Hearing on Alabama Congressional Map Case

A three-judge panel convened on Tuesday to discuss the case of Allen v. Milligan, focusing on whether Alabama should be required to submit its 2030 Congressional District Map for review before it is finalized.

This same panel previously determined that Alabama intentionally weakened the voting power of black voters and mandated the creation of a special relief map with two majority-minority districts. That ruling was upheld in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Duel Ross, the lead attorney for the Milligan plaintiffs, contended that the state’s actions—such as drafting maps that disregarded court orders—are violations under the Voting Rights Act. “We’re cautioning that the state could easily replicate its previous missteps by submitting a new flawed map,” Ross stated before the panel.

The judges expressed skepticism about the likelihood of approval for a new map without further scrutiny. “It’s quite perplexing,” remarked U.S. District Judge Terry Mooler.

The core discussion revolved around whether the judges should insist that Alabama provide a new legislative district map after the 2030 census or if plaintiffs could simply challenge the map if it were perceived to violate the Voting Rights Act.

“Shouldn’t we proceed carefully since Congress holds a role that courts cannot replace?” Mooler inquired. “If we restrict the state, what are the potential consequences?”

The primary argument from Ross and the other plaintiffs is that the state might once again adopt discriminatory maps similar to those implemented in 2022, which they labeled as a “gift” election. The plaintiffs attempted to challenge the map as soon as possible, but legal hurdles prevented them from stopping its use in the 2022 elections. They aim to push for a new relief map before the 2024 election.

A significant focus of the hearing was on the “concessions” from the state noted in its June 9 report. According to this, the state was supposed to refrain from appealing the map based on its merits and maintain the Special Master Relief Map until 2030. There were assurances from the House, Senate, and Secretary of State that they would not attempt to redistrict for the elections in 2026, 2028, or 2030.

However, Ross and the court considered whether these assurances might shift with new congressional members and a new Secretary of State in 2026. Likely, there would be a mandatory court injunction that would prevent the Secretary of State from using any maps other than those provided by the special master for these elections. While lawmakers could introduce new district lines, the Secretary of State would be barred from implementing those plans.

Ross maintained that the current framework adequately addresses Section 2 violations but falls short of addressing 14th Amendment issues. Alabama attorney General Edmund Lacourt contended that the remedies for the violations are essentially the same.

As the deliberations continued, some legal arguments were described as having “almost no substance.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus pressed Lacourt to reflect on the state’s troubling history of discrimination. “Alabama cannot simply distance itself from that history,” Marcus remarked. “Why not soften your argument a bit? You’re aware of recent findings from this very courthouse, and you’re essentially saying you’ll comply without fully committing to change.”