided into 11 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. The death of Rep. Donald McEachin on November 28, 2022, left the 4th congressional district seat empty. Following the results of a special election to fill his seat on February 21, 2023, Jennifer McClellan made history by becoming Virginia's first black congresswoman.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gerrymandering in the United States</span> Setting electoral district boundaries to favor specific political interests in legislative bodies

Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 United States redistricting cycle</span>

The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.

Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Other forms of gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic grounds had been deemed unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court had identified that extreme partisan gerrymandering could also be unconstitutional, the Court had not agreed on how this could be defined, leaving the question to lower courts to decide. That issue was later resolved in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court decided that partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question.

Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), and Lamone v. Benisek, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), were a pair of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case dealing with the topic of partisan gerrymandering arising from the 2011 Democratic party-favored redistricting of Maryland. At the center of the cases was Maryland's 6th district which historically favored Republicans and which was redrawn in 2011 to shift the political majority to become Democratic via vote dilution. Affected voters filed suit, stating that the redistricting violated their right of representation under Article One, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution and freedom of association of the First Amendment.

Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the redistricting of the state of Texas following the 2010 census.

Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in North Carolina</span> USA gerrymandering controversy (2010-)

Redistricting in North Carolina has been a controversial topic due to allegations and admissions of gerrymandering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in Wisconsin</span>

Redistricting in Wisconsin is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for municipal wards, Wisconsin State Assembly districts, Wisconsin State Senate districts, and Wisconsin's congressional districts. Redistricting typically occurs—as in other U.S. states—once every decade, usually in the year after the decennial United States census. According to the Wisconsin Constitution, redistricting in Wisconsin follows the regular legislative process, it must be passed by both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature and signed by the Governor of Wisconsin—unless the Legislature has sufficient votes to override a gubernatorial veto. Due to political gridlock, however, it has become common for Wisconsin redistricting to be conducted by courts. The 1982, 1992, and 2002 legislative maps were each created by panels of United States federal judges.

Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The appellees and respondants argued that Alabama's congressional districts discriminated against African-American voters. The Court ruled 5–4 that Alabama’s districts likely violated the VRA, maintained an injunction that required Alabama to create an additional majority-minority district, and held that Section 2 of the VRA is constitutional in the redistricting context.

Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States related to independent state legislature theory (ISL), a doctrine that asserts state legislatures have sole authority to establish election laws for federal elections within their respective states without judicial review by state courts, presentment to state governors, and without constraint by state constitutions. The case arose from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 United States census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party.

Redistricting in Georgia is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for federal congressional and state legislative districts. Since statehood, redistricting in Georgia has been carried out by the Georgia General Assembly. It has historically been highly controversial. Critics have accused legislators of attempting to protect themselves from competition by gerrymandering districts.

References

  1. "HILLIARD, Earl Frederick | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-08-25.
  2. Liptak, Adam (2015-03-25). "Supreme Court Rules Against Alabama in Redistricting Case". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2023-10-03.
  3. Liptak, Adam (2023-06-08). "Supreme Court Rejects Voting Map That Diluted Black Voters' Power". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved 2023-06-08.
  4. Millhiser, Ian (June 8, 2023). "Surprise! The Supreme Court just handed down a significant victory for voting rights". Vox.com . Vox.com. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
  5. "Black voting power gets boost in Alabama as new US House districts chosen by federal judges". AP News. 2023-10-05. Retrieved 2024-01-27.