Court rules Alabama congressional map intentionally discriminated against Black voters
A three-judge panel said the congressional map drawn by the 2023 Alabama Legislature violated the Voting Rights Act. The judges, which ruled against the state twice before and put a new map in place for last year's elections, have permanently blocked Alabama from using the state-drawn map.
The judges said the court does not 'diminish the substantial improvements Alabama has made in its official treatment of Black Alabamians in recent decades.
'Yet we cannot reconcile the State's intentional decision to discriminate in drawing its congressional districts with its position that Alabama has finally closed out its repugnant history of official discrimination involving voting rights,' they added.
The court will now consider whether to place Alabama under Provision 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which would require the state to get federal approval of its congressional plans.
Following the 2020 census, Alabama made six of its seven districts majority white, despite 27 percent of the state's population being Black.
Though the Supreme Court allowed the map to be used in the 2022 midterms, it also upheld the lower court's findings that the map unlawfully diluted Black votes.
Despite the rulings, the state Legislature refused to redraw the map to include a second congressional district that would allow Black voters to elect the candidate of their choice.
'This record thus leaves us in no doubt that the purpose of the design of the 2023 Plan was to crack Black voters across congressional districts in a manner that makes it impossible to create two districts in which they have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, and thereby intentionally perpetuate the discriminatory effects of the 2021 Plan,' the judges said Thursday.
'The Legislature knew what federal law required and purposefully refused to provide it, in a strategic attempt to checkmate the injunction that ordered it,' they wrote.
Plaintiffs in the case told The Associated Press that the ruling is 'a testament to the dedication and persistence of many generations of Black Alabamians who pursued political equality at great cost.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
28 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Black people on campuses support fighting antisemitism and also wonder, ‘What about us?'
Antisemitism is abhorrent. No Jewish person should ever experience it, and universities must do all they can to eradicate it on campuses. The Trump administration is pushing colleges and universities to address antisemitism by threatening, freezing and revoking federal funding and demanding millions of dollars to settle allegations — or in UCLA's case, $1 billion. These unprecedented federal penalties, which the government claims are partially for failing to address antisemitism, leave lots of Black people who either attended or worked at predominantly white institutions asking, 'What about us?' Reports of antisemitism sound familiar to Black people who have encountered anti-Black harassment in similar forms. Generations of Black collegians and employees have been called racial slurs on campuses. The N-word also has been spray-painted and nooses have been hung on Black students' dorms, on Black culture centers and on portraits and statues of influential Black people across campuses. Student body presidents who are Black, as well as other Black student organization leaders and employees, have received death threats. One social media post promised: 'I'm going to stand my ground tomorrow and shoot every black person I see.' Black people have been physically assaulted on campus grounds; been threatened and targeted by white supremacist hate groups who gain access to campuses; and been racially profiled by campus security personnel. Black campus police officers have reported experiencing 'unbearable' racism themselves. For decades, predominantly white sororities and fraternities have denied Black students membership on the basis of race. Additionally, too many Greek-letter organizations have hosted blackface parties mocking Black people, including some attendees wearing nooses around their necks and others pretending to be enslaved Africans or white enslavers. These and other encounters with anti-Black racism are long-standing, persistent and pervasive. Asking 'what about us' is not intended to diminish the severity of antisemitism or the dangers that Jewish students face. Posing this question also does not indicate that Black people are antisemitic. It comes neither from a standpoint of hatred toward nor carelessness for Jewish people. In fact, firsthand encounters with unchecked racism and harassment on campuses deepen many Black people's empathy for and outrage on behalf of anyone experiencing discrimination and hate, including Jews. And many Jewish people who are Black know such hostility all too well, having faced both antisemitism and anti-Black racism. According to FBI data published in 2024, of the 950 religiously motivated hate crimes that occurred at educational institutions between 2018 and 2022, 78.4% were targeted at Jewish people. That is terrible and unacceptably high. During those same years, the statistics also show that of the 2,624 racially motivated hate crimes on campuses, 64.4% were targeted at Black people. That also is terrible and unacceptably high. Educational institutions across the U.S. clearly have serious problems with hate crimes against both Jewish and Black people. But for some reason, the Trump administration is neglecting to hold colleges and universities financially accountable for one like it is the other. For more than two decades, I have conducted research on campus racial climates. Surveys of and interviews with millions of students, faculty and staff on hundreds of campuses turned up numerous examples of antisemitism and far more examples of anti-Black racism. Volume and frequency do not make one any more or less important than the other. Both deserve fierce institutional and governmental responses. Islamophobia, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, weight and body-type bias, ableism, ageism and every other form of discrimination and abuse also deserve the most serious forms of accountability. But that has not happened, at least not in the manner or to the extent that it is occurring now in the name of combating antisemitism. There is shamefully abundant evidence of attacks on Jewish people on campuses. This warrants an immediate response by the federal government, by campus leaders, by state officials and anyone else who has the power to effect change. Meanwhile, Black students and employees are also continuing to experience unforgivably high levels of racial discrimination, harassment and abuse. Why is this not receiving a serious response from the Trump administration? Why has no college or university ever been required or expected to pay $1 billion (or any amount close to that) for the racial discrimination and violence that Black people endure on campuses? From today onward, what price will institutions of higher education pay for anti-Black racism? Shaun Harper is a professor of education, business and public policy at USC and the author of 'The Big Lie About Race in America's Schools.'
Los Angeles Times
28 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom's redistricting move isn't pretty. California GOP leaders are uglier
King Gavin is at it again! That's the cry coming from Republicans across California as Newsom pushes the state Legislature to approve a November special election like none this state has ever seen. Voters would have the chance to approve a congressional map drawn by Democrats hoping to wipe out GOP-held seats and counter Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's Trump-driven redistricting. The president 'doesn't play by a different set of rules — he doesn't believe in the rules,' the governor told a roaring crowd packed with Democratic heavyweights last week at the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo. 'And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It's not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be. ... We have got to meet fire with fire.' California Republicans are responding to this the way a kid reacts if you take away their Pikachu. 'An absolutely ridiculous gerrymander!' whined Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who represents the state's rural northeast corner, on social media. Under the Democratic plan, his district would swing all the way down to ultra-liberal Marin County. The California Republican Party deemed the new maps a 'MASTERCLASS IN CORRUPTION' (Trumpian caps in the original). National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said 'Newscum' was giving 'a giant middle finger to every Californian.' Intelligent minds can disagree on whether countering an extreme political move with an extreme political move is the right thing. The new maps would supersede the ones devised just four years ago by an independent redistricting commission established to keep politics out of the process, which typically occurs once a decade after the latest census. Good government types, from the League of Women Voters to Charles Munger Jr. — the billionaire who bankrolled the 2010 proposition that created independent redistricting for California congressional races — have criticized Newsom's so-called Election Rigging Response Act. So has former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fierce Trump critic who posted a photo of himself on social media working out in a T-shirt that read, 'F*** the Politicians / Terminate Gerrymandering.' I'm not fully convinced that Newsom's plan is the MAGA killer he thinks it is. If the economy somehow rebounds next year, Republicans would most likely keep Congress anyway, and Newsom would have upended California politics for nothing. I also don't discount the moderate streak in California voters that pops up from time to time to quash what seem like liberal gimmes, like the failed attempt via ballot measure to repeal affirmative action in 2020 and the passage last year of Proposition 36, which increased penalties for theft and drug crimes. Nearly two-thirds of California voters want to keep redistricting away from the Legislature, according to a POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll released last week. If Californians reject Newsom's plan, that would torpedo his presidential ambitions and leave egg on the face of state Democratic leaders for years, if not a generation. For now, though, I'm going to enjoy all the tears that California Republicans are shedding. As they face the prospect of even fewer congressional seats than the paltry nine they now hold, they suddenly care about rescuing American democracy? Where were they during Trump's fusillade of lawsuits and threats against California? When he sent the National Guard and Marines to occupy parts of Los Angeles this summer after protests against his deportation deluge? When his underlings spew hate about the Golden State on Fox News and social media? Now they care about political decency? What about when LaMalfa and fellow California GOP House members Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa — whose seats the Newsom maps would also eliminate — voted against certifying Joe Biden's 2020 victory? When the state Republican Party backed a ridiculous recall against Newsom that cost taxpayers $200 million? Or when the Republican congressional delegation unanimously voted to pass Trump's Big Bloated Bill, even though it's expected to gut healthcare and food programs for millions of Californians in red counties? Or even when Trump first pushed Abbott to pursue the very gerrymandering Newsom is now emulating? We're supposed to believe them when they proclaim Newsom is a pompadoured potentate who threatens all Californians, just because he wants to redo congressional maps? Pot, meet black hole. If these GOPers had even an iota of decency or genuine care for the Golden State, they would back a bill by one of their own that I actually support. Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose seat is also targeted for elimination by the Newsom maps, wants to ban all mid-decade congressional redistricting. He stated via a press release that this would 'stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.' That's an effort that any believer in liberty can and should back. But Kiley's bill has no co-sponsors so far. And Kevin: Why can't you say that your man Trump created this fiasco in the first place? We live in scary times for our democracy. If you don't believe it, consider that a bunch of masked Border Patrol agents just happened to show up outside the Japanese American National Museum — situated on a historic site where citizens of Japanese ancestry boarded buses to incarceration camps during World War II — at the same time Newsom was delivering his redistricting remarks. Sector Chief Gregory Bovino was there, migra cameramen documenting his every smirk, including when he told a reporter that his agents were there to make 'Los Angeles a safer place, since we won't have politicians that'll do that, we do that ourselves.' The show of force was so obviously an authoritarian flex that Newsom filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding to know who authorized what and why. Meanwhile, referring to Trump, he described the action on X as 'an attempt to advance a playbook from the despots he admires in Russia and North Korea.' Newsom is not everyone's cup of horchata, myself included. Whether you support it or not, watching him rip up the California Constitution's redistricting section and assuring us it's OK, because he's the one doing it, is discomfiting. But you know what's worse? Trump anything. And even worse? The California GOP leaders who have loudly cheered him on, damn the consequences to the state they supposedly love. History will castigate their cultish devotion to Trump far worse than any of Newsom's attempts to counter that scourge.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Abortion pill fight reaches pharmacy board rooms
A year after the Supreme Court preserved abortion pill access, the fight over dispensing mifepristone is shifting from courtrooms to boardrooms as anti-abortion forces press pharmacy chains not to sell the drugs. The big picture: Costco last week said it won't stock mifepristone at its more than 500 pharmacies. Conservative groups are pushing other pharmacies — including Walgreens and CVS, which offer the pills in states where abortion is legal — to follow suit. "We can effectuate real change by talking to these companies and engaging with them," said Michael Ross, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom's corporate engagement team. "Hopefully Costco will be a trendsetter." But those efforts are making retail pharmacies a new ground zero in the fight over abortion access. Costco got swift criticism from one of its home-state senators, Washington Democrat Patty Murray, for accommodating "far-right extremists" she said were whipsawing the availability of basic care. Between the lines: Pharmacy chains were destined to be involved after the Food and Drug Administration in 2023 allowed retailers to apply for certification to dispense mifepristone, which is part of a two-step protocol used to medically end a pregnancy through 10 weeks. The drug, which FDA first approved in 2000, has traditionally been dispensed at doctors' offices, hospitals or health clinics. But as states across the country restrict abortion, mifepristone prescribing via telehealth has significantly increased. State of play: Costco says it won't pursue approval to dispense mifepristone because demand for the drug is low. The company's understanding is that patients generally get the drug directly from their medical providers, it said in an email. But the decision, which reportedly came after more than a year of deliberations, is one anti-abortion groups have been pushing for. It extends beyond Costco's membership, since nonmembers can fill prescriptions at its drug counters. Last August, Alliance Defending Freedom led a coalition including thousands of Costco cardholders, financial advisers and consultants in urging the retailer not to offer mifepristone. "Costco ... needs to carefully consider the cost of alienating its diverse customers and potential customers just to boost one product in its pharmacy, which is one of its ancillary lines of business," their letter said. That pressure campaign followed New York City Comptroller Brad Lander (D) sending letters to Costco and other pharmacies, advocating that they get clearance to fill prescriptions where legal. "Making mifepristone available benefits customers and employees and increases sales, while also generating long-term shareholder value," Lander wrote to Costco last year. But abortion foes have allied with investor groups like Inspire Investing to warn Costco, Walmart, Albertsons, Kroger and other retail pharmacy operators as well as drug distributors to stay out of divisive political issues that could alienate customers and investors. "We say, OK, mifepristone may be a very small part of your sales, but look at all of the different backlash that you might be introducing, the different regulatory backlash from the Trump admin and the legal risk," Ross said. The Trump administration, Congress or the Supreme Court could still change requirements around the drug. The Supreme Court in 2024 preserved access to mifepristone, deciding that doctors who asked justices to stop the FDA's relaxation of restrictions around the drug didn't have standing, without ruling on the merits. In May, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he'd directed the FDA to "to review the latest data on mifepristone" — a move that could restrict future availability. Other large pharmacy chains like Walmart, Kroger and Albertsons have not made public decisions on mifepristone dispensing. Kroger told Axios it's still reviewing the FDA's mifepristone drug safety program and will continue to align dispensing practices with federal and state law. Walmart declined to comment, and Albertsons did not respond. The other side: Curbing mifepristone access could make it even harder for women to access safe abortions, as well as miscarriage care, for which it has an off-label use. "By refusing to offer mifepristone, Costco has chosen politics over science, fear over facts, and ideology over the rights of its customers," Mini Timmaraju, CEO of advocacy group Reproductive Freedom for All, said in a statement last Friday. What we're watching: How Walgreens and CVS respond to pressure to stop filling mifepristone prescriptions.
