Alabama Opponents of New U.S. House Districts Tell U.S. Supreme Court that it is Impossible to Change Maps Again

Posted on by June 1, 2026

On June 1, the Alabama opponents of the new districts passed by the legislature this year filed this brief in Singleton v Allen, 25A1315. It says that setting aside all the legal arguments, it is literally too late for the state to hold primaries in district 1,2,6 and 7 using the legislature’s new maps. The brief is very short. It points out that no work can be done on changing the boundaries again on June 1 because June 1 is a state holiday in Alabama. Alabama celebrates Jefferson Davis’s birth on the first Monday in June, even though his actual birthday is June 3.

Comments

Alabama Opponents of New U.S. House Districts Tell U.S. Supreme Court that it is Impossible to Change Maps Again — 28 Comments

  3. Jeff Davis – chief monster getting 750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866 — with 000s more injured for life – no eyes / hands/ etc.

  5. There are in fact three separate applications in the Alabama proceedings — VIA SB

    Allen v. Milligan 25A1314

    Allen v. Singleton 25A1315

    Allen v. Caster 25A1316

  6. “Jeff Davis – chief monster getting 750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866 — with 000s more injured for life – no eyes / hands/ etc.”

    Wrong as usual! That would have been the evil tyrant Lincoln. The South had every right to secede.

  11. Ft. Sumter was a foreign military installation which should have been evacuated without a shot and ceded back to South Carolina, as Governor Pickens and General Beauregard had asked.

    It was instead partially, but not completely, fortified in an intentional provocation. There’s no way it could have remained there peacefully, any more than if the British had maintained it as an armed fort following American Independence.

    It’s absurd to blame Lincoln’s Unnecessary and Unconstitutional war on Davis and the CSA simply because they fired the first shots. Lincoln and his radical congress had it well within their power to prevent war. Davis and the Confederacy did not.

    Legal Chatel Slavery was ended peacefully, without war, in every nation of the Western Hemisphere during the 19th century except for the USA/CSA and Haiti. It would have ended peacefully in the CSA for economic reasons (the European cotton markets would have boycotted them otherwise) in the 19th century as well.

  12. Ending slavery wasn’t even Lincoln’s stated reason for the war. It was to “preserve the union,” an entirely unconstitutional aim which ran counter to the logic of the declaration of independence, Bill of Rights (see towards the end), and debates and resolutions on adoption of the Constitution or joining the union in the first place of various states.

    Lincoln’s tyrannical regime violated the Constitution in numerous other ways and imposed a federal tyranny which continues to this day under the guise of a constitutional government created in the 18th century, although in reality that government died then.

    The “emancipation proclamation” did not apply to Union slave states, and came midway through the war. Lest anyone think that racial egalitarianism was its goal, Lincoln’s plan – and that of many abolitionists – was forced deportation of all negroes, both slave and free, to Africa. It’s likely that many would have not survived the journey or the transition.

    Confiscation of property without compensation is an ex post facto law. The US Supreme Court, after having illegitimately given itself powers never intended for it, decided that the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to criminal law, which is not historically or logically supported.

    When legal property becomes illegal, compensation is always due. Whether slavery was immoral was far from a consensus then, but I agree that it was.

    Similarly, today there are people who believe in an idea of animal rights that goes far beyond today’s majority moral standards or laws. If those people ever prevail in the future and their idea of animal rights becomes law, it will be morally wrong for the government to not compensate farmers, pet owners, private zookeepers, etc, for the loss of what is until that point legal property, even if the legality of that property is itself immoral.

    The war was 100% Lincoln’s fault. It would have cost far less to end legal chattel slavery peacefully with compensation for loss of property, as was done in every other nation of the Western Hemisphere in the 19th century except Haiti.

    The AZ SPAMBOT frequently expresses the bloodthirsty desire that the Union had been even more ruthless in its illegal war of reconquest and subsequent illegal occupation. Looking at Haiti today, we can see how well that would have most likely gone.

    Happy Birthday to Jeff Davis!

  14. “Who fired the first shots” is frequently employed war propaganda throughout history. Nations intentionally put other nations they want to go to war with in a position where they have no other logical choice, intentionally for the purpose of creating such propaganda.

    Pearl Harbor is another such example. Roosevelt wanted the US to enter the war in Europe, but public opinion did not support it. The economic war against Japan was devised and enforced to goad them into an attack in order to provide the propaganda excuse to enter the war FDR needed. It’s likely, but not proven, that he also knew in advance when that attack would happen, and intentionally did nothing to prevent, thus sacrificing US lives as pawns in order to give him the public support to help Stalin beat Hitler rather than what should have happened (Stalin and Hitler’s regimes destroying each other).

    Hitler wasn’t even able to take the UK, much less the US. Soviet occupation of Central Europe was the main difference of what would have otherwise happened, along with Mao’s victory in China a few years later. The world would have been far better off with China under Japanese or KMT rule and Central Europe independent, even if destroyed by war.

    Hitler and Stalin’s regimes would have both fallen, instead of only one of them. The cold war could have been prevented.

    There are many other such examples throughout history.

    US entry into both world wars did the world, and the US, a great deal of harm. The uncivil war was likewise of great and lasting detriment to both northern and southern States.

  15. ROTTED WORLD HISTORY FOR 6,000 PLUS YEARS–

    MONARCH/OLIGARCH GANGS VS OTHER MONARCH/OLIGARCH GANGS

    — MANY MANY LOWER CLASS FOLKS KILLED / ENSLAVED / OPPRESSED – IN WARS / CIVIL WARS / SO-CALLED PEACETIMES.

    USA SINCE DAY 1 – ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER REGIMES [COPY OF BRIT ROT INTO STATES] — WITH SLAVERY IN SOUTHERN REGIMES.

    REAL DEMOCRACY VIA P,R. / NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS // TOTAL SEPARATION OF POWERS

  16. What’s the evidence that any of this “real democracy” results in less “LOWER CLASS FOLKS KILLED / ENSLAVED / OPPRESSED – IN WARS / CIVIL WARS / SO-CALLED PEACETIMES.” ???

    As we’ve gotten closer to it, we’ve only had more of that.

  17. I realize the AZ SPAMBOT isn’t programmed to answer that question. I’m hoping that, if anyone else here agrees with those “solutions,” they can make a logical case and defend it.

    I can give reasons why they would make things worse, and have. There’s no point in doing so endlessly if no one is reading, or if everyone who is reading already agrees with me.

  18. By have I mean in the comment sections of many past BAN articles, if that was not clear.

  19. NEED SEPARATE ELECTION LAW ONLY COURTS ???

    Election law should be all of about one fairly short paragraph, and not require any legal training to decipher. The entire legal and bureaucratic system is insanely – by many orders of magnitude – too complex. The insanity of overly complex election law is a big part of why that is, and why it’s getting worse.

    Making it much simpler, much more local, much harder to change, reinstating and fortifying sensible restrictions on who should vote that were foolishly done away with over the years, correcting the damage done by suicidal changes in elections law since the 1960s, completely getting rid of the welfare state and bureaucratic red tape, limiting government to only enforcement of laws against real crimes with real individual victims, territorial defense, and vetting of anything and anyone crossing borders.

    Those, and swift, sure, and severe punishment of violent and property crimes are the solutions we need.

    “Real democracy” only encourages corporate-government cronyism, parasitism, welfare dependency, unchecked growth of bureaucracy, red tape, legal codes, debt, and unnecessary wars (popular in the short run).

  20. The border wall is hardly perfect, but it’s a lot better than not having one.

    If Trump was a tyrant, everyone publicly calling him one would be imprisoned or shot. The real tyrants are those whose unchecked power, much of it out of public view or disguised, he annoys enough to keep disparaging and to keep trying to “86 47” by any and all means, up to and including repeated attempts to extralegally apply lethal force.

    From all that, I can only conclude he must be doing something right, no matter how imperfectly. Few if any people have the semblance of a clue how many roadblocks the incestuous system of political, bureaucratic, quasigovernmental, crony corporate, and opinion manipulation control throws in the way of any POTUS seeking to rein it in. Its insane complexity is by design.

    By all means, please start an 86 47 party. If we ever get anywhere close to a legitimate form of government, anyone who joins it will be easy to tag as a traitor and a danger to public order and safety.

  21. “suicidal changes in elections law since the 1960s,…”

    I meant immigration law, in that particular case. Election law is certainly insane, but I’m not aware of any major changes in those laws in the 1960s. The same can’t be said of immigration laws, public accommodation laws, federal treatment of States Rights, social welfare laws, drug law enforcement in certain respects, etc. All of those changes were tremendously negative and harmful, but the changes of immigration law were the most suicidal of all. No worse legislation has passed congress and been signed into federal law in 250 years.

  22. Sorry for the filibuster, especially since the most likely case is that not one person read it or will read it.

  23. To Stanley’s list of federal government insanity in the 1960s, just off the top of my head I would add the 1968 gun control act.

  24. The AZ spambot always endlessly repeats itself, but can never logically justify its claims. Maybe that’s why it has no known followers or participants in a group agreeing with it.

  27. We have repeatedly asked the nAZi-666 spambot and its Meshuggeneh troll programmer to stop linking to woke pedo Wikipedia. As disreputable as woke pedophiles are, we still don’t want to tarnish our reputation further by being associated with the crAZy AZeri spambot.

  28. Jeff Davis certainly compares very favorably with his contemporaneous Michigan governor and his several bands of lawless thug latter day redcoats that he sent South.

    If Jefferson Davis was a tyrant who led a gang of enslavers, so were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al. The only difference between those two wars for independence is that only one of them succeeded.

    Lincoln was a tyrant and dictator who enslaved both the north and south, and his union included slave states, none of which were freed by his cynical propaganda of an “emancipation proclamation” midway through the war.

    The Southern States had every right to secede under the US Constitution Bill of Rights and the logic of the Declaration of Independence. We are due restitution with compounded interest for confiscation of what had been legal property and all additional property damage and loss of life and limb in the process. And once again happy birthday to Jeff Davis!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.