Federal Judges Weigh Preclearance After Alabama Dilutes Black Voting Power
Federal judges on Tuesday pressed Alabama officials over a request to reimpose preclearance—a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)—on the state after courts found it intentionally diluted the voting power of Black residents in its congressional map.
The case stems from a successful lawsuit by Black voters and civil rights groups that led to the creation of a new map for the 2024 elections, including a second majority-Black district. The plaintiffs now want a three-judge panel to require that any new congressional maps drawn over the next seven years undergo federal review.
“There is no question what happened in this case was extraordinary,” said Deuel Ross, attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. He argued that Alabama’s repeated defiance showed a “pattern of resistance” and warned that without oversight, the state could “backslide.”
The preclearance provision, once mandated for states with histories of racial discrimination, was gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, which deemed the formula for determining covered states unconstitutional. Plaintiffs now seek to trigger the VRA’s “bail-in” provision as an alternative.
Alabama’s Solicitor General Edmund LaCour Jr. pushed back, calling preclearance an “extraordinary remedy” only justified after multiple legal violations.
“That test is not satisfied here,” LaCour told the court.
But U.S. District Judge Terry Moorer challenged that logic:
“The best way to predict what someone will do is to look at what they’ve been doing,” Moorer said. “Hasn’t the state shown us who they are?”
LaCour replied that the current case differs from the deliberate evasion of the courts seen in the 1960s.
“An attempt to persuade a court is far different than an attempt to evade a court,” he said.
The same panel of judges permanently blocked the state’s 2023-drawn map in May, finding that it failed to comply with their earlier order to draw two districts that provide Black voters with a fair opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. The state is appealing that decision.
The revised map used in 2024 led to the election of Shomari Figures, Alabama’s first Black representative in the newly drawn District 2.
Speaking to Alabama Public Radio’s “Notebook,” Figures reflected on the legal uncertainty:
“The Supreme Court could have gone either way,” he said. “This is just another example of how unpredictable the courts can be.”
Despite the ongoing litigation, Figures said he remains focused on representing his constituents—though he acknowledged the 2026 election could take place under different boundaries.
“You never know what’s going to happen,” he added. “I try not to be distracted by that and just focus on the work.”
The court has not yet indicated when it will rule on the preclearance request, but its decision could have sweeping implications for voting rights enforcement nationwide.
Texas: Lawmakers Flee State Over GOP Mid-Decade Map Push
Meanwhile, Texas Republicans are advancing a rare mid-decade congressional redistricting plan, backed by former President Donald Trump, aimed at creating five additional GOP-leaning U.S. House districts. To block the move, more than 50 Democratic lawmakers fled the state, traveling to Illinois and elsewhere to deny the two-thirds quorum required in the Texas House. House Democrats argued:
“We’re not walking out on our responsibilities; we’re walking out on a rigged system.”
In response, Gov. Greg Abbott and legislative leaders issued civil arrest warrants, imposed $500-per-day fines, and even sought federal help to locate the lawmakers as they remain out of state. Texas officials argue that absent members are violating their duty and blocking disaster relief legislation, as well as the redistricting plan.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton echoed this, saying he is “prepared to do everything in my power to hold them accountable because these liberal lawmakers are not above the law.” However, the warrants are considered largely symbolic, as they only apply within state lines.
In defense of their actions, Texas Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu stated, “We’re not walking out on our responsibilities; we’re walking out on a rigged system that refuses to listen to the people we represent.” Another Democratic representative, Joe Moody, provided a powerful critique of the proposed maps, saying, “The effect of these maps is that now a Black person is worth only one-fifth. I guess I should feel lucky because people who look like me are worth at least one-third. We are truly doing worse in 2025 Austin than in 1787 Philadelphia.”
Legal experts warn that these new districts, which would make 30 of 38 seats lean GOP based on Trump’s 2024 performance, could face lawsuits alleging violation of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Latino and Black representation.
Why It Matters
• Alabama’s case centers on whether federal oversight remains necessary to prevent racial discrimination in map drawing.
• Texas’s showdown illustrates how political parties may leverage state powers—like quorum rules, arrest authority, and fines—to block or force through major electoral changes.
Both states are at the epicenter of a broader national debate: Should redistricting remain a partisan tool, or should maps safeguard equitable representation? The outcomes in Alabama and Texas are poised to shape that conversation heading into the critical 2026 midterms.