Greene County Democrat

Tag: Pantazis

  • 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: Alabamians, Civil Rights groups launch legal challenges over Alabama racial gerrymandering 

    BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Individual voters joined with civil rights and faith groups yesterday to file a pair of lawsuits in federal court challenging Alabama’s newly drawn political maps for state legislative and congressional districts.  This is the second major lawsuit questioning
    The lawsuits cite Alabama’s “sordid record” of its white majority using racial discrimination to maintain power. The suits charge that the newly drawn congressional redistricting map denies Black residents equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of choice, and that both the congressional and state legislative maps result from racial gerrymanders that intentionally pack and crack Black communities in the state, which denies such communities equal protection of the laws. 
    Because of this, the lawsuits describe how Alabama’s new district maps violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and how the congressional map also violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
    The cases were brought on behalf of Greater Birmingham Ministries, Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, and several individuals who are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Hogan Lovells LLP, and the firm Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb.  
    Plaintiffs are requesting a federal court step in to enjoin — or halt — the maps’ implementation to prevent harms to Black Alabamians. 
    “By packing Black voters into a small number of districts and breaking up communities of color throughout the rest of the state, Alabama’s leaders are diminishing the political power of Black Alabamians. That is unlawful,” said Caren Short, senior supervising attorney for the SPLC, which represents plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the state legislative districts. “This builds on a long history of racial discrimination in voting in Alabama – particularly when drawing political districts – that demands a court-ordered redrawing of maps immediately.” 
    New political maps are drawn as part of a once-in-a-decade redistricting process triggered by census data, that determine the allocation of political power, representation, and ultimately resource access at every level of government across the country for the next 10 years. 
    “Cracking” refers to splitting communities of color into different districts to prevent them from exercising greater political power. “Packing” refers to placing people of color into the same district in greater numbers than necessary to elect candidates of choice to prevent them from exercising greater political power in surrounding districts. 
    According to the lawsuits, Alabama’s steadfast refusal to address the rights of its Black residents is directly linked to its historical and present conditions of racial discrimination against Black people. 
    In five of the six redistricting cycles since 1960, the U.S. Department of Justice or federal courts have found that Alabama’s legislative districts — congressional, state, or both — violate the rights of voters under the U.S. Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. 
    “It is crucial that Black Alabamians have the opportunity to elect government officials we believe will best serve us,” said Benard Simelton, President of the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, a plaintiff in both cases filed today. “Although no longer controlled by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Alabama is still required to provide Black Alabamians that opportunity – these maps attempting to rob our state of its diversity notwithstanding. We will continue this fight for our dignity and political voice, as we long have, in the courts.” 
    Again, in this latest round of drawing political districts, Alabamians had no access to potential maps during the so-called “community input” process that predated the special legislative session. Legislative leaders drew political maps in secret, and at the 11th hour, presented the maps challenged today that use race as a predominant factor in determining district lines – but not in a way tailored to comply with the Voting Rights Act. 
    “I have lived most of my life in Montgomery,” said plaintiff in both lawsuits filed today Evan Milligan. “On more than one occasion, the people in these communities have dramatically impacted the course of this nation’s history – particularly as to civil and human rights…Even with the extended time provided by the delayed release of census data, our Legislature failed to study racially polarized voting so that their map-making decisions could be guided by an interest in protecting the civil rights of Alabama’s nonwhite voters.” 
    The cases are Thomas v. Merrill and Milligan v. Merrill.  
    To view a version of this release in full – including additional statements from plaintiffs and representatives from other counsel – please visit:
    https://www.splcenter.org/presscenter/alabamians-civil-rights-groups-launch-legal-challenges-over-alabama-racial
    Thomas v. Merrill complaint challenging state legislative maps: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/complaint_-_thomas_v._merrill.pdf

    Milligan v. Merrill complaint challenging congressional maps: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/complaint_-_milligan_v._merrill.pdf