That’s the headline of a States Newsroom piece about a Wednesday filing in Alabama’s congressional redistricting litigation.  But I can’t understand why it’s warranted.

It’s true that after a three-judge court’s 571-page opinion (not a typo) a few weeks ago, one of the issues in continuing proceedings is whether Alabama should be put back into preclearance based on its intentional racial discrimination, under the Voting Rights Act’s “bail-in” provision.  A separate issue in continuing proceedings is whether Alabama should have another opportunity to redraw the congressional map, after the 571-page opinion found problems with the legislature’s latest.

The map currently in place is a temporary placeholder drawn by a special master in 2023 for the 2024 election.  Wednesday’s filing resolves the second issue: it says that the legislature has no intent to draw a new map before 2030; pending appeal, the state is fine with leaving the special master’s temporary map in place.  But I have no idea why that decision should have any impact on the issue of bail-in.  In describing the legislature’s conduct to date, the court said “try as we might, we cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamian’s voting strength.”  I don’t know why Wednesday’s filing impacts the strength of that finding – or the consequences of that finding for bail-in — one iota.