MONTGOMERY — After lawmakers advanced two pieces of legislation that would compel a special election in specific congressional and State Senate districts, all eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to see if the state wasted time and money in this recent special session.
Both bodies of the Alabama Legislature concluded the special session on Friday, after a week of performative resistance from Democratic lawmakers and buses upon buses of rowdy protesters.
The special session was called after the 6-3 majority ruling in Louisiana v. Callias, in which the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held that race-based redistricting is unconstitutional. Alabama swiftly reacted, filing motions to have the injunction on the congressional and state senate maps approved by lawmakers lifted. The 2023 Congressional map followed the 2021 initial map, which a federal court blocked, forcing lawmakers to redraw it. Despite the redrawing, a three-judge panel likewise found that the 2023 map likely violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Alabama's state senate map faces a similar injunction, which the state is also challenging.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has filed appeals to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and SCOTUS. The 11th Circuit stated Friday that it was waiting on SCOTUS to decide the matter.
Republican lawmakers made little use of their voices in this session. At the same time, Democrats and protestors accused their colleagues of racism and attempting to stamp out the black vote in the state, thereby securing a 7-0 Republican stranglehold on the state.
Despite the accusations, Republicans were somewhat hesitant to call directly for a 7-0 or 6-1 map.
Some lawmakers told 1819 News they had been instructed by leadership to avoid discussing the congressional maps with the media, out of concern that their words could be used in potential litigation. Others also said there was a desire for national media and left-leaning outlets to unfairly paint the state in a negative light.
At the end of a session filled with accusations of racism, Democrats announced intentions to challenge the new laws in court, proving Alabama’s Republican lawmakers were going to face litigation and accusations regardless.
Attorney General Steve Marshall, along with the state’s Republican lawmakers, believes they stand on terra firma with the appeals before the court, using the Callais framework.
“The thing is, if we did nothing, nothing was going to happen,” House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter (R-Rainsville) told reporters after the session ended.
Opponents to the session’s purpose also pressed that the state was violating its agreement with the courts not to challenge the special master’s map until after the 2030 census.
“We’re not drawing new maps,” said House Pro Tem Chris Pringle (R-Mobile). “That’s the biggest misconception. We’re asking the courts to lift the injunction and let us go back to the map the legislature passed for the congressional plan, and the map the legislature passed for the state senate plan. We’re not drawing maps.”
Democratic lawmakers argued that, in the Callais ruling, justices specifically noted that the ruling did not contradict their ruling in Allen V. Milligan, where the court affirmed a lower court’s injunction against Alabama’s 2023 congressional map. However, in the Callais opinion, the court does not argue a substantive difference between Alabama and Louisiana’s cases. Rather, the court stated that Alabama’s legal argument differed substantially from Louisiana’s. The court even stated that the state’s approach to challenging the plaintiffs was “single-minded” and “did not address the central issue [in Callais].”
Democrats also announced plans to challenge the new law, claiming it violates Amendment Four to the Alabama Constitution, which states that the “implementation date for any bill enacted by the Legislature in a calendar year in which a general election is to be held and relating to the conduct of the general election shall be at least six months before the general election.”
However, both Pringle and Ledbetter contend that the laws passed during the special session are unrelated to the May 19 primary or the November general election. Rather, they authorize an unrelated special election should the court rule in the state’s favor.
“This has nothing to do with May 19,” Ledbetter stated.
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.
