“Following the U.S. Supreme Court order, I called the Alabama Legislature into a special session to readdress our congressional map,” Governor Kay Ivey said after signing the new maps into law in July. “The Legislature knows our state, our people, and our districts better than the federal courts or activist groups, and I am pleased that they have answered the call, remained focused, and produced new districts ahead of the court deadline.”
That placed the ball back in the three-judge panel’s court, where the state raised a new argument. In a court filing last month, Alabama argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which was handed down after the justices decided the gerrymandering case, set new legal thresholds for when it is permissible for the government to undertake “race-based government action.” In this context, that would include the VRA’s ability to require states to draw majority-minority districts in redistricting cases that involve racial gerrymandering. “Redistricting is not an exception to the rule,” the state argued.
“Allen, in addressing whether … there was a VRA violation in the 2021 Plan, did not decide any Equal Protection Clause claims regarding the constitutionality of any proposed remedy that will now govern every voter in the State of Alabama,” the state argued. “Any such remedy must be consistent with the Supreme Court’s Equal Protection Clause cases, including most recently Harvard.”