NRF Urges Supreme Court to Reject Alabama's Bid to Fast‑Track Redistricting Appeal as Voting Already Underway

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to deny what it describes as Alabama's "desperate and hypocritical" attempt to fast‑track a challenge to the state's congressional map in Caster v. Allen, warning that the move threatens to disrupt an election already in progress.

In a legal brief filed Thursday, the NRF argued that Alabama's request to expedite its appeal-coming just 19 days before the state's primary and after early voting has begun-directly contradicts the state's own past warnings that late‑stage redistricting changes would cause "chaos and confusion" for voters.

"Alabama is once again trying to move the goalposts to suit its own partisan interests, showing a blatant disregard for the very legal principles it once championed," said Marina Jenkins, Executive Director of the NRF. She added that granting the request would amount to "a head‑spinning reversal of precedent" and risk disenfranchising voters who have already cast ballots.

A Years‑Long Legal Battle Over Representation

The NRF has been at the center of Alabama's redistricting litigation since 2021, when it backed the first lawsuit challenging the state's congressional map for diluting the voting power of Black Alabamians. That case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court as Allen v. Milligan, where the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed that Alabama must draw a map including two Black opportunity districts.

Despite that ruling, the Alabama Legislature adopted a new map in 2023 that again included only one such district. NRF‑supported plaintiffs challenged the revised map, and a federal district court rejected it, ordering a VRA‑compliant map for the 2024 election cycle. The court‑drawn map created two districts in which Black voters could elect candidates of their choice.

Alabama continued to appeal the ruling, and the case returned to the Supreme Court following a second trial before a three‑judge federal panel, which again found that the state's map must include two Black opportunity districts.

Alabama Cites Louisiana Ruling in Last‑Minute Push

The state's latest request to the Supreme Court came immediately after the Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a ruling Alabama argues could affect its own redistricting obligations. Alabama is now asking the Court to expedite its appeal in hopes of redrawing the congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The NRF counters that such a move would upend the election calendar and undermine the stability of the voting process. With ballots already cast and the primary less than three weeks away, the organization says the Court should reject Alabama's attempt to "short‑circuit ordinary procedures."

What Comes Next

The Supreme Court's decision on whether to grant Alabama's request could determine whether the state's current VRA‑compliant map remains in place through the November general election. The NRF maintains that altering the map at this stage would jeopardize voter confidence and violate long‑standing principles meant to protect elections already in progress.

The organization continues to advocate for fair maps nationwide, emphasizing its commitment to litigation, public education, and advanced mapping analysis to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.