Alabama’s attorney general has asked the Supreme Court to undo a lower court order and allow the state’s original 2023 congressional map to be used in upcoming elections, arguing the map was drawn for lawful, nonracial reasons and that a recent Supreme Court ruling supports that position. The case centers on whether courts misapplied Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and whether a court-drawn map should displace one enacted by the state legislature before the May 19 primary. The request went directly to Justice Clarence Thomas, who oversees the Eleventh Circuit, with an expedited deadline for Alabama to respond. Lawmakers in Montgomery have also moved quickly, passing bills intended to restore the 2023 map if the legal path clears.
The legal fight picked up steam after a district court found the 2023 map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and imposed a remedial map, which state leaders call a racial gerrymander. Alabama’s attorney general argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais changes how Section 2 challenges should be evaluated and that the lower court’s order conflicts with that guidance. He asked the Supreme Court to vacate the injunctions and send the cases back for reconsideration. The state requested a decision by May 14 so officials could plan ahead of the May 19 primary.
Attorney General Steve Marshall today asked the United States Supreme Court to lift a federal court order requiring Alabama to use a race-based congressional map in the upcoming May 19 primary. The filings argue that the order in place directly conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling last month in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that clarified the rules for how courts must assess challenges brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to congressional redistricting. The State is asking the Court to act by May 14, five days before Alabamians go to the polls.
“I will continue to fight for Alabama to be able to use the congressional map the people’s elected representatives enacted,” Attorney General Marshall said. “Alabama drew a map based on lawful policy goals, not race, and the Supreme Court’s recent ruling vindicates that approach. We were punished for doing the right thing, and we are asking the Court to correct that now.”
State legislators responded by passing two bills aimed at reinstating the 2023 map and preparing for special elections drawn under those lines. Even with the bills in hand, officials cannot act until the courts resolve the competing orders. The legislature and governor are moving fast because the calendar is tight and the window to organize primaries and any potential special elections is narrow. Alabama’s election system, with no early voting and a single primary day, gives the state some scheduling flexibility if the court moves quickly.
The timing of the filings is urgent by design: the state filed emergency applications directly with Justice Thomas and has pursued parallel motions in district and circuit courts. On April 30 the attorney general asked the Supreme Court to vacate the lower court injunctions and on May 5 he filed a district court emergency motion seeking immediate relief. The filings emphasize that the lower courts should reconsider their rulings in light of the Court’s recent clarification regarding Section 2 analysis. Those steps are intended to stop a court-imposed map from governing the May 19 primary.
Justice Clarence Thomas ordered Alabama to file a response by a specified date, reflecting the narrow window for Supreme Court intervention. If Justice Thomas agrees that the issue merits immediate relief, the state could revert to the legislature-drawn map. If he declines, the lower court’s remedial map would remain in place for upcoming elections. Either outcome will have real consequences for candidates, voters, and the scheduling of primaries or special elections in the state.
Alabama officials emphasize that the 2023 map was drawn with legitimate policy goals in mind and not primarily on the basis of race. The attorney general’s public statements repeat that claim and point to the Supreme Court’s recent guidance as vindication of their approach. That legal theory hinges on the idea that courts must apply Section 2 in a way that respects state lawmaking and avoids replacing legislatures’ policy choices with remedial maps unless strict criteria are met. Opponents argue the district court acted correctly to remedy an unlawful racial gerrymander, and that remedy should stand for the primary.
The practical stakes are immediate: candidates, parties, and election officials need clarity to print ballots, notify voters, and set election logistics. A late change in maps would ripple through filing deadlines, ballot preparation, and campaign strategies in a compressed timeline. Alabama has signaled it could adjust the primary date if a favorable order arrives, but any such move would require careful coordination to comply with election law and preserve voter access. That uncertainty is exactly why the state pushed for emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
Today’s filings are the latest and most urgent step in Attorney General Marshall’s ongoing effort to restore Alabama’s congressional map. On April 30, Marshall asked the Supreme Court to vacate the lower court’s injunctions and send the cases back to be reconsidered in light of Callais. On May 5, he filed a separate emergency motion at the district court level asking that court to lift its own orders while the appeals play out. Today’s emergency applications go directly to Justice Clarence Thomas and ask the Supreme Court to immediately halt the lower court’s order imposing a court-drawn map on Alabama for the May 19 primary. Separately, Marshall has also been fighting to restore Alabama’s state Senate map, filing an emergency motion with the Eleventh Circuit on May 4 and a reply brief on May 7 in that parallel proceeding.
Supporters of the state’s position argue that restoring the legislature’s map would respect voters and elected representatives, while critics warn that overturning the district court could leave minority voters without adequate representation. The back-and-forth highlights the tension between judicial remedies for voting rights violations and deference to state lawmaking. Whichever path the high court chooses will shape not just Alabama’s ballots but also precedent for how Section 2 claims are resolved nationwide. The outcome could influence redistricting disputes in other states facing similar challenges.
Add comment