Redistricting in Alabama after the 2010 census

Note: Redistricting takes place every 10 years after completion of the United States Census. The information here pertains to the 2010 redistricting process. For information on more recent redistricting developments, see this article.

Redistricting in Alabama

General information

Partisan control: Republican

Process: Legislative Authority

Deadline: End of 2011-2012 Session

Total seats

Congress: 7

State Senate: 35

State House: 105

This article details the timeline of redistricting events in Alabama following the 2010 census. It also provides contextual information about the redistricting process and census information.

Process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

Figure 1: This map shows Alabama's congressional districts after the 2000 census.

During the 2010 redistricting cycle, the Alabama Legislative Committee on Reapportionment was responsible for redistricting. The Legislative Reapportionment Office served as a link between the United States Census Bureau and the Alabama Legislature. During years when the legislature was not actively involved with redistricting, the Committee was normally made up of 6 members as follows:

• Three members of the Alabama State Senate appointed by the Lieutenant Governor
• Three members of the Alabama House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House

When the Legislature was actively involved in the redistricting process, the Committee was composed of 22 members as follows:

• One member of the House of Representatives from each U.S. congressional district
• Four at-large members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House
• One member of the Alabama Senate from each U.S. congressional district
• Four at-large members of the Senate appointed by the Lieutenant Governor

The Alabama Constitution provides authority to the legislature under Sections 197 through 200 of Article IX.

Internet-based

In 2011, Alabama brought its entire redistricting process online. Using GIS software, Alabama became one of the first states to go completely online for re-drawing its districts.

Leadership

Legislative committee

Membership of the permanent joint legislative committee on reapportionment was announced in the first five days of the legislative session that began March 1, 2011. Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard (R) appointed 11 members from the House and Lieutenant Governor Kay Ivey (R) appointed 11 from the Senate. The committee began its work on March 30.

Membership

The committee members were as follows:

Senate Republicans (9) Cam Ward Trip Pittman Jimmy Holley Gerald Dial Clay Scofield Bill Holtzclaw Arthur Orr Gerald Allen Bryan Taylor

Senate Democrats (2) Linda Coleman Vivian Figures

House Republicans (7) Randy Davis Steve Clouse Lynn Greer Jim McClendon Jamie Ison Mike Hill Micky Hammon

House Democrats (4) George Bandy Barbara Boyd Craig Ford Ralph Anthony Howard

Census results

On February 23, 2011, the Census Bureau shipped Alabama's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders. This data was used to guide redistricting for state and local offices. It was publicly available for downloading.

City/County population changes

These tables show the change in population in the five largest cities and counties in Alabama from 2000-2010.

City 2000 Population 2010 Population Percent Change Birmingham 242,820 212,237 -12.6% Montgomery 201,568 205,764 2.1% Mobile 198,915 195,111 -1.9% Huntsville 158,216 180,105 13.8% Tuscaloosa 77,906 90,468 16.1%

County 2000 Population 2010 Population Percent Change Jefferson 662,047 658,466 -0.5% Mobile 399,843 412,992 3.3% Madison 276,700 334,811 21.0% Montgomery 223,510 229,363 2.6% Shelby 143,293 195,085 36.1%

Congressional redistricting

Congressional maps were addressed during the 2011 regular legislative session. The committee announced six public hearings:

• May 9 - Huntsville
• May 10 - Birmingham
• May 11 - Mobile
• May 12 - Montgomery
• May 13 - Selma
• May 18 - Montgomery

Rep. Jim McClendon (R), co-chair of the committee, said that they planned to meet at the State House on May 18 to give preliminary approval to new Congressional and board of education maps. They then were to meet the following day to give final approval.

Debate was set to start on May 24 in the legislature over new Congressional maps.

Congressional maps required approval from Department of Justice officials to verify that the map met Voting Rights Act standards.

May 2011: Map introduced

On May 19, 2011, the joint Legislative Committee on Reapportionment voted 19-1 to send a Congressional map to the legislature. Debate began on the maps during the week of May 24. An initial plan that was introduced by the committee co-chair (and endorsed by some members of the Congressional delegation) was rejected by a 10-9 vote.

The map as introduced moved all of Morgan County into the 4th Congressional District. In exchange, nearly all of Franklin County shifted into the 5th Congressional District. At the time, Morgan County was split between the 4th and 5th Districts. According to Decatur Chamber of Commerce President John Seymour, the county commissioners and elected officials were responsible for lobbying the legislators to keep Morgan County whole. "To be together is good. We're divided now, and I don't think we get enough attention from either one [congressman]...It's critical that we can take a handful of mayors, county commissioners and go up and talk to our congressman in Washington and have a little more strength and influence," Seymour said. Meanwhile, Colbert and Lauderdale counties would have been split by the plan -- which would have marked the first separation of those counties since the Civil War.

June 2011: Map approved

On June 2, 2011, the legislature sent a revised Congressional map to the governor for approval. The Alabama State Senate approved the map on a 16-15 vote and the Alabama House of Representatives concurred 57-45.

Proponents of the map said that they were confident that it followed the federal standards laid out in the Voting Rights Act.

Critics of the legislation said the map diluted minority vote and was intended to maintain the Congressional delegation of six Republicans and one Democrat. These critics opposed the following components of the new map:

• The percentage of Black voters in the 3rd Congressional District dropped from 32 percent to 25 percent.
• Lauderdale County remained in the 5th Congressional District while Colbert County moved from the 5th to the 4th Congressional District.
• Montgomery County would have been divided among three districts -- 2nd, 3rd and 7th Congressional Districts
• All of Morgan County was now in the 5th Congressional District.
• Blount County was now split between the 4th and 6th Districts instead of being completely contained in the 6th District.

June 2011: Governor signed map

Gov. Robert Bentley (R) signed the Congressional redistricting map on June 8, 2011. Before the signing, some legislators proposed a last-second change that would have placed Hunstville in the 4th and 5th Congressional districts but left Lauderdale and Colbert counties (Shoals) combined in the 5th District. Bentley rejected the proposal and signed the map as passed by the legislature. Roll Call expected the new map to strengthen the seats of the Republican delegation.

Post-approval developments

September 2011: Federal court approval sought

In a move similar to the strategy undertaken by other states like North Carolina and Texas, Attorney General Luther Strange (R) asked a federal court to approve the new map.

October 2011: Public hearings held

The legislative committee on reapportionment held public hearings throughout the state in early October to garner more feedback on the approved districts. The committee encouraged public comments to be submitted in written form in advance of the meetings.

Joe Reed, chair of the Alabama Democratic Conference, said he believed a second majority-minority district should have been drawn -- the new map had one district where the majority of voters were African-American.

November 2011: Justice Department approval

On November 21, the U.S. Justice Department approved the new map.

Legislative redistricting

Legislators began working on new state legislative maps in 2012. Because senators and representatives each served four-year terms, new maps were not needed until 2014.

Fall 2011: Public hearings

In fall 2011, a series of public meetings were held to gauge input from citizens on the state legislative districts. A total of 21 hearings were held across the state. At a meeting on October 3, 2011, citizens proposed an idea to decrease the total number of state legislators.

May 2012: Maps approved

Senate Republicans approved a House redistricting plan on May 24, 2012, along party lines. After the plan passed in the Senate, the House approved the new plan. It went to Gov. Robert Bentley (R) for his signature.

July 2012: Voting Rights Act clearance

On July 26, 2012, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange (R) filed a lawsuit seeking clearance from a federal court that the state's redistricting plan for the legislature did not violate the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit, a required provision of the VRA, was heard by a three-judge District Court. The Department of Justice approved of the new maps on October 5, 2012.

Legal Issues

April 2010: Shelby County challenge to the Voting Rights Act

See also: Shelby County v. Holder

In April 2010, the Shelby County Commission voted to approve a lawsuit by County Attorney Frank "Butch" Ellis challenging the constitutionality of sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was paid for by the Project on Fair Representation, who describe themselves as "a not-for-profit legal defense fund designed to support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts."

The sections in question dealt with the issue of preclearance, where areas designated under the VRA must get all voting changes approved by the U.S. Department of Justice. A total of 16 states, including Alabama, had to receive some form of approval under the act. Congress renewed these sections in 2006 for another 25 years without updating the parts of the country included. Shelby County argued that this was done without sufficient evidence, saying, "It simply was not rational in theory or practice to impose preclearance on the covered jurisdictions through 2031 based on voting statistics from 1964, 1968, and 1972."

The Justice Department defended the law, saying that these areas continued to show trends of discrimination, arguing, "The symptoms of discrimination have changed, but the underlying disease remains the same in the very jurisdictions that have been the subject (of federal oversight) since its original enactment." Following oral arguments made on February 2, 2011, U.S. District Judge John Bates asked for written comments regarding the coverage formula as it was used in 1965. Ellis contended the case had the potential to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

September 2011: Initial federal court decision

On September 21, 2011, a federal court in Washington, D.C. upheld the law and rejected the lawsuit.

In a 151-page opinion issued by Judge John Bates, the court held there were still instances of intentional racial discrimination which would require the Voting Rights Act to protect minorities.

June 2013: Supreme Court decision

The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court as Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al. On June 25, 2013, the court issued a 5-4 ruling that effectively struck down the coverage formula in section five of the Voting Rights Act. The majority stated that the formula used to enforce the VRA was unconstitutional and needed to be updated. Chief Justice John Roberts, in the court's opinion, wrote, "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."

The court did not issue a holding on section 5 itself, with Roberts saying, "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."

August 2012: Legislative Black Caucus lawsuit

On August 10, 2012, state Democrats, black lawmakers, and others filed suit to block the implementation of legislative redistricting plans. According to the lawsuit, the plans diluted minority voting strength, violated the one person, one vote principle, and illegally split counties in order to consolidate Republican dominance in other districts. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers argued that "they were complying with the Voting Rights Act in moving black voters to existing majority-minority districts."

Politico summarized the broader issue as follows:

“	For partisan advantage, Republicans have historically tried to “pack” minorities into districts, while Democrats have attempted to “crack” majority-minority districts in the redistricting process to spread minorities into more districts to boost Democratic candidates, even at the expense of providing safer seats for minority candidates. Republican-led states in recent years have interpreted the Voting Rights Act to mean that they can’t reduce the percentage of black inhabitants of a majority-minority district even by the slightest amount—and in states where voters are polarized politically along racial lines, that has allowed them to draw districts that are more Republican.	”
—Politico

A three-judge Federal District Court panel rejected the challenge, but the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On March 25, 2015, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the lower court's initial ruling was legally erroneous. In the court's majority opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote, "That Alabama expressly adopted and applied a policy of prioritizing mechanical racial targets above all other districting criteria (save one-person, one-vote) provides evidence that race motivated the drawing of particular lines in multiple districts in the State." The court did not go so far as to deem the district lines unconstitutional, however. Instead, the court sent the case back to Federal District Court for further review.

Assessing the impact of the case, legal scholar Rick Hasen wrote the following:

“	Today’s decision [makes] it harder for states to use compliance with the Voting Rights Act as a pretext to secure partisan advantage. All in all, this may help stop some egregious gerrymanders, but there will still be plenty of ways for states to draw district lines for partisan advantage without running afoul of the Voting Rights Act. And depending upon how the Court decides the Arizona redistricting case later this Term, states may have even a freer hand to draw lines for nakedly political purposes.	”
—Rick Hasen

History

The process of redistricting in Alabama is addressed in sections 198-201 of Article IX of the Alabama Constitution. Redistricting is mandated during the first session after the official completion of the U.S. census in order to reflect population shifts within the state.

In 1990, the Alabama Legislature established the Permanent Legislative Committee on Reapportionment. It is responsible for preparing and developing redistricting plans following each census.

No redistricting from 1901-1972

Although the legislature is required by the state constitution to reapportion itself every 10 years, it failed to do so between 1901-1972. In August 1950, a committee made up of 6 members of the House and 6 Senators met to study reapportionment. Their study, the first since 1901, was delivered in October. Two reapportionment studies were made by the Legislative Reference Service, in 1950 and 1954 respectively. None of these, however, lead to reapportionment. Additional failed attempts at reapportionment were made in 1956, 1959, and 1961.

1961: Class-action suit

On August 12, 1961, 14 Birmingham citizens filed a class-action suit in district court on behalf of all residents of Alabama. The suit sought all members of the state legislature to be elected at-large until the legislature followed the Constitutional provision for reapportionment.

In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Baker v. Carr declared federal courts had jurisdiction over legislative reapportionment cases, which led the district court to give the legislature until July 16, 1962, to reapportion itself or it would be up to the court. The legislature passed two reapportionment bills, but they were voided by the federal court, leading the court to order immediate implementation of its own plan.

1972: Creation of a permanent committee

The legislature created a permanent joint legislative committee on reapportionment in 1972. The committee has been altered and amended through the intervening years and as of the 2010 process was known as the Permanent Legislative Committee on Reapportionment. It is responsible for preparing and developing redistricting plans after each census.

2001 redistricting

In 2001, Democrats held the governorship, the House, and the Senate. At the federal level, both U.S. Senate seats and five of seven Congressional seats were in Republican hands. In June 2001, at adjournment sine die for the regular legislative session, a special session was called. It would ultimately run through July 2, 2001. Three special session bills, two from the House and one from the Senate, were passed and forward to then-Governor Donald Siegleman.

Of concern was avoiding the complicated fallout from the 1991 redistricting, when Republicans presented a plan that cut away minorities in the 2nd and 6th Districts who were reliable Democratic voters. However, it took longer than expected and a court-imposed plan prevailed when legislators failed to draw a timely map for the 1992 elections. Challenges to the map wound through state and Federal court; in the end, a U.S. District Court ruled that the Equal Rights Clause of the 14th Amendment had been violated in four state Senate and three state House seats where white voters had been packed together in order to create majority black situations in adjacent districts - a requirement of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act.

The regular session ended in the early summer of 2001 with no final decision. Republicans brought suit, asking a judge to remove the process to the courts and Democrats countered by unveiling their plans the next day. Governor Siegleman's special session resulted in a map of House and Senate districts, but the votes to approve it were along party lines.

Siegleman called the legislature into another special session in late August to address Congressional and Board of Education boundaries; both chambers passed a bill within days - just not the same bill. The House refused to adopt the Senate bill, which had the support of incumbent Congressmen. The GOP vowed to fight the House bill until their preferred bill, the Senate's 'consensus', made headway. Neither side brokered a deal and the second special session ended with no movement on a Congressional map.

In October 2001, a delegation of black community leaders asked the Justice Department, reviewing the state plan, to throw it out based on concerns over state House districts. While the Department of Justice did sign off on state-level legislative seats, Congressional boundaries remained unresolved. In November, Republicans got a panel of Federal judges to give Alabama's General Assembly a deadline to sort out those seats; the Courts also issued a temporary map. Facing a January 2002 deadline, Governor Seigleman convened a special legislative session for the third time in one year. The legislature met from December 6, 2001, until January 16, 2002, knowing the trial date had already been set if they failed to complete a map.

The state Senate passed a bill on January 25, 2002, with the House following six days later. The Governor signed off on the plan on February 1, 2002, and, in early March, the Justice Department approved the plan. The plan was completed in time for potential candidates in the 2002 midterms to make a decision and file to run before the April 4, 2002, cutoff.

Deviation from Ideal Districts

2000 Population Deviation
Office		Percentage
Congressional Districts		0.00%
State House Districts		9.93%
State Senate Districts		9.73%
Under federal law, districts may vary from an 'Ideal District' by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. 'Ideal Districts' are computed through a simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census.

Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census

There were 11 lawsuits, not counting appeals, related to the Alabama 2000 census redistricting process.

• Barnett v. Alabama, No. Civ.A. 01-0433 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 2001) (three-judge court) : On June 15, 2001, plaintiffs brought suit complaining the General Assembly had failed to draw a map of House and Senate seats. When the legislature presented a plan to the Governor on July 3, 2001, the Court dismissed the case.

• Barnett v. Alabama, No. Civ.A. 01-0434-BH-S, 171 F. Supp.2d 1292 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 20, 2001) (three-judge court) : filed concurrently with Civ. A 01-0433, challenging Alabama's Congressional Districts as Unconstitutional and ultimately moved to the Middle District and consolidated with Douglas.

• Montiel v. Davis, No. Civ.A. 01-0447-BH-S, 215 F. Supp.2d 1279 (S.D. Ala. Jul. 8, 2002) (three-judge court) : brought on July 21, 2001, over the legislative failure to draw new legislative, Congressional, and State Board of Education boundaries after the 2000 census. As soon as lawmakers did present a map for legislative districts, Montiel was amended to challenge the Constitutionality of the districts; specifically claiming racial gerrymandering had been at work and had violated one man, one vote. The Congressional and Education complaints were severed and the defendants got a summary judgment in their favor on the legislative issue as the Courts felt a 10% or smaller deviation from the ideal district was small enough for a rebuttable presumption of Constitutionality. The plaintiffs did not ever bring cause to trigger scrutiny.

• Webb v. Alabama, No. CV-01-1964 (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Co. Jan. 2002) : filed July 2, 2001, seeking a declaratory judgment that the legislative plan was Constitutional and later dismissed when the plaintiffs could not cite a controversy sufficient to justify a ruling.

• Ex parte Rice, No. 1010125 (Ala. Nov. 8, 2001) : filed in October 2001 seeking extraordinary relief in Webb pending the state Supreme Court decision in Sinkfield, ultimately denied.

• Rice v. English, No. CV-2001-2311 (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Co., Jan. 28, 2002), aff’d No. 1010968, 835 So.2d 157 (Ala. May 24, 2002) : argued that Act No. 2001-727 of July 2001 , which redrew state Senate boundaries with 2000 Census data, violated the requirement for equal Senate districts in Ala. Const. 1901 art. IX, § 200. The argument, that state Senate districts had to be drawn to the same standard as Congressional seats, was rejected and the defendants won a summary judgment. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court in Rice v. English, No. 1010968, 835 So.2d 157 (Ala. May 24, 2002).

• Douglas v. Alabama, No. CV-2001-1985 (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Co.) : alleged state and Federal violations when the legislature failed to draw a map of Congressional districts and later removed to Federal litigation

• Douglas v. Alabama, No. 01-D-922-N (M.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2002) (three-judge court) : filed in state court and removed to the Federal courts, after being consolidated with Montiel and Barnett. The Courts halted proceedings twice, first to allow the legislature time to draw a map and the second time when the legislature ultimately presented a plan to the Governor.

• Gustafson v. Johns, No. 05-00352-CG-C, 434 F. Supp.2d 1246 (S.D. Ala. May, 22, 2006) (three-judge court), aff’d No. 06-13508, 213 Fed.Appx. 872 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2007) (unpublished) : brought June 16, 2005, by 19 plaintiffs who argued the House and Senate plans violated their one person, one vote right under Amendment XIV and Freedom of Association under Amendment I. Deciding the plaintiffs were represented by prior plaintiffs, the case was dismissed res judica.

• Gustafson v. Johns, No. 06-13508, 213 Fed.Appx. 872 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2007) : In the appeal, the 11th Circuit decided it has jurisdiction because a res judica decision by the lower court did not answer the Constitutional question.

• Owens v. Jordan, No. CV-2002-1512 (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Co. Sep. 2006), aff’d No. 1060189 (Ala.) : challenged the Constitutionality of the 2001 plan, dismissed res judica with reference to Montiel and Rice

See also

• State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
• State-by-state redistricting procedures

External links

• Alabama Permanent Legislative Committee on Reapportionment