The Supreme Court, in a divided decision, has approved a congressional map in South Carolina that has been criticized for discriminating against Black voters. Critics, including a lower court, argue that the map was designed to make Rep. Nancy Mace’s district more favorable to Republicans.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority ruled that the challengers failed to provide conclusive evidence that race was the primary factor in determining the boundaries.
Related posts
This Article Includes
- 0.1 Related posts
- 0.2 Officials: Building Is Unsafe To Occupy After The Floor Collapsed During The Maryland Fire
- 0.3 Tattooed Shooter Involved In Tag-team Assault For Shooting Victim In The Face In Jackson: Prosecutor
- 1 ‘Go right ahead’: Kagan says decision will embolden other states to discriminate
- 2 Decision follows a surprise Supreme Court ruling
Justice Samuel Alito, in his majority opinion, highlights the correlation between partisanship and race when it comes to gerrymandering. According to him, it is not surprising that a map designed to achieve partisan interests can often resemble a map that has been racially gerrymandered.
According to Justice Elena Kagan, the challengers presented ample evidence to demonstrate that race was wrongly considered as a factor.
‘Go right ahead’: Kagan says decision will embolden other states to discriminate
According to Kagan, the decision made by the majority will give confidence to other state legislators who frequently use race as a means to achieve their partisan goals.
The map for this fall’s elections will not be altered.
In March, the federal appeals court, which had previously declared the map unconstitutional, stated that it was compelled to enforce its use for this year. This decision was made because the Supreme Court had not yet issued its opinion after hearing oral arguments in October.
Early voting for South Carolina’s June 11 primary will begin next week, on Tuesday.
Nancy Mace, one of the eight Republicans who voted last year to remove former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, currently represents the coastal South Carolina district.
The crucial decision hinged on whether the state’s 2020 redistricting had violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The redistricting involved the relocation of approximately 30,000 Black voters to a different district.
Decision follows a surprise Supreme Court ruling
At a time of uncertainty surrounding redistricting, the process of redrawing congressional districts every ten years, the Supreme Court made a surprising ruling last year. They invalidated a congressional map in Alabama that was also facing scrutiny for diluting the Black vote. This case raised concerns about the violation of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In contrast, the challenge to the South Carolina case was based on constitutional grounds.
In 2019, the Supreme Court made a decision that removed federal courts from the role of deciding partisan gerrymander lawsuits. The court determined that these disputes are primarily political rather than legal in nature. However, it is still possible for voters and groups to file lawsuits regarding racial gerrymandering. These lawsuits can allege that minority voters are being subjected to discrimination when state lawmakers draw new congressional boundaries.
Race and political affiliation frequently intertwine, posing a challenge. Although South Carolina legislators claimed they were not singling out Black voters, as that would violate the law, their intention was to relocate Democratic voters to a separate district, thus evading scrutiny from federal courts.
The NAACP’s South Carolina State Conference, along with other groups, contested the state’s map, claiming that the mapmakers had a clear focus on race. One of the indications of this was that despite a significant rise in the number of Black voters in the district, the revised map maintained a nearly identical proportion of Black voters as the previous version created after the 2010 census.
Critics argued that the mapmakers had a clear intention to target specific racial groups. Last year, after an eight-day trial, a lower federal court unanimously concurred with this assertion.
According to the lower court, the design of the district was primarily motivated by race. The court found that traditional districting principles were disregarded in favor of prioritizing race.
In the legal battle known as Alexander v. NAACP, the case revolves around the parties involved.
