Republicans have controlled Alabama’s Legislature since 2010. They have had the votes to write its budgets, establish its priorities and decide which problems receive attention.
After 16 years, voters are entitled to ask what that power has accomplished.
This year’s primary results give Republicans reason to prepare a better answer than another warning about Democrats.
An Alabama Political Reporter review of the secretary of state’s official precinct files found that Republican primary ballots declined between 2022 and 2026 in Madison, Limestone, Shelby and Jefferson counties. Democratic ballots increased in every one.
Madison County offers the most striking example.
In 2022, voters cast 51,220 Republican primary ballots and 11,934 Democratic ballots. This year, Republican ballots fell to 32,044 while Democratic ballots rose to 35,316.
More Madison County primary voters chose a Democratic ballot than a Republican one.
Overall participation increased by about 7 percent. The much larger change was in the distribution of ballots between the parties.
Elsewhere, Republican primary ballots fell by approximately 41 percent in Limestone County, 26 percent in Shelby County and 32 percent in Jefferson County. Democratic ballots nearly tripled in Limestone, more than tripled in Shelby and nearly doubled in Jefferson.
These counties participated in a broader statewide shift. But the Democratic share of total primary ballots increased more in each of the four counties than it did statewide.
Primary elections are imperfect measures of November strength. Candidates and competitive races influence which ballot voters choose, and these totals cannot identify individuals who switched ballots or explain their reasons. Countywide figures cannot establish what happened in every suburb or legislative district. But Republican participation fell substantially in all four counties while Democratic participation rose. That is a change a governing party should examine.
Long winning streaks can make that examination difficult.
Political security encourages officeholders to trust the familiar appeals, consult the familiar supporters and dismiss evidence that something may be changing. Confidence can harden into an expectation that voters will keep returning the same party to power.
Partisan district lines can reinforce that expectation. When politicians draw the boundaries within which they seek reelection, voters have reason to question whether their representatives are choosing their constituents before those constituents get to choose them.
The danger extends beyond Election Day. Officeholders who feel secure can become less willing to hear inconvenient questions or confront problems that require difficult decisions.
Some will attribute the primary changes to newcomers bringing Democratic politics into growing communities. Perhaps newcomers account for some of the movement. That requires evidence.
But “people moved here” is an explanation to investigate, not a governing answer.
Those people live here now. They pay taxes, send children to school and depend on public services. Earning their confidence is part of the job.
So is listening to residents whose families have been here for generations and whose concerns may no longer fit neatly into familiar partisan appeals.
Cultural grievances have supplied years of campaign material. A family trying to afford groceries, housing and health care is entitled to ask what its government has accomplished on those fronts.
A parent concerned about a child’s education deserves an answer about that school. A community worried about access to a hospital deserves an answer about health care.
Another enemy to blame will not meet those needs.
Alabama families also face the pressures shaping the national economy. Higher costs, the war with Iran and uncertainty about what comes next reach into households regardless of their voting history.
Assuming that Alabama voters are immune to frustrations felt elsewhere would be a mistake.
Those are pressures facing candidates this November. They are not a proven explanation for the primary results in May.
For state Republicans, the responsibility goes deeper than the fortunes of any president.
Many of Alabama’s problems developed over generations. No honest assessment would assign their entire history to one party. But Republicans have controlled the Legislature since 2010. They owe voters an accounting of what they have done with that authority.
They cannot reasonably claim credit for Alabama’s successes while assigning responsibility for its persistent failures to liberals who lack the legislative votes to set the agenda.
The record includes the budgets passed, the measures rejected and the problems left for another year. Choosing to postpone a decision is an exercise of power, too. Its consequences belong in the accounting.
Democrats should resist congratulating themselves. An opening becomes meaningful only when candidates organize, listen and offer answers people trust. Increased Democratic primary participation does not relieve the party of the obligation to become a credible governing alternative.
None of these numbers establishes that Alabama is becoming a blue or purple state. They give us reason to question assumptions about which voters can be taken for granted.
Alabamians benefit when their support has to be earned. They benefit when candidates must answer difficult questions and officeholders have reason to listen beyond their most dependable supporters.
Sixteen years does not make every Alabama problem a Republican creation. It does make the Republican record fair ground for judgment.
The question is what those entrusted with power have done to make life better—and what reason they have given voters to trust them with more time.
Republicans owe Alabama an honest assessment of their record. Democrats owe it a credible alternative.
Voters owe neither party another term.
