Alabama House debates SB1, critics say it risks confusing May 19 elections and diluting Black votes

The Alabama House spent the special session debating Senate Bill 1 — legislation tied to elections and two Senate districts — amid warnings from minority members that the measure could disrupt the May 19 elections and dilute Black voting power.

Representative Moore (Jefferson) told colleagues the House’s action appears rooted in the recent Louisiana decision but said the Louisiana ruling does not parallel Alabama and did not overturn the Milligan precedent. “There was nothing in the Louisiana case that parallels the state of Alabama except for the racism that existed there,” Moore said, arguing SB1 would change districts that a three-judge panel and the U.S. Supreme Court previously found unconstitutional and would risk throwing out absentee ballots already cast.

Moore also warned the bill would undercut roughly one-third of Alabama’s electorate and urged the body not to “tamper with districts during an election cycle.” She cited the Voting Rights Act, the 13th and 15th Amendments, and a history of contested maps as contexts for her opposition.

Representative Ensler (Montgomery) pressed procedural questions about the Purcell principle, which advises courts and officials not to change election rules close to voting when doing so would create confusion. Ensler asked whether, if SB1 is enacted and a court later lifts an injunction or changes maps, voters who already cast ballots on May 19 would face uncertainty about whether their votes counted or whether they would need to vote again. “What we are setting ourselves up for is to go back into court once again,” Ensler said, warning of more litigation and taxpayer expense.

Lawmakers also debated how the bill treats party nominations and the Fair Campaign Practices Act. Sponsors noted SB1 does not itself mandate primaries; under state law, parties decide how to select nominees, and the bill’s language could allow party committees to choose candidates instead of holding elections. Opponents said that heightens the risk of “backroom” selection rather than voter choice.

Representative Drummond (Mobile) referenced a 1983 precedent in which parties reportedly selected candidates without primaries, calling that history a reason to let voters choose nominees now. Representative Chestnut (Dallas) raised concerns about the origins of the contested maps and cited records connected to Thomas Hofeller, a redistricting consultant whose files have been scrutinized in other states.

Speakers also noted procedural history in the federal litigation over Alabama maps, including the appointment of a special master and court-ordered maps in Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. West Allen, and discussed an appeal and an emergency filing by the Attorney General that could resolve on short notice.

No final floor vote on SB1 was recorded during the session. Toward the end of the period captured in the transcript, a member moved to recess and the House went into recess.

What’s next: Lawmakers said May 19 primaries were expected to proceed as scheduled unless a court acted; several speakers said litigation over maps and appeals could continue in the coming days. The transcript did not record a final passage of SB1 or a recorded roll-call vote on the bill.