Justices to Hear South Carolina Redistricting Case on Wednesday

October 10, 2023 by Dan McCue
Justices to Hear South Carolina Redistricting Case on Wednesday
The Supreme Court building (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday over the constitutionality of South Carolina’s new congressional district map, which allegedly moved Black voters out of one district to make it more hospitable to Republicans.

The focal point of claims of an unlawful racial gerrymander is South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, currently represented by Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.

Following the 2020 Census, state lawmakers had to redraw its seven congressional districts so that each contained a roughly equal population of about 730,000 people. 

Among other things, the latest census revealed the 1st Congressional District, which encompasses a number of South Carolina’s fastest-growing coastal communities, was overpopulated by about 88,000 persons, while the neighboring 6th Congressional District, a so-called “opportunity” district under the Voting Rights Act currently represented by Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., was underpopulated by about 85,000 residents.

Instead of simply moving the district lines to equalize the number of people in each district, Will Roberts, a cartographer on the state Senate’s staff, moved 53,000 residents from the 6th Congressional District to the 1st Congressional District, then moved 140,000 residents from District 1 to District 6.

As a result of these moves, the state Legislature was able to maintain a 17% Black voting age population in the 1st District, while moving fast-growing and increasingly affluent Beaufort and Berkeley Counties entirely within its borders.

Both moves tended to favor Republican candidates.

Republican Gov. Henry McMaster signed the redistricting plan into law in January 2022.

Shortly thereafter, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and Taiwan Scott, a Black voter who lives in the district, sued, arguing that the 1st Congressional District and two others, the state’s 2nd and 5th Congressional Districts, were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders that were drawn to intentionally dilute Black voting strength.

In January, a three-judge panel ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs in federal court in regard to the latter two districts, but ruled in their favor when it came to the 1st Congressional District.

In doing so, it found that race was the “predominant motivating factor” in the drawing of the district’s lines and it enjoined the state from holding elections with the district in its current configuration.

Under federal law, any decision by a three-judge panel is appealable directly to the Supreme Court, and the court has to accept the case and rule on the merits.

South Carolina availed itself of that right, setting the stage for Wednesday’s hearing.

During arguments, counsel for the state is expected to argue the three-judge panel erred when it concluded that race was the primary motivation behind how District 1 looks on the current map.

They will also contend the lower court made several legal mistakes, particularly when it “wrongly discarded” the Legislature’s defense that the district lines being disputed were drawn based on political considerations.

They will further argue the panel failed to require the plaintiffs to present an adequate alternative map or to prove that race, rather than politics, was the predominant consideration when District 1 was drawn.

The state will also argue that the panel made “clear factual errors” during its deliberation, including “its regrettable attempt to impugn the experienced nonpartisan mapmaker.”

Further, it will claim that the court wrongly relied on “putative expert analyses that ignored multiple traditional [districting] criteria.”

The 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause prohibits state legislatures from engaging in racial gerrymandering. This means that state legislatures cannot use race as an unjustified and predominant factor in drawing legislative districts. 

The clause also prohibits a state from engaging in intentional “vote dilution,” that is, “invidiously minimizing or canceling out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities.” 

Particularly germane in this case, the clause prohibits legislatures from packing racial or ethnic minorities into districts where they constitute an “excessive” majority and from “cracking” racial or ethnic minorities among districts so that they “constitute an ineffective minority of voters.” 

In order to establish a vote-dilution claim, the plaintiffs in this case, the NAACP chapter and Scott, must show with direct or circumstantial evidence that race was a motivating factor in the Legislature’s action and that the Legislature intentionally diluted the voting strength of Black voters.

In order to prevail on their racial gerrymandering claim, the plaintiffs must establish that the Legislature used race as the predominant factor in drawing a district.

A ruling in the case could come as early as January. If the high court rules South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District was racially gerrymandered, state lawmakers may be forced to redraw the 2024 congressional map before the election next fall.

If the justices, in the alternative, side with South Carolina, the ruling could invite other states involved in pending gerrymander-related lawsuits to try to explain away their consideration of race by claiming that redistricting was based on politics. 

Either way, the court’s decision could have a profound effect on the 2024 election, particularly in regards to who controls the House beginning in January 2025.

The court’s most recent ruling in a case involving racial gerrymandering was handed down in June.

In that case, Allen v. Milligan, the court in a 5-4 ruling affirmed a lower court decision that required Alabama to draw a second congressional district in which racial minorities could elect a candidate of their choice.

Allen, however, differs from the current case because it challenged Alabama’s redistricting scheme under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, not the equal protection clause, so it may not be the best barometer by which to forecast the outcome of Wednesday’s hearing.

Dan can be reached at [email protected] and @DanMcCue

A+
a-
  • racial gerrymandering
  • South Carolina
  • Supreme Court
  • In The News

    Health

    Voting

    Supreme Court

    Supreme Court Takes Up Religious Rights Dispute Over LGBTQ Books in Maryland Schools

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday over the religious rights of parents in Maryland to remove their... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday over the religious rights of parents in Maryland to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The case is the latest dispute involving religion to come before the conservative-led court. The justices have... Read More

    April 21, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Skeptical of Overriding Preventive Medical Tests in Obamacare

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is trying to decide whether to keep an Affordable Care Act provision that requires insurers... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is trying to decide whether to keep an Affordable Care Act provision that requires insurers to offer no-cost preventive care tests. The court heard arguments Monday on whether the procedure for deciding which tests can be included under the national insurance... Read More

    Supreme Court Says Trump Administration Must Work to Bring Back Mistakenly Deported Maryland Man

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday said the Trump administration must work to bring back a Maryland man who was... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday said the Trump administration must work to bring back a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to prison in El Salvador, rejecting the administration’s emergency appeal. The court acted in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen who had... Read More

    Supreme Court Takes Up $8B Phone and Internet Subsidy

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a major legal fight over the $8 billion a year the federal... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a major legal fight over the $8 billion a year the federal government spends to subsidize phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas, in a new test of federal regulatory power. The justices are reviewing an appellate ruling that... Read More

    March 24, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Rejects Children’s Lawsuit Seeking Injunction Against Climate Change

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a lawsuit on behalf of children who said U.S.... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a lawsuit on behalf of children who said U.S. energy policies that exacerbate climate change are damaging their futures. They said unrestrained climate change jeopardized their life, liberty, personal security and health. The 9th Circuit... Read More

    March 21, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Supreme Court Set to Hear Two Major Cases Next Week

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to hear two of the major cases in its current term next week;... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to hear two of the major cases in its current term next week; one that will take a closer look at racial gerrymandering in Louisiana, the other considering federal court jurisdiction over Clean Air Act cases. The first hearing,... Read More

    News From The Well
    scroll top