Supreme Court Delivers Blow to Democrats in South Carolina

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in favor of South Carolina Republicans Congressional District 1 Map

By Javar Juarez

Friday May 24th, 2024

Charleston, S.C. (CUBN)-  Thursday marked a significant setback for Democrats, as the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a newly drawn South Carolina Congressional District map. This decision reverses a lower court ruling that had previously struck down the map on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. The court ruled in a six-to-three decision that partisan politics, rather than race, along with a population boom in coastal areas, explained the congressional map.

This ruling, while having no immediate impact in South Carolina, sets a precedent for future redistricting efforts. It is a severe blow to Democrats who had hoped to secure a more favorable map. Similar disputes over voting lines are currently playing out in Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida. The Supreme Court's decision will likely influence redistricting cases nationwide, especially those proceeding under the same legal tools.

For Republicans, this decision is a clear victory. The map, which is favorable to the GOP, raises the bar for determining when a map can be considered a racial gerrymander rather than a partisan one. This makes it more challenging for plaintiffs to disentangle race from politics. Lawmakers, like those in South Carolina, can now argue that changes made to districts are for partisan reasons rather than racial ones.

Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, wrote that the Supreme Court showed little respect for the intensive fact-finding of the lower court and its conclusion that removing 30,000 black voters from the district amounted to "bleaching."

"What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers about racial gerrymandering," Kagan wrote. "Those actors will often have an incentive to use race as a proxy to achieve partisan ends. And occasionally they might want to straight-up suppress the electoral influence of minority voters."

"This odious practice of sorting citizens, built on racial generalizations and exploiting racial divisions, will continue," she continued. "In the electoral sphere especially, where ugly patterns of pervasive racial discrimination have so long governed, we should demand better -- of ourselves, of our political representatives, and most of all of this Court. Respectfully, I dissent."

The liberal justices warned that the Court was implicitly giving a green light to race discrimination in redistricting by overruling the lower court.

"The proper response to this case is not to throw up novel roadblocks enabling South Carolina to continue dividing citizens along racial lines," Kagan wrote. "It is to respect the plausible – no, the more than plausible – findings of the District Court that the State engaged in race-based districting. And to tell the State that it must redraw District 1, this time without targeting African Americans."

Civil rights groups have reacted strongly against this decision. Both the plaintiffs in this case and their lawyers have criticized the ruling as a setback for voting rights. The actual voter Taiwan Scott who is the plaintiff in this case, represented by the NAACP and the ACLU, called the ruling "very, very disturbing."

When the district was redrawn after the 2020 census, it moved several predominately Black neighborhoods to the neighboring 6th district. 

Page 104 Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (05/23/2024)

The timing of the Supreme Court's ruling has also raised questions. The case was argued at the beginning of the Supreme Court's term in October, yet the decision was delayed until now, just as this year's elections approach. Despite requests for an earlier ruling, the court's decision means that the map will be in place for this year's elections and likely for the rest of the decade.

This outcome is a significant embarrassment for the South Carolina Democratic Party and its prominent figure, James Clyburn, who recently admitted to taking his eyes off the Palmetto State, resulting in a series of losses. It appears that the Democrats may indeed be too little, too late.

As these developments unfold, the impact on future redistricting efforts and the broader implications for voting rights and partisan gerrymandering will continue to be closely watched. For now, the Democrats face an uphill battle in securing fair representation in South Carolina and beyond.

Works Cited: 

United States Supreme Court. Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP et al._, 599 U.S. ___ (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf

United States Congress. "Representative Nancy Mace." _Congress.gov_, https://www.congress.gov/member/district/nancy-mace/M000194

Crossread:

McClatchyDC. "Jim Clyburn Says He ‘Took My Eyes off the Ball’ in SC After 2020. How He Plans to Fix It." _Yahoo News_, 9 May 2023, https://www.yahoo.com/news/jim-clyburn-says-took-eyes-050000368.

Bustos, Joseph. "Why SC’s New Democratic Leader Actually Isn’t Trying to Turn the State Blue in 2024." The State, 4 June 2023, https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article275909931.html#storylink=cpy.

MacGillis, Alec. "How Rep. James Clyburn Protected His District at a Cost to Black Democrats." ProPublica, 27 Apr. 2023, https://www.propublica.org/article/how-rep-james-clyburn-protected-his-district-at-a-cost-to-black-democrats

Lovelace, Berkeley Jr. "SC Democrats Elect Clyburn-Backed Christale Spain as New Chair in Heated Race." _Yahoo News_, 7 May 2023, https://www.yahoo.com/news/sc-democrats-elect-clyburn-backed-155901789.html

Seitz-Wald, Alex. "Swing-District Republicans Face Political Dangers Ahead of 2024 Elections." _NBC News_, 18 Feb. 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/2024-elections-swing-district-republicans-face-political-dangers-rcna66584

The Columbia Urban Broadcast Network, an independent Black-owned media company, needs your support to continue bringing our stories and issues to the forefront in South Carolina and across America. Please consider donating to our cause via corporate CashApp: $CUBNSC

Thank you!

Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.