Race against the clock: Alabama redistricting showdown heads to federal panel

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (CN) — A group of Alabama voters on Friday made a last-ditch effort at the Northern District of Alabama to maintain congressional district maps that give Black voters the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in two of the state’s seven districts.

A favorable decision here would reverse recent efforts by the Republican legislature to eliminate one minority district following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened the Voting Rights Act and made it harder to challenge voting maps on racial grounds.

Republican state lawmakers want to go back to a 2023 map. It was previously ruled unconstitutional — and after substantial litigation, a special master approved a remedial map creating a second Black-majority district.

The remedial map has already been used in three elections, including the most recent primary on May 19. When it was initially implemented in 2024, it resulted in the election of Congressman Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat.

If the 2023 map is approved to be used again, the reassignment process must be completed by May 27, with absentee ballots due by June 2.

Before a three-judge panel, attorneys spent the morning grilling State Director of Elections Jeff Elrod about the implications of using either map.

Elrod acknowledged the legislature’s 2023 map would be difficult to implement, particularly in counties that are divided by new district lines. He said reassignment of voters would require significant effort, especially Jefferson, Elmore and Covington counties.

Elrod said the use of either map could create potential errors and cause voter confusion. Nonetheless, he said the 2023 map was already available on the Secretary of State’s website and that candidates had begun adjusting their plans based on it.

Despite submitting an earlier declaration to the court that the process of switching maps would take three to four months, Elrod said on Friday an aggressive timeline and overtime work by local election officials could shorten that span to a week or less.

Still, he also said he was uncertain if local election officials could meet new timelines and that he hadn’t had conversations with individual counties about it.

“There is a reasonable certainty it can be completed in that time, because most changes are mass changes and a lot of those changes could be done with relative quickness,” Elrod said.

Elrod admitted that previous changes to election maps had resulted in voter confusion and erosion of confidence in the election process. He also acknowledged that last-minute changes could deter some voters from going to the polls.

“If no changes are made, that would be easier,” he said. “We will do our absolute best to communicate any changes that may occur.”

Representing one group of plaintiffs, attorney Abha Khanna argued that even after the Callais decision, Alabama’s 2023 congressional plan remains an unlawful Section 2 violation and should not be used in upcoming elections.

Although Callais raises the bar for proving voter discrimination, Khanna emphasized that the court had already developed an extensive and uncontroverted record of Alabama’s racially polarized politics, discriminatory redistricting history and the legislature’s intent.

Even with the new Callais standard, she said, “Alabama’s 2023 plan easily fails for all the same reasons that this court already found."

“Our only concern,” Khanna said, is that when elections take place, “they take place under the special master’s plan.”

“As long as the lines are lawful, we can trust that the Secretary will figure out the best way to make sure that elections are administered in a way that comports with all of the rules and all of their requirements,” she said.

For the state, Alabama Solicitor General Barrett Bowdre argued Callais significantly changed the standard set forth in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Therefore, he said, the panel cannot simply “pore over” its prior findings and must reevaluate the record under the new, stricter framework. He also maintained that the plaintiffs’ experts, particularly mathematician Moon Duchin, likely used race in a way that was no longer allowed.

“In states like Alabama — where it is the case that the majority of Black Alabamians are Democrat and the majority of white Alabamians are Republican — it’s really hard to disentangle race and politics," he said. “If you’re drawing your district or map, and you’re toggling on and off race to see if you’ve gotten to the Black-majority district, I think that is a use of race that is in violation of Callais.”

The panel hearing the case includes U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, a Bill Clinton appointee, along with U.S. District Judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer, both Donald Trump appointees.

Their questioning largely focused on stress‑testing how Callais changed the legal analysis, as well as pressing both sides on evidence, feasibility and equities. They did not indicate when they would rule.

Follow @gabetynes