Term: 2014
Docket: 13-895
Ala. Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama
- Pro
13-895 ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS V. ALABAMA DECISION BELOW: 2013 WL 6925681 PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 2 PRESENTED BY THE STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION IN 13-895 AND QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION IN 13-1138. CONSOLIDATED WITH 13-1138 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. JURISDICTION NOTED 6/2/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether a state violates the requirement of one person, one vote by enacting a state legislative redistricting plan that results in large and unnecessary population deviations for local legislative delegations that exercise general governing authority over counties. 2. Whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2:12-cv-691, 2:12-cv-1081
The U.S. Supreme Court case Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (2014) revolved around the issue of racial gerrymandering in redistricting plans for the state's House and Senate, which were alleged to have been drawn with an unconstitutional racial bias. The plaintiffs, including the Alabama Democratic Conference and the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, argued that these plans packed black voters into certain districts thereby diluting their influence elsewhere in violation of Section 2 of Voting Rights Act and Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The District Court had upheld these plans stating they aimed at maintaining a specific percentage target for minority populations within each district rather than race being predominant factor influencing boundaries' design. However, on appeal, SCOTUS vacated this decision by a vote of 5-4 ruling that lower court erred by focusing on statewide impact instead individual districts while assessing claims about racial gerrymandering.
In the dissenting opinion for ALA. LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS v. ALABAMA, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, argued that the majority misapplied precedent regarding racial gerrymandering claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They contended that such claims should be district-specific rather than statewide in nature as held by the majority. The dissenters also criticized the majority's decision to remand back to lower courts for further proceedings instead of affirmatively ruling on whether Alabama's redistricting plan was racially discriminatory or not. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much deference should be given to state legislatures in drawing district lines while considering race among other factors.
