Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

News

Latest SCOTUS Ruling Means Some Redistricting Assured

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

MONTGOMERY—In light of this weeks ruling by the US Supreme Court, the State of Alabama will most assuredly be forced to redraw some legislative districts.

On Monday, the Supreme Court threw out a lower court ruling that upheld North Carolina’s Republican-drawn electoral districts. In its ruling, SCOTUS cited the recent Alabama redistricting case in which Justice Breyer, writing for the majority stated, “[t]hat Alabama expressly adopted and applied a policy of prioritizing mechanical racial targets above all other districting criteria (save one-person, one-vote) provides evidence that race motivated the drawing of particular lines in multiple districts in the State.”

Since the High Court’s ruling in March, leaders in the Republican supermajority have defended the redistricting scheme, calling the court ruling a “technicality,” that would not be negotiated.

Despite the brave, public face, the North Carolina ruling lawmakers have come to understand that some manner of redistricting will occur.

The best case scenario for Republicans is to strike a deal with the Black Caucus to give them more representation by redrawing some lines, but not all. While the Black Caucus may be a willing to take what they can get, the fly in the ointment may be Joe Reed, who has nothing to gain from a political compromise or detente with the State’s Republicans.

Republicans are hoping to hold off in action until after the 2016 Presidential election.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

There is fear that a special election in 2016, could diminish the GOP supermajority, forcing a limited power sharing arrangement with the Democrats.

Bill Britt is editor-in-chief at the Alabama Political Reporter and host of The Voice of Alabama Politics. You can email him at bbritt@alreporter.com or follow him on Twitter.

More from APR

Courts

Conservative justices seemed unreceptive to arguments that blanket bans on transgender healthcare are sex-based discrimination.

Courts

The case has sparked alarm among reproductive health advocates, as it signals potential threats to IVF practices.

Courts

The settlement agreement ends the outstanding parts of the ongoing litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Congress

The expense is added to an already hefty bill for the suit, with the state paying outside counsel to assist.