Alabama asks Supreme Court to House map that dilutes Black vote

The state of Alabama asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to pause a lower court ruling barring the state from using a disputed congressional district map for the 2026 midterm elections.

The decision banned the map presented in 2023 from being used in the congressional elections in Alabama on the grounds that it would dilute the black votes.

The state’s request to the Supreme Court came a day after the three-judge panel. U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Ala.It echoed a previous ruling that found the 2023 redistricting map “intentionally discriminates based on race in violation of the Constitution.”

“We cannot once again understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than deliberately discriminatory,” the panel’s decision said. Two judges on the panel were appointed by President Donald Trump.

The panel had been instructed by the Supreme Court to reconsider the question of whether the maps could be used for November’s election in light of the high court’s recent decision, known as Louisiana v. Callais, which found that Louisiana’s drawing of its own congressional maps was a racial gerrymander.

The panel’s decision was a victory for Democrats, who have often found themselves on the defensive since last year against Republican efforts to reshuffle congressional districts across the country to preserve their razor-thin majority in the House.

In its emergency petition to the Supreme Court seeking a postponement of the panel’s decision, Alabama said: “A postponement is warranted to ensure that Alabama is not once again prevented from using the legally enacted 2023 Plan based on a Callais-challenging, Purcell-manipulating decision. “It is contrary to the principle and contrary to the Constitution’s promise of equal protection for all.”

The Purcell principle is the idea that a court should not change the rules for an election close to the contest date.

““Callais affirms Alabama’s position on the legality of the 2023 Plan, but within a week the district court ruled that Callais had changed nothing.”

“Worse still, the district court doubled down on its constitutional view, which is not enshrined in our Constitution: Alabama intentionally discriminated by refusing to intentionally discriminate,” the state said. “The district court faulted the State for not giving minority voters ‘opportunity’ and ‘diluting’ votes, but never once acknowledged how it did so.” C.alais The district court itself refuted this argument before Callais.”

Alabama has asked the Supreme Court to issue a decision on its request by next Monday, June 1.