The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on Friday that it opposed federal oversight of Alabama's redistricting process.
A three-judge federal panel in May found the congressional redistricting map passed by Alabama Republican lawmakers in 2023 violated the Voting Rights Act. The ruling was appealed by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The State of Alabama is still defending its congressional map, which legislators approved in 2023. A special master hired by a three-judge panel in Birmingham redrew the map for the 2024 congressional elections after Democrats and liberal groups were successful in their initial legal challenge. The issue is still being litigated.
United States Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, United States District Judge Anna Manasco, and United States District Judge Terry Moorer ruled the 2023 plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In the ruling, the judges said they'd take up the plaintiffs' application to "bail Alabama back into federal preclearance for future congressional districting" at a status conference at noon Wednesday, May 28. Preclearance, if approved, would allow the federal court to oversee Alabama redistricting for as long as it sees fit.
However, James Thomas Tucker, a trial attorney with the DOJ, said the request for preclearance oversight over Alabama redistricting should be denied.
Tucker said in a filing on Friday, "this Court already has secured Alabama's compliance with its orders directing implementation of a remedial Congressional redistricting plan through the end of this redistricting cycle. That alone should end the inquiry. Therefore, the Milligan Plaintiffs' request for 3(c) relief should be denied."
"The Court has secured Alabama's compliance with its orders directing implementation of a remedial Congressional redistricting plan until the 2030 Census data is available. Accordingly, in this case, there is no equitable basis for subjecting the State to ongoing election scrutiny under Section 3(c), and the Court should deny the Milligan Plaintiffs' request to do so," Tucker said. "The Court should deny the Milligan Plaintiffs' request to retain jurisdiction and to impose preclearance relief under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act."
Doj Statement of Interest by Caleb Taylor on Scribd
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
