As Louisiana waits for a Supreme Court ruling regarding district changes and potential racial gerrymandering, there’s a sense that this decision might influence other states, including Alabama.

This month, during discussions, representatives from Louisiana and a group of black voters urged the court to reinstate the legislative map created by the Louisiana Legislature last year, which established a second majority-black district.

The case has made its way to the Supreme Court after a federal district court deemed the new map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, as it appeared voters were grouped mainly by race.

The Attorney General of Alabama noted similarities to Alabama’s recent district controversy, where the state had to redraw its map after a panel of judges found the original map violated the Voting Rights Act.

Marshall, speaking on the Capitol Journal of Alabama’s public television, shared his insights on what the ruling could mean for Alabama.

“We seem to be losing sight of the fact that laws regarding the Voting Rights Act are continuously evolving,” he stated.

“We recently concluded that there’s no right to private action under the Voting Rights Act. This came after a recent majority decision from the 8th Circuit, and so far, the panel of judges has turned it down.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtplcgewoya

Marshall mentioned that the implications for Alabama hinge on “how broadly or narrowly the court addresses these claims.”

“Louisiana argues that due to the district court’s ruling, they were forced to create districts primarily based on race. This was a significant factor in how they defined those boundaries, differing from how boundaries were typically drawn before,” he explained. “As long as the Supreme Court takes a broad approach on these matters, it’s likely to impact Alabama as well. For instance, they could have prompted a panel of judges to review the recent order in light of their decision. The consequences could be substantial.”

“I think both sides of this case are anxious to see what the Supreme Court decides,” he added.