AGs of Alabama, Florida, Georgia Back Jefferson County in Redistricting Appeal
The AGs have filed an amicus brief in support of the County Commission’s appeal of a ruling that blocked the use of the most recent district maps
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, joined by the Attorneys General of Florida and Georgia, has stepped into Jefferson County’s ongoing redistricting fight. The three AGs filed an amicus brief last week in support of the County Commission’s appeal of a federal court ruling that blocked the district maps adopted after the 2020 census.
The Commission’s map kept much of the same geography used in its 1993, 2001, and 2013 plans, all of which received prior approval from the U.S. Department of Justice. Still, plaintiffs argued that the new map amounted to a racial gerrymander, and a District Court agreed. In October, the Eleventh Circuit allowed the Commission to continue using its map for the 2026 election while the appeal moves forward.
The AG’s brief challenges the district court’s findings, saying the court wrongly assumed—without supporting evidence—that the Commission relied on racial targets rather than acting in good faith.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that courts must presume that a legislative body acts in good faith. The district court ignored that rule and created a problem that doesn’t exist,” Marshall said in a statement. “The presumption that state and local officials act for legitimate rather than discriminatory reasons is vital because, without it, courts are transformed into weapons of political warfare. That is exactly what happened here.”
The brief was joined by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier and Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, signaling coordinated support from the Attorneys General of Alabama’s two largest neighbors.
This may all soon be moot, however. The U.S. Supreme Court’s impending decision in Louisiana v. Callais could upend the legal basis for both Jefferson County’s appeal and Alabama’s new State Senate map. In Callais, the Court is reconsidering whether race-based districting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can itself run afoul of the Constitution. Alabama officials have warned that a broad ruling could weaken or even reverse lower-court orders that required Alabama to draw Black-opportunity or majority-Black districts. That has particular bearing on a recent court ruling by Judge Anna Manasco, who struck down Alabama’s 2023 State Senate map for diluting Black voting power around Montgomery and ordered a court-drawn remedy.
A SCOTUS decision in Callais that limits or invalidates race-based redistricting could undermine the legal footing for maps drawn to protect minority representation—including Jefferson County’s map, should that ruling rest on similar VRA principles. It could also undermine, if not invalidate, 2023’s Allen v Milligan, triggering a massive round of redrawing maps not only in Alabama, but across the nation.
Until SCOTUS rules on Callis, however, there is no choice but to proceed as the various entities have done—continuing to fight for what they believe is proper and right through the lower courts.
The brief is available for review HERE.
