Latest news with #AlabamaLegislature
Toronto Star
2 days ago
- Politics
- Toronto Star
Judges reject preclearance request for Alabama congressional plans and keep map in place
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Federal judges on Thursday ordered Alabama to continue using a court-selected congressional map for the rest of the decade, but they declined to put the state back under the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act. The order secures the current map, which created a second district where Black voters are the majority or close to it, for the next several elections. But the order leaves open what the districts will look like after 2030, when the Republican-controlled Alabama Legislature can again draw a map free from court oversight.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Judges reject preclearance request for Alabama congressional plans and keep map in place
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Federal judges on Thursday ordered Alabama to continue using a court-selected congressional map for the rest of the decade, but they declined to put the state back under the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act. The order secures the current map, which created a second district where Black voters are the majority or close to it, for the next several elections. But the order leaves open what the districts will look like after 2030, when the Republican-controlled Alabama Legislature can again draw a map free from court oversight. The three-judge panel ordered the secretary of state to continue using the current congressional map, which was selected by the court last year, 'until Alabama enacts a new congressional districting plan based on 2030 Census data' and said they will retain jurisdiction over the case until then. Lawmakers have said they did not intend to redraw Alabama's congressional map before the 2030 Census. The judges rejected a request from plaintiffs to 'bail in' Alabama under the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act and submit the next-state-drawn congressional map for review before it is used. The judges wrote that they 'discern no compelling reason to tread into such intrusive waters.' 'And we will not, in an unrestrained attempt to resolve any hypothetical issue that may arise far down the road, assign to our Court the exceedingly intrusive task of supervising Alabama's congressional elections for the next fifteen years,' the judges wrote. The Alabama attorney general's office and the U.S. Department of Justice had both opposed the request. 'We are pleased the Court accepted our arguments and rejected the plaintiffs' far-reaching request,' a spokesman for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall's office wrote in a statement. Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, had argued during a July hearing that preclearance was needed to ensure the state doesn't 'backslide.' Ross said Friday that even though the court rejected preclearance, his clients are pleased the court ordered Alabama to continue using the special master map through 2030. 'This independently-drawn map respects Alabama's many communities of interest, including the Black Belt, and ensures that Black voters will have a fair opportunity to elect congressional candidates of their choice for the rest of the decade,' Ross said. 'This is a hard-fought win for our clients, for all Alabamians, and for democracy itself,' Ross said. The Voting Rights Act for decades required states with a history of discrimination — including Alabama — to get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. But the requirement of preclearance effectively went away in 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the provision determining which states are covered was outdated and unconstitutional.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Back to the Supreme Court: Alabama plans 3rd appeal in congressional redistricting suit
Rep. Napoleon Bracy, D-Prichard (left, at podium), speaks to Rep. Chris Pringle, R-Mobile during a special session on redistricting on Friday, July 21, 2023 in Montgomery, Alabama. (Stew Milne for Alabama Reflector) The Alabama Attorney General's Office plans to go to the U.S. Supreme Court a third time in an ongoing lawsuit over Alabama's congressional districts. The office filed notice of an intent to appeal Friday. Late on Monday, the office and plaintiffs who successfully challenged a 2021 state congressional map said in a court filing they had failed to reach an agreement in the ongoing lawsuit. While the state has indicated it will stick with a court-drawn congressional map that includes two districts with majority or near-majority populations of Black voters, the state and the plaintiffs disagreed on whether the court should oversee any future problems or challenges related to congressional redistricting after the 2030 Census. 'What we've always requested with respect to preclearance is that Alabama be put under preclearance for congressional maps through the post-2030 redistricting cycle, and that's to confirm that there's no backsliding after 2030 with any new district lines that get drawn,' said Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund representing the plaintiffs, in a phone interview Tuesday. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX A three-judge panel in the U.S. Northern District of Alabama, which includes two judges appointed by President Donald Trump, has repeatedly ruled that the 2021 congressional map approved by the Alabama Legislature violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to give Black Alabamians a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred leaders. The panel has cited racial polarization of voting in the state — where white Alabamians tend to support Republicans and Black Alabamians tend to support Democrats — in ordering the state to draw districts that give Black Alabamians the ability to substantially participate in the process. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 twice upheld the lower court rulings. Federal court: Alabama Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters in redistricting Messages seeking comment were left with the offices of the Alabama Attorney General and Secretary of State on Tuesday. 'They're saying they're not going to redistrict before the 2030 census, but they're obviously challenging the map as well, so it's not as if they're giving up,' Ross said. Alabama has until June 16 to file a brief on the position. The plaintiffs will have until June 23 to file a response, and any reply should be filed by June 27. If the three-judge panel decides a hearing is necessary, they will schedule it for July 29. The three-judge panel has repeatedly criticized the Legislature for drawing a map in a 2023 special session that it said did not follow its guidance on drawing congressional districts. The court appointed a special master to draw the map that will now be used for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles, as well as any special election. That map was also used in the 2024 elections, when U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Mobile, won in the 2nd Congressional District last November. That election marked the first time in history that Alabama elected two Black U.S. Representatives at the same time. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The path not taken
Lake Martin outside of Dadeville is seen on May 25, 2025. A nonprofit maintains a trail in and around the lake that is free to the public. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) My wife and I spent the Sunday afternoon of Memorial Day weekend hiking near Lake Martin in Dadeville. From a stunning view of the lake, we walked through a canopied forest with all kinds of rocks, ridges and flora. The trail took us to the lake shore, where we took in the vistas and the $1 million homes all around them. It's a reminder of how many natural jewels we have in Alabama. And it's free. All you have to do is drive there and start walking. No painful real estate investment required. I really needed that reminder after a long and bruising session in the Alabama Legislature. Any session of any lawmaking body anywhere means fighting over bills that could prove helpful or destructive to their interests. We see more of it because Alabama's constitution makes certain the interests of a few powerful elites always take precedence over public concern. Worse, a growing number of lawmakers view themselves less as representatives of their communities than lobbyists for whatever right-wing zealots reside there. So we get bills that could have subjected librarians to criminal prosecutions (not passed); would have required mandatory performances or broadcasts of the Star-Spangled Banner (a constitutional amendment, mind you, also not passed) and allowed local governments to separate men and women for whatever reason they deem fit (that one did pass, and within the first 10 days of the legislative session). Meanwhile, Alabama can't run safe prisons; rural residents struggle to access health care and our lax gun laws have created nation-leading rates of firearm deaths. The Legislature didn't spend nearly the time on these issues that they should have. Lawmakers did pass bills extending Medicaid coverage to pregnant people and making it a state crime to possess devices that convert semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones. Good steps. But just steps. Not the comprehensive, thorough fixes these issues demand. Maybe the political lift is too tough. Perhaps lawmakers don't see them as problems. The prison crisis persists because far too many people think prisoners deserve to live in violence and terror, not thinking about the safety of prison staff or what happens to the rest of us when those people brutalized in the system get out. But there's a larger problem preventing us from finding solutions. Alabama politics has no concept of the common good. We'd live in a much different landscape if it did. For one thing, Alabama's top income earners would pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the bottom income earners, and not the other way around. The no-questions-asked attitude our lawmakers take to any request from Corrections would apply to Medicaid expansion. Right now, that's a nonstarter for most Republicans in the Legislature. Even though it will improve health and create jobs. And even though the state's largest insurer supports a version of it. We wouldn't send $180 million out of public school classrooms for 'nonpublic education purposes.' Most of that will go to private school tuition for the wealthy. Instead, the state might finally overhaul a Jim Crow-era tax system that denies poor and rural school districts adequate resources. Certainly, we wouldn't burn down public safety to satisfy a few paranoid gun owners. Or deny lifesaving health care for transgender youth for a handful of fertility-obsessed weirdos. Or rage at people coming to our state from foreign countries, trying to build better lives. All too often, the state's leaders see policy as a zero-sum game: if this person wins, someone has to lose. If I'm a winner, I need to push someone down. But that's not the case. And we know that from the things Alabama has done right. Expanding Medicaid access for pregnant people will be good for everyone. Doctors will be able to catch and treat more pregnancy complications before they become fatal. Infant and maternal mortality will drop. We have one of the nation's best pre-K programs, thanks in no small part to years of investment in it. One wishes lawmakers wouldn't have stopped the push to make pre-K universal. But it's still changing lives and leading to improved school outcomes around the state. And we have state parks, in Dadeville and elsewhere. Alabama government can help people. And there are issues that lawmakers, even those ostensibly allergic to any kind of government spending, will turn out their pockets for. But all too often, we funnel taxpayer money toward wealthy companies that don't need the help; wealthy families who don't need the help, and an incarceration system that punishes without rehabilitating. These are choices. They are not inevitable. But all too often, our leaders see their jobs as protecting the privileged, not making a government as good as its people, or as inspiring as its landscapes. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Alabama Legislature only passes two immigration bills despite GOP push on issue
Protesters march during a non violent protest in Birmingham, Alabama, U.S., on Saturday February 22, 2025. Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice organized the event for the public to show empathy to immigrants in the wake of all the anti immigration bills currently in legislature. The Alabama Legislature considered several proposals during the 2025 session to place further restrictions on peple without legal status. Photographer: Andi Rice for Alabama Reflector Despite spending a great deal of time on the issue in the 2025 session, the Alabama Legislature only passed two bills targeting those without appropriate authorization to reside in the country. SB 63, sponsored by Sen. Lance Bell, R-Pell City, requires law enforcement in Alabama to take fingerprints and DNA samples of people without the documentation to live in the U.S. and submit them to the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency and the Alabama Department of Forensic Science. SB 53, sponsored by Wes Kitchens, R-Arab, made it a crime, a Class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine, for people to knowingly transport a person without the appropriate documentation to reside in the country into the state. The bill also required county or municipal jail administrators to investigate those placed into custody to determine a person's immigration status and check with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security if the individual was issued an immigration detainer or warrant. 'Many of these bills were created to address problems that don't exist in Alabama,' said Allison Hamilton, executive director of the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice. 'The majority of these bills were copycat bills that were developed at national thinktanks and distributed out to different legislators around the country to implement in their states.' But several other immigration bills stalled before getting a final vote. HB 7, sponsored by Rep. Ernie Yarbrough, R-Trinity, would have allowed state and local law enforcement to enter into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to enforce the country's immigration laws, an authority that currently belongs only to the Alabama Attorney General's Office. The House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee approved the legislation in February, soon after the 2025 session began, but the full chamber did not vote on the measure until April. The legislation did not come to a vote in the full Senate. HB 3, sponsored by Rep. Chip Brown, R-Hollingers Island, would have enhanced penalties for people convicted of felonies if they cannot prove they have legal authorization to be in the U.S. A Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison to a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Those convicted of a Class C felony would have their punishment upgraded to a Class B felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $30,000 fine. People who commit a Class B felony would have their convictions upgraded to a Class A felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison and a $60,000 fine. Individuals found guilty of a Class A felony, the most serious offense, would have had to serve at least 15 years in prison. Other legislation would have made labor brokers register with the Alabama Department of Workforce and must then report the foreign nationals they place with companies through contract work. Another bill, HB 297, sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Fidler, R-Silverhill, would have originally imposed a fee on international wire transfers, often used by immigrants to support families overseas. But the legislation was heavily amended to require reports on certain overseas cash transactions. All the bills eventually stalled in the Senate. One bill attempted to restrict those without proper authorization by limiting their ability to drive in the state. SB 55, sponsored by Sen. Chris Elliott, R-Josephine, would have prohibited people who have a driver's license from another state from driving in Alabama if the state that authorized it did not review a person's legal status. The legislation stalled in the House chamber after it passed the Senate. Legislators from a slate of other states introduced nearly identical legislation, so Hamilton said the bills are not tailored to the problems that residents face in Alabama. 'If they were really trying to address it, there were other bills that other representatives introduced that would have been more effective, but this bill was really about continuing to oppress immigrant communities and make life difficult,' she said.' But those who favor more restrictions said actions are necessary to disincentivize people without appropriate authorization to live in the country. 'The objective here is to present people here with rational choices, and if they believe they are not going to succeed in what they are doing, then they either will not come to the United States at all, or if individual states within the country adopt policies that make it clear they are going to be partners in enforcement, those people will settle elsewhere in the county,' said Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that advocates for immigration legislation like those introduced. Debu Ghandi, senior director for immigration at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, cited a 2020 report from the organization that found undocumented immigrants contribute almost $80 million in federal taxes and $41 billion in state and local taxes each year. They also pay another $315 billion annually nationally through spending. 'Many industries often rely on their hard, and often dangerous, work,' he said. 'Undocumented immigrants, in fact, cannot receive social and Medicare benefits, but they have to pay into these programs through the payroll taxes that they are required to pay even though they are not eligible for the benefits that these programs fund.' Hamilton said there are potential negative consequences of these bills for the state. 'What Alabama would like in that case is a lot fewer workers and a lot fewer people, fewer restaurants, and just a sadder place,' she said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
