“Sometimes you’re the windshield. Sometimes you’re the bug. Sometimes it all comes together, baby. Sometimes you’re a fool in love.” – Mark Knopfler

If you are ever feeling smug, try to predict the future.

A couple of weeks ago I told you Republicans in the Alabama Legislature were likely to draw a new map of U.S. House of Representative districts where GOP candidates would have a decent shot at winning all seven districts while shutting out Democrats. The current Republican-to-Democrat split is 5-2.

On top of that, I was doubtful that whatever map Republicans approved would be put into use because the U.S. Supreme Court would be unwilling to discontinue the use of a map drawn by a federal court.

I was 0-for-2 on the day, beloved reader. Two strikeouts. Designated for assignment before I could even slink back to my locker.

What actually happened is, first, Republicans passed a map likely to give the party only a 6-1 advantage in the House delegation Alabama sends to Washington, D.C., next January.

This was a wise move by Republican legislators both logically and politically. Logically, this was the map the legislators passed back in 2023, so it makes sense to choose the map you are on record saying you believe to be fair.

This will create a confusing mess for voters in Congressional districts 1, 2, 6 and 7, especially for the voters who will vote in a district primary this week and then vote in a completely different district primary in August, but Republicans seem willing to push through that chaos to gain an advantage.

Politically, the decision to draw in one majority-minority district also enhances the chances for all six Republican-leaning districts to remain Republican.

There is a saying in redistricting that the party drawing the maps must be careful not to slice the bologna too thin.

It means if the party in power tries to maximize the number of seats it can win by creating many districts in which the party only has a small advantage, the majority party might end up losing more seats if the votes do not work out exactly as expected than if the party had played it safe.

Yet, my forecast was the Legislature would throw caution to the wind and try to win all seven Congressional seats because the president and national Republican Party leaders are applying tremendous pressure for Alabama and other states to maximize seats.

It turned out Alabama Republicans like their bologna thick.

I was much more surprised, however, in the second development that allowed Alabama to change its districts – the U.S. Supreme Court overturning a lower court ruling that prevented Alabama from altering its court-drawn Congressional map until after the 2030 U.S. Census.

My surprise is not so much from the decision itself – there are plenty of reasonable arguments that redistricting is a political process with which courts should rarely get involved – but from the sudden change from 2023 when the Supreme Court first ruled that Alabama should have two majority-minority Congressional districts.

The Supreme Court is made up of the same members now as it was then, so how could this reversal happen less than three years later?

Well, the Supreme Court did not provide its reasoning for throwing out the order, but it is obviously connected to its recent ruling against race-based redistricting in Louisiana.

But why the differing rulings on a similar topic? As someone who has never attended law school – and, Lord willing, never will – here is what I believe was the Supreme Court’s logic.

Alabama presented a poor legal argument to the Supreme Court back when its case was argued.

The Supreme Court’s recent opinion concerning Louisiana stated Alabama tried to justify its map as race neutral by using a flawed and overly technical argument that went against previous court rulings and did not reflect the actual process used by the Alabama Legislature in redistricting.

The Louisiana ruling hinted that had Alabama’s argument focused on the Voting Rights Act being outdated and also that trying to follow the Voting Rights Act is not a good enough excuse to create political districts based primarily on race, some Supreme Court justices might have been more receptive.

The man responsible for Alabama’s legal strategy at the time is named Edmund LaCour. Hindsight is always 20/20 after a loss, but it seems a blunder like that could set back someone’s career prospects. Instead, LaCour was appointed as a federal judge in November.

Nothing like failing upwards, right, Eddie? Maybe this means my invitation to the New York Times editorial board is just around the corner.