Ivey won't call special session to redraw Alabama Senate districts after voting rights ruling

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said Friday she will not call a special session to redraw the state's Senate districts, a decision that could leave the redistricting process in the hands of a federal court after a judge ruled the current map violates the Voting Rights Act. Ivey cited the legal and logistical complexities of aligning a new map with both the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution, saying she cannot “justify the time and expense" of such a session. The absence of legislative action potentially opens the door for a court-ordered map, with the federal judiciary ready to step in if lawmakers fail to act.

U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco last month ruled that Alabama’s current Senate map illegally diluted the influence of Black voters around Montgomery, signaling that a new map must be drawn. The judge indicated one path forward would be to create an additional district in Montgomery where Black voters comprise a voting-age majority, or something close to it. The ruling implies that without an adjustment, the state cannot achieve compliance with the Voting Rights Act while maintaining non-discriminatory treatment of voters based on race.

Ivey said the law as it stands places Alabama in a nearly impossible position: protecting some voters based on race without discriminating against others based on race. In her view, this tension makes a special legislative session an impractical use of state resources at a time when the state is appealing the decision. She stressed that the state must pursue a remedy that is lawful and feasible, even as it seeks to overturn or pause the court order.

The decision puts significant leverage in the hands of the federal judiciary. If lawmakers do not promptly draft a map that satisfies the court, Manasco’s order could be implemented under court supervision, effectively shifting the redistricting process from the Legislature to the bench. The ruling, and Ivey’s response, come as Alabama faces ongoing litigation and appeals tied to the Voting Rights Act and the broader question of how to balance race-conscious redistricting with constitutional guarantees against racial discrimination.

Alabama is pursuing an appeal of the court’s order, and state lawyers note that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next month in a closely watched Louisiana redistricting case. That high-stakes matter centers on whether race can be considered in drawing district lines. A ruling in favor of limiting the role of race in redistricting could constrain how Alabama and other states approach future maps, potentially narrowing the tools available to address minority representation while avoiding discriminatory effects.

The legal dispute stretches back to a 2021 lawsuit that argued the Alabama Senate district lines diluted Black citizens’ voting strength. Plaintiffs contended that in Montgomery, Black voters were unnecessarily packed into a single district, curtailing their influence elsewhere, while White voters in Montgomery were concentrated into other districts. Manasco’s ruling echoed a long-standing concern about how district lines can dilute minority voting power, and it underscored the need for a map that increases Black political influence in Montgomery while preserving overall fairness across the state.

The practical consequence of Ivey’s stance is that the state will continue to improvise within the bounds of the current map and its administrative processes while appealing. If the higher court or the federal court does not allow a pause or overturn the order, Alabama could be required to implement a redrawn map on a compressed timeline. The state has emphasized its commitment to lawful redistricting, even as it faces the competing pressures of constitutional requirements and the Voting Rights Act.

Observers note that the forthcoming Louisiana case could have implications far beyond Alabama, potentially shaping how courts assess the role of race in redistricting nationwide. For Alabama, the central question remains how to craft a map that satisfies federal judges, adheres to constitutional protections, and remains politically workable within a state with a long history of contested elections and evolving coalitions.

As the current moment unfolds, Ivey’s decision preserves the risk of ongoing litigation and the possibility of court-guided redistricting. The debate over how to balance minority protections with equal treatment of all voters is unlikely to be resolved quickly, and the timing of any map changes will hinge on the outcomes of ongoing appeals and the next steps in the Louisiana case. In the near term, Alabama’s political and legal actors will monitor federal court rulings closely while continuing to pursue any available avenues to resolve the district maps in a manner consistent with both the Voting Rights Act and constitutional constraints.