“Hearings over the new map kicked off in federal court in Alabama on Monday, and the state is once again arguing that it is not illegally diluting the power of Black voters. This week’s hearing will be crucial to determining if the fight wraps up quickly — or stretches on for potentially years to come.
“It’s not an academic exercise. The court’s decision could have significant ramifications nationally; Democrats could pick up an additional seat in Congress where they are a handful of seats shy of a majority, and the fight could ultimately make its way back to the Supreme Court. A second majority-Black district in the state would likely lead to a second Democratic representative as well. …
“During Monday’s hearing, all three of the judges on the panel questioned if Alabama was ignoring the court. Federal District Court Judge Terry F. Moorer, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, pointedly asked if Alabama had chosen to “deliberately disregard” their instructions when drawing the new map, the Associated Press reported. …
“Republicans argue that the new map they redrew effectively resets the clock for litigation. The defendants acknowledge in a brief that the court “opined” that there should be two majority-Black voting districts, or close to that. But, they argue, that act of the legislature redrawing the map effectively starts the process of challenging the lines over — especially because the legislature prioritized keeping specific “communities of interest” together in 2023, which they say was a change from the 2021 map the court previously stuck down.
“Attorneys for the plaintiffs reject that assertion, arguing that by allowing the state to name new redistricting principles as they redraw would amount to giving ‘the state infinite bites at the apple. …
“The three-judge panel that ordered the state to redraw the maps in the first place seems unlikely to buy this argument from Republicans. In addition to the questioning in the court on Monday, in an earlier order, the judges wrote that the court is “not at square one” and would not “relitigate” the likely violation of the Voting Rights Act.”