The Greene County Democrat

Tag: Legal Defense Fund

  • Federal court strikes down Alabama map, citing racial discrimination, defiance

    Cong. Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures

    The court ruled Alabama’s map violates the Voting Rights Act, ensuring continued use of a court-ordered map enabling two Black Congressional representatives.

    By Bill Britt, Editor-in-Chief, Alabama Political Reporters

    In a sweeping rebuke of racial gerrymandering, a federal court has struck down Alabama’s 2023 congressional map, ruling that it was enacted with “intentional racial discrimination” and violates both the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. The decision clears the way for continued use of a court-ordered map that, for the first time in state history, enabled two Black lawmakers to win seats in Congress, in November 2024.
    The ruling follows a full trial in Milligan v. Allen, where judges concluded that Alabama lawmakers not only failed to correct the unlawful dilution of Black voting strength, but deliberately defied court orders to do so. The court found that the Legislature’s actions amounted to “a strategic attempt to checkmate the injunction that ordered it.”

    Historic Breakthrough in Representation
    The remedial map adopted for the 2024 cycle — drawn by a special master appointed by the court — culminated in a historic breakthrough: Alabama voters elected two Black representatives to Congress for the first time ever. U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, D-AL-7, was re-elected, and U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, D-AL-2, won his seat in a newly redrawn district designed to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
    “This win is a testament to the dedication and persistence of many generations of Black Alabamians who pursued political equality at great cost,” the plaintiffs said in a joint statement, emphasizing that “we know that all Alabamians will benefit from today’s victory, just as we have benefited from the work of others.”
    The case was first filed in 2021, on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Shalela Dowdy, Letetia Jackson, Greater Birmingham Ministries and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP. The plaintiffs were represented by the Legal Defense Fund, ACLU, ACLU of Alabama, and the Birmingham-based firm Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher and Goldfarb.
    U.S Rep. Terri Sewell offered her own insight on the federal district court’s ruling, saying, “In yet another victory for fair representation, a federal court has once again ruled unequivocally that the State of Alabama’s 2023 congressional map illegally dilutes the power of African American voters. Despite the state’s years-long legal battle to undo our progress, this ruling ensures that Black voters in Alabama will continue to have not one but two congressional districts where we can elect a candidate of our choice. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is indeed alive and enforceable!”

    Rep. Shomari C. Figures, D-AL-02, said the ruling reinforces the importance of equitable representation for Black voters. “The court ruled that the congressional districts in the state of Alabama were drawn in a way that did not allow Black people to have fair representation. The U.S. Supreme Court has already agreed once with the earlier ruling in this case, and it is my hope that this ruling puts the issue to rest because fair representation is central to the foundation of our democracy.”
    Court Unmoved by Alabama’s “Defiance”
    In its 600-page opinion, the three-judge panel concluded that the 2023 map, like its 2021 predecessor, unlawfully diluted Black voting strength by confining Black voters to a single majority-Black district despite clear evidence that two opportunity districts were both necessary and achievable.
    “We cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians’ voting strength and evade the unambiguous requirements of court orders standing in the way,” the judges wrote. They found that Alabama’s Black population is “sufficiently numerous and geographically compact” to form two such districts, and that voting in the state remains “intensely racially polarized.”
    The court cited trial testimony in which the state’s own legal team admitted that the Legislature “may have been hoping” to force another Supreme Court review by refusing to comply. The judges rejected this maneuver, writing that “if this record is insufficient to rebut the strong presumption of legislative good faith, then we doubt that the presumption is ever rebuttable.”
    A Legacy of Resistance — and a New Chapter
    Deuel Ross, deputy director of litigation at LDF, stated that Alabama’s “unprecedented defiance of the Supreme Court and the lower court orders harkens back to the darkest days of American history.” He called the ruling “a reaffirmation of the rule of law and the importance of protecting the fundamental right to vote.”
    Laurel Hattix, senior attorney at the ACLU of Alabama, said the decision was “an overdue acknowledgment of Alabama lawmakers’ persistent attempts to shut out Black voters from the electoral process,” and added, “for decades, Black Alabamians have organized and fought for not just their voting rights, but the voting rights of all Americans.”
    Davin Rosborough, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, underscored the broader implications: “The court has once again recognized that in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, it is essential that Alabama’s congressional map have two opportunity districts for Black voters.”
    Preclearance Request and What Comes Next
    The court permanently enjoined Secretary of State Wes Allen from using the invalidated 2023 map in future elections and ordered continued use of the remedial map through the remainder of the decade. A status conference is scheduled for May 28, 2025, to determine next steps.
    The plaintiffs have also requested that Alabama be placed back under federal “preclearance,” a provision of the Voting Rights Act that would require the state to obtain federal approval before implementing any new congressional map — a safeguard typically reserved for jurisdictions with a history of repeated violations.
    In its concluding remarks, the court warned that Alabama’s actions “fly in the face” of its own claim that it no longer needs federal oversight, writing: “We are troubled by the State’s view that even if we enter judgment for the Plaintiffs after a full trial, the State remains free to make the same checkmate move yet again — and again, and again, and again.”
    As the case now enters a new phase, the ruling stands as one of the most forceful judicial rebukes of racial discrimination in redistricting in recent memory — and a landmark moment for the future of representation in Alabama.

  • Newswire: 11th Circuit rejects stay in key Alabama absentee voting law, protects vulnerable voters

    By Bill Britt, Alabama Political Reporters

    The 11th Circuit Court’s Friday decision to block a key section of Alabama’s restrictive absentee voting law throws into sharp relief the deepening conflict between state governments pushing for tighter election laws and advocacy groups fighting to protect access to the ballot.

    Senate Bill 1, passed earlier this year, is one of several efforts across Republican-led states to impose more stringent absentee voting rules, under the guise of preventing election fraud. But once again, those hit hardest by these so-called “fraud prevention” measures are the very people who need the most help navigating the voting process. The decision in Alabama NAACP v. Attorney General of Alabama denied Alabama’s request to put on hold an earlier court order.

    The contested section of Alabama’s law, now temporarily blocked, made it a felony for individuals assisting with absentee ballot applications to receive any form of compensation—even food or gas money—or to distribute or submit prefilled
    applications. The provision would have disproportionately affected disabled, blind, or illiterate voters, many of whom rely on help to exercise their most fundamental right.

    By upholding the block, the court reaffirmed what voting rights advocates have been saying all along: these provisions aren’t about election integrity—they’re about making it harder for certain voters to cast their ballots.

    Chief U.S. District Judge David Proctor, who initially issued the injunction in September, argued that the law placed “undue burdens on voters already at a disadvantage.” The 11th Circuit agreed, affirming that the blocked provisions went beyond election security and actively restricted voter access, particularly for those with disabilities.

    Advocacy groups such as the ACLU of Alabama, Legal Defense Fund, and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program hailed the decision as a victory for voting rights. For these groups, the ruling is more than a procedural win—it’s a lifeline for voters who would have been disenfranchised by a law they believe violated the Voting Rights Act. Many blind and disabled voters, in particular, depend on assistance from family, friends, or voter outreach volunteers. Without such help, their voices could be silenced.

    But Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, supported by attorneys general from Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas, has been resolute in defending the law. According to Marshall, the restrictions are essential for preventing fraudulent practices like “ballot harvesting.” The court, however, was not swayed, concluding that the law overreached and instead restricted legitimate forms of voter assistance.

    The battle over Senate Bill 1 is just one skirmish in a much larger war over voting rights. Across the nation, similar laws are facing legal challenges, illustrating a deep national divide over how best to secure elections while protecting voter access. Civil rights groups argue that laws like Alabama’s will inevitably lead to voter suppression, particularly among marginalized and vulnerable populations.

    While the court’s ruling provides temporary relief for voters in Alabama, the legal fight is far from over. Marshall may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the lower court’s injunction and fully implement the law. Should the high court take up the case, the decision could have far-reaching consequences, potentially affecting absentee voting laws across the country.

    The 11th Circuit did, however, uphold several key provisions of SB1, including the law’s ban on curbside voting, witness requirements for absentee ballots, and strict voter ID provisions.

    For now, the injunction remains in effect, and advocacy groups can continue assisting disabled and blind voters without fear of prosecution. But the broader implications of this case loom large. The ruling could serve as a precedent for how courts across the country interpret the balance between election security and voter accessibility. As Alabama heads toward future elections, all eyes will be on this legal battle to see how it shapes the national conversation on voting rights.