The Supreme Court has ruled against Alabama’s Republican leaders for the second time, ruling that the Voting Rights Act requires a second congressional district

That

with a near majority of black voters.

Tuesday’s decision clears the way for a new statewide congressional map to be drawn by independent experts. The likely outcome is that Alabama could elect a second black Democrat to the House of Representatives next year, along with five white Republicans.

Without comment or dissent, the justices rejected an unusual appeal by the state’s attorneys, who were on the losing end in a 5-4 decision in June.

Then the court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., upheld a three-judge panel that had found that Alabama’s electoral map had a discriminatory effect on black voters.

Although they made up 27% of the state’s population, they were not allowed to elect a black representative in six of the seven districts.

The justices noted that black candidates have no chance of winning in a white majority district in Alabama. The only remedy then was to create a second compact district with a majority of black voters or “something close to that.”

But Republican lawmakers in Alabama refused to follow that order and instead drew a revised map that would once again ensure a white Republican would win in six of the seven districts.

Not surprisingly, the three-judge panel rejected that map and decided to appoint outside experts to draw a new one.

Undeterred, the state’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court on September 11, asking that the new court order be stayed.

They said Roberts and the court had not specifically said the only solution was a black-majority second district.

“The question now,” they said, “is whether a state should sacrifice traditional district criteria to align with voters from diverse communities, based on their race, to achieve a 50 percent racial goal,” or something that comes very close to that.’ The answer should be a resounding no.”

Voting rights advocates characterized the move as an act of defiance reminiscent of Alabama’s response to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.