A Special Session for Special Primaries We Actually Don’t Need

Last Wednesday, the State of Alabama lost its collective mind. Went into a tizzy. Had an acute attack of The Vapors.

I blame SCOTUS. If they’d dropped the ruling in Callais back in February (as they were rumored at the time to be ready to do), we could have avoided much of this drama. Ditto if they’d waited until June. But, the Liberal Ladies of the Court, so the rumors say, slow-walked their dissent until last week, to make it as difficult as possible for Red States to apply the majority decision in this cycle.

I have to give them this — their timing was impeccable. They could hardly have wrecked any more chaos, which was almost certainly their intent.

So…The Vapors all ‘round in the Heart of Dixie. Calls for a Special Session and a redraw of the maps, May 19 primary be damned! A Governor that initially refused, a flurry of motions from the SecState and AG, and then on Friday?

MeeMaw proclaimed a Special Session to “consider legislation to provide for a special primary election for electing members of the United States House of Representatives and the Alabama State Senate in districts whose boundary lines are altered by a court issuing a judgment, vacating an injunction, or otherwise ordering or permitting an alteration in the boundaries of such districts.”

NOT to redraw the maps. Not do anything else (except after a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, as the law allows). In effect, Ivey ordered the session to consider last session’s SB23, introduced by Sen. Garlan Gudger (R-Cullman), that languished and died on the Senate calendar just a few weeks ago.

Of course, everybody knows it’s all about the maps — specifically the Congressional and State Senate maps that have been under litigation for years now.

Here’s the sticking point: Callais effectively knocked the legs out from under the lower court's reasoning in ordering the maps that were going to be used this cycle. If SCOTUS agrees quickly, then an immediate redraw is possible. And, since Republicans are still fuming over the Milligan case that forced a second minority-majority district on the State?

Here we are. And, here’s what’s likely going to happen:

The Special Session will gavel in, an equivalent bill to SB23 will be introduced, debated, passed and sent to the Governor. And then….

We wait.

The Legislature will likely adjourn with no clear date to return, preserving what’s left of the Special Session until SCOTUS rules on Marshall’s and Allen’s motions. That’s all they can do, really. No new maps can be drawn (officially) until and unless SCOTUS gives us the go. (Yeah, the maps have totally been drawn already. Don’t kid yourself.)

Assuming SCOTUS follows Callais and rules in Alabama’s favor, then the Legislature returns, “redraws” the maps, sets a new primary date, and taps the General Fund to pay for it.

It’s that last bit that bothers me.

It strikes me as generally unfair to soak every Alabama taxpayer for the cost of additional primaries (and runoffs) for what are obviously purely political purposes.

Shouldn’t it be just the Republicans who bear the cost of this? After all, they’re the ones who want it. They’re the ones who will benefit from it.

Fortunately, there is a way for the Republican Party to get nominees for these new districts at their own expense: a nominating convention.

Title 17 of the Code of Alabama has all the details — that it’s allowed, how it has to be done, everything, in various places like §17-13-42, §17-13-50 and §17-9-3.

It’s been done before — 1966, for a Republican Senate election was the most recent, I believe. Maybe we should ask Jabo?

So why not do that? Why not save the taxpayers the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars special primaries and runoffs will cost? Why stick it to the Democrats, who are absolutely getting screwed by this, and everybody knows it? Most importantly, why make all those Independents in Alabama — who really don’t care about the Red v Blue kabuki theater — pay for it?

If the Republicans want a do-over at this late date, it’s only fair that the Alabama Republican Party should bear the cost of determining their nominees. Their party, their problem.

Because to make the entire State pay for something that only benefits one political party at the expense of everyone else? If that’s not taxation without representation, I don’t know what is.

And I seem to recall some of our ancestors had a little problem with that about 250 years ago.

Dr. Bill Chitwood is the Managing Editor of ALPolitics.com. He is the author, under his nom de guerre Doc Contrarian, of Beyond MAGA: From Trump campaign slogan to political movement to restoring the Republic. He identifies as Conservatarian Contrarian and a staunch Constitutional Originalist. He enjoys being called a First Amendment Nazi — mainly because he is.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.