Monday, on Mobile radio's FM Talk 106.5's "The Jeff Poor Show," Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall argued the U.S. Supreme Court's recent majority ruling in Louisiana v. Callais "vindicates" Alabama's legal arguments against racially based redistricting.
"It's really no different in some ways than the fight that we had historically to eliminate Roe v. Wade, is that it was the continued litigation making consistent arguments that the court finally adopted in Dobbs," Marshall explained. "We've seen that same thing happen here in redistricting litigation."
Marshall said Associate Justice Samuel Alito relied on two separate briefs from the Yellowhammer State to assist with crafting the landmark opinion.
"We said color should not be a basis for drawing districts. We cannot allow race to predominate," he continued. "We didn't get all five. We got four of the justices in our initial decision. Obviously pulled over two more this time. But if you look at the brief that we filed in Milligan, if you look at the brief that we filed in support of Louisiana's case, the court, through Justice Alito's writing, lock step, took out our arguments, made them the majority opinion in this case, and Alabama's arguments have been vindicated moving forward."
He added, "We now need to get to the relief Alabama needs."
In Louisiana v. Callais, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the evidence showed Louisiana had used "race-neutral redistricting criteria," including partisan goals to protect incumbents.
Like Louisiana, Alabama was sued following the 2020 redistricting cycle, and a federal court held that the State violated Section 2 by failing to include an additional majority-black congressional district. Last year, the court ordered Alabama to use a court-drawn map that included the additional district.
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 day.
