For those of us living in blue states, it’s shocking that bald-faced racism continues to impugn the integrity and legality of state legislature decisions in some red states, such as Alabama, in 2023. Jim Crow is indeed alive and well there, as Joyce Vance explains in her Substack article below.

Joyce Alene White Vance is an American lawyer who served as the United States attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017. She was one of the first five U.S. attorneys, and the first female U.S. attorney, nominated by President Barack Obama. She is also an MSNBC columnist and NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst as well as a law professor at the University of Alabama School of Law.

Joyce is worth reading as she gives expert legal analysis of everything happening in these times. You can subscribe to her Substack articles at https://joycevance.substack.com/.

Joyce explains in her posting today (July 23, 2023) that the racism of the Alabama State Legislature is so brazen and so obvious and so illegal (based on direct Supreme Court rulings and established law) that one wonders how it is that each member of the Republican dominated legislature of that state isn’t charged with contempt of court and violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It also makes one wonder what the Congress of the United States would look like if an anti-Gerrymandering bill were ever to pass Congress and be signed by the President.

I was stunned by what Joyce wrote today, and so decided to share it with you here. She writes:

“Republicans in the Alabama Legislature refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision that the redistricting maps drawn by Alabama’s legislature violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and should be redrawn to create two districts where Black voters would have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Instead, they approved, yet again, a map with only one district where Black voters are in the majority. The newest map also has the fringe benefit of protecting the state’s six white Republican incumbent Congressman. None of them will have to face another of their number in a primary, as two of them would have had to do if a map that comported with the Supreme Court’s decision had been selected.

The Court was explicit. It held that “any remedial plan will need to include two districts in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.” That’s because of the disconnect between the results of the 2020 census and Alabama’s near-tradition of diluting Black citizens’ voting power by gerrymandering as many of them as possible into one disingenuously drawn district, while spreading the remainder throughout Alabama’s other six Congressional districts in numbers too small to have a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome of elections. The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama’s Black population was large enough and geographically compact enough to create a second majority Black district. But the GOP-led legislature ignored the Supreme Court’s dictates and kept one majority Black district, while adding in a second one that didn’t even reach 40%. 40% doesn’t seem “quite close” to a majority.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement that said, “This map, and the Republican politicians who supported it, would make George Wallace proud.” He pointed out the Legislature ignored its job after the Court’s ruling—ensuring Black Alabamians’ voting rights were protected—and focused on how to preserve the old system.

Now, the matter will head back to the courts, where a three-judge panel decides whether to approve the legislature’s map. Their likely move at this juncture is to reject the legislature’s map and appoint a special master to draw a new one. But how will they address the legislature, which is, of course, an independent branch of a state government? How the court handles the matter and how swiftly justice is dispensed, including any appeals, is critical with the next round of federal elections just around the corner. While they might seem far off, the Alabama primary is in March of 2024 and candidates are required to declare by November 10, 2023. That means the districts must be shaped by then so potential candidates can decide if and where to run. Unlike 2022, when maps that have now been disallowed remained in place, the 3-judge panel, and perhaps ultimately the Supreme Court if there is another appeal, will have the job of swiftly restoring rights.

The courts should condemn, in no uncertain terms, the legislature’s flagrant disobedience of the Supreme Court’s legal ruling and craft a path forward that prevents the hyper-partisan legislature from continuing to bypass Black voters’ rights. Alabama’s Republican Attorney General, Steve Marshall, said in June when the case was decided that he expected to continue his defense of the maps the Supreme Court rejected. “Although the majority’s decision is disappointing, this case is not over,” Marshall said in a statement, implying he wanted to have a full trial before he gave up. That’s not how the Supreme Court saw it, and the question now is whether the courts will stand for the principle that what the Supreme Court says is the law of the land, or whether Alabama will get away with the shell game it’s trying to play with Black voters’ rights.

How the courts handle this matter will either reinforce or erode confidence in them and in our system of government. A lot will rest on the decisions that are made. They must be made soon.

There are also other matters, with less of a public profile, that contribute to the public’s confidence in the courts. One of those matters is also taking place in Alabama. Patrick Braxton filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that after being elected as the first Black mayor of Newbern, Alabama, the existing mayor, town leaders and others took steps to prevent him from taking office, reappointing the previous mayor in a secret meeting and using their power to prevent Braxton from performing his duties, even using the postmaster to prevent him from obtaining city mail. Braxton says that the town hasn’t held an election for decades, and that the job of mayor passed during this time from one official to a hand-picked successor. The new mayor would then appoint council members of his choice, without holding elections. Newbern, which is about 85% Black, had never had a Black mayor before Braxton and only one Black town council member.

How quickly will the courts move to address this situation? The defendants have already filed a response, in which they concede many of Braxton’s key allegations. They’ve asked the court to dismiss his lawsuit. This case is shocking, more 1950s than 2020s, and we would expect, in an effectively functioning system, to see the court promptly address the situation to restore a lawfully elected official. This one is worth watching. In this country, we are entitled to elect our leaders, and the courts are charged with making sure election results are carried out. That’s their job here in a mostly unlikely place.”