Who Holds the Lines
Alabama’s congressional map is before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the state is pressing the justices to allow it to use the 2023 congressional map approved by its legislature. The fight is not about some abstract civic principle; it is about who gets to draw the lines, who gets boxed in by them, and which court gets the final say when the machinery of representation is already in motion.
Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation Friday that would require the governor to call special primary elections for affected U.S. House districts if the Supreme Court allows the state to use district lines the legislature approved in 2023 but has been blocked from using. Ivey also signed similar legislation involving state Senate districts approved in 2021. The state is preparing for elections around maps that are still trapped in legal limbo, with ordinary people left to wait while institutions argue over the shape of power.
In a statement, Ivey said, “With this special session successfully behind us, Alabama now stands ready to quickly act, should the courts issue favorable rulings in our ongoing redistricting cases,” and added, “I thank the Legislature for answering my call to address the issue in fast order. I am grateful to Speaker Ledbetter and Pro Tem Gudger for their strong leadership and focus this week. Alabama knows our state, our people and our districts best.”
The Courtroom as Gatekeeper
A federal court on Friday denied an emergency motion for a stay in the congressional redistricting case, saying, “Quite simply, we do not have the authority to issue an order that upends Alabama's status quo, especially in the middle of an election, while our injunction establishing that status quo is well under review in the nation's highest court.” That is the apparatus in plain language: the court says it cannot move because another court is already holding the line, and the election rolls on under the weight of the injunction.
State Attorney General Steve Marshall said Friday, “I will continue to fight for Alabama to be able to use the congressional map the people’s elected representatives enacted.” He also said, “Alabama drew a map based on lawful policy goals, not race, and the Supreme Court’s recent ruling vindicates that approach. We were punished for doing the right thing, and we are asking the Court to correct that now.” The language of “the people’s elected representatives” and “lawful policy goals” is doing a lot of work here, while the actual dispute remains over who gets represented and under what lines.
The case comes as the Supreme Court has already halted an order for Alabama to use a U.S. House map with two largely Black districts. That earlier order and the current review show how the highest court can freeze a political map in place and decide, for now, what kind of representation is allowed to exist.
What the State Calls Order
The state’s redistricting fight is part of a broader dispute over congressional boundaries and the role of the Supreme Court in determining them. Alabama’s legislature approved the congressional map in 2023, and the state Senate districts were approved in 2021. Now the state is asking the court to let those lines stand, while also preparing special primary elections if the justices say yes.
The result is a familiar one: decisions made at the top, consequences pushed downward, and the public told to treat the whole thing as normal governance. The legislature acts, the governor signs, the attorney general pleads, the federal court defers, and the Supreme Court sits above it all as the final referee of who gets counted and how.
Ivey said Alabama knows “our state, our people and our districts best.” The courts, meanwhile, are deciding whether Alabama gets to use the map its legislature approved in 2023, whether the earlier order for two largely Black districts stays halted, and whether the state can move ahead with special primaries under the rules now being assembled around the dispute.