During Friday's episode of Mobile radio FM Talk 106.5 "Midday Mobile," Speaker Pro-Tem Chris Pringle (R-Mobile) explained Alabama's redistricting process and lawsuits and, for the first time, challenged the full cost of the failed legal strategy by Edmund "Eddie" LaCour, the former Solicitor General of Alabama and current Trump-appointed U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Alabama.
Pringle joined host Sean Sullivan for one of his most comprehensive interviews, lasting over 30 minutes.
After describing how lawyers for the plaintiffs in the cases were making millions of dollars by suing the state, Pringle got to the attorney who assisted in redistricting and argued the case for Alabama before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Pringle began by explaining that he and his team drew what he described as "the most legally defensible maps," yet they were still challenged.
He explained that the three-judge court said they wanted to review the maps and try the case, Allen v. Milligan, there.
"Eddie LaCour, the Solicitor General of the State of Alabama, said no. I want to appeal to the United States Supreme Court," Pringle explained.
"So we went to the Supreme Court. Instead of defending the plan we passed in 2021, in front of the three-judge panel, he wanted to go to the Supreme Court and make arguments," Pringle said, explaining that LaCour forfeited the path of least resistance to appear before SCOTUS.
"I went that day, and I've told you this before; it was a fascinating day. I was listening to the arguments he was making, and I'm thinking, 'I'm not really sure I'd make these arguments', but he's the Solicitor General of the State of Alabama. I'm not, I'm not even an attorney," Pringle said.
"They ruled against us, and Kavanaugh wrote in his opinion on that day, had the Solicitor General of the State of Alabama actually argued the case before the Supreme Court, we would have won it right there on the spot."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the case, pointing out specific flaws and omissions in LaCour's arguments.
"Your case is good, but you did a bad job of arguing it? Is that regular people language?" Sullivan asked.
"Yes," Pringle responded before explaining what happened next.
The case gets returned to the three-judge panel.
"So we started getting together to draw a map. Eddie was in there and he started talking about these legal arguments he wanted to make again in front of the Supreme Court. And I told him, I said, 'Eddie, no, we gave you free rein last time, and you got beat," Pringle recalled.
"I said, 'We have to protect the state of Alabama. We have to protect the seven members of Congress. We have to protect 140 members of the legislature."
"I said, we're not going to go down this path. We're going to do what the court tells us to do. All right?" Pringle explained, reflecting.
He explained how U.S. Rep Terri Sewell (D-Birmingham) helped draw the 2021 map that was being challenged and approved it.
"So anyway, we get into the special session. Eddie gets mad. He leaves the room. He goes off. I have not seen or spoken to Eddie La Cour since that day when he closed his computer and got walked out of my office."
"Well, Eddie drew the 2023 map. That map that we're now going to was drawn by the attorney. All right. Let that sink in. He drew the map, not me. He's the one that put all those legislative findings in there," Pringle said of the 2023 congressional maps.
"I never saw those things, because I never saw the plan until after it passed out in the Senate."
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 or become a member to gain access to exclusive content and 1819 News merch.
