Thousands Rally in Alabama for Black Voting Rights Amid Redistricting Battle

On a Saturday morning in May, thousands of marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama — the same span where state troopers beat civil rights demonstrators on Bloody Sunday in 1965. Sixty-one years later, the cause was the same: the right of Black Southerners to meaningful political representation.

The "All Roads Lead to the South" mobilization on May 16, 2026, drew over 5,000 people to a National Mass Rally at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery, with additional thousands gathering in Selma earlier that day [1][2]. More than 100 buses brought participants from across the country [3]. The proximate trigger was not one but two Supreme Court decisions delivered in a 12-day span that effectively reversed the most significant voting rights victory in a generation.

The 12 Days That Undid Allen v. Milligan

On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Allen v. Milligan that Alabama's congressional map — which packed the state's Black population into a single majority-Black district despite Black residents comprising 27% of the population — violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act [4]. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and, critically, Justice Kavanaugh [5].

The ruling ordered Alabama to draw a second congressional district where Black voters had a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. After the state legislature drew a replacement map that a federal court called deliberate defiance — District 2's Black voting-age population (BVAP) sat under 40%, far below what the court required — a three-judge panel appointed a special master who drew a remedial map used in the 2024 elections [6]. Under that map, Alabama elected two Black members of Congress for the first time in its history: Terri Sewell in District 7 and Shomari Figures in District 2 [7].

Three years later, the Court reversed course. On April 29, 2026, a 6-3 majority in Louisiana v. Callais, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, reinterpreted Section 2 to require proof of discriminatory intent rather than discriminatory effect — a standard civil rights lawyers have long argued is nearly impossible to meet [8]. Twelve days later, on May 11, the Court vacated the lower court injunctions protecting Alabama's remedial map, clearing the way for the state to revert to its legislature-drawn plan with only one majority-Black district [9].

"We are not going down without a fight. We are not going down to Jim Crow maps," said Shalela Dowdy, a plaintiff in the Allen v. Milligan case, at the Montgomery rally [1].

The Maps: What the Numbers Show

The redistricting fight comes down to specific numbers in specific districts. Under the original 2021 map struck down by the Court, District 7 (the Birmingham area) had a BVAP of roughly 50.7%, while District 2 sat at approximately 27% — far too low for Black voters to elect their preferred candidate [10]. The court-ordered remedial map raised District 2's BVAP to 48.7%, creating a genuine opportunity district [10].

When the Alabama legislature was given the chance to draw its own compliant map in July 2023, it produced a District 2 with a BVAP of approximately 39.9% — an increase, but one the three-judge panel found was deliberately designed to fall short of a functional majority [6]. The court found this was enacted with discriminatory intent, violating both the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment [11].

Source: Alabama Reflector / Court Filings

Data as of May 16, 2026CSV

The gap between 48.7% and 39.9% is the margin on which the political future of Alabama's Black electorate turns. At 48.7%, combined with typical coalition voting patterns, Black-preferred candidates can win. At 39.9%, they almost certainly cannot.

A Pattern of Defiance

Alabama's resistance to the Allen v. Milligan ruling followed a consistent pattern across five years of litigation:

• January 2022: A three-judge federal panel unanimously struck down Alabama's post-census map [4].
• February 2022: The Supreme Court stayed the ruling 5-4, allowing the challenged map for the 2022 elections [4].
• June 2023: The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Alabama was given the opportunity to draw compliant maps [5].
• July 21, 2023: Governor Kay Ivey signed a legislature-drawn map that maintained only one majority-Black district [6].
• September 5, 2023: The district court rejected the map, calling it a deliberate act of defiance, and appointed a special master [6].
• October 2023: The court adopted the special master's remedial map [10].
• May 8, 2025: After a full trial, the court ruled the legislature's 2023 map was enacted with discriminatory intent [11].
• May 11, 2026: The Supreme Court vacated the lower court injunctions, reinstating the legislature's map [9].

The litigation cost Alabama taxpayers at least $500,000 for the special master process alone, including $380/hour for Special Master Richard Allen and $400/hour for cartographer David Ely [12]. The true total, including the Attorney General's office litigation costs and multiple Supreme Court appeals, is likely several million dollars. The state's defense was funded through the Attorney General's budget [12].

The Turnout Gap: Redistricting's Compounding Effect

The redistricting battle does not occur in a vacuum. Alabama's racial turnout gap — the difference between white and Black voter participation rates — hit a 16-year high of 13 percentage points in the 2024 presidential election, according to the Brennan Center for Justice [13]. That gap has widened steadily since the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which struck down the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement that had specifically applied to Alabama.

Source: Brennan Center for Justice

Data as of Jan 1, 2025CSV

The data tells a stark story. In 2012, during Barack Obama's reelection, the white-Black turnout gap in Alabama was just 1 percentage point. By 2024, it had ballooned to 13 points — meaning that if nonwhite eligible voters had matched white participation rates, over 200,000 additional ballots would have been cast [13]. Ninety-six percent of eligible Black Alabamians are registered to vote, compared to 91% of eligible white residents, suggesting the problem is not registration but mobilization and access [13].

Neighboring Deep South states show similar patterns. Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana have all seen widening racial turnout gaps since the Shelby County decision, though Georgia's gap narrowed somewhat in 2020 and 2022 following intensive voter mobilization efforts by groups like Fair Fight Action [13].

Critics of the disputed maps argue this data demonstrates a suppression effect: when districts are drawn so that Black voters cannot elect their preferred candidates, those voters rationally disengage from a process rigged against them. Defenders of Alabama's maps counter that turnout disparities reflect demographic and socioeconomic factors unrelated to district lines.

The Legal Debate: Was Milligan Right?

The constitutional arguments at the heart of this battle are genuinely contested among legal scholars.

The case for requiring a second majority-Black district rests on the Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) framework, which established a three-part test under Section 2: plaintiffs must show (1) a reasonably configured majority-minority district could be drawn, (2) minority voters are politically cohesive, and (3) white bloc voting typically defeats minority-preferred candidates [5]. Alabama's plaintiffs met all three prongs, and the Roberts majority in Allen v. Milligan explicitly rejected Alabama's argument that plaintiffs' illustrative maps could not consider race [5].

The case against rests on two grounds. First, Justice Clarence Thomas argued in dissent that Section 2 does not create a right to proportional representation and that the use of race in drawing district lines is itself unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause [5]. Second, Justice Kavanaugh — who joined the majority — wrote a concurrence flagging that "the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future," signaling the legal ground was already shifting [5].

The Callais decision resolved this tension in favor of Alabama's position. Justice Alito's majority opinion declared that Louisiana's court-ordered second majority-Black district was an "unconstitutional racial gerrymander," effectively requiring plaintiffs to prove racist intent — a standard that, as Case Western Reserve law professor Atiba Ellis warned, demands a "smoking gun" that is notoriously difficult to produce [8]. UCLA law professor Rick Hasen characterized the ruling as "one of the most pernicious decisions of the last century," arguing "what's left of the Voting Rights Act is a hollow shell" [8].

Conservative legal scholars, including those aligned with originalist jurisprudence, have argued that the Gingles framework itself imposes a racial quota system that the Fourteenth Amendment's text does not support. This view holds that race-conscious remedial districts are a form of racial gerrymandering regardless of their protective intent — an argument that now commands a Supreme Court majority [5][8].

Who Rallied, and Who Organized Them

The May 16 rally was organized by a coalition of national and local groups: the NAACP (led by national president Derrick Johnson), the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (a Louisiana-based organization), Indivisible, and dozens of state and local chapters [14][15]. NAACP LDF spokesperson Tre Murphy said the protest was planned before the May 11 SCOTUS ruling, indicating the Callais decision was the primary catalyst [1].

The more than 100 buses that arrived in Montgomery came from across the country [3], and the roster of speakers — including U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Reverend Berenice King — reflected a nationally coordinated mobilization [1][2].

Local voices were prominent as well. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL), who represents District 7, and Rep. Shomari Figures (D-AL), whose District 2 seat is directly threatened, both spoke [1]. Kirk Carrington, a 75-year-old Bloody Sunday veteran, told reporters: "It's sad that it's continuing after 60-plus years" [1]. Wilbert Woodruff, 16-year leader of the Limestone County NAACP, brought a delegation from northern Alabama [2].

The tension between national organizing and grassroots framing is real but overstated, according to several attendees interviewed by local media. The national groups provided logistics and funding; the grievance is local. Evan Milligan, the lead plaintiff in the case that bears his name, is an Alabama resident whose name is now synonymous with the fight [4].

The Southern Domino Effect

Alabama is not an isolated case. The Callais ruling set off a chain reaction across the South:

Louisiana: The decision struck down Louisiana's court-ordered second majority-Black district directly. Governor Jeff Landry postponed the May 16 primary, and Republican legislators began redrawing maps [16].

Florida: Hours after the Callais ruling, the legislature approved new districts that could gain the GOP up to four additional seats. Governor Ron DeSantis called a special session [16].

Tennessee: President Trump urged Governor Bill Lee to pursue new maps in a special legislative session expected to target the state's single Democratic congressional seat, with a primary scheduled for August 6, 2026 [16].

Georgia: Governor Brian Kemp said it was "too late" to change maps for 2026 elections but acknowledged the Callais rationale "requires Georgia to adopt new electoral maps before the 2028 election cycle" [16].

Source: NBC News / ABC7 Analysis

Data as of May 12, 2026CSV

The combined effect across these states could shift four to seven House seats toward Republicans — a margin that could determine control of the chamber in the 2026 midterms [16][9].

The historical record from previous court-ordered redistricting battles offers mixed evidence on durability. In North Carolina, court-ordered remedial maps produced temporary gains in minority representation that were reversed when state legislatures regained map-drawing authority. In Georgia, a combination of demographic change and sustained voter mobilization infrastructure — built by organizations like the New Georgia Project and Fair Fight — produced more lasting results even without court-mandated districts [16]. The lesson appears to be that judicial mandates alone, without sustained electoral infrastructure, produce fragile gains.

What Victory Looks Like — and the Timeline

Organizers at the rally defined victory in both immediate and structural terms. In the short term, the goal is to prevent the elimination of District 2 as a competitive seat for the 2026 elections. Governor Ivey has signed a measure authorizing special elections for affected congressional districts, with new primaries scheduled for August 11, 2026 [9]. Under the legislature's reinstated map, the district's 39.9% BVAP makes a Black-preferred candidate's victory extremely unlikely.

In the longer term, organizers are calling for congressional action to strengthen Section 2 protections — a goal that faces steep odds in the current political environment. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore preclearance requirements, has stalled in Congress repeatedly [8].

Justice Sotomayor, dissenting from the May 11 order, warned that the Court's action was "inappropriate and will cause only confusion as Alabamians begin to vote in elections scheduled for next week" [9]. The practical reality is that voters in Alabama's redrawn districts now face an August primary under maps that every lower court to review them found unlawful.

The question is whether the energy visible on the Edmund Pettus Bridge and at the State Capitol can translate into the sustained organizing infrastructure that the historical record suggests is necessary. Court orders, as Alabama's five-year saga demonstrates, can be reversed. Voter mobilization networks are harder to dismantle — but also harder to build.

"They may draw racist maps," the rally's organizers declared, "but we are the South" [1].