Essay Writing Help on The Alabama Democratic Conference vs Alabama

The Alabama Democratic Conference vs Alabama


            The question that was presented is whether the legislative redistricting plans in Alabama unconstitutionally classify African voters by race through intentionally allocating them in various districts designed to maintain highly and supermajority percentages that were produced as per the 2010 census data. Alabama’s republican legislature tried to do remapping that would suit their desire to enjoy majority of votes in the following general elections. In order to do this, they packed blacks in a few districts hence reducing their political impact.

The main objective of the Alabama District was to reduce the population deviation within districts. This resulted in racial allocation that was unconstitutional. The Democrats and the Black American legislators were challenging this reapportionment. The main reason for the challenge was the perception that the new plan was to limit the African American effectiveness. The African America legislators attested that the state’s republican leaders added very many African Americans voters in a few districts. This was to ensure that the minority representation in the packed districts, reducing their probability of failing in other areas. The hearings were scheduled in November 2014.

The Parties in the Case

The parties involved are the Alabama Democratic Conference as the main plaintiff, and the defendants are the Alabama State and other relevant parties to the case such as the governor and the secretary of state of Alabama.

Background of the Case

 The challengers were against the overflow of African American in the districts with minority population. The proportions had increased to above 70%. In addition, they aimed at guaranteeing the success of an elected African American. This created tensions between the minority sets and the Democrats (Barnes 2).The African American legislators wanted to free the districts of insecurity of reelection. The Democrats, on the other hand, demanded for more dispersion of the minority to increase the chances of their party winning in more elections. The two sides seemed to agree with each other. However, the panel asserted that the previous redistricting map was made with the same constitutional mandate.

During the conclusion of the planning session, Alabama was to acquire the approval from the Justice Department. This was to be received before the implementation of the new maps (Barnes 2). According to Alabama, it complied with all the constitutional apprehension and the voting Acts. According to their plan, there are eight of the senate districts and 28 of the house districts with high African residents. This number is similar to the number that was in office during the management of redistricting by the democrats.

Subject/law of the case

The law in this case is rule non-retrogression contained in the ‘Voting Rights Act’ in section 5. The rule is in regard to states whereby it is forbidden to redistrict with intent of diluting power of minority in politics.

Precedents that relate to the case

Shelby County v. Holder is the commonest landmark case law precedent to the case herein. It regards the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that require state administrations to get federal pre-clearance before doing any changes concerning voting practices. Shelby county wanted section 5 be abolished as being unconstitutional but later the district court upheld the constitutionality of the section in question. Other precedents; Shaw. v. Reno (1993), Miller v. Johnson (1995), and Hunt v. Cromartie (2001)

    Arguments Presented by Each Party

This is a rare occasion where the challengers are accusing the state for paying significantly high attention to the minority groups during the drawing up of districts.The legislators critically examined the law to consider whether the law has been practical enough to guarantee that there is necessary fair voting. Hence, the new law implied that there were less black voters in various white districts. This move was seen as ignoring the black voters. The white democrats were on the attack. The challenger’s desire had been for an equal number of white and black African Democrats and white republicans.

Prediction of how the Justices will vote based on their voting history and questions raised during oral arguments

The case seems to balance especially with the plaintiffs and defendants coming up with strong arguments. The justices are, however, likely to favor the democratic conference since substantial law seem to emphasize on fairness. The defendants; Alabama may stand to lose since there remapping was out of selfish political interests.

How the case should be decided (my opinion)

Alabama has been among the polarized states in numbers of the African American. There is need for the constitution to be fair by allowing such states to have varying percentage of the African American democrats. This is to allow the party to have equal number of representations from the whites and the blacks. The state has an upper hand over the African American legislators. In my opinion, to foster the spirit of democracy, the case should favor the Alabama Democratic group.

Works Cited

Barnes, R. Court to Review Alabama’s Race based Reapportionment. The Washington Post.2014, June 2nd. Web


Kim, E. T. Alabama’s Racial Gerrymandering goes before Supreme Court: The America Aljazeera. 2014, November 14th . web. <>