Milligan plaintiffs urge SCOTUS to let Alabama use ‘race-blind’ congressional maps

On Monday afternoon, plaintiffs seeking to preserve Alabama’s current congressional map urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a lower court’s ruling requiring Alabama to use a “race-blind” congressional map in the 2026 elections.

Then came the 54-page brief Alabama authorities appealed by the ruling of May 26 A a panel of three judges in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama that the congressional map adopted by the Legislature deprived Black Alabamians of the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.

The plaintiffs argued Monday that there is no time to reassign voters under the up-to-date map; the 2023 map intentionally discriminated against Black Alabamians; and the lower court found that the map still violated Section 2 after the Callais decision.

“Nothing has changed in Alabama or in the record that would justify a different motion today. The Court should deny Alabama’s motion to suspend on one or more of these independent grounds,” he said. low he stated.

The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is filed almost a month after the Supreme Court’s ruling Art. has been significantly weakened. 2 of the Electoral Law Act in a case known as Louisiana v. Callais and weeks after Governor Kay Ivey called: special session in which Republican primary voters set a special primary for August, expecting the state to be able to use the 2023 map, which will likely cost Democrats a seat in Alabama’s House delegation.

The plaintiffs also argued that the state had failed to demonstrate that the stay was justified.

“The State cannot make a finding of ‘sturdy evidence’ as to a likelihood of success on the merits because the district court’s decision was correct on the merits,” the report says. “And because the Recovery Plan is the practical status quo in Alabama and voting thereon is almost upon us, all fair residence factors here weigh heavily in favor of Plaintiffs-Defendants.”

The plaintiffs argued that based on the court-ordered map used in 2024 and the May 19 primary election, the state would suffer no harm, while based on the 2023 map, voters would be harmed “irreparably.”

“States have no legitimate interest in supporting racial discrimination, including through the use of a map that a court has found to be the product of intentional discrimination. This is especially true in the case of elections,” the document reads. “Alabama is not at risk of irreparable harm because “instead of creating electoral chaos and the possibility of major mistakes” that it has long sought to avoid, “the special general plan provides certainty.”

Last week, a three-judge panel upheld its previous ruling ordered a retrial of the case by the Supreme Court, presided over by Callais. The panel said there was a map still constitutes deliberate racial discriminationeven though Republican lawmakers and government officials started arguing that the map was drawn with partisan intentions after the decision in Callais.

Judges – U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco, U.S. District Judge Terry Moorer, appointed by President Donald Trump; and U.S. District Judge Stanley Marcus, appointed to the circuit by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 79-page opinion that the state’s argument conflicted with arguments presented in 2023 and said the purpose of the 2023 map “was to spread Black voters across districts in order to dilute their votes, at least in part because they are Black.”

“The attorney argues forcefully that the Legislature’s partisan motives led to the creation of the 2023 Plan, but this massive record contains no evidence of partisan motive. And the only evidence in the case contradicts one thing: Alabama’s legislative leadership testified that requests from national party leaders did not influence their work,” Justices wrote last week.

The next day, the state appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court. They requested an expedited response, but Superior Court Judge Clarence Thomas gave the plaintiffs six hours past the state’s required deadline to respond. As of Monday evening, the court had not responded to the appeal.

The Alabama Attorney General’s Office argued that the 2023 map was drawn for partisan gain and merely defied the court’s order to draw a remedial map to avoid racial gerrymandering.

“It cannot be that the only constitutional map of the state on which this cycle of redistricting was outlined was one in which white voters were drawn into white districts and assigned white representatives, and black voters were drawn into ‘black districts’ and assigned ‘black representatives’ – a pattern ‘abhorrent’ to the Constitution itself,” the appellate motion stated.

Ivey called special primary election in the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th congressional districts on August 11. There will be a statewide voter lockout on Tuesday, meaning election officials will have less than a day to reassign voters in the 14 counties whose redistricting will change, according to testimony from the state elections director.

Plaintiffs in the related case Singleton v. Allen filed a protest against the motion, arguing that there was not enough time to reassign voters. Most state offices are closed Monday to celebrate the birthday of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, leaving election officials “a few hours on vacation in Alabama” to reassign voters.

“Alabama’s quixotic attempt to condense a months-long trial into a few hours is not harmless,” the report said. “If county clerks complete only part of their work on June 1 or 2, the voter registration database will block a plan that will not be the 2023 plan or the Special Master’s recovery plan, but some hybrid of the two that no statute or court authorizes Alabama to use, and a plan that could violate the ‘one person, one vote’ principle required in Reynolds v. Sims.”

The Supreme Court did not repeal Art. in the Callais decision. 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in voting practices but required proof of intentional racial discrimination, a much higher standard than the previous one

In the Callais decision, the Supreme Court held that intentional racial discrimination did violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but redistricting on behalf of a party did not. Texas, California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida AND Virginia have either redistricted to give either party more guaranteed congressional seats in the 2026 midterm elections, or are in the process of doing so.

Marshall added further, despite the mid-decade wave of redistricting for partisan advantage Capitol Journal on Friday that if there was more time, the Legislature could draw a congressional map with seven Republican districts.

“I think it’s very possible, but they defaulted [2023] the map and we believe that the map itself is lawful,” he said.

State officials doubled down on their request Monday night, arguing that the deadline argument only strengthens the state’s authority to use the 2023 map.

“Plaintiffs insist (without evidence) that only the court map is “consistent with.” [public] expectations,” but after the state called a special session of the Legislature to adopt a new election schedule, canceled the May 19 primary in affected counties, and then scheduled a new primary election for August using the 2023 Plan, that plan constituted the legal and practical status quo,” seven-page summary states. “Alabama’s elected officials will then need to determine the best path ahead of the upcoming election in light of the current emergency.”

Friends panties

John Sauer, the attorney general of the United States, filed a lawsuit low on Wednesday afternoon, lending support to Alabama state officials by insisting that Thomas agree to stay. Sauer supported Marshall’s claims that the redistricting efforts were aimed at partisan gains rather than racial discrimination.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) joined the Department of Justice in supporting the state’s appeal on Monday afternoon. He argued that the Supreme Court has said that federal courts should not stop state legislatures from creating their own legislative districts, and that preventing the use of the 2023 map would go against that precedent.

“A federal court’s reversal of a state-adopted congressional map creates uncertainty for candidates and political parties across the country, particularly during the ongoing election cycle. It also undermines the Constitution’s grant of primary responsibility for redistricting to political actors,” he said. low he stated.

The NRCC also argues that under the Purcell Rule – a 2006 precedent that elections should not be changed close to Election Day – a federal court was “prohibited” from changing the congressional map during an election.

“Nevertheless, on May 26 – the same day the approvals were due – the district court invalidated the 2023 Plan and ordered all remaining election events to proceed as scheduled by the court. This postponement is irreconcilable with Purcell,” the briefing said, referring to the special primary election.

A group of election officials and scientists represented by Defenders of Democracy Fund — a nonpartisan group “dedicated to stopping the attack on democracy and restoring American democracy” — filed a low in support of the reasons. They urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court’s ruling because of the “unprecedented and extraordinary challenges” that Alabama election officials will face with a different electoral map.

“These challenges will almost certainly lead to widespread confusion, serious ballot transfer errors and a failure to count eligible ballots,” the briefing said.

Currently, voters are assigned to congressional districts on a court-ordered map that was in effect for the 2024 election and the May 19 primary election. Alabama Elections Director Jeff Elrod testified that reassigning voters typically takes “several months” and that the expedited schedule could lead to voters being assigned to the wrong precincts and receiving incorrect ballots.