It’s 2016 and Every Single Judge on Alabama’s Highest Courts Is White

A new lawsuit could finally change that.

The all-white Alabama Supreme CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The state of Alabama’s violent attacks on voting rights protesters in Selma helped drive the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Back then, the Alabama Supreme Court was an all-white body. Today, 50 years after the passage of the seminal civil rights law, it still is. Only two African Americans have ever served, and only after first being appointed by a governor. The state’s other highest appellate courts, the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Civil Appeals, have never seen a black judge, despite the fact that more than a quarter of the state’s voting-age population is African American. (Only two African Americans have been elected to a statewide office in Alabama. Ever.)

According to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in an Alabama federal court by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and other voting rights advocates, that situation is by design, and a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act that the state helped inspire. The lawsuit is somewhat unusual. The Voting Rights Act hasn’t been used much in judicial election cases, even though the Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that it applied to them. That may be because most states have abandoned judicial elections, particularly partisan ones. Alabama is one of only seven states that continue to hold partisan judicial elections, and one of only five of those that still hold at-large, or statewide, judicial elections rather than single-member district voting.

It’s a system that ensures that a white voting bloc can routinely trump the will of the 26 percent of state residents who are African American. At one time, the all-white justices were Democrats. Now, most of the justices are chosen in Republican primary elections, ever since strategist Karl Rove helped orchestrate a GOP takeover of the state courts in the early 1990s with a huge influx of corporate cash. While the parties have changed, the demographics have not. Every one of the 19 judges on the state’s highest courts is white.

Alabama intentionally shifted its elections…to dilute the voting strength of African Americans, “consistently erect[ing] barriers to keep black persons from full and equal participation in the social, economic and political life of the state.”

“We deemed the situation in Alabama to be a dire one,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee, in a press call about the case. “We believe these results are attributable to the method of voting for these judges.”

At-large elections in the South have a long and ugly history. In 1986, a federal judge concluded that after Reconstruction, Alabama intentionally shifted its elections from single-member district style voting to at-large races to dilute the voting strength of African Americans, “consistently erect[ing] barriers to keep black persons from full and equal participation in the social, economic and political life of the state.” The judge found more than 148 municipalities and 30 county school boards guilty of using racially motivated at-large voting systems. Most of those were dismantled through court orders, but judicial elections were left untouched. 

That legacy helps explain the state of the Alabama Supreme Court today, and why voting rights activists see it as a ripe target for their lawsuit. Consider the court’s longtime chief justice, Roy Moore. Moore was the Alabama chief justice in the early aughts until he picked a fight with federal courts over his placement of a giant stone replica of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. He was eventually removed from the bench after refusing to remove “the rock,” as it was known. He then went on to spend his newly found free time campaigning against a ballot initiative that would have removed racist language about poll taxes and segregated schools from the state constitution. (It lost.)

Is your judge for sale?
Mark Hammermeister

In 2004, Moore helped get his former legal aide elected to the same court. His protégé, Tom Parker, won the election despite reports that he’d been observed handing out Confederate flags at a party honoring the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Alabama then reelected Moore again in 2012, defeating two other candidates in the Republican primary despite being heavily outspent. He remained in the job until May this year, when he was removed again for defying a federal court order and ordering lower court judges to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He’s now fighting that removal. Parker, meanwhile, remains on the court.

Today’s lawsuit still might not remedy the Roy Moore problem, but it is designed to give African Americans a shot at breaking the white lock on the bench. The plaintiffs are asking the courts to require Alabama to change its voting procedures to create single-member judicial districts so that cohesive minority communities can elect a candidate of choice, as they do for state legislative elections. (Under the proposed plan, the chief justice would still be chosen in an at-large race.) The hope is that such a change would give African American voters a voice on courts that have a disproportionate impact on black state residents.

The complaint points out that Alabama’s court of criminal appeals looked approvingly on a law that allowed for mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of murder, just a few years before the US Supreme Court ruled such sentences unconstitutional. Those sentences had fallen heavily on minority kids. Citing statistics compiled by the Equal Justice Initiative, the complaint highlights the fact that the state’s criminal justice system also reflects racial bias in the courts. Nearly 65 percent of all murders in Alabama involve a black victim, but 80 percent of the people on death row were convicted of killing a white person. Only 6 percent of all murders in the state involved a black defendant and a white victim, but more than 60 percent of the black death row inmates were sentenced for killing a white person. Even as African Americans make up only a quarter of the state’s residents, they account for more than 60 percent of its prison population as well. “We believe bringing Alabama into compliance [with the Voting Rights Act] will produce outcomes that are more fair,” Clarke said.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate