This is an opinion column.

Were I a wagering man, I would have confidently bet that Alabama Republicans weren’t simply going to walk out and leave the keys to the 2nd congressional district – like an abandoned foreclosure.

That they wouldn’t simply tuck and run and allow a silly ole U.S. Supreme Court ruling to snatch away a seat they’ve owned since 2011—a seat vital nationally to the Republicans’ razor-thin margin in the U.S. House.

So what, the nation’s highest court redrew the squiggly lines that define the district—lines it deemed to be racially gerrymandered—to give Black voters an actual say in who represented them.

In a state that dares to defend its rights, I’d have gone all in on Republicans refusing to blithely bow or calmly capitulate to SCOTUS and deploying every trick in the game to keep that seat.

Even if it costs Alabamians $5 million.

Even if it resembles the racial gamesmanship that swayed (stunningly) SCOTUS in the first place.

I’d have hauled in the chips and cashed in.

I’d have cashed in because Senate Republicans pulled an ace out of the hole just before the legislature’s annual mid-session hiatus: They switched the date when voters would head to the polls to approve a constitutional amendment allowing gambling in the state—a move that may only be explained as a bet that doing do would dampen Democratic voter turnout.

In Alabama, where eight in 10 African Americans are Democrats, that translates to dampening Black voter turnout.

Again.

In February, the House passed a version of the amendment calling for a lottery, casinos, and sports betting. It set the vote for November 5, same as the general election. Makes sense. Especially this year. With our very democracy on the ballot—embodied in the septuagenarian and octogenarian presidential choices—voters may swarm to the polls.

Even in ruby-red Alabama, thus elevating turnout in the 2nd District race, as well.

Not if Alabama Republicans can help it.

A few weeks later, the Senate approved a watered-down gambling plan (which hasn’t seen final approval), allowing only for lottery. Call this a sleight-of-hand diversion from the real play—change the vote to September 10. Now, that would require a special election, which by the legislature’s own calculation will cost taxpayers about $5 million.

But who’s counting when it’s not your money?

Senate Republicans say it will eventually be returned to the state’s coffers from gambling revenues. (This is assuming the vote, whenever of if it happens, passes.) No matter how they shuffle it, that’s $5 million that could have been spent elsewhere. Like keeping hospitals open, subsiding childcare for working families, rebuilding crumbling bridges—myriad ways to benefit Alabamians.

Instead of betting on an unnecessary “special” election.

How and why did this happen? Well, Republicans were clearly and understandably buoyed by turnout for the March 5 primary in the 2nd District race. In the Democrats’ most anticipated state congressional race in recent memory, the party cast only 161 more votes than Republicans in counties within the newly drawn district.

Call it not a coincidence that a Senate committee approved a gambling plan, what, the next day as a Montgomery political strategist declared the district “in play for Republicans”?

Daniels came in second in the Democratic primary and will face Shomari Figures in the April 16 runoff for the Democratic nomination. The winner will stare down the Republican runoff winner between Dick Brewbaker and Caroleene Dobson.

Before the runoff, the newly drawn district was deemed, at best, a “toss up” for Republicans. Now, they’re jacked.

Sen. Greg Albritton said the date change was among many needed to round up enough votes for passage (three-fifths of Senate members—21 of 35—is needed to pass a new constitutional amendment. It passed 22-11).

Wink.

The House Minority Leaders has called the date change “the Anthony Daniels amendment.”

“I’m sure they were targeting me on that one,” he told my colleague Mike Cason. “They’re fearful of the elections being motivation for more Democrats coming out.”

“They’re certainly targeting this race [with the date change],” Daniels told me later. “Regardless of who the [Democratic] nominee is that does concern me.”

If the date change is a bargaining chip, Daniels isn’t taking the bet because many Republican legislators are not in favor of gambling in the state. “Why would I negotiate with people where a majority are not even for the bill itself? Why let [them] be the deciding factors on the date on a deal they’re never going to support?

“If this is their way of trying to kill the bill, then they’re doing a hell of a job.”

Sure, Black voters will turn out to support the gambling amendment. Lotteries in particular have historically been popular in our communities because, as deemed by the Washington Post, they, “give hope” among those often bereft of such. And Blacks spend six times more than whites on gaming, found the National Gaming Impact Study.

Still, Alabama Republicans are betting fewer African Americans, I mean Democrats, show up in September than might in November—whether they’ll show their cards or not.

Sen. Randy Price, R-Opelika, chair of the Tourism Committee, was specifically asked if the date change addresses Republicans’ fear that having gambling on the November ballot would drive up Democratic turnout.

He went poker face. “That, I couldn’t tell you.”

Well, I can. Alabama Republicans are absolutely betting—with $5 million of our money—that fewer Black, I mean Democrat voters show up in September than might in November.

Whether they show their cards or not.

I’m a member of the National Association of Black Journalists Hall of Fame and a Pulitzer Prize finalist for commentary. My column appears on AL.com, as well as the Lede. Tell me what you think at [email protected], and follow me at twitter.com/roysj, or on Instagram @roysj