A 3-judge U.S. District Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday, August 25, in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v Alabama, the case that challenges the redistricting plan for both houses of the state legislature. Plaintiffs won a partial victory in the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. They argue that the existing plan packs too many African-American voters into a limited number of legislative districts, thus reducing those voters’ ability to influence additional legislative races.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court, which had voted 2-1 to uphold the plan. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the same three judges with instructions that suggest the plan violates the 14th amendment. If the plaintiffs win the case, it is likely that all the legislative seats will be up in 2016. Normally all legislative elections in Alabama are only in midterm years, and all legislators in both houses have four-year terms.
AUTOMATIC minority rule with single member districts —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL lawmaking.
—
Save Democracy
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
The district court has limited the case to one the districts with a majority black population. In some of them there may be no changes needed. There is no reason not to give the legislature an opportunity to produce a map. And Alabama has suggested giving the Alabama Supreme Court an opportunity to interpret the state constitution.
‘Reynolds v Sims’ was based on the malapportionment of the Alabama legislature. The Alabama Constitution provides certain rules for apportioning the legislature each decade. Alabama had never followed them, and even if they did they couldn’t have complied with the SCOTUS’s novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
After the SCOTUS decision, the senate was apportioned in a way that respected the Alabama constitution in terms of following county boundaries, but resulted in variation in population that some consider to be too large.
In the 1970s, a federal court got way out of control, by modern standards, and started chopping counties all over the place. That practice has continued, and continued even when those who are plaintiff now, were doing the redistricting (there is a great deal of hypocrisy in their arguments).
Since an ordinary remedial redraw won’t have much benefit for the plaintiff’s aims, particularly if the legislature is doing the drawing, the plaintiffs are suggesting going back to the Alabama constitution to a greater degree. But that may involve going to the Alabama Supreme Court for an interpretation. Since a federal court had made the previous interpretation, it is unlikely that they would now overturn it.
So I think it doubtful if this will be resolved in time for the 2016 election, or the changes might actually be so minor that they will hold off until 2018.