Joyce Vance: Alabama's Maps

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/alabamas-maps

The New York Times headline referred to the decision like this: “Supreme Court Clears the Way for Republican-Friendly Map in Alabama.”

“Republican friendly” is just a sanitized way of saying racist here.

You don’t have to take my word for that. A court actually reached that conclusion. When the Alabama Legislature returned to court to ask for permission to use its post-Callais map, the court concluded, “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.”

This was the first test of what was left of the Voting Rights Act after Callais. The Supreme Court failed it.

The decision means Alabama can replace the maps currently in use—they create two Black opportunity districts—with a map that has only one. I’ve been hyper-focused on the Alabama case, both because it’s the first test of Callais and because the evidence is so strong. The three-judge panel found evidence of intentional discrimination. That made the post-Callais question especially clear: Would the Supreme Court permit “partisan gerrymanders” to stand, even in the face of evidence that they were the result of racial animus? We now know the answer is yes. If the Court’s conservative majority would not invalidate Alabama’s maps on this evidence, it is hard to imagine what would.

As for Purcell and the rule against interfering too close to an election, the Supreme Court’s majority took the disingenuous way out. “The State has also made a strong showing of irreparable harm and that the equities and public interest favor it. We have repeatedly cautioned that lower federal courts should not ‘alter the election rules on the eve of an election,’” they wrote.

*snip*