Potential Redistricting

What's next after Louisiana v. Callais?

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that the definition of an illegal racial gerrymander was too broad and they narrowed it to only include instances where the mapmakers were intentionally discriminating on the basis of race. It is no longer enough to demonstrate that a map will effectively hurt black voters. To win, you must demonstrate that the map makers meant to hurt black voters. That distinction is devastating for the Voting Rights Act in general as proving intent is always far more difficult than proving impact.

When the ruling was announced, the ALGOP rejoiced in the assumption that they would now be able to draw maps without any regard for the rights of Black voters. As long as they drew the map to ensure total Republican domination, they would be held harmless for the impact on Black voters.

Governor Kay Ivey knew that it was not quite so easy. Alabama’s current map was established by Allen v Milligan, a case that found a Section 2 violation of the Voting Rights Act (racial discrimination) but also notably found that the ALGOP had discriminated intentionally. Because of this extra finding, the court’s finding in Louisiana doesn’t invalidate the findings in Allen v Milligan. Governor Ivey knew that the case would not be overturned, so she announced that she would not call for a special legislative session.

However, there is another case, AL State Conference of the NAACP vs Allen, that might be overturned in light of the new SCOTUS ruling. That case concerns Alabama Senate Districts 25 & 26. In November 2025, the 11^th circuit court placed an injunction on the State of Alabama, requiring it to use the court-ordered map instead of the state’s preferred map for both the 2026 election and the 2030 election. The State of Alabama appealed that decision, but the appeal was stayed pending the Louisiana vs Callais ruling.

Although it’s virtually guaranteed that the Supreme Court won’t undo its decision for the Congressional maps and uncertain whether the circuit court will undo its decision for the State Senate maps, the ALGOP was loathe to miss an opportunity to flaunt their desire for total partisan domination. So they talked Governor Ivey into calling a special session. In this special session, they are creating a trigger law, a law that will go into effect only if the court issues the ruling they are hoping for.

This special session will NOT involve drawing any new maps. If the court rules that they don’t have to use the court-ordered map, the state will go back to using the map that was used in the 2022 elections.

The law they are intending to pass in this special session is a process for holding a second primary. The first primary will be held on May 19, as previously planned. It will be for all the races up for election in November 2026, including Senate District 25 and 26. (Except that I won’t be on the ballot because I don’t have a primary challenger.) The second primary will be held in August. They’ll have to work through all the logistics of how that would happen, including who will be allowed to run for these seats. Although there will be a winner of the District 25 First Primary, that election would have to be re-conducted using the new map for the Second Primary. And it’s possible someone else will choose to run against me in the Second Primary for District 26.

Importantly, this second primary will happen only if the court rules that they can use the old 2022 map. There will be one trigger law for the Congressional map and one for the State Senate map. If the courts don’t issue a changed decision, this whole Special Session will result in absolutely nothing.

Even if there is a Second Primary, the First primary on May 19^th will decide the Democratic nominee for Governor, Lt Governor, Public Service Commission, US Senate, most of the Congressional districts, all the State House seats, and 33 of the 35 State Senate seats.