Latest news with #AlabamaLegislature
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Back to the Supreme Court: Alabama plans 3rd appeal in congressional redistricting suit
Rep. Napoleon Bracy, D-Prichard (left, at podium), speaks to Rep. Chris Pringle, R-Mobile during a special session on redistricting on Friday, July 21, 2023 in Montgomery, Alabama. (Stew Milne for Alabama Reflector) The Alabama Attorney General's Office plans to go to the U.S. Supreme Court a third time in an ongoing lawsuit over Alabama's congressional districts. The office filed notice of an intent to appeal Friday. Late on Monday, the office and plaintiffs who successfully challenged a 2021 state congressional map said in a court filing they had failed to reach an agreement in the ongoing lawsuit. While the state has indicated it will stick with a court-drawn congressional map that includes two districts with majority or near-majority populations of Black voters, the state and the plaintiffs disagreed on whether the court should oversee any future problems or challenges related to congressional redistricting after the 2030 Census. 'What we've always requested with respect to preclearance is that Alabama be put under preclearance for congressional maps through the post-2030 redistricting cycle, and that's to confirm that there's no backsliding after 2030 with any new district lines that get drawn,' said Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund representing the plaintiffs, in a phone interview Tuesday. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX A three-judge panel in the U.S. Northern District of Alabama, which includes two judges appointed by President Donald Trump, has repeatedly ruled that the 2021 congressional map approved by the Alabama Legislature violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to give Black Alabamians a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred leaders. The panel has cited racial polarization of voting in the state — where white Alabamians tend to support Republicans and Black Alabamians tend to support Democrats — in ordering the state to draw districts that give Black Alabamians the ability to substantially participate in the process. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 twice upheld the lower court rulings. Federal court: Alabama Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters in redistricting Messages seeking comment were left with the offices of the Alabama Attorney General and Secretary of State on Tuesday. 'They're saying they're not going to redistrict before the 2030 census, but they're obviously challenging the map as well, so it's not as if they're giving up,' Ross said. Alabama has until June 16 to file a brief on the position. The plaintiffs will have until June 23 to file a response, and any reply should be filed by June 27. If the three-judge panel decides a hearing is necessary, they will schedule it for July 29. The three-judge panel has repeatedly criticized the Legislature for drawing a map in a 2023 special session that it said did not follow its guidance on drawing congressional districts. The court appointed a special master to draw the map that will now be used for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles, as well as any special election. That map was also used in the 2024 elections, when U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Mobile, won in the 2nd Congressional District last November. That election marked the first time in history that Alabama elected two Black U.S. Representatives at the same time. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The path not taken
Lake Martin outside of Dadeville is seen on May 25, 2025. A nonprofit maintains a trail in and around the lake that is free to the public. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) My wife and I spent the Sunday afternoon of Memorial Day weekend hiking near Lake Martin in Dadeville. From a stunning view of the lake, we walked through a canopied forest with all kinds of rocks, ridges and flora. The trail took us to the lake shore, where we took in the vistas and the $1 million homes all around them. It's a reminder of how many natural jewels we have in Alabama. And it's free. All you have to do is drive there and start walking. No painful real estate investment required. I really needed that reminder after a long and bruising session in the Alabama Legislature. Any session of any lawmaking body anywhere means fighting over bills that could prove helpful or destructive to their interests. We see more of it because Alabama's constitution makes certain the interests of a few powerful elites always take precedence over public concern. Worse, a growing number of lawmakers view themselves less as representatives of their communities than lobbyists for whatever right-wing zealots reside there. So we get bills that could have subjected librarians to criminal prosecutions (not passed); would have required mandatory performances or broadcasts of the Star-Spangled Banner (a constitutional amendment, mind you, also not passed) and allowed local governments to separate men and women for whatever reason they deem fit (that one did pass, and within the first 10 days of the legislative session). Meanwhile, Alabama can't run safe prisons; rural residents struggle to access health care and our lax gun laws have created nation-leading rates of firearm deaths. The Legislature didn't spend nearly the time on these issues that they should have. Lawmakers did pass bills extending Medicaid coverage to pregnant people and making it a state crime to possess devices that convert semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones. Good steps. But just steps. Not the comprehensive, thorough fixes these issues demand. Maybe the political lift is too tough. Perhaps lawmakers don't see them as problems. The prison crisis persists because far too many people think prisoners deserve to live in violence and terror, not thinking about the safety of prison staff or what happens to the rest of us when those people brutalized in the system get out. But there's a larger problem preventing us from finding solutions. Alabama politics has no concept of the common good. We'd live in a much different landscape if it did. For one thing, Alabama's top income earners would pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the bottom income earners, and not the other way around. The no-questions-asked attitude our lawmakers take to any request from Corrections would apply to Medicaid expansion. Right now, that's a nonstarter for most Republicans in the Legislature. Even though it will improve health and create jobs. And even though the state's largest insurer supports a version of it. We wouldn't send $180 million out of public school classrooms for 'nonpublic education purposes.' Most of that will go to private school tuition for the wealthy. Instead, the state might finally overhaul a Jim Crow-era tax system that denies poor and rural school districts adequate resources. Certainly, we wouldn't burn down public safety to satisfy a few paranoid gun owners. Or deny lifesaving health care for transgender youth for a handful of fertility-obsessed weirdos. Or rage at people coming to our state from foreign countries, trying to build better lives. All too often, the state's leaders see policy as a zero-sum game: if this person wins, someone has to lose. If I'm a winner, I need to push someone down. But that's not the case. And we know that from the things Alabama has done right. Expanding Medicaid access for pregnant people will be good for everyone. Doctors will be able to catch and treat more pregnancy complications before they become fatal. Infant and maternal mortality will drop. We have one of the nation's best pre-K programs, thanks in no small part to years of investment in it. One wishes lawmakers wouldn't have stopped the push to make pre-K universal. But it's still changing lives and leading to improved school outcomes around the state. And we have state parks, in Dadeville and elsewhere. Alabama government can help people. And there are issues that lawmakers, even those ostensibly allergic to any kind of government spending, will turn out their pockets for. But all too often, we funnel taxpayer money toward wealthy companies that don't need the help; wealthy families who don't need the help, and an incarceration system that punishes without rehabilitating. These are choices. They are not inevitable. But all too often, our leaders see their jobs as protecting the privileged, not making a government as good as its people, or as inspiring as its landscapes. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Alabama Legislature only passes two immigration bills despite GOP push on issue
Protesters march during a non violent protest in Birmingham, Alabama, U.S., on Saturday February 22, 2025. Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice organized the event for the public to show empathy to immigrants in the wake of all the anti immigration bills currently in legislature. The Alabama Legislature considered several proposals during the 2025 session to place further restrictions on peple without legal status. Photographer: Andi Rice for Alabama Reflector Despite spending a great deal of time on the issue in the 2025 session, the Alabama Legislature only passed two bills targeting those without appropriate authorization to reside in the country. SB 63, sponsored by Sen. Lance Bell, R-Pell City, requires law enforcement in Alabama to take fingerprints and DNA samples of people without the documentation to live in the U.S. and submit them to the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency and the Alabama Department of Forensic Science. SB 53, sponsored by Wes Kitchens, R-Arab, made it a crime, a Class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine, for people to knowingly transport a person without the appropriate documentation to reside in the country into the state. The bill also required county or municipal jail administrators to investigate those placed into custody to determine a person's immigration status and check with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security if the individual was issued an immigration detainer or warrant. 'Many of these bills were created to address problems that don't exist in Alabama,' said Allison Hamilton, executive director of the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice. 'The majority of these bills were copycat bills that were developed at national thinktanks and distributed out to different legislators around the country to implement in their states.' But several other immigration bills stalled before getting a final vote. HB 7, sponsored by Rep. Ernie Yarbrough, R-Trinity, would have allowed state and local law enforcement to enter into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to enforce the country's immigration laws, an authority that currently belongs only to the Alabama Attorney General's Office. The House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee approved the legislation in February, soon after the 2025 session began, but the full chamber did not vote on the measure until April. The legislation did not come to a vote in the full Senate. HB 3, sponsored by Rep. Chip Brown, R-Hollingers Island, would have enhanced penalties for people convicted of felonies if they cannot prove they have legal authorization to be in the U.S. A Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison to a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Those convicted of a Class C felony would have their punishment upgraded to a Class B felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $30,000 fine. People who commit a Class B felony would have their convictions upgraded to a Class A felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison and a $60,000 fine. Individuals found guilty of a Class A felony, the most serious offense, would have had to serve at least 15 years in prison. Other legislation would have made labor brokers register with the Alabama Department of Workforce and must then report the foreign nationals they place with companies through contract work. Another bill, HB 297, sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Fidler, R-Silverhill, would have originally imposed a fee on international wire transfers, often used by immigrants to support families overseas. But the legislation was heavily amended to require reports on certain overseas cash transactions. All the bills eventually stalled in the Senate. One bill attempted to restrict those without proper authorization by limiting their ability to drive in the state. SB 55, sponsored by Sen. Chris Elliott, R-Josephine, would have prohibited people who have a driver's license from another state from driving in Alabama if the state that authorized it did not review a person's legal status. The legislation stalled in the House chamber after it passed the Senate. Legislators from a slate of other states introduced nearly identical legislation, so Hamilton said the bills are not tailored to the problems that residents face in Alabama. 'If they were really trying to address it, there were other bills that other representatives introduced that would have been more effective, but this bill was really about continuing to oppress immigrant communities and make life difficult,' she said.' But those who favor more restrictions said actions are necessary to disincentivize people without appropriate authorization to live in the country. 'The objective here is to present people here with rational choices, and if they believe they are not going to succeed in what they are doing, then they either will not come to the United States at all, or if individual states within the country adopt policies that make it clear they are going to be partners in enforcement, those people will settle elsewhere in the county,' said Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that advocates for immigration legislation like those introduced. Debu Ghandi, senior director for immigration at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, cited a 2020 report from the organization that found undocumented immigrants contribute almost $80 million in federal taxes and $41 billion in state and local taxes each year. They also pay another $315 billion annually nationally through spending. 'Many industries often rely on their hard, and often dangerous, work,' he said. 'Undocumented immigrants, in fact, cannot receive social and Medicare benefits, but they have to pay into these programs through the payroll taxes that they are required to pay even though they are not eligible for the benefits that these programs fund.' Hamilton said there are potential negative consequences of these bills for the state. 'What Alabama would like in that case is a lot fewer workers and a lot fewer people, fewer restaurants, and just a sadder place,' she said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Alabama may pause redistricting efforts until 2030 to avoid federal oversight
The front of Hugo L Black Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama on August 15, 2023. (Jemma Stephenson/Alabama Reflector) The Alabama Attorney General's Office said Wednesday the state may forgo drawing new congressional district maps before 2030 to prevent federal oversight of future redistricting. The state made the argument during a meeting with a three-judge federal panel and attorneys for plaintiffs who successfully challenged two congressional maps drawn by the Legislature in 2021 and 2023 that the panel said earlier this month showed intentional discrimination against Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the panel to consider preclearance under the Voting Rights Act as a possible remedy. Preclearance would require federal approval of any changes to election laws. Alabama was subject to preclearance from 1965 to 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the relevant section of the Voting Rights Act that dictated preclearance for areas with histories of voting discrimination. But the law does allow courts to impose it as a remedy. Less than two hours before Wednesday's hearing, attorneys for the state filed a court document stating that while they 'maintain their arguments about the necessity and constitutionality of any remedial plan,' legislative leaders 'will voluntarily forgo any rights that they may have to attempt to draw an additional congressional district map as part of remedial proceedings in this case.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'We have been talking to the state about the possibility of perhaps resolving some or all of the remedial issues in this case, and that we would like the court to give us an opportunity to continue to have those discussions if they prove fruitful,' said Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund representing the plaintiffs, during the status conference. Federal court: Alabama Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters in redistricting Jim Davis of the Alabama Attorney General's Office said during the status conference that, though subject to appeal, the state agrees that the map drawn by a special master would be the final remedial map. 'There have been a few discussions,' Davis said to the three-judge panel. 'It's possible that it could influence the briefing, possibly even resolve some issues.' A message seeking comment was left Wednesday with the Alabama Attorney General's office. The three-judge panel set a June 9 deadline for parties to file a joint written report on the status of the case and the possibility of resolving outstanding issues, including a request to place Alabama back into federal preclearance. 'Either we're going to sort of settle things and resolve this case, or we're going to continue on with our request for preclearance in this,' Ross said in a phone interview after the status conference. The federal court ruling found that the Alabama Legislature had ignored previous orders to create a congressional map with two districts where Black voters would have a substantial opportunity to elect their preferred candidate. Alabama has had at least one majority-Black U.S. House district – the 7th – since 1992, but plaintiffs argued that it failed to give proper representation to Black Alabamians, who make up about 27% of the state's population but, with a single majority-Black district, only made up 14% of Alabama's U.S. House delegation. The three-judge panel struck down the 2021 map in 2022, ruling that racially polarized voting in Alabama meant that Black Alabamians could not select their preferred leaders. The judges ordered the state to draw a new map, a move the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2023. That summer, the Republican-controlled Legislature approved a map with one majority Black district and one district that was 40% Black. The judges sharply criticized the Legislature and appointed a special master who drew a map where two of Alabama's seven U.S. House districts — the 2nd and the 7th – have majority-Black or near-majority Black populations. This map was used in the 2024 elections, resulting in the first time in history that Alabama elected two Black U.S. Representatives simultaneously. The court Wednesday also provided a hearing schedule for the preclearance issue if a settlement is not reached. The state would file its brief by June 16, and the plaintiffs would have until June 23 to respond. Intervening legislative defendants would have until June 27 to file a reply. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles issues proposed parole guidelines
A prison corridor in Holman Correctional Facility in 2019. The Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles earlier this month issued new parole guidelines shortly after the Alabama Legislature made their funding contigent on their development. (File) The Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles earlier this month published an updated version of parole guidelines, weeks after the Alabama Legislature voted to make the board's funding conditional on their development. The state determines whether a person should be recommended for parole based on a a point system that accumulates based on a person's predicted risk for recidivism and whether that person will endanger the public. If applicants receive a score of at least 8, the guidelines recommend they be denied. Under the proposed guidelines, With the proposed guidelines under consideration, the parole guidelines recommend that people be denied parole if they receive a score of 9 or higher. The changes add weight to the crime committed by the applicant. Based on the current guidelines, those who commit the most severe crimes receive two points, but the updated guidelines increase it to four points. A severe offense using the current guidelines is given two points. That is the same number of points in the proposed guidelines for an offense characterized as moderate. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The new guidelines also use the Ohio Risk Assessment System or the Sex Offender Risk Assessment, which are the same as the current guidelines. However, the updated proposal does not consider a risk assessment from the Alabama Department of Corrections, the institution that most closely tracks the applicant's behavior while incarcerated. Messages seeking comment were left Tuesday with the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles and Sen. Clyde Chambliss, R-Prattville, who chairs the Legislative Joint Prison Oversight Committee, and who has also criticized the parole board. Chambliss introduced the budget amendment that required the board to issue the new guidelines to receive funding. The parole guidelines remain voluntary, and members of the parole board have the authority to deny parole to applicants even though the guidelines recommend they be afforded parole. Some legislators and criminal justice advocates Tuesday had specific problems with some of the criteria, such as weighing the severity of the crime more heavily than in the past to other factors, from a person's age to the risk assessment from the Alabama Department of Corrections. Those considerations were not included in the new guidelines. Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, a longtime critic of the board's relatively low parole rates, said Tuesday the new guidelines seemed aimed at increasing the board's 'conformance rate,' or the frequency at which its decisions align with parole guidelines. The board's rate has been at roughly 20% for the past several years. 'I think it is unfortunate the new guidelines don't take into account all the things that some of the applicants have done in order to gain their freedom,' he said. England also called it 'odd' that Corrections' assessment was not included. 'The Department of Corrections basically allows someone to work unsupervised everyday offsite and leave for 72 hours at a time and earn that trust from the Department of Corrections, that the Board doesn't appear to take that into account,' he said. Others said the guidelines do not capture factors that weigh in the applicants' favor, particularly in the section that measures an applicant's behavior while incarcerated. According to the proposed guidelines, a person can receive points for sanctions for both violent and nonviolent actions known as disciplinaries within the past 12 months. 'There are people who have not gotten any disciplinary infractions for the past 10 years or five years and that hard work will not count in their favor for parole,' said Carla Crowder, executive director of Alabama Appleseed, a criminal justice reform organization. 'The restriction to evaluating only 12 months of institutional behavior then serves as a disincentive to follow the rules over the long term.' Another concern is the re-entry plan. Applicants will receive a penalty totaling either one or two points if they submit a reentry plan that is not complete. But to submit a completed reentry plan, it must include both work and home plans. 'It is very difficult for people to gain employment if they are still incarcerated,' Crowder said, explaining that the lack of a job plan should not count against someone, especially people who have no access to online resources to apply for employment or to reentry staff to assist them in that process. By that logic, applicants will automatically be awarded at least one point counted against them for parole. Critics also say the guidelines penalize applicants if anyone from the public, regardless of whether they are the victim or not, speaks against them. The Alabama Attorney General's Office as well as a staff member from Victims of Crime and Leniency (VOCAL), a victims' rights group, regularly attend the parole hearings to oppose parole. Oftentimes, VOCAL does speak with the applicant and bases their recommendations solely on the person's criminal record. 'Also, all the evidence suggests that a person's chances of committing another crime decreases dramatically with age, and there is no section in the parole guidelines where old age is a factor,' Crowder said. 'This is a missed opportunity.' Criminal justice reform advocates, and more recently legislators, have been increasingly concerned with a dramatic decrease in the number of paroles the board has granted in recent years. There will be a public comment period on the proposed updates for the next month. If a legislator has an issue with the proposals, the person can ask that they be reviewed by the Legislative Council who can either reject them entirely, amend them, or accept them. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
