Redrawn Alabama electoral map intentionally discriminatory, court rules
(Reuters) -A federal court ruled on Thursday that Alabama's Republican-led legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters when it approved a new electoral map in 2023 that only had one majority-Black congressional district.
In a 571-page ruling, a three-judge panel sharply criticized state lawmakers for drawing up a congressional map that mirrored one from 2021 that the judges and the U.S. Supreme Court had already concluded diluted the voting power of Black Alabamians in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Rather than comply with a court order that the state craft a new map that include at least two majority-Black districts, the panel said the legislature "simply doubled down – it passed another map with only one Black-opportunity district."
The panel, which included two judges appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, said it was unaware of a state legislature ever having responded to a court order in litigation over electoral maps in such a way.
"The Legislature knew what federal law required and purposefully refused to provide it, in a strategic attempt to checkmate the injunction that ordered it," the panel wrote.
The judges had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking Alabama from using that new map defining the boundaries of its seven U.S. House of Representatives districts and subsequently required the state to use a court-approved map that had two Black-majority districts in the 2024 election.
Voters subsequently for the first time in the state's history picked two Black representatives by re-electing Representative Terri Sewell and voting into office Representative Shomari Figures. Both are Democrats.
Lawyers for Black voters and advocacy groups who challenged Alabama's map then asked to block the state's map from being used for the rest of the decade.
U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, and U.S. District Judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer, agreed to do so, saying the map not only still violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act but also the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.
Deuel Ross, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the Legal Defense Fund, in a statement said the ruling "reaffirms the rule of law and the importance of protecting the fundamental right to vote of Black Alabamians in the Black belt and all Americans."
A spokesperson for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, said his office is reviewing the order, adding that "all options remain on the table."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
Lawsuit challenges California affordable housing programs after Supreme Court ruling
East Palo Alto, like cities across California, has a law on the books that forces developers of new housing projects to foot the bill for the state's shortage of affordable homes. New residential projects need to set aside a share of the units they plan to build for lower-income renters and homeowners under the terms of the city's 'inclusionary zoning' ordinance. Builders who refuse have to instead pay a fee, ranging from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. An East Palo Alto homeowner filed a lawsuit in federal court on Thursday challenging the constitutionality of that law, likening it to 'extortion' — and he had a little help from the U.S. Supreme Court. The implications of the lawsuit range far beyond the Bay Area. A 2017 report estimated that 149 cities and counties across California have some form of inclusionary zoning rule, though the specific terms vary. That makes it one of the most commonly used affordable housing programs both in California and in the country. Now all that may be on the constitutional chopping block. The case was filed in federal court in San Francisco by Wesley Yu, a husband and father between jobs, who was planning to build a home and backyard guest cottage for himself and his extended family on a neighboring parcel. Because Yu was planning to construct two new structures, the city's inclusionary zoning rules kicked in, requiring him to either sell or rent out one of the units at 'affordable' rates or to pay a one-time fee of $54,891 to be deposited in the city's affordable housing subsidy fund. The core of Yu's lawsuit, which was filed by the libertarian-oriented Pacific Legal Foundation, draws on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last year that also emerged from a heated California housing dispute. That case was brought by Placerville septuagenarian, George Sheetz, who contested that the government of El Dorado County had not done enough to justify the $23,420 traffic fee it placed on his home construction project. Sheetz's case drew on the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which puts limits on when the government can take private property. Decades of court rulings have said that if a local government wants to base approval of a construction permit on certain conditions, those conditions have to directly relate to the costs associated with the development. A city, for example, might be able to hold off on approving a new dump until a developer pays an environmental clean up fee, but not a fee to fund local arts and recreation. Courts have also ruled that such 'exactions' on private development should be 'roughly proportionate' to their cost. That is, the $23,420 that El Dorado County wanted to impose on Sheetz should match the cost of fixing the wear and tear his new home would leave on local roads. The Supreme Court agreed that these standards ought to apply to the impact fee. Now Yu and his legal team are asking a federal judge to apply that same rule to inclusionary zoning. For East Palo Alto's program to pass constitutional muster, the city would have to show that the $54,891 fee or the requirement to set aside new units at a discount relates to and matches the cost that Yu's development would impose upon the city. The city won't be able to show that, said David Deerson, the lead lawyer representing Yu. 'New residential development doesn't have a negative impact on housing affordability. If anything, it has a positive impact,' he said. A growingbodyofeconomicresearch has indeed found that local market-rate development puts downward pressure on neighborhood and city-wide rents. Affordable housing in California zoning In the past, California courts have ruled that the high constitutional bar set by the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to inclusionary zoning programs like the one in East Palo Alto. Requiring private developers to toss in some added affordable housing isn't an 'exaction,' the courts have found, but a standard land-use restriction akin to any other zoning rule. Whether a city decides it needs more schools, apartment buildings, businesses or, in the case of inclusionary zoning, affordable housing, it has broad power under the constitution to 'decide, for the good of the general welfare, that we're going to require this,' said Mike Rawson, director of litigation at the Public Interest Law Project. The state Supreme Court ruled as such most recently in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to weigh in, a tacit approval. 'They can always change their mind,' said Rawson. 'I don't see a basis for it, though obviously that doesn't necessarily stop them.' The composition of the court has changed since 2015, veering sharply to the right. The Sheetz decision from last year has offered new fodder for legal challenges to inclusionary zoning. 'Sheetz really helps out here a lot' in that campaign, said Deerson. He pointed to other challenges in Denver and Teton County, Wyoming. 'I would expect them to keep coming.' Tradeoffs in housing policy If and when the nation's highest court takes up the issue of inclusionary zoning, it will be wading into one of the more politically charged debates in housing policy. Evidence on the impact of these laws is mixed. Requiring private developers to build affordable units can and regularly does result in more local housing options for lower income tenants at no additional cost to taxpayers. By putting affordable and market-rate units side-by-side, they also promote economic and racial integration, supporters argue. But inclusionary requirements can also make any given housing project less profitable, meaning that fewer units get built, leading to higher prices and rents overall. In housing markets, like California's, that see relatively little new development, the rate at which these programs add designated affordable units to the housing stock is also quite slow. That policy debate isn't relevant to the legal case, which will be fought and won over abstract constitutional principles. But for libertarian-leaning groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation, building industry groups and many 'Yes In My Backyard' housing development advocates, an end to inclusionary zoning would be a win on both fronts. 'In addition to being illegal, I think that these inclusionary zoning policies are also frankly stupid,' said Deerson. ___ This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
Post to Coast: New York Post plans a California newspaper
NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Post is launching a California tabloid newspaper and news site next year, the company announced Monday, bringing an assertive, irreverent and conservative-friendly fixture of the Big Apple media landscape to the Golden State. In the process, it is creating a 21st-century rarity: a new American newspaper with a robust print edition. Adding another title to Rupert Murdoch 's media empire, The California Post is setting out to cover politics, local news, business, entertainment and sports in the nation's most populous state, while drawing and building on the venerable New York paper's national coverage. Plans for the Los Angeles-based paper call for a print edition seven days a week plus a website, social media accounts and video and audio pieces. 'There is no doubt that the Post will play a crucial role in engaging and enlightening readers, who are starved of serious reporting and puckish wit,' Robert Thomson, chief executive of Post corporate parent News Corp., said in a statement. In typically brash and punchy Post fashion, he portrayed California as plagued by 'jaundiced, jaded journalism.' It enters at a bumpy moment for its industry However bold its intentions, the venture is being launched into a turbulent atmosphere for the news business, particularly for print papers. More than 3,200 of them have closed nationwide since 2005, according to figures kept by Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism. The online world spawned new information sources and influencers, changed news consumers' tastes and habits and upended the advertising market on which newspapers relied. 'While it's true the media landscape is challenging, The New York Post has been finding success through its unique voice, editorial lens and quality coverage. That same formula is tailor-made for California,' said the New York Post Media Group. It includes the Post and some other media properties. California, with a population of nearly 40 million, still has hundreds of newspapers, including dailies in and around Los Angeles and other major cities. But the nation's second-most-populous city hasn't had a dedicated tabloid focused on regional issues in recent memory, according to Danny Bakewell, president of the Los Angeles Press Club. 'It's really an untested market here,' said Bakewell, who is editor-in-chief of the Los Angeles Sentinel, a weekly focused on the city's Black population. 'L.A. is always ready for good-quality news reporting, and particularly in this moment when so many other papers are shrinking and disappearing, it could be a really unique opportunity.' The Post is a unique beast There is no U.S. newspaper quite like the 224-year-old New York Post. It was founded by no less a luminary than Alexander Hamilton, the country's first treasury secretary, an author of the Federalist Papers, the victim of a duel at the hands of the vice president and the inspiration for the Broadway smash 'Hamilton.' Murdoch, News Corp.'s founder and now its chairman emeritus, bought the Post in 1976, sold it a dozen years later, then repurchased it in 1993. The Post is known for its relentless and skewering approach to reporting, its facility with sensational or racy subject matter, its Page Six gossip column, and the paper's huge and often memorable front-page headlines — see, for example, 1983's 'Headless Body in Topless Bar.' At the same time, the Post is a player in both local and national politics. It routinely pushes, from the right, on 'wokeness' and other culture-war pressure points, and it has broken such political stories as the Hunter Biden laptop saga. The Post has an avid reader in President Donald Trump, who gave its 'Pod Force One' podcast an interview as recently as last month. In recent years, the Post's website and such related sites as have built a large and far-flung digital audience, 90% of it outside the New York media market, according to the company. With the Los Angeles readership second only to New York's, The California Post 'is the next manifestation of our national brand,' Editor-in-Chief Keith Poole said in a statement. He'll also be involved in overseeing the California paper with its editor-in-chief, Nick Papps, who has worked with News Corp.'s Australian outlets for decades, including a stint as an L.A.-based correspondent. The company didn't specify how many journalists The California Post will have. ___ Associated Press writer Jake Offenhartz contributed from Los Angeles.
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
FACT FOCUS: Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible
Days after he sent letters instructing top pharmaceutical manufacturers to use a 'most favored nation' pricing model for prescription drugs, President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had cut costs by up to 1,500%. But Trump's grandiose claim is mathematically impossible. Here's a closer look at the facts. TRUMP: 'You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don't mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.' THE FACTS: This is false. Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications. The Trump administration has taken steps to lower prescription drug prices, but experts say there's no indication costs have seen such a massive drop. Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Center, called Trump's claim 'total fiction' made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around. 'I find it really difficult to translate those numbers into some actual estimates that patients would see at the pharmacy counter,' said Mariana Socal, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University who studies the U.S. pharmaceutical market. She added that Trump's math is 'really hard to follow.' Asked what Trump was using to back up his claim, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: 'It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people.' The White House provided a chart of price differentials for drugs in the U.S. and comparable countries, but did not offer any other evidence. On Sunday, Trump also described cuts to drug prices as a future development, not that already happened. 'So we'll be dropping drug prices,' he said. 'It will start over the next two to three months by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400%.' Prices for most prescription drugs — unbranded generics are the exception — are higher in the U.S. than they are in other high-income countries. This is in large part due to the way drug prices are negotiated in the United States. Trump made his recent appeal in letters to 17 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the White House announced last week. He asked them to reduce costs in the U.S. by matching the lowest prices of prescriptions drugs in other comparably developed countries. Some drugmakers have since indicated that they are open to cutting costs. This move follows an executive order Trump signed in May setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices in the U.S. or face new limits in the future over what the government will pay. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It's unclear what — if any — impact the Trump administration's efforts will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. Socal pointed out that if drug manufacturers had cut costs to the extent Trump claims, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, especially given the heat they've taken over the years for their pricing practices. 'My expectation would be that they would make announcements — public announcements — and that those announcements would come way in advance of the actual effective dates when those price cuts would come into effect,' she said. Joyce agreed that there has been no indication of a substantial cut. 'Not at all, not at all, none whatsoever,' he said. 'And let alone 1,500.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:
