Federal Panel Orders Alabama to Use Court-Drafted Map, Finds 2023 Plan Intentionally Diluted Black Votes

A federal three-judge panel on Tuesday ordered Alabama to continue using a court-drawn “Special Master” congressional map for the upcoming November midterm elections, finding that a 2023 map enacted by the Republican-controlled Legislature was intentionally discriminatory against Black voters. The panel’s decision blocks the state from reinstating the 2023 plan, which would have left Alabama with only one Democratic-leaning congressional district.

In its written ruling, the panel said the “purpose” of the state’s plan was to distribute Black voters “across districts to dilute their votes, at least in part because they are Black.” The judges concluded that, under the unusual circumstances of the case, maintaining the Special Master’s race-blind map would not disrupt the state’s elections because ballots and electoral systems remain configured for the court-drawn districts and candidates had been running under that map until shortly before the ruling.

The panel made clear that its determination of intentional racial discrimination stands even after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court’s decision in April 2026 prompted Alabama officials to seek reinstatement of the 2023 congressional plan after it had been struck down in lower courts as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars racial discrimination in voting.

Despite that high court ruling, the three-judge panel said its extensive record supports a conclusion that race, not partisan motives, drove the design of the 2023 plan. “Counsel argues mightily that the Legislature’s partisan motives drove the creation of the 2023 Plan, but this enormous record contains no evidence of a partisan motive,” the panel wrote, noting testimony from Alabama legislative leaders that national party overtures did not influence their map-drawing.

The panel’s membership included Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, a Clinton appointee, and two District Court judges appointed by former President Donald Trump: Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer. The composition of the panel and the unanimity of its finding underscore the gravity of the court’s assessment that the state’s plan was tainted by intentional race-based discrimination and therefore could not be used for the imminent elections.

The ruling frames the court-drawn map as the only practical and lawful option for administering November’s congressional elections in Alabama. “Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” the panel wrote, emphasizing the short window before the midterms and the administrative disruptions that a sudden changeback to the 2023 map could cause.

Alabama officials may appeal the panel’s order to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the ruling is likely to prompt rapid legal maneuvering in the coming days and weeks as state officials weigh their options. The dispute highlights a broader legal and political contest over when and how race may be considered in drawing congressional districts, and how lower courts should apply the Supreme Court’s recent limitations on Voting Rights Act claims.

The decision will determine the districts under which Alabama voters cast ballots in November and could affect the partisan balance of the state’s congressional delegation. It also may shape future litigation over redistricting practices in other states where race and partisanship intersect in map drawing, and it underscores the continuing role of federal courts in policing discriminatory electoral plans as states prepare for the 2026 midterm cycle.