Alabama Black Caucus v. Alabama
By Leland Ware
Not since the Reconstruction era of the late 19th
Century have efforts to suppress the African American vote been greater. On
January 20, 2017, a three-judge federal district court ruled that Alabama’s
legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering when it enacted a redistricting
plan in 2012. The ruling is a victory in the state’s Legislative Black Caucus’
fight against redistricting plans that undermine the voting strength of African
Americans.
Alabama’s Constitution requires the lawmakers to redraw
legislative districts after every 10-year census. The districts that were
challenged are part of a plan developed by the Republican-dominated legislature
after the 2010 Census. Republicans won a majority in the legislature in 2010
and approved a new districting plan in 2012. Alabama’s Legislative Black Caucus
and others sued, claiming that the plan packed large numbers of black voters
into majority-minority districts in ways that reduced their influence in other
districts.
To succeed on a claim of racial gerrymandering, the
plaintiffs must prove that race was the predominant consideration in deciding
to place a significant number of voters in or outside of a specific district. If
the plaintiffs prove that racial considerations predominated, the defendants
must prove that their consideration of race was narrowly tailored to serve a
compelling state interest.
In this case a three-judge trial court ruled in the state’s favor in 2013, but the U.S. Supreme reversed that ruling in 2015. It held that Alabama intentionally
adopted a policy of putting race above all other districting criteria except the
one-person one-vote principle. The Court also found that the district court’s analysis of the
gerrymandering claim, which considered the state as a whole rather than
district-by-district, was legally erroneous. The
case was sent back to the district court. In the January 20th decision the
trial court ruled for the plaintiffs on 12 of the 36 districts in dispute. The
court ruled in the state’s favor on the other 24 districts.
Redistricting is an extremely contentious issue. The Voting
Rights Act requires legislatures to take race into consideration when drawing district
lines. However, the Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment prevents
race from being the predominant factor in redistricting decisions absent a
compelling justification for doing so. Legislatures must balance the requirement of not reducing the number of minority-majority
districts with the prohibition against making race the primary consideration in
drawing lines.
In December of 2016 the Supreme Court heard arguments
concerning racial gerrymanders in North Carolina and Virginia. One
case involves a Virginia legislative map that was redrawn after the 2010
census. Twelve districts for the State House were drawn to attain a 55% black
voting age population. Legal challenges contended that the maps packed
African-Americans in some districts and diluted their strength in others. A lower
court upheld the districts concluding that race did not predominate in 11 of
the 12 districts and, in the 12th, race was a permissible
justification.
The other case
concerns two congressional district maps that were drawn in North Carolina to
ensure that they had a black voting age population of 50%. A lower court ruled
that the maps were unconstitutional. Rulings are expected in both cases before
the current Supreme Court term ends in June.
The rulings in the Virginia and North Carolina cases may
provide guidance on when considering race in redistricting goes too far and the
analytical framework courts should use to make that determination.
The sordid episodes of 21st Century racial discrimination by Republican-dominated
state legislatures must be halted.
