Alabama's new, court-picked map adds a second congressional district where Black voters' preferred candidate is projected to win a majority of the time.

A panel of three federal judges rejected Alabama’s latest version of its congressional map Tuesday, saying the state’s Republican-led legislature did not follow a court order backed by the U.S ...

The map, dubbed the “Community of Interest” map, has one majority Black voting age population at 51.55% in the 7th congressional district, taking in Birmingham and most of the western Black ...

The new congressional map Alabama Republicans proposed on Monday contains only one majority-Black district. Getty / Alabama Legislature UPDATE (July 18, 2023, 3:50 p.m.): ...

Alabama's congressional district map that was used for the 2022 elections, left, was found by the U.S. Supreme Court to likely violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting the influence of Black voters.

Alabama's congressional map will be redrawn again. A panel of federal judges has, for the second time, struck down a map from Republican state lawmakers. At issue is the political power of Black ...

A federal court blocked a newly drawn Alabama congressional map on Tuesday because it didn’t create a second majority-Black district as the Supreme Court had ordered earlier this year.

The new district map is a remedy to Alabama’s illegal dilution of Black voting power, and may lead to the election of two Black representatives for the first time in the state’s history.

The key issue is whether Alabama’s congressional map, with one majority Black district out of seven, dilutes the influence of Black voters in a state where one-fourth of residents are Black.

Alabama lawmakers in July passed a new map that maintained a single majority-Black district and boosted the percentage of Black voters in another district, District 2, from about 30% to almost 40%.

But the voters challenging Alabama's map said the state's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act would significantly undermine its purpose. The case is Allen v. Milligan.