Alabama

Delegation and Deprivation: The Struggle Over Judicial Reallocation in Alabama

Election Law Society · January 18, 2023 ·

By Devin Carter

A fight for racial justice has erupted in Alabama. In July 2022 the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (ACLU-AL), alongside the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tiara Hudson, challenging the constitutionality of a decision by the Alabama Judicial Resources Allocation Commission (JRAC) to move a judgeship from the racially diverse Jefferson County to the majority-white Madison County. The JRAC’s vote to move the judgeship happened on the heels of Tiara Hudson’s victory in the Democratic primary election for the office. With no opponent in the general election, Hudson was slated to succeed Judge Clyde Jones to the bench. After Hudson’s primary victory, but before the general election, Judge Jones announced his immediate retirement, creating a vacancy in the seat that Hudson hoped to fill. But rather than fill the vacancy in Jefferson County, the JRAC decided to exercise powers delegated to it by the Alabama legislature to relocate the judgeship to Madison County, thus depriving Hudson of a judgeship and the people of Jefferson County of a judgeship position.

The JRAC’s vote to move the judgeship was split along racial lines, with white voters voting for the relocation and Black voters in opposition. Once the decision was made public, it was met with backlash, as members of the public expressed frustration that a county with a substantial Black population would lose a valuable resource to a majority-white county. The decision also received biting criticism from voting rights advocates, who similarly decried the relocation for depriving the citizens of Jefferson County of fair representation in the judiciary. Hudson released a statement declaring that the rights of people of color to serve their communities must be protected and explained that the sorts of barriers that have been erected to prevent her, and others, from doing so must be eliminated.

Hudson’s words stretch beyond the facts of her own dispute and are applicable to much of the state’s historical voter suppression tactics: the now-unconstitutional Jim Crow-era literacy tests and poll taxes, as well as current controversies such as the state’s voter ID requirement, felony disenfranchisement, and a lack of early voting. These laws have had a disproportionately negative impact on the ability of minority voters to have their political voices heard. This controversy surrounding the transfer of the judgeship could be viewed as a continuation of efforts to dilute the political power of minority voters. Bolstering this view is the fact that, despite the JRAC having possessed the authority to reallocate judgeships since its inception in 2017, it had not exercised this power until now, which stripped a racially mixed jurisdiction of a judgeship shortly before a Black woman was due to fill the seat. In response to these allegations, the JRAC has argued that Jefferson County had an excess of judges, and that the transfer would provide Madison County with a judgeship that it needed.

Hudson’s complaint argued that the power to reallocate vacant judgeships was an unconstitutional delegation of authority from Alabama’s legislature to the commission, and that the governor’s subsequent appointment of a new judge in Madison County was, therefore, unconstitutional. Despite Hudson’s efforts, as well as those of the ACLU-AL and SPLC, an Alabama judge dismissed the case in August 2022. The judge justified the dismissal by claiming that Hudson lacked the standing to sue; the judge further determined that the Alabama legislature had properly delegated its authority when it gave the JRAC the power to reallocate vacant judgeships. Hudson, the ACLU-AL, and SLPC have filed a notice of appeal. ACLU-AL’s legal director, Tish Gotell Faulks, explained that she was seeking clarification regarding the way that judicial resources would be distributed across each of the state’s jurisdictions so that every person in Alabama had access to judges and other legal resources.

Alabama, Amendment 4, & the 2020 Election

Election Law Society · November 18, 2022 ·

By Devin Carter

On November 8, the state of Alabama asked voters to consider an amendment to its constitution, which the state hopes will protect the integrity of its elections. The amendment in question, known as Amendment 4, would require any changes to the state’s election laws to be enacted at least six months prior to the next election in order for those changes to apply. Amendment 4 was proposed in response to the 2020 presidential elections, which were rife with controversy from the numerous changes to election law and procedure that took effect shortly before voters took to the polls.

According to State Representative Jim Carns (R), the proposed amendment is designed to ensure that the general public can have greater confidence in the integrity of the state’s election system. According to Carns, this sort of measure would favor the state’s minority party, because it would prevent the majority party from altering election rules in their favor in the time immediately preceding an election. Despite Carns’s enthusiasm, other state officials are more skeptical about Amendment 4. Representative Ralph Howard (D), for example, argued against the proposed amendment in the Alabama House of Representatives by claiming that it would limit the state’s ability to modify its election laws in the event of a second pandemic. Another representative, Mary Moore (D), argued that the proposed amendment was one of the numerous bills Republican-controlled states have been attempting to pass following their defeat in the 2020 presidential election, expressing skepticism towards Carns’s claim that the amendment would favor the minority Democratic Party instead of Alabama’s Republican majority.

The underlying rationale of Amendment 4 can be traced back to the Purcell principle, which amounts to an argument that courts should refrain from changing election rules during the time that immediately precedes an election. Federal courts have relied on the Purcell principle when they have stayed decisions made by lower courts, which would have otherwise changed a state’s election laws and procedures shortly before an election.

The 2020 election was rife with Purcell concerns, particularly after multiple states changed their election laws in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Twenty-nine states ultimately took measures that expanded voting access in the 2020 election, including the expansion of mail-in voting access and early voting. Many of these changes were implemented through executive orders and local election official action, believed to be justified as necessary due to the nationwide pandemic.

There was subsequently a significant amount of litigation targeting these eleventh hour changes to election procedures; one of the more pervasive arguments against those changes was that they usurped the authority of the state legislature to set the manner of elections. Following his defeat, former president Donald Trump filed numerous election challenges that asserted that the 2020 election was fraudulent, using many of the last-minute changes to support his argument. Despite there being no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 elections, many Republicans echoed Trump’s rhetoric.

Thus, while Alabama’s proposed amendment might have originated from a sincere desire to strengthen and uphold public confidence in the state’s election outcomes, it is also possible that this amendment would be used to ensure that the Republican Party of Alabama can keep a stranglehold on the electoral system and hold onto the levers of power in the state. Alabama Democrats expressed these concerns when they voiced opposition to the amendment. Regardless of the ultimate motive behind the amendment, there is little doubt that the proposed change to Alabama’s election law is a direct result of the immense tensions that arose from the 2020 election, which continue to cast a long shadow over the country’s electoral systems.

Alabama Battles Over Redistricting

Election Law Society · March 18, 2022 ·

By: Shelly Vallone

The Alabama Senate gave final approval for a redistricting plan of Alabama’s congressional districts on November 3, 2021 after Governor Kay Ivey commenced a special reapportionment session on October 28, 2021 to complete the mandatory redrawing of Congressional, State House of Representatives, State Senate, and State Board of Education districts after the 2020 Census. The Senate mostly maintained the status quo, notably preserving the state’s only majority-black Congressional district without adding another. Ahead of the plan’s approval, Alabama state Senators Rodger Smitherman and Bobby Singleton, along with four Alabama voters, filed suit on September 27, 2021, in the United States District Court Northern District of Alabama Southern Division, asking the Court to declare the current districting plan unconstitutional and allow the legislature to remedy the violations ahead of the 2022 elections.

In their amended complaint, filed the day after the Senate’s approval, the plaintiffs argue the plan “was drafted by incumbent members of Alabama’s Congressional delegation to maintain their current districts with only those changes necessary to equalize populations.” The plaintiffs also stress the urgency of their claim in light of the fast-approaching 2022 elections. Candidates seeking nomination in a party primary must file a declaration of candidacy with the state party chairman by January 28, 2022. Therefore, the plaintiffs asked the Court to conduct a final hearing before the end of 2021 to settle whether the plan constitutes a racial gerrymander before the primary elections in May 2022.

Dying to Vote: Merrill v. People First of Alabama

Election Law Society · December 22, 2021 ·

By: Shelly Vallone

“[S]o many of my [ancestors] even died to vote. And while I don’t mind dying to vote, I think we’re past that – we’re past that time,” plaintiff Howard Porter, Jr. told the District Court when he and his co-plaintiffs, other at-risk Alabama voters and associated organizations, filed suit to compel state officials to make absentee and in-person voting more accessible in light of COVID-19. Mr. Porter suffers from asthma and Parkinson’s disease, placing him at higher risk of contracting COVID-19, especially in a public setting.

Alabama Voter ID Law Here to Stay

cpkelliher · November 13, 2020 ·

By: Jeff Tyler

The Eleventh Circuit recently decided a 2015 lawsuit brought against Alabama’s voter photo ID law. The suit – brought by the Alabama NAACP, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and several individual plaintiffs – challenged Alabama’s requirement that all voters must provide photo ID in order to vote. Alabama’s voter photo ID law passed in 2011 with zero support from black legislators, but did not go into effect until 2014. In its lawsuit, the NAACP claimed that the photo ID requirement, as implemented, violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA,” now codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10301).