BIRMINGHAM — A three-judge panel of federal judges considered on Friday a motion by left-wing activist groups to block the use of a congressional map passed by Republican lawmakers in 2023.
United States Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, District Judge Anna Manasco and District Judge Terry Moorer held a lengthy hearing on Friday on a preliminary injunction motion filed by the NAACP and ACLU to block a 6-1 Republican map passed by the legislature. Under the proposed injunction, a 5-2 Republican map that was court-ordered and used in the 2024 election would be used in the 2026 election.
The three-judge panel has already repeatedly blocked Alabama from using the congressional map passed by the legislature in 2023.
Much of the discussion centered around the quick turnaround local elected officials would have to be ready for an August 11 special primary under the current plan passed during a special session. The judges also subjected attorneys representing Alabama to lengthy skeptical questioning about whether a recent redistricting decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) actually bars Alabama from using the 5-2 court-ordered map.
Jeff Elrod, director of elections for Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen, said the August 11 special election plan featured an "aggressive" timeline but was doable.
"Knowing that we have already identified what changes could potentially be made, it does make their task more clear and direct and they understand the time constraints they're under. The vendors are also standing by, ready to assist. While it is a aggressive timeline, they can get done what they've been assigned," Elrod said during the hearing.
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.
Marcus, Manasco and Moorer initially ruled the 2023 plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Governor Kay Ivey recently signed into law a bill that would allow the State to use previously passed congressional district and State Senate maps if a federal court or the U.S. Supreme Court lifts an injunction on Alabama. The bill signing came after Ivey called a special session after a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callias, in which SCOTUS held that race-based redistricting is unconstitutional.
Shortly after the bill was signed into law, SCOTUS struck down the injunction on using a 2023 Alabama congressional map passed by the legislature. Barring further judicial intervention, Alabama will now use a likely 6-1 Republican-drawn map passed during a 2023 special session for the 2026 election.
However, lengthy questioning by the judges of the State's plan on Friday could mean they're thinking about blocking the State's 6-1 map again.
Ivey announced recently that the State would hold a special election in August for a handful of congressional seats affected by the map change under the 6-1 map. Ivey set the special primary election for August 11. There will be no runoff election. The general election will occur as planned, along with all other races, on November 3. The May 19 primary will still occur. However, any results cast for the races in the 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 7th congressional districts will be nullified after the August election.
The court-ordered map used for the 2024 election resulted in Democrats sending two members to Congress in the last election. Left-wing groups want the court-ordered map to be used again for the 2026 election.
Abha Khanna, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the State's application of the Callais ruling "denies reality." Khanna said plaintiffs were "agnostic" about whether the State used the results of the Tuesday primary or proceed with the August 11 primary plan. However, she said either route should use the special master's map.
"The parties and the court have already done the heavy lifting that Callais now demands," Khanna said at the hearing. "We're agnostic about how the State wants to run its election. Whenever the election takes place, they should take place under the special master map."
Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP, said any confusion from the court changing Alabama's map back to the 5-2 map again would be the State's fault.
"We've had three years in which people have voted under the special master map then we have most of this election in May in which people were voting under the special master map. The only confusion caused is all of Alabama's own creation," Ross said at the hearing. "Alabama could have kept the remedial map in place at least for the May 19 primary. It is a choice that they made to call a special session. It's a choice that they made to try to go back to the 2023 map. All of these are choices and problems that Alabama itself created."
Michael Taunton, an attorney representing Alabama's Permanent Legislative Committee on Reapportionment, said it would be a "hardship" on the State to have to use the court-ordered map again.
"It is a hardship for the State which at least at this time has been told by the Supreme Court that for the time being it is free to use a map that is drawn by the State to be required to use a map that is drawn by the court," Taunton said.
Katherine Robertson, chief counsel for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, said after the hearing that the case was about the State's authority to draw its congressional map.
"We're still arguing for the State's authority in this matter," Robertson said. "The State has been taking steps to get ready for a change, and we feel like we can pull it off if the court will let us."
A ruling on the preliminary injunction is expected next week.
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.
