On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (“the District Court”), which had ruled that the State of Alabama had not engaged in illegal racial gerrymandering in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus et al. v. Alabama et al.

Gerrymandering is a term for redistricting that serves a particular political party or class. The term “gerrymander” comes from the creative redistricting of 19th century Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who rendered districts into salamander-like shapes to his benefit. When officials intentionally redistrict along racial lines, they risk violating the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which protects citizens’ equal rights in voting for elected officials.

An emblematic example which precipitated this case was the redistricting of Alabama’s District 26. District 26 was 72.75% Black, a majority-minority district, and in order to keep its population within a 1% deviation of other districts, they needed to add about 16,000 individuals. Alabama added 15,785 people to the district, of whom only 36 were white.

The Alabama Legislative Caucus and their allies alleged that the State of Alabama committed racial gerrymandering when they redistricted District 26 and other Districts. In jam-packing minorities into a majority-minority district which already can elect candidates of choice with a safe margin, the voting power of minorities throughout the state is weakened.

The State of Alabama claims that even if it did redistrict along racial lines (which it denies), it only did so to conform to the standards of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to protect voters from discrimination based on color and race. It requires, among other things, that changes to voting structures and procedures do not cause regression in a minority’s power to elect the candidates of its choice.

The District Court determined that the State of Alabama had not committed a racial gerrymander for several reasons, including that, if it had made redistricting determinations based on a racial basis, it had only done so to preserve the voting power of the minority in majority-minority districts, as required by the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court rejected the District Court’s decision for several reasons, particularly that District Court and the State of Alabama had incorrectly interpreted the relevant parts of the Voting Rights Act. The Court remanded the case to the District Court, which will now have to take into account a different interpretation of the Voting Rights Act.

This is an important decision which not only may lead to overturning a possibly unconstitutional voting structure in Alabama, but will also create a clearer rule for applying the Voting Rights Act in the future. The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus claims that the State of Alabama’s use of the Voting Rights Act actually hurts minority voters. If, under the guidance of this decision, the District Court this time determines that Alabama did engage racial gerrymandering, this decision will have been instrumental in upholding the spirit of the law of the Voting Rights Act.