SCOTUS Ruling On Alabama Map Could Open The Door To A New Wild West Of Redistricting

Not every voted is counted equal.
Sadie Janes shows off her voting sticker after casting her ballot at Floyd Middle Magnet School during the Democratic presidential primary in Montgomery, Alabama on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020. - Fourteen states and... Sadie Janes shows off her voting sticker after casting her ballot at Floyd Middle Magnet School during the Democratic presidential primary in Montgomery, Alabama on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020. - Fourteen states and American Samoa are holding presidential primary elections, with over 1400 delegates at stake. Americans vote Tuesday in primaries that play a major role in who will challenge Donald Trump for the presidency, a day after key endorsements dramatically boosted Joe Biden's hopes against surging leftist Bernie Sanders. The backing of Biden by three of his ex-rivals marked an unprecedented turn in a fractured, often bitter campaign. (Photo by Joshua Lott / AFP) (Photo by JOSHUA LOTT/AFP via Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It first appeared at The Conversation.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s order allowing Alabama to use a congressional map that critics say disadvantages Black voters has voting rights advocates worried – and understandably so.

On the surface, the stay issued Feb. 7, 2022, in Merrill v. Milligan was procedural. In a 5-4 decision, the justices halted a district court’s injunction that had barred Alabama from using a newly redistricted map in the upcoming 2022 elections. The Supreme Court will hear the full case in its next term starting in the fall, with the ruling due by the end of June 2023 – after this year’s midterm elections.

Had it stood, the district court’s injunction would have required Alabama to redraw congressional districts ahead of the election to give Black voters greater representation. Instead, Black voters – more than a quarter of Alabama’s electorate – will be the majority in just one of seven districts.

The Supreme Court’s order could have a significant, substantive effect on the 2022 midterm elections – and not just in Alabama. In allowing the state to use a voting map adopted in late 2021 that a court has ruled unlawful soon after passage, the Supreme Court is sending a signal to other states regarding the lack of review available regarding problematic maps they may draw.

Expanding Purcell

The justices’ decision rests on the Purcell principle – a rule the Supreme Court created in 2006 when vacating a Court of Appeals decision to block Arizona’s voter ID law a month before the upcoming general election.

In their ruling in the case Purcell v. Gonzalez, justices said federal courts should not interfere with state election processes close to a general election because doing so would confuse voters and burden election officials.

The latest ruling by the Supreme Court in Merrill appears to expand the scope of the Purcell rule significantly.

The Merrill ruling does not appear to track Purcell. The district court’s injunction in Merrill was the result of a full review of Alabama’s congressional redistricting plan. The district court heard seven days of testimony and read a substantial volume of briefings before reaching its decision.

At the conclusion of the case – handled at warp speed for a federal court – the district court wrote an opinion of more than 200 pages explaining in detail the law and facts underlying its decision.

Moreover, the injunction against Alabama’s redistricting plan was issued on Jan. 24, 2022 – more than nine months before voting in Alabama’s general election ends on Nov. 8, 2022.

In contrast, the Court of Appeals in Purcell had enjoined the use of the Arizona voter ID law without explanation mere weeks before that year’s general election.

Novel reading of the Voting Rights Act

This apparent expansion of the Purcell principle is more than just a technical change. It could have a tangible impact on the election results in Alabama.

At the heart of the case is a dispute over whether Alabama must redraw its congressional districts to provide a second seat in which Black voters form the majority. The current map contains one such district.

That issue reaches the heart of the 1965’s Voting Rights Act and could affect Black Alabamians’ ability to elect their representatives of choice.

In Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence with the court’s order, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, he suggested the stay of the injunction stopping Alabama from using its map is sensible, in part, because the plaintiffs are not clearly going to win the underlying case when it comes before the Court.

Justice John Roberts dissented from the stay, noting the district court appears to have applied the law correctly and left nothing for the Supreme Court to correct.

Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent – which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – argued the underlying merits in the challenge to Alabama appear so clear that the Court’s majority would need to employ a novel reading of the Voting Rights Act to make the case appear debatable.

Tilting elections

The court’s order in Merrill suggests that the window for deciding the legality of redistricting measures before the 2022 elections has now closed.

That likely sends a message to all states – those that have not finished redistricting and those that may wish to revise their redistricted maps – that they can pass whatever maps they want, possibly tilting the 2022 congressional election, without fear of being overruled in federal court.

Henry L. Chambers Jr. is a professor of law at the University of Richmond.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Latest Cafe

Notable Replies

  1. the Court’s majority would need to employ a novel reading of the Voting Rights Act to make the case appear debatable.

    The Court has already employed a novel reading of the VRA in two recent decisions. This case will be the final chapter in the death of the VRA.

    I now turn to @sniffit for a more detailed analysis.

  2. And here it is: them bitches be white supremacist Christian dominionist neofascists.

  3. Avatar for 1gg 1gg says:

    Didn’t Chief Justice Roberts say we didn’t need the Civil Rights Act anymore, don’t tell me he was wrong? s/

  4. Desantis is on board already, almost like he and his administration knew what was coming.

    But that can’t be. Surely those sober arbiters on the Supreme Court would never lean into political strategy. Banish the thought.

  5. The “conservative” majority on the Court don’t even seem to care enough to give us a plausible lie. The district court didn’t just make things up willy nilly and they didn’t do it with no time to spare before the election, so it’s absurd to claim the court was interfering in election law too close to an election. The Shadow Docketeers just made things up and didn’t even bother to put even the thinnest veneer of plausibility over it.

Continue the discussion at

16 more replies


Avatar for discobot Avatar for eldonlazar Avatar for 1gg Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for progress Avatar for sniffit Avatar for sparrowhawk Avatar for drriddle Avatar for lastroth Avatar for esva Avatar for dangoodbar Avatar for thunderclapnewman Avatar for edgarant Avatar for dedwords Avatar for jtx Avatar for birdford Avatar for coimmigrant Avatar for tindalos Avatar for rockitttla Avatar for emiliano4

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: