Court blocks Alabama Republicans’ congressional map
The judges ruled the Supreme Court’s recent blockbuster decision narrowing the Voting Rights Act does not impact their finding that the map intentionally discriminates against Black voters in violation of the Constitution. It means Alabama cannot use its design this year unless Republican leaders appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which they have vowed to do. “Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” the ruling reads.
- ▪The judges ruled the Supreme Court’s recent blockbuster decision narrowing the Voting Rights Act does not impact their finding that the map intentionally discriminates against Black voters in violation of the Constitution.
- ▪It means Alabama cannot use its design this year unless Republican leaders appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which they have vowed to do.
- ▪“Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” the ruling reads.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Court Battles Court blocks Alabama Republicans’ congressional map by Zach Schonfeld - 05/26/26 10:06 AM ET Link copied by Zach Schonfeld - 05/26/26 10:06 AM ET Link copied NOW PLAYING A three-judge panel on Tuesday blocked Alabama Republicans’ congressional map that would’ve given the party a potential pickup opportunity in the midterms. The judges ruled the Supreme Court’s recent blockbuster decision narrowing the Voting Rights Act does not impact their finding that the map intentionally discriminates against Black voters in violation of the Constitution. It means Alabama cannot use its design this year unless Republican leaders appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which they have vowed to do.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Hill.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Hill
