The Supreme Court recently ruled that South Carolina’s congressional map can stand, rejecting claims that racial motives were behind the district drawing process. The decision was a win for Palmetto State Republicans, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the majority opinion. Conservatives on the court joined Alito, while liberal justices dissented. The court found that evidence did not support claims that the district was racially gerrymandered.
A three-judge panel had previously determined that South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District was racially gerrymandered, but the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the map for the upcoming elections. Alito highlighted that the legislature’s political goal was achieved by increasing the projected Republican vote share in the district, as well as the black voting-age population. He also dismissed claims that the revised map unfairly placed predominantly black areas into a Democratic district.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, argued that drawing political districts is a task for politicians, not federal judges. He asserted that the court does not have the power to decide claims related to districting. The case involved allegations of racial gerrymandering brought by civil rights groups, challenging the constitutionality of the map based on the 14th Amendment. Thomas criticized past Supreme Court rulings related to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The dissent, written by Justice Elena Kagan, criticized the majority for disputing facts determined by the district court panel. Kagan argued that the Supreme Court is meant to give deference to lower court decisions, and the majority opinion undermines this principle. She warned that the ruling would make it difficult for federal courts to address cases of racially gerrymandered congressional maps. Kagan suggested that South Carolina should redraw District 1 without targeting African-American citizens.
The South Carolina case was compared to a similar case in Alabama where the court ruled that Republican lawmakers had diluted black voters’ political power through gerrymandering. The Alabama ruling led to a new map with a district where Democratic-leaning black voters were a substantial portion of the electorate. The Supreme Court’s decision in the South Carolina case raised concerns about the future of racial gerrymandering cases and the ability of federal courts to address such issues. Despite objections from dissenting justices, the ruling allows South Carolina’s current congressional map to remain intact for the time being.
