June, 08 2023, 11:28am EDT

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Alabama’s Congressional Map Violates the Voting Rights Act by Diluting Black Political Power
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in Allen v. Milligan in favor of Black voters who challenged Alabama’s 2021-enacted congressional map for violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for diluting Black political power, affirming the district court’s order that Alabama redraw its congressional map.
By packing and cracking the historic Black Belt community, the map passed by the state legislature allowed Black voters an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in only one of seven districts even though they make up 27 percent percent of the voting-age population. In its decision, the court also affirmed that under Section 2 of the VRA, race can be used in the redistricting process to provide equal opportunities to communities of color and ensure they are not packed and cracked in a way that impermissibly weakens their voting strength.
The case was brought in November 2021 on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP who are represented by the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb. It was argued before the court on Oct. 4, 2022.
“This decision is a crucial win against the continued onslaught of attacks on voting rights,” said LDF senior counsel Deuel Ross, who argued the case before the court in October. “Alabama attempted to rewrite federal law by saying race had no place in redistricting. But because of the state’s sordid and well-documented history of racial discrimination, race must be used to remedy that past and ensure communities of color are not boxed out of the electoral process. While the Voting Rights Act and other key protections against discriminatory voting laws have been weakened in recent years and states continue to pass provisions to disenfranchise Black voters, today’s decision is a recognition of Section 2’s purpose to prevent voting discrimination and the very basic right to a fair shot.”
Davin Rosborough, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said, “The Supreme Court rejected the Orwellian idea that it’s inappropriate to consider race in determining whether racial discrimination led to the creation of illegal maps. This ruling is a huge victory for Black Alabamians.”
Plaintiffs from the case released the following joint comment: “In 2021, Alabama lawmakers targeted Black voters by packing and cracking us so we could not have a meaningful impact on the electoral process. They attempted to redefine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and shirk their responsibility to ensure communities of color are given an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. Today, the Supreme Court reminded them of that responsibility by ordering a new map be drawn that complies with federal law – one that recognizes the diversity in our state rather than erasing it. This fight was won through generations of Black leaders who refused to be silent, and while much work is left, today we can move forward with these reaffirmed protections civil rights leaders fought and died for.”
“The key takeaway from today’s decision is the court’s acknowledgment that the Alabama Legislature knowingly continued its legacy of drawing illegal voting districts that disenfranchise Black voters. The Alabama Legislature must now draw new, fairer voting districts,” said Tish Gotell Faulks, the ACLU of Alabama’s legal director. “Though we were victorious today, history shows us that lawmakers will erect many more hurdles before every Alabamian, irrespective of their race, can vote for representatives that reflect their beliefs, values, and priorities. Efforts remain underway from Montgomery to Jackson to Baton Rouge, and elsewhere across the country to minimize, marginalize, and eliminate the ability of Black and brown people to have a voice in their communities. Our communities then — as now — understand that the fight to uphold our civil rights is a daily pursuit. We will persist.”
Ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
This case is part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Senators Express Concerns Over Reports That Saudis Want US Support for Nuclear Program
"We should seriously consider whether it is in U.S. interests to help Saudi Arabia develop a domestic nuclear program," 19 Democratic senators and independent Bernie Sanders wrote.
Oct 04, 2023
Amid reports that Saudi Arabia is seeking United States support for its nuclear energy program—whose capacities critics fear could be utilized to develop nuclear weapons—a group of 20 U.S. senators on Wednesday urged President Joe Biden to "seriously consider" whether such a move is in the national interest as the administration brokers a possible normalization deal between the kingdom and Israel.
In addition to concerns over the fundamentalist monarchy's desire for a U.S. security guarantee as a condition for normalizing relations with apartheid Israel, as well as the future of a two-state solution in illegally occupied Palestine, the senators note in a letter to Biden that "the Saudi government is also reportedly seeking U.S. support to develop a civilian nuclear program, and to purchase more advanced U.S. weaponry."
"While we should seriously consider whether it is in U.S. interests to help Saudi Arabia develop a domestic nuclear program, we should always maintain the high bar of the 'gold standard' 123 Agreement and insist on adherence to the Additional Protocol," the senators wrote, referring to a provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requiring a country seeking a nuclear cooperation deal with the United States to commit to a set of nine nonproliferation criteria and expanded International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. The U.S. has entered into such agreements with more than two dozen countries, Taiwan, and the IAEA.
Citing "the devastating war in Yemen" waged by a U.S.-backed Saudi-led coalition for nearly eight years at the cost of more than 375,000 lives, the senators added that "the provision of more advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia should be done with careful deliberation to ensure that such equipment only be used for truly defensive purposes and does not contribute to a regional arms race."
The lawmakers' letter was led by Democratic Sens. Chris Murphy (Conn.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), and Peter Welch (Vt.). Signatories include Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
As Center for Strategic & International Studies senior fellow Jane Nakano wrote last month:
The Saudi interest in acquiring nuclear power technology became publicly known around 2010, with a royal decree stipulating that "the development of atomic energy is essential to meet the kingdom's growing requirements for energy to generate electricity, produce desalinated water, and reduce reliance on depleting hydrocarbon resources." Also, having pledged to meet carbon neutrality by 2060, Saudi Arabia looks to nuclear as an important source of zero-emissions electricity.
In addition to the United States, China National Nuclear Corporation of China, Électricité de France of France, Rosatom of Russia, and Korea Electric Power Corporation of South Korea have been in discussions to land the contract to build two inaugural nuclear power units in Saudi Arabia.
"Saudi Arabia has been publicly interested in obtaining the capacity to enrich domestic uranium to establish the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including the production of yellowcake, low enriched uranium, and the manufacturing of nuclear fuel both for both domestic use and exporting," Nakano noted. "While economic diversification through the development of domestic uranium industry may be a genuine interest, Saudi leadership has also shown little opposition to turning nuclear power capacity into developing a nuclear weapon if it deemed necessary to acquire such capability."
"The ongoing Saudi resistance to the U.S. nonproliferation conditions has generated controversy, given Saudi Arabia acceded to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1988—i.e., the country is legally bound to not pursue nuclear weapons," she added.
However, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) confirmed last month that if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, "we will have to get one."
Some experts are warning that Saudi Arabia could turn to China or even Russia to help fulfill its nuclear ambitions if it grows wary of U.S. conditions. Hassan Alshehri, a Saudi defense analyst and retired brigadier general, toldBreaking Defense that "the West knows that Riyadh has a flexible compass that can guide it to other alternatives to acquire nuclear capabilities if Washington continues with its current negative stance."
Hasan Al Hasan, Middle East research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told Breaking Defense that "if MBS and the Biden administration fail to reach an agreement on nuclear limits and security commitments... then Saudi Arabia will likely turn to other partners, notably China and Russia, for help with building the capabilities it needs to restore the balance of power with Iran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Horrific Step Backwards': Biden Admin Waives Protections to Speed Border Wall Construction
"Every acre of habitat left in the Rio Grande Valley is irreplaceable," said one advocate. "We can't afford to lose more of it to a useless, medieval wall."
Oct 04, 2023
Environmental protection advocates and immigrant rights campaigners expressed horrow Wednesday over a Department of Homeland Security plan entered into the Federal Register that will waive more than two dozen laws in order to expedite the construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall.
The "notice of determination" was entered under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, which was signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996, and said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas "has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements."
The 26 laws—which include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act—are being set aside "to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border in Starr County, Texas," the Federal Register said.
The waiver will allow construction through the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and could threaten endangered species including ocelots, as well as the plant species Zapata bladderpod and prostrate milkweed, said the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).
Voces Unidas Rio Grande Valley said it was "disappointed, but not surprised" by DHS's plan and noted that it will further limit the access to green spaces that area residents have.
Mayorkas' determination marks the first time the Biden administration has used its waiver authority under the REAL ID Act of 2005 to override federal laws.
The Trump and George W. Bush administrations
used the authority in all four states that border Mexico to build walls and roads that they claimed were "an impediment" to the construction. Environmental groups have long condemned the REAL ID Act and its waiver authority.
Laiken Jordahl, Southwest conservation advocate for CBD, said it was "disheartening to see President Biden stoop to this level" in order to "build ineffective wildlife-killing border walls" that international advocates say also violates human rights.
"Starr County is home to some of the most spectacular and biologically important habitat left in Texas and now bulldozers are preparing to rip right through it," said Jordahl. "This is a horrific step backwards for the borderlands."
The proposal is the Biden administration's latest escalation of its anti-immigration policies and follows an expansion of the Trump-era Title 42 policy and a rule barring entry into the U.S. for asylum seekers who can't prove they applied for asylum in another country.
"Every acre of habitat left in the Rio Grande Valley is irreplaceable," said Jordahl. "We can't afford to lose more of it to a useless, medieval wall that won't do a thing to stop immigration or smuggling. President Biden's cynical decision to destroy a wildlife refuge and seal the beautiful Rio Grande behind a grotesque border wall must be stopped."
The proposal was announced a month after the federal government's own watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, released a report saying that border wall construction under Trump damaged native plants, helped spread invasive species, disrupted migration patterns for endangered species, and destroyed Indigenous burial grounds and sacred sites.
"There's no end to this insanity,"
said historian Greg Grandin of Biden's plan to fast-track the wall's construction.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Groups Warn Record US Fracked Gas Exports 'Bad News for Our Climate and Public Health'
"It is time for the White House to put the public interest and our climate future ahead of fossil fuel industry profits," said one campaigner.
Oct 04, 2023
As the U.S. Department of Energy announced that the nation set a new record for fossil gas exports during the first half of 2023, green advocacy groups on Wednesday implored the Biden administration to "put the public interest and our climate future ahead of fossil fuel industry profits" by halting gas projects and exports.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "the United States exported more natural gas in the first half of 2023... than it did in the same period of any previous year," with exports averaging 20.4 billion cubic feet per day. The U.S. is the world's leading liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter.
"Record exports of fossil fuels are a direct result of Biden administration policies that are expanding fracking, pipelines, and LNG export facilities, all of which threaten to lock the world into more climate-warming emissions from fossil fuels," Jim Walsh, policy director at the group Food & Water Watch, said in a statement.
"These policies are bad news for our climate and public health, but will also continue to push up energy prices for U.S. consumers, and will slow the transition to more affordable, clean renewable energy options," Walsh added.
Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, accused the Biden administration of largely ignoring an 85-year-old federal mandate in the Natural Gas Act requiring exports to most countries to be "consistent with the public interest."
"As a result, our record gas exports expose American households to higher energy prices and increased price volatility, poison Black and Brown communities who bear the brunt of LNG expansion on the U.S. Gulf Coast, and exacerbate the climate crisis," Slocum said. "The exports also drive increased domestic fracking and promote fossil fuels that compete with renewable energy."
“The Biden administration must halt all export authorizations until it acknowledges the impact record exports have on worsening domestic energy security for vulnerable Americans and commits to respect the public interest mandate," he added.
In addition to approving or backing climate-wrecking fossil fuel expansion including the Willow Project in Alaska, the Mountain Valley Pipeline in West Virginia, and oil drilling on public lands and offshore, the Biden administration has supported and expanded LNG projects at home and abroad with a special focus on export infrastrcture.
Reacting to the EIA figures, Walsh said that "President Biden has a chance to reverse this dangerous trend. He can match his climate rhetoric with real climate action by determining that the proposed Calcasieu Pass 2... project in Louisiana, which would be the country's largest export facility for fossil gas, is not in the public interest."
"It is time for the White House to put the public interest and our climate future ahead of fossil fuel industry profits," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!