⭐ Start off 2025 with a powerful boost to your portfolio: January’s freshest AI-picked stocksUnlock stocks

U.S. justices weigh racially charged Alabama redistricting plan

Published 11/12/2014, 12:17 PM
Updated 11/12/2014, 12:20 PM
U.S. justices weigh racially charged Alabama redistricting plan

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared unsure how to resolve a challenge to a state legislature redistricting plan in Alabama that packed black voters into certain districts in a way that critics say diminishes their influence at the polls.

The nine justices heard an 70-minute oral argument on two cases brought by the Alabama Democratic Conference and the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus against the redistricting by the Republican-controlled state legislature in 2012.

The case centers on the practice known as gerrymandering in which election districts are drawn in a way to provide one party an advantage in as many districts as possible while consolidating the other party's voters into as few as possible.

Democrats say Alabama, a state with a past history of erecting hurdles for black voters, violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law by concentrating black voters, who tend to vote Democratic, into a small number of districts.

Several justices appeared sympathetic to the state in part because it had to consider race to some extent to comply with the Voting Rights Act, a federal law aimed at protecting minority voting rights.

But some also seemed to favor sending the case back to a lower court for further proceedings on the technical question of whether the plaintiffs' allegations needed to be more specific. It seems unlikely the court will throw out the redistricting plan outright.

Chief Justice John Roberts summed up the complex nature of the case when he noted that Alabama faced the difficult task of considering race in a limited way in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act while not going so far as to be accused of packing the black vote into minority districts.

The state had to aim for "the sweet spot between the two extremes," Roberts said.

A federal court upheld the new plan in a December 2013 ruling.

This is the first voting rights case to be heard by the high court since its June 2013 ruling that struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which is the provision Alabama was bound by when coming up with its plan.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

The cases are Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama and Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1138 and 13.895.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2025 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.