Rep. A.J. McCampbell, D-Linden (left) questions Rep. Chris Pringle, R-Mobile (foreground) about a bill that would allow new primary elections if the U.S. Supreme Court allows the state to redistrict on May 5, 2026 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
Two legislative committees Tuesday advanced bills that could lead to new primary dates in Alabama, if federal courts allow state to revert back to congressional and legislative maps previously ruled racially discriminatory.
HB 1, sponsored by Speaker Pro Tempore Chris Pringle, R-Mobile, would allow for a new special election if the U.S. Supreme Court lifts an injunction preventing the state from redrawing congressional maps before 2030. Secretary of State Wes Allen and Attorney General Steve Marshall sought to have the injunction removed last week after the U.S. Supreme Court significantly weakened a key part of the Voting Rights Act.
“This allows us to have a special election using the plan that this legislative body passed in 2023 and was signed by the governor,” Pringle said to the House Ways and Means General Fund Committee.
SB 1, sponsored by Sen. Chris Elliott, R-Josephine, would allow special elections in Senate Districts 25 and 26 outside Montgomery if the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a district court finding that the shape of those districts denied Black voters an opportunity to choose their own voters.
If the Supreme Court overturns the 2030 injunction, the state would revert to a 2023 map approved by the Legislature that federal courts later ruled to be racially discriminatory. Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District, drawn by a court, would be the most affected; the Black Voting Age Population (BVAP) would drop from 48.7% to 39.9%. That would likely make the district, currently represented by U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Mobile, Republican-leaning.
If the orders are dissolved or overturned after the May 19 primaries or June 16th runoffs, those results would be nullified and new elections would take place. There would not be runoffs for the new primaries.
HB 1 advanced out of the committee on a voice vote split across party lines. At a public hearing, no individuals spoke in support of the bill and GOP members of the committee said very little about it.
Democrats have denounced the session as an attack on Black representation in Congress, and several in the House committee Tuesday criticized Republicans for trying to restore a map deemed discriminatory.
“So because the map was racist then, the map just apparently won’t be racist now, if the Supreme Court changes their mind and allow a different opportunity, a different path forward,” said Rep. Napoleon Bracy, D-Prichard, during the meeting.
Rep. A.J McCampbell, D-Linden, said the Legislature is using the Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais to push for a new map and election.
“The members of this body have elected to make this an issue in Alabama. That’s what has happened. It’s not, let’s not go there and say, because they changed the law that now we have got to go and do this. 2030 was still a fair option. We didn’t have to do this right now,” he said.
Public commenters at the meeting also opposed passing the bill.
“When districts are drawn unfairly, communities are divided, voices are diluted, and trust in our system begins to erode,” Agnes Lover, pastor at St. Paul AME Church in Montgomery, said to the committee. “People start to feel like their vote does not matter, like the outcome has already been decided before a single ballot is passed, and when people lose faith in their vote, they begin to disengage altogether.”
Eliza Jane Franklin, founder of the Black Heritage Society of Eufaula who spoke against the legislation, said after the meeting, she felt like legislators had no regard for voters.
“I’m saddened because we thought things had progressed,” she said. “We thought that maybe on the federal level, we have someone who is in office who is problematic, but on the state level we thought there was a change. And coming here today, I’m saddened to say there is no real change and we have to speak up about it.”
The one-time special election would have to have its results certified by Aug. 26 and would cost the State General Fund $4.5 million to reimburse the counties in the affected districts for election expenses.
Rep. Pebblin Warren, D-Tuskegee, was critical of the funding that would go towards the election.
“Every time I bring up mental illness, we’re told we don’t have the money,” she said. “Where are we getting the money from now to have a special election and to pay all these lawyer fees so we don’t see anything wrong by putting another burden on the general fund when we’re really not taking care of the business of the citizens of the state of Alabama.”
Bracy said despite the bill advancing out of committee, there will still be a fight to stop it.
“It’s not gonna go quietly, but I don’t know what people expect when you put a committee together of 15 people and you have four Black people on it fighting for the Black community in the state of Alabama,” he said. “I don’t know what other outcome people expect, but just know that our voices will not be silenced.”
On the opposite side of the Statehouse, the Senate Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development Committee approved a bill setting a new primary election for two Montgomery-area Senate districts along party lines.
Sens. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, and Kirk Hatcher, D-Montgomery, who respectively represent Districts 25 and 26 have swapped districts for the 2026 election cycle because of a court-ordered map put in place in November.
“SB 1 deals with a potential for a special election in essentially, Senate Districts 25 and 26 if the federal courts issue an order to vacate an injunction allowing the Legislature to use maps that we previously enacted for our own Senate districts,” Elliott said.
The committee approved the legislation after a public hearing that consisted of only opponents, including Tabitha Isner, vice-chair of the Alabama Democratic Party and the party’s nominee for the court-ordered Senate District 26.
“The number one issue that I faced thus far is helping voters to understand where is the district, because it changed in November,” Isner said. “Much effort and expense from taxpayers, and from people in this room, has been put into making sure that voters understand where District 26 is, and you want to pull out the rug from them again.”
Isner said the bill was “about cheating the system.”
“This is about disenfranchising voters, and it’s not just Black voters,” she said. “I’m a white Democrat, and I’m not alone. I deserve to have representation in this government too, and saying that we can disenfranchise Black folks by simply disenfranchising Democrats does not get you off the hook. Disenfranchisement is disenfranchisement. Either you respect all the people of this state who you represent, or you don’t.”
Jerome Dees, policy director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, argued that the bill was unlawful because of a state constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2022 that prohibits changes to a general election within six months of an election.
“Never mind that the current primary is already underway with absentee ballots sent that has already created confusion for voters, burdens election officials and risks undermining public confidence in our democratic process,” Dees said. “Alabama voters deserve certainty, clarity and stability, not an election system sustained on speculative outcomes.”
Elliott said the bill will only affect primary elections, and the general election for both Senate districts will be on Nov. 3.
“This is not a general election. This is a primary election. And so words matter, and certainly the words of the Constitution matter,” Elliott said. “When we talk about a general election, we’re talking about a general election that’s typically held in November and specifically not held in May or any other part of the summer. It’s not applicable, because this is not a general election.”
The bill uses a winner-takes-all primary election model with no runoff. Hatcher offered an amendment to add a runoff primary election. Currently, there are three Democratic candidates running for Senate District 25, including Hatcher.
“What I’m after is, the bill is indicating no runoff in an election, and what I’m attempting to correct is that there would be a runoff,” Hatcher said.
Elliott disapproved of the amendment and it failed.
“I certainly understand the purposes of it, and I would say simply that the reason the language is in the bill as drafted is for a timing concern, admittedly a timing issue that the courts have put us in,” Elliott said.
Sen. Merika Coleman, D-Pleasant Grove, criticized Elliott’s position that it is the courts’ fault that the Legislature is in a special session.
“The court didn’t say that we had to come back and do a special session. It didn’t say that. The court didn’t say we have to spend all of this money, taxpayer dollars, to come here,” Coleman said. “The court actually drew neutral maps because you all chose not to. That’s what happened.”
Sen. Vivian Davis Figures, D-Mobile, offered an amendment to require public notice of the new primary election in order to avoid confusion caused by a new election.
“We’re talking about people’s right to vote and having notice of where they vote, and what this bill is going to do is confuse a lot of people, as it has been stated already in this public hearing. So if that is your aim, then you definitely don’t want the amendment,” Figures said. “But if you want the people to know where they vote, then you would have no problem with this amendment.”
The amendment failed, but Elliott said in an interview after the meeting that he would consider the amendment again if it was offered on the Senate floor on Wednesday.
“We have plenty of opportunities to address that amendment, but I want to do so informed, measured and with good information on cost and resources and everything else that it’s going to take to implement that,” Elliott said. “I don’t necessarily have an objection to it. I just want to make sure that we have an opportunity to fully vet what she’s asking for there.”
The full Senate will consider SB 2 when it meets on Wednesday afternoon at 4 p.m. The House will meet at 9 a.m. Wednesday to consider HB 1.
From Alabama Reflector Post Url: Visit
Author: Andrea Tinker, Anna Barrett