WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that South Carolina Republicans illegally failed to take race into account when they drew congressional districts that excluded thousands of black voters, undermining civil rights. The ruling makes it difficult for plaintiffs to bring racial gerrymandering claims. .
The Supreme Court, split 6-3 ideologically with a conservative majority, said civil rights groups had not sufficiently shown that lawmakers had focused on racial issues in drawing the Charleston-area district currently represented by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace.
The Supreme Court is considering the case, much later than expected, but the lower court that invalidated the map said it could still be used in this year’s election.
So while the judge’s decision will not have an immediate impact on South Carolina, it will set ground rules for future redistricting efforts. The decision makes it easier to create maps that disadvantage black voters, as long as mapmakers can show they’re focused on politics rather than race.
Separating race and politics can be difficult, as black voters tend to be Democratic in the South.
Leah Aden, an attorney for the civil rights group Legal Defense Fund, which argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the plaintiffs, said the decision was “disheartening not only to our case but to other cases” because the Supreme Court is now denying reliance on evidence it previously called reliable.
“The bar continues to move, making it increasingly difficult for plaintiffs to eradicate racism,” she added.
The court sided with Republican state officials, who argued that their sole goal was to increase the district’s Republican tilt.
South Carolina Senate President Thomas Alexander welcomed the ruling, saying the redistricting plan was “meticulously crafted to comply with statutory and constitutional requirements.”
As a result of the ruling, Mace’s district won’t have to be redrawn, a blow to Democrats hoping to secure a more favorable map, but lawsuits based on separate claims brought by plaintiffs against the maps could continue.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that there was “no direct evidence” to support the lower court’s finding that race was a significant consideration when the maps were drawn.
He added that the “circumstantial evidence goes far beyond showing that race, rather than partisan preferences, drove the redistricting process.”
Alito added that state legislatures should be given the benefit of the doubt when faced with claims that the maps were drawn with discriminatory intent.
“We should not be so quick to hurl such accusations at the political branch,” he wrote.
In a dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority had “created a disadvantageous situation for the challengers.” They say evidence of the impact on black voters can easily be sidestepped if states can present an alternative narrative that claims voters were divided based on partisan interests.
“What a great message to send to state legislators and mapmakers about racial gerrymandering,” she added.
Her message to politicians “who may want to radically curtail minority voters’ influence in elections” is: “Feel free to do so,” Kagan said.
The Supreme Court was considering a lower court ruling from January 2023 that found race was a primary concern in drawing one of the state’s seven congressional districts.
Republicans redrawn the boundaries after the 2020 census to strengthen Republican control over battleground districts.
Democrat Joe Cunningham won the seat in 2018 but narrowly lost to Mace in 2020. Two years later, a new map was put in place and Mace won by a large margin.
The roughly 30,000 black voters who were removed from this district were placed in a district controlled by black Democratic Representative James Clyburn, the only one of the seven congressional districts controlled by Democrats.
Civil rights groups have alleged that Republicans not only illegally considered race when drawing the maps, but also undermined the power of Black voters in doing so. The latter claim remains unresolved, and lawyers for the plaintiffs said Thursday they still don’t know how to proceed with the case..
The redistricting claim was brought under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that the law must apply equally to all people. The lawsuit was brought on a different legal theory than a landmark ruling last year in which civil rights activists won a case challenging Alabama Republican Party-drawn district maps under the Voting Rights Act.
Even before Thursday’s ruling, it was already difficult to challenge legislative district drawing, and not just on race-based grounds.
In a 2019 case on a related issue, the Supreme Court barred plaintiffs from challenging districts in federal court, alleging partisan gerrymandering to strengthen the political power of incumbent politicians. did. Congress could also enact legislation imposing rules on redistricting, but Republicans oppose it so it would likely go into effect quickly.
