Alabama has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to permit the state to use its 2023 congressional redistricting map for the 2026 midterm elections, despite a lower court ruling that the plan intentionally discriminates against Black voters.
The request, filed Wednesday, seeks a stay of an order from a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Birmingham that barred the map from being used. The panel reiterated its earlier finding that the map violates the Constitution by diluting Black votes.
"We again cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than intentionally discriminatory," the panel wrote in its decision. Two of the judges were appointed by President Donald Trump.
The panel's ruling followed instructions from the Supreme Court to reconsider the map in light of the high court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which addressed racial gerrymandering in Louisiana's congressional districts.
Alabama argued in its emergency application that a stay is necessary to avoid being blocked from using the legislatively enacted plan. "A stay is warranted so that Alabama is not again precluded from using its legislatively enacted 2023 Plan based on a decision that defies Callais, manipulates the Purcell principle, and offends the Constitution's promise of equal protection for all," the state said.
The Purcell principle generally cautions courts against altering election rules close to an election date. Alabama maintained that the district court's decision contradicted the Callais ruling and improperly required the state to engage in racial discrimination to create minority opportunity districts.
"Callais vindicates Alabama's position on the lawfulness of the 2023 Plan, yet the district court decided in one week that Callais changed nothing," the filing stated. The state further contended that the lower court had faulted Alabama for not intentionally discriminating in favor of minority voters.
Democrats have viewed the panel's decision as a win in ongoing national battles over redistricting, where Republican-led states have sought to redraw maps to preserve advantages in the House of Representatives.
The controversy stems from Alabama's 2023 redistricting submission, which voting rights advocates and Democratic officials have challenged as failing to provide adequate representation for Black residents, who make up a significant portion of the state's population.
Alabama asked the Supreme Court to rule on the stay request by Monday, June 1, to provide clarity ahead of the midterm cycle.
Legal observers note that the case could influence how states interpret the Callais decision when drawing districts that balance racial considerations with equal protection requirements.
The three-judge panel's order came after it reviewed arguments that the map violated both statutory and constitutional protections against racial vote dilution.
State officials have defended the map as a legitimate exercise of legislative authority that complies with federal law as clarified by the Supreme Court.
According to court records, the panel had previously issued similar findings before the Supreme Court remanded the matter for further consideration following Callais.