Alabama Senate debates S.B. 1 contingency plan to restore enacted maps if courts lift injunctions; three amendments fail

The Alabama Senate took up Senate Bill 1 on the calendar and spent several hours debating whether the chamber should adopt a contingency plan to use the legislature's enacted 2021 state senate maps and hold special elections if federal courts lift injunctions.

Sponsor Senator Elliott told colleagues the bill is intended to return Alabama to its lawfully enacted maps "only if the courts lift the injunctions," citing an emergency motion filed by Attorney General Steve Marshall with the Eleventh Circuit and, as he described it on the floor, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in "Louisiana versus Calais" that he said undercuts the district court's remedial plan. Elliott said the bill would let the state use its enacted maps in upcoming primaries if courts allow it.

Opponents repeatedly pressed the sponsor on timing and voter notice. Senator Stewart questioned how changing election rules near the primary would protect absentee and elderly voters who already completed ballots, noting difficulties with Alabama's absentee procedures. "We need to ensure that voters have notice about the changes," he said, arguing the compressed timelines could undermine voters' ability to participate.

Senator Coleman asked the chamber to remember a 2022 state constitutional amendment she said requires any bill that affects how a general election is held to take effect at least six months before the general election, warning S.B. 1 could impact the general election and disenfranchise military and absentee voters.

Members also framed the debate in racial and historical terms. Senator Coleman and other Democratic senators said court rulings found intentional discrimination in past maps and warned the bill could remove opportunities for Black voters to elect preferred candidates. "They take away black opportunity seats," Coleman said on the floor. Senator Smitherman and Senator Hatcher recounted historical examples of exclusion and urged colleagues to consider the long-term consequences of altering districts during litigation.

Three floor amendments were offered and defeated: - Amendment (Senator Coleman): would have replaced mandatory language to give officials discretion to call a special election; the amendment failed on a long roll call (result recorded in the transcript as 8 ayes, 26 nays). - Amendment (Senator Vivian Figures): would have added notice protections and other language emphasizing adequate advance notice for voters; the amendment failed on a roll call (transcript records the result as 8 ayes, 26 nays). - Amendment (Senator Hatcher): sought to remove specific lines and questioned the bill's no-runoff approach; a roll-call vote was taken and, as announced on the floor, the amendment failed (transcript records 8 ayes, 26 nays).

Elliott defended the bill's provisions that would make the top vote-getter the party nominee when runoffs are impractical because of timing, saying the measures are constrained by court scheduling and the need to have usable maps. "If the courts remove their injunction, then this legislation will allow us to get back to the lawfully enacted maps," he said.

The session included a number of forceful floor statements invoking Alabama's civil-rights history and past court findings of discriminatory intent in redistricting. Lawmakers opposed to the bill urged voter mobilization and promised further action at the ballot box. The transcript records continuing debate and several personal appeals to constituents and activists; the record stops after extended debate and multiple failed amendments, with interruptions noted before the speeches resumed.

Next steps: the sponsor had moved for third reading and final passage using the long roll, but the transcript provided ends amid extended floor debate and failed amendments; the final disposition of S.B. 1 on third reading is not recorded in the excerpt provided.