The next step for Alabama's congressional maps
When a federal court in Alabama last week ruled that the state's 2023 congressional map violated the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the voices of Black voters, groups that were challenging the map hailed the decision as 'triumph for voting rights.'
Where the case goes next could be hugely consequential. While some voting rights advocates fear what the Supreme Court could do if the case is appealed, others see a review by the nation's highest court as a chance to impose federal bounds on Alabama's future maps.
In many ways, the three-judge district court panel from Alabama ruled precisely how the groups had hoped. In the 571-page ruling, the panel said it was 'not a close call' that Alabama had drawn a congressional map that is an illegal racial gerrymander, violating section two of the Voting Rights Act.
'It would be remarkable — indeed, unprecedented — for us to hold that a state legislature that purposefully ignored a federal court order acted in good faith,' the judges wrote in their ruling, which was released on Thursday.
That map was never actually used in an election, after earlier court decisions blocked it. Instead, a court-drawn map was used last year, and now-Rep. Shomari Figures won in the redrawn 2nd Congressional District, giving Alabama two Black Democrats in its delegation.
But there are likely more fights ahead. Legal challenges related to congressional maps have a direct line of appeal to the Supreme Court, and some voting rights advocates worry the court could use the case to further weaken the Voting Rights Act.
The Alabama attorney general's office has said that 'all options remain on the table,' and Secretary of State Wes Allen told NPR that he 'can't comment on ongoing litigation in which I'm a named defendant.' Washington University in St. Louis law professor Travis Crum, an expert on voting rights, said an appeal — which he called a matter of 'when, not if' — could provide Alabama 'another bite of the apple' to go after parts of the VRA, specifically issues related to race-based redistricting.
The Supreme Court has so far agreed that Alabama's earlier map was racially biased, ruling in 2023 that it had to redraw the 2021 map. The legislature then drew the 2023 map — the one currently being challenged — that still did not include a second majority-Black district. That then prompted a federal court to reject that map and impose the one used last year.
But the Supreme Court could rule the same way again, continuing to find the legislature's 2023 map proposal racially discriminatory.
After all, Crum noted, the state legislature had refused the court mandate to draw a second majority-Black district: 'Alabama's response was essentially the jurisprudential equivalent of a middle finger.'
So even with a Supreme Court that has narrowed the power of the VRA in the past, Crum is optimistic. He thinks that last week's lower-court court ruling has actually opened the door for the justices to do something else instead: use the VRA to require Alabama to have future congressional maps pre-approved by the federal government before they can go into effect.
'This is an ideal case for a bail-in to go to the Supreme Court,' Crum argued in a recent blog post.
Happy Monday. Get in touch: @andrewjfhoward or ahoward@politico.com.
Days until the New Jersey primary: 29
Days until the Virginia primary: 36
Days until the New York City primary: 43
Days until the 2025 election: 176
Days until the midterms: 539
A NEW ERA FOR PLAYBOOK: Big news from POLITICO's flagship morning newsletter in Washington: Today we launch The Playbook Podcast, hosted by Author and Managing Editor Jack Blanchard and newly named Playbook Chief Correspondent Dasha Burns. Jack has already been skillfully decoding politics, policy and power in Washington, and now with Dasha, a proven force on the Trump beat, will deliver across platforms what makes Playbook essential: a clear, aggressively nonpartisan and deeply reported distillation of what matters now and why. Also joining the team: Adam Wren as Contributing Author for Playbook's Friday and Saturday editions, adding insight and sharp political reporting to your weekend reads. Sign up now to get Playbook delivered straight to your inbox.
Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories.
CAMPAIGN INTEL
AT THE DNC — DNC Chair Ken Martin on Saturday doubled down on his ultimatum for rogue Vice Chair David Hogg: Take a neutrality pledge or step down, my colleague Ben Johansen reports. The statement comes hours after it was reported by POLITICO that Hogg privately pitched a compromise to his party in recent days.
OVER THE WEEKEND — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) announced Friday evening that she was ruling out a Senate bid, following the same decision from Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. The moves 'were some of the first dominoes to fall ahead of the 2026 midterms — and come the week the starting gun for those races sounded,' my colleague Adam Wren reported in Saturday's Playbook.
… 'Trump Is Already Obsessed With the Midterms,' POLITICO's Rachael Bade reported over the weekend.
… Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins told CNN's Manu Raju and Sarah Ferris 'it's certainly my inclination to run and I'm preparing to do so,' when asked if she will be on the ballot in 2026. Democrats have yet to recruit a high-profile challenger to run against the incumbent senator.
… 'GOP Senate Campaign Drama Heats Up, but Trump Is Staying Out of It,' by the Wall Street Journal's Josh Dawsey and Lindsay Wise. 'As the 2026 races start to shape up, Trump has largely rebuffed efforts from Senate Republicans to endorse favored primary candidates and influence competitive contests, according to lawmakers, strategists and others familiar with the discussions.'
SUNDAY RECAP — Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar told 'Meet the Press' that Democrats would have been 'better served by a primary' in 2024. 'You know, everything we look at in a rearview mirror after you lose an election. Yes, we would have been served better by a primary. But we are where we are,' she told NBC's Kristen Welker.
BATTLE FOR THE HOUSE — '18 months out, these are the 10 most vulnerable House members of 2026,' by Roll Call's Daniela Altimari and Mary Ellen McIntire.
OFF TO THE RACES — State Sen. Jason Pizzo, who recently proclaimed the Florida Democratic Party 'dead' before leaving it, said he will run for governor as an independent in 2026, my colleague Gary Fineout reports. 'Everyone else already in the gubernatorial mix has severe and prohibitive baggage, or vast limitations, in leading this state,' Pizzo told Fineout in a text.
… Democratic Michigan state Rep. Joe Tate is jumping into the crowded primary for the state's open Senate seat, per the Associated Press' Isabella Volmert.
CASH DASH — 'Trump, Raking In Cash, Expands His Power in the G.O.P. Money World,' by The New York Times' Theodore Schleifer and Shane Goldmacher. Two of the largest Republican super PACs — the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund — 'are working closer than ever with the White House, overhauling their boards of directors and installing veteran Trump strategists in senior positions.'
BIDEN WORLD — Following Joe Biden's return to the spotlight last week, some Democrats are hoping the former president doesn't stay in the limelight for long. 'It's time for Joe Biden to go away with all due respect and let the next generation of Democrats take the mantle,' Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha told POLITICO's Brakkton Booker.
… ''Pod Save America' host Jon Favreau advised Democrats who aspire to run for president in 2028 to 'rip the f‑‑‑ing Band-Aid off' and say that former President Biden shouldn't have run last year,' the Hill's Filip Timotija reports.
TAKING A LOOK — Oklahoma Republican State Superintendent Ryan Walters is considering running for governor in 2026, he told a local ABC affiliate.
LEGAL CORNER — 'Riggs won NC's Supreme Court battle, but elections will face long-term consequences,' by the News & Observer's Kyle Ingram.
FIRST IN SCORE — STAFFING UP: The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee announced seven additions to its board on Monday. They are California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, Colorado Senate President James Coleman, Illinois Speaker Pro Temp Kambium Buckner, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, Oregon House Speaker Julie Fahey, Virginia House Speaker Don Scott and Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Leader Greta Neubauer.
CODA — HEADLINE OF THE DAY: 'Judges say unsolicited pizza deliveries are meant to intimidate them,' by the Washington Post's Derek Hawkins.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
These are the voters who should scare Democrats most
In dozens of interviews, working-class swing voters said they had misgivings about the Trump presidency -- but many also said they were just as skeptical of the Democratic Party. Five years ago, Raymond Teachey voted, as usual, for the Democratic presidential nominee. But by last fall, Teachey, an aircraft mechanic from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, was rethinking his political allegiances. To him, the Democratic Party seemed increasingly focused on issues of identity at the expense of more tangible day-to-day concerns, such as public safety or the economy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Some of them turned their back on their base,' Teachey, 54, said. Advertisement Working-class voters like Teachey, who supported Biden in 2020 but either backed Trump last year or, as Teachey did, skipped the 2024 presidential election, help explain why Democrats lost pivotal swing counties like Bucks and vividly illustrate how the traditional Democratic coalition has eroded in the Trump era. Now, Democrats hope to bring these voters back into the fold for the midterm elections in 2026, betting on a backlash to Trump and his party's far-reaching moves to slash the social safety net. Sarah Smarty, a home health aide and an author who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 but flipped to President Trump last year, in Mifflin County, Penn. HANNAH YOON/NYT But in interviews with nearly 30 predominantly working-class voters who supported Biden in 2020 before defecting or struggling deeply with their choices last year, many had a stinging message for the Democratic Party. Advertisement Just because we have misgivings about Trump, they say, it doesn't mean we like you. 'I think I'm done with the Democrats,' said Desmond Smith, 24, a deli worker from Smithdale, Mississippi, and a Black man who said he backed Biden in 2020 at the height of the racial justice protests. But last year, disillusioned by what he saw as the party's overemphasis on identity politics and concerned about illegal immigration, he voted for Trump. Asked how Democrats could win him back, he said, 'Fight for Americans instead of fighting for everybody else.' An in-depth postelection study from Pew Research Center suggests that about 5% of Biden's voters in 2020 switched to Trump in 2024, while roughly 15% of those voters stayed home last year. Trump retained more of his 2020 voters than Democrats did, a crucial factor in winning the election. Polling on the current attitudes of those Biden defectors is limited, but it is clear the Democratic brand, broadly, continues to struggle. A Wall Street Journal poll released in late July found that the party's image was at its lowest point in more than three decades, with just 33% of voters saying they held a favorable view of Democrats. 'They're doing nothing to move their own numbers because they don't have an economic message,' said John Anzalone, a veteran Democratic pollster who worked on that survey. 'They think that this is about Trump's numbers getting worse,' he added. 'They need to worry about their numbers.' Certainly, anger with Trump, an energized Democratic base and the headwinds a president's party typically confronts in midterm elections could help propel Democrats to victory next year. Advertisement Democrats have had some recruitment success (and luck), and they see growing openings to argue that Trump's domestic agenda helps the wealthy at the expense of the working class, a message they are already beginning to push in advertising. There is no top-of-the-ticket national Democrat to defend or avoid, while Republicans have virtually no room to distance themselves from Trump's least popular ideas. But interviews with the voters whom Democrats are most desperate to reclaim also suggest that the party's challenges could extend well beyond next year's races. Here are five takeaways from those conversations. Biden's disastrous reelection bid fueled a trust issue. It hasn't gone away. Bielski, 35, an executive chef at a private club, said he had typically voted for Democrats until last year's presidential election, when he backed Trump. Democratic leaders had insisted that the plainly frail Biden was vigorous enough to run, and they had encouraged skeptical voters to fall in line. Instantly after he dropped out, they urged Democrats to unite behind the candidacy of Kamala Harris, who was then the vice president. That did not sit right with Bielski, who said he was already distrustful of Democrats who had pushed pandemic-era lockdowns. Harris, he said, 'wasn't someone that I got to vote for in a primary.' 'It almost seemed wrong,' continued Bielski, who lives in Phoenix. 'It was kind of like, OK, the same people that were just running the country are now telling us that this is the person that we should vote for.' After Harris became the Democratic nominee, some voters interpreted her meandering answers in televised interviews as an unwillingness to be straight with them. By contrast, while Trump gave outlandish and rambling public remarks riddled with conspiracy theories and lies, some said they had gotten the general sense that he wanted to tackle the cost of living and curb illegal immigration. Advertisement 'It was difficult to understand what her point of view was,' said Bruce Gamble, 67, a retired substation maintainer for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. Gamble said he voted for Biden in 2020 and Trump last year. Trump 'was able to communicate better to me,' he added, while Harris 'felt like she was talking over my head, so I didn't quite trust her.' Raymond Teachey, an aircraft mechanic in Bristol, Penn. HANNAH YOON/NYT Worried about paying the bills, they saw Democrats as too focused on cultural issues. Many in this multiracial group of voters said they thought Democrats had gone too far in promoting transgender rights or in emphasizing matters of racial identity. But often, they were more bothered by their perception that those discussions had come at the expense of addressing economic anxieties. 'It seemed like they were more concerned with DEI and LGBTQ issues and really just things that didn't pertain to me or concern me at all,' said Kendall Wood, 32, a truck driver from Henrico County, Virginia. He said he voted for Trump last year after backing Biden in 2020. 'They weren't concerned with, really, kitchen-table issues.' A poll from The New York Times and Ipsos conducted this year found that many Americans did not believe that the Democratic Party was focused on the economic issues that mattered most to them. 'Maybe talk about real-world problems,' said Maya Garcia, 23, a restaurant server from the San Fernando Valley in California. She said she voted for Biden in 2020 and did not vote for president last year. Democrats talk 'a lot about us emotionally, but what are we going to do financially?' Advertisement She added, 'I understand that you want, you know, equal rights and things like that. But I feel like we need to talk more about the economics.' But in a warning sign for Republicans, a recent CNN poll found that a growing share of Americans -- 63% -- felt as if Trump had not paid enough attention to the country's most important problems. Marlon Flores, a technician at a car dealership in Houston. DESIREE RIOS/NYT 'America First' gained new resonance amid wars abroad. As wars raged in the Middle East and Ukraine, some working-class voters thought the Biden administration cared more about events abroad than about the problems in their communities. 'They were funding in other countries, while we do not have the money to fund ourselves,' said Smarty, 33, a home health aide and an author. She said she voted for Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024, adding that she viewed Trump as a man of action. 'I would really like to see more jobs,' she said. 'I would like to see them take good care of people who are homeless in our area.' Bielski said that against the backdrop of overseas turmoil, Trump's 'America First' message resonated. But these days, he does not think Trump is living up to that mantra. 'We're getting into more stuff abroad and not really focusing on economics here,' he said. 'It doesn't seem like he's holding true to anything that he's promised.' Flores, 22, a technician at a car dealership, said the foreign policy emphasis -- and a sense that life was tough regardless of the party in power -- helped explain why he skipped last year's election as well as the 2020 presidential race. Advertisement 'No matter how many times have we gone red, or even blue, the blue-collar workers' have seen little progress, Flores said. President Trump at the White House on Aug. 11. Alex Brandon/Associated Press They worry about illegal immigration. But some think Trump's crackdowns are going too far. These voters often said they agreed with Trump on the need to stem the flow of illegal immigration and strengthen border security. But some worried about the administration's crackdown, which has resulted in sweeping raids, children being separated from their parents, the deportation of American citizens and a growing sense of fear in immigrant communities. Several people interviewed said they knew people who had been personally affected. Smarty, for instance, said her friend's husband, who had lived in the United States for 25 years, had suddenly been deported to Mexico. Her friend is 'going through some health problems, and they have kids, and that's really hard on their family,' Smarty said. 'I don't really feel that's exactly right.' They're not done with every Democrat. But they're tired of the old guard. Many of the voters interviewed said they remained open to supporting Democrats -- or at least the younger ones. 'Stop being friggin' old,' said Cinnamon Boffa, 57, from Langhorne, Pennsylvania. As she recalled, she supported Biden in 2020 but voted only downballot last year, lamenting that 'our choices suck.' Teachey thought there was still room for seasoned politicians, but in many cases, it was time to get 'the boomers out of there.' He is increasingly inclined to support Democrats next year to check unfettered Republican power. 'They're totally far right,' he said of the GOP. 'Honestly, I don't identify with any party.' This article originally appeared in
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Here's why advocates doubt the Supreme Court will revisit marriage equality
The first challenge to same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court enshrined the right a decade ago comes before a very different mix of justices, LGBTQ+ advocates said. The big picture: Legal experts believe the court is highly unlikely to hear the case because unwinding protections for same-sex marriage after so many years would be incredibly complicated. The request challenges the landmark decision in Obergefell v Hodges, which established that marriage equality is constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment's due process clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Catch up quick: Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk, is asking the Supreme Court to appeal an order that requires her to pay $360,000 to a gay couple in damages and fees for refusing to issue them a marriage license in 2015. Davis has been unsuccessfully appealing the order for years, and lower courts have repeatedly rejected her arguments. In a news release announcing the petition, an attorney representing Davis called Obergefell an "egregious opinion" that violated his clients "religious liberty." What they're saying: Mary Bonauto, one of the attorneys who represented lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell, told Axios that Davis' case is "extremely narrow" and that she's "attempting to shoehorn an opportunity to relitigate" the landmark case. "There's good reason for the Supreme Court to deny review in this case rather than unsettle something so positive for couples, children, families and the larger society as marriage equality," she said. The intrigue: Shannon Minter, a spokesperson for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights told Axios that the Supreme Court "has shown an alarming willingness" to "reverse long-standing precedent" in recent years. He named the court's decision to reverse the right to abortion access enshrined in Roe v. Wade through the Dobbs decision, and gutting legislation that sought to equalize historic discrimination against people of color such as the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action policies. He also mentioned the court imposing new restrictions on the power of lower courts to unilaterally freeze nationwide policies through "universal" injunctions in a case related to President Trump's efforts to end constitutionally-protected birthright citizenship. Flashback: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in 2022 that the high court should reconsider multiple previous opinions, including those that offer protections to same-sex relationships, marriage equality and access to contraceptives. Despite the unpredictability of the Supreme Court, here's why LGBTQ+ advocates aren't worried about marriage equality being reversed: What are the legal implications of trying to reverse marriage equality? Overruling Obergefell could potentially make someone's marital status apply in one state but not in another. Multiple experts said that would create a patchwork of problems for tax laws, insurance policies and legal custody over children. Robbie Kaplan's successful arguments to the Supreme Court in 2013 laid down the foundation for Obergefell. "It's hard to imagine a situation where the reliance interests are more consequential than in the case of nationwide marriage equality," Kaplan told Axios. "It's not just a recipe for administrative chaos," Kaplan continued. "It also would result in an almost indescribable amount of (needless) suffering and heartache." Do Americans support marriage equality? Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which federally defined marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." At the time, 68% of Americans said they did not support marriage equality, according to a poll Gallup conducted in 1996. Stunning stat: Ten years after Obergefell, attitudes about marriage equality have flipped, as 68% of Americans now support it, according to Gallup's most recent numbers. What other protections exist for same-sex marriages? The Respect For Marriage Act passed by Congress in 2022, codifying the right to same-sex and interracial marriages is seen as a safety net for LGBTQ+ protections. The legislation also repealed the Defense of Marriage Act. Yes, but: The Respect For Marriage Act doesn't prohibit individual states from limiting or banning same-sex marriage if Obergefell were struck down. What's next: SCOTUS will decide if it wants to take up the case this fall. Approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari are filed with the court each year, and the justices hear oral arguments in about 80 cases, according to the court's website. The bottom line:"None of us can predict what the court will do," Suzanne Goldberg, Director of the Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic at Columbia Law told Axios.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Sonya Massey shooting prompts Illinois law requiring disclosure of police recruits' backgrounds
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Illinois law now requires that prospective police officers approve the release of personal background records in response to last summer's shooting of Sonya Massey, an unarmed Black woman, in her home by a sheriff's deputy who had responded to her call for help. Gov. JB Pritzker on Tuesday signed the legislation, which requires disclosure of everything from job performance reports to nonpublic settlement agreements. It resulted from indiscretions that came to light in the background of Sean Grayson, the ex-sheriff's deputy charged with first-degree murder in the case. Pritzker, surrounded by Massey's family in the state Capitol, said the first-in-the-nation law should serve as an example for other states as he let Massey's 'spirit guide us to action.' 'Our justice system needs to be built on trust,' the Democrat said. 'Communities should be able to trust that when they call the police to their home, the responding officer will be well-trained and without a history of bias or misconduct, and police officers should be able to trust that they are serving alongside responsible and capable individuals.' The legislation was sponsored by Sen. Doris Turner, a Springfield Democrat and friend of the Masseys, and Chicago Democratic Rep. Kam Buckner, who noted that Thursday marks the 117th anniversary of the three-day Race Riot in Springfield that led to the founding a year later of the NAACP. Who is Sonya Massey? Massey, 36, was a single mother of two teenagers who had a strong religious faith and struggled with mental health issues. In the early morning of July 6, 2024, she called 911 to report a suspected prowler outside her home in the capital city of Springfield, 201 miles (343 kilometers) southwest of Chicago. Grayson and another deputy searched but found no one. Inside Massey's house, confusion over a pot of hot water Massey picked up and her curious response to Grayson — 'I rebuke you in the name of Jesus' — which the deputy said he took to mean she wanted to kill him, prompted him to fire on Massey, hitting her right below the eye. What prompted the legislation? The 31-year-old Grayson was 14 months into his career as a Sangamon County Sheriff's deputy when he answered Massey's call. His arrest two weeks later prompted an examination of his record, which showed several trouble spots. In his early 20s, he was convicted of driving under the influence twice within a year, the first of which got him kicked out of the Army. He had four law enforcement jobs — mostly part-time — in six years. One past employer noted that he was sloppy in handling evidence and called him a braggart. Others said he was impulsive. What does the law require? Those seeking policing jobs must sign a waiver allowing past employers to release unredacted background materials, including job performance reports, physical and psychological fitness-for-duty reports, civil and criminal court records, and, even otherwise nonpublic documents such as nondisclosure or separation agreements. 'It isn't punitive to any police officer. The same kind of commonsense legislation needs to be done nationwide,' James Wilburn, Massey's father, said. 'People should not be able to go from department to department and their records not follow them.' The hiring agency may see the contents of documents sealed by court order by getting a judge's approval, and court action is available to compel a former employer to hand over records. 'Several departments need to pick up their game and implement new procedures, but what's listed here (in the law) is what should be minimally done in a background check,' said Kenny Winslow, executive director of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, who helped negotiate the proposal. Would the law have prevented Grayson's hiring? Ironically, no. Most of what was revealed about Grayson after his arrest was known to Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell, who was forced to retire early because of the incident. Campbell was aware of Grayson's shortcomings and, as a result, made him repeat the state's 16-week police training course. Even an incident that didn't surface until six weeks after the shooting — a dash-cam video of Grayson, working as a deputy in a nearby county, ignoring an order to halt a high-speed chase and then hitting a deer with his squad car — would not have disqualified him, Campbell said at the time. 'We can't decide who they do or don't hire, but what we can do is put some parameters in place so that the information will be there and the right decision can be made,' Buckner said.
