Latest news with #BlackAlabamians
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What happened the last time a U.S. president overrode a state to deploy the National Guard
On an unseasonably chilly but sunny day, March 20, 1965, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson stood on the porch of his Texas ranch and read a telegram he had just sent to Alabama Gov. George Wallace. "I am calling into federal service selected units of the Alabama National Guard… to help you meet your state responsibilities," Johnson said. For more than a week, Johnson and Wallace had been going back and forth about the president's concerns for the safety of Black Alabamians trying to exercise their right to vote and peacefully protest police brutality. Wallace, a segregationist, refused to call in his state's National Guard to protect the Black protesters — who had planned a march from Selma to Montgomery — so Johnson did it in his place. To do so, Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, an 18th century law that allows the president to deploy military forces inside the U.S. It's what many legal scholars and democracy watchers believed U.S. President Donald Trump might one day use to clamp down on dissent against his administration's policies. For the first time since Johnson, Trump on Saturday overrode a state's authority and called up its National Guard to quell protests in Los Angeles over recent raids by federal immigration authorities. He sent 2,000 members of the California National Guard into the city on Saturday. But Trump used a more obscure law, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the president to federalize National Guard units in case of an invasion, rebellion, or when police are unable to enforce the country's laws. "It was a bit of a surprise attack," said Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor at Princeton University who specializes in new autocracies. "I think it was something for which Trump's opposition was less well prepared legally." Another law, 1878's Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Title 10 does not override that prohibition, but allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who are carrying out arrests. What has worried legal scholars in Scheppele's circles even more, though, is that Trump's proclamation deploying the National Guard made no mention of California or a specific time period. "There's nothing to prevent him from calling out the National Guard … anywhere else that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has been active or where public protests have arisen against it." Newsom sued the Trump administration on Monday, calling Trump's move "an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism." The biggest difference "between now and 1965 is the degree to which this is basically a manufactured conflict," said Barry Eidlin, an assistant professor of sociology at McGill University, who researches social change in the U.S. and Canada. Sixty years ago, Johnson wanted National Guard troops to "quell a reactionary segregationist counterinsurgency against dissolving federal policy in favour of civil rights for all," he said, newly returned to Montreal from L.A., where his family lives and where he splits his time. "Whereas the current administration is basically trying to rollback civil rights for all." John Carey, a professor of government at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and the co-founder of Bright Line Watch, a group monitoring threats to American democracy, also says Trump is trying to provoke violence. "I think what's actually going on is the president and his administration are trying to bait California state officials and the protesters," he said, adding that immigration is one of the issues on which Trump has the broadest support. "I worry tremendously about the implications of this for American democracy." The idea, Carey and Eidlin say, is that National Guard troops' presence could escalate violence — which already appears to be the case — further justifying federal intervention. Eidlin said Trump wants to create "a rationale for further Draconian crackdowns." He also says California communities are pushing back, citing an email from his children's school district which said no ICE agents would be permitted on school grounds. And in nearby Glendale, that city's police department said Sunday it would no longer allow ICE to detain people at its jail. The day after Johnson deployed Alabama's National Guard, more than 3,000 marchers began their 87-kilometre walk from Selma to Montgomery along Route 80. They walked for four days without interference from white supremacists, law enforcement or vigilantes. By the time they arrived, the march had swelled to around 25,000 people. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "How long, not long" speech on the steps of the State Capitol, calling for racial justice. Later that year, the Voting Rights Act was passed, outlawing voter suppression practices, such as literacy tests and poll taxes.
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
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court rules Alabama congressional map intentionally discriminated against Black voters
Federal judges ruled Thursday that Alabama intentionally discriminated against Black residents when the state disobeyed court orders to draw a second Black-majority congressional district. A three-judge panel said the congressional map drawn by the 2023 Alabama Legislature violated the Voting Rights Act. The judges, which ruled against the state twice before and put a new map in place for last year's elections, have permanently blocked Alabama from using the state-drawn map. The judges said the court does not 'diminish the substantial improvements Alabama has made in its official treatment of Black Alabamians in recent decades. 'Yet we cannot reconcile the State's intentional decision to discriminate in drawing its congressional districts with its position that Alabama has finally closed out its repugnant history of official discrimination involving voting rights,' they added. The court will now consider whether to place Alabama under Provision 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which would require the state to get federal approval of its congressional plans. Following the 2020 census, Alabama made six of its seven districts majority white, despite 27 percent of the state's population being Black. Though the Supreme Court allowed the map to be used in the 2022 midterms, it also upheld the lower court's findings that the map unlawfully diluted Black votes. Despite the rulings, the state Legislature refused to redraw the map to include a second congressional district that would allow Black voters to elect the candidate of their choice. 'This record thus leaves us in no doubt that the purpose of the design of the 2023 Plan was to crack Black voters across congressional districts in a manner that makes it impossible to create two districts in which they have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, and thereby intentionally perpetuate the discriminatory effects of the 2021 Plan,' the judges said Thursday. 'The Legislature knew what federal law required and purposefully refused to provide it, in a strategic attempt to checkmate the injunction that ordered it,' they wrote. Plaintiffs in the case told The Associated Press that the ruling is 'a testament to the dedication and persistence of many generations of Black Alabamians who pursued political equality at great cost.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Court rules Alabama congressional map intentionally discriminated against Black voters
Federal judges ruled Thursday that Alabama intentionally discriminated against Black residents when the state disobeyed court orders to draw a second Black-majority congressional district. A three-judge panel said the congressional map drawn by the 2023 Alabama legislature violated the Voting Rights Act. The judges, which ruled against the state twice before and put a new map in place for last year's elections, have permanently blocked Alabama from using the state-drawn map. The judges said the court does not 'diminish the substantial improvements Alabama has made in its official treatment of Black Alabamians in recent decades. 'Yet we cannot reconcile the State's intentional decision to discriminate in drawing its congressional districts with its position that Alabama has finally closed out its repugnant history of official discrimination involving voting rights,' they added. The court will now consider whether to place Alabama under Provision 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which would require the state to get federal approval of its congressional plans. Following the 2020 census, Alabama made six of its seven districts majority white, despite 27 percent of the state's population is Black. Though the Supreme Court allowed the map to be used in the 2022 midterms, it also upheld the lower courts findings that the map unlawfully diluted Black votes. Despite the rulings, the state legislature refused to redraw the map to include a second congressional district that would allow Black voters to elect the candidate of their choice. 'This record thus leaves us in no doubt that the purpose of the design of the 2023 Plan was to crack Black voters across congressional districts in a manner that makes it impossible to create two districts in which they have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, and thereby intentionally perpetuate the discriminatory effects of the 2021 Plan,' the judges said Thursday. 'The Legislature knew what federal law required and purposefully refused to provide it, in a strategic attempt to checkmate the injunction that ordered it,' they wrote. Plaintiffs in the case told the Associated Press the ruling is 'a testament to the dedication and persistence of many generations of Black Alabamians who pursued political equality at great cost.'
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Redrawn Alabama electoral map intentionally discriminatory, court rules
By Nate Raymond (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."
