Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation Friday giving her authority to schedule new congressional primary elections if federal courts allow Republicans to swap out their current district maps before the November midterms. The move caps a rapid special session and places Alabama squarely in the middle of a redistricting fight that could reshape the battle for control of the U.S. House.
The Republican-controlled Legislature approved the bill the same day. Alabama's regularly scheduled primaries remain set for May 19 under existing maps, but the new law creates a mechanism to hold separate special primaries in any districts redrawn under a court-approved replacement map. The legislation is contingent, it does nothing unless a court acts first.
That contingency is the whole point. Alabama Republicans have asked both a federal court and the U.S. Supreme Court to let them replace the current court-ordered congressional map, which contains two majority-minority districts held by Democrats, with a map state lawmakers approved in 2023 that includes only one majority-minority district. If either court says yes, Ivey can immediately set the machinery in motion.
In 2023, a federal court ordered Alabama to adopt a congressional map featuring one majority-Black seat in the 7th Congressional District and one Black "opportunity" seat in the 2nd Congressional District, where a plurality of the voting-age population is Black. That map produced two Democratic-held seats, currently represented by Reps. Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures, both Black members of Congress.
Republicans viewed the court-drawn map as an overreach. Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter, celebrating the legislation Friday, called the current map a "racially gerrymandered disgrace."
"This guarantees that the Second Congressional District, which was wrongfully handed to democrats on a silver platter by the courts, is flipped back to republican control while also putting the Seventh Congressional District in play."
Ledbetter acknowledged the legal limits Alabama faces. He noted that the constraints of the Allen v. Milligan case prevented the state from simply drawing an entirely new map the way Tennessee did.
"As much as we would have preferred to draw a new map like our neighbors in Tennessee, the legal constraints created by Allen v. Milligan make that impossible today."
The 2023 map lawmakers want to revive would reduce the Black voting-age population in Rep. Figures's 2nd District from roughly 48% to about 39%, as Breitbart reported, a shift Republicans believe could flip the seat.
None of this would be happening without a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on Louisiana's congressional map. That ruling limited the use of race in redistricting and struck down Louisiana's Black-majority district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, narrowing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the process. The decision sent shockwaves through redistricting fights across the South.
Alabama Republicans seized on the ruling as the legal opening they needed. As we covered when the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's race-drawn House map, the decision immediately raised the question of whether other states would follow suit.
They have. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a new congressional map into law on Thursday. Louisiana Republicans delayed their own May 16 House primaries to draw new district lines after their map fell. South Carolina Republican lawmakers are weighing whether to take up a new map of their own.
The Washington Times reported that the Associated Press pegged the potential Republican gain from new districts across several states at as many as 14 seats, a number that explains why these fights carry so much weight in a cycle where House control is on the line.
Democrats in the Alabama Legislature did not go quietly. State Sen. Vivan Davis Figures cast the special session in stark terms.
"Today we are not debating maps, we are debating democracy itself. We're debating whether power matters more than principle."
Roughly one quarter of Alabama's population is Black. Critics of the Republican push argue that collapsing two majority-minority districts into one dilutes the political voice of Black voters who gained representation under the court-ordered map.
But the Republican counter is straightforward: the Supreme Court itself said that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing districts, and the old map was built on exactly that premise. If the legal foundation has shifted, the maps should shift with it. That is the argument Alabama is now pressing in two courts simultaneously.
The legislation Ivey signed is unusual in its structure. It does not itself redraw any district. It simply authorizes the governor to call special primaries in affected districts if and when a court greenlights a new map. Alabama state Sen. Chris Elliott underscored the conditional nature of the move. "It is an if, and only if, the courts take action," the Washington Examiner noted him saying.
The timing is tight. Alabama's current primaries are eleven days away. If the courts do not act before May 19, the existing maps will govern those races. But the new law ensures the state is not caught flat-footed if a ruling comes down after the primaries but before November. Ivey framed the special session as preparation, not presumption.
Just The News reported Ivey's full statement after signing the bill:
"With this special session successfully behind us, Alabama now stands ready to quickly act, should the courts issue favorable rulings in our ongoing redistricting cases. Alabama knows our state, our people and our districts best."
That last line carries a familiar federalism argument: states, not federal courts, should be drawing their own maps. Whether the judiciary agrees in this case remains an open question.
Alabama's action fits into a pattern now visible across the region. Tennessee moved first, as Republican lawmakers there passed a new congressional map that Democrats had no mechanism to block. Louisiana delayed its primaries outright to accommodate new lines. South Carolina is still deliberating.
Meanwhile, the Washington Times reported that the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated a Democratic-backed redistricting amendment, cutting off a plan Democrats hoped could yield up to four additional U.S. House seats. The redistricting current is running in one direction right now, and it is not the direction Democrats wanted.
The Supreme Court's willingness to limit race-conscious redistricting has been the catalyst. After the Court shut down a last-ditch effort to delay the Louisiana redistricting ruling, the legal landscape shifted fast. Republican-led states read the signal and moved.
Alabama's approach is more cautious than Tennessee's. Rather than simply enacting a new map, Alabama is asking courts for permission first and building the election infrastructure to execute quickly if the answer is yes. Whether that caution reflects legal prudence or political vulnerability in the courts is a matter of perspective.
The open questions are significant. No court has yet ruled on Alabama's request to reinstate the 2023 map. The federal court that ordered the current map could refuse. The Supreme Court could decline to intervene. If both courts say no, the legislation Ivey signed becomes a dead letter, and the May 19 primaries proceed as planned under existing lines.
If either court says yes, Alabama will face the logistical challenge of running special primaries in affected districts on a compressed timeline, while the rest of the state's races proceed under the original calendar. The legislation gives Ivey the scheduling authority, but the details of how that would work in practice remain unwritten.
The broader stakes are clear. The Supreme Court's recent redistricting rulings have given Republican state legislatures a tool they intend to use. Whether the judiciary lets Alabama use it in time for 2026 will say a great deal about how far and how fast the new legal landscape extends.
For years, federal courts told Alabama how to draw its districts. Alabama just told the courts it is ready to draw its own, the moment they say the word.
