Alabama House approves ‘what‑if’ bill to authorize special congressional primaries if courts lift map injunction

House members spent a day arguing over the legal and racial consequences of a contingency bill before narrowly approving House Bill 1, which would authorize special primary elections in certain congressional districts if federal courts vacate an injunction that has kept the legislature’s 2023 map out of effect.

Sponsor Representative Pringle told the House the bill is a narrowly targeted mechanism “to hold special primary elections in certain districts in the state of Alabama” if the courts lift the injunction and the governor calls elections. He said the measure is conditional and intended to preserve the legislature’s ability to use the previously enacted plan should the Supreme Court reverse the injunction.

Democratic lawmakers and several Republicans pushed back, saying the session was premature and that the bill would permit changes with real consequences for representation. “As a black voter, I feel a deep sense of betrayal,” Representative Clark said on the floor, warning HB1 would “intentionally erase years of hard fought progress.” Other opponents described the measure as costly and confusing for voters who may already have cast absentee ballots.

Lawmakers pressed Pringle on technical details. The sponsor said if the court lifts the injunction the governor would call special primaries in the affected districts — the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th — and that those special primaries would be decided by plurality rather than a 50%‑plus‑one runoff requirement. Pringle said votes in affected congressional contests on the May primary would be nullified and replaced by the special election results if the contingency occurs.

Fiscal concerns featured repeatedly. Multiple members cited the bill’s fiscal note and the clerk’s reading: the special election could cost roughly $4.5 million, a figure members said should be weighed against other state priorities such as mental health and school funding.

Legal context animated much of the debate. Members repeatedly referenced the federal court rulings that produced the injunction and the state’s pending appeal; speakers disagreed about whether a recent Supreme Court decision affecting another state (Louisiana) altered the legal landscape for Alabama. “The court is going to decide this issue,” Pringle said, urging that the legislature provide the mechanism now so it is ready if the courts rule in Alabama’s favor.

Opponents cautioned that reverting to the 2023 map would reduce Black voting strength in some districts and prompt renewed litigation. Multiple members argued the bill risks diluting the influence of Black voters and would reopen constitutional disputes that the courts would have to resolve.

After extended debate and several floor exchanges, the House approved HB1 on a recorded vote, 75 yes to 29 no. The clerk recorded passage, and Pro Tem Pringle moved to adjourn; the chamber adjourned until 9 a.m. the following day.

The bill’s immediate legal effect depends entirely on a federal court decision. If the injunction remains in place, the measure does not change current ballots or results; if the injunction is lifted, the statute would provide the governor authority to call special primaries in the four identified districts under the 2023 map.