South-Carolina
Court rules for South Carolina Republicans in dispute over congressional map – SCOTUSblog
OPINION ANALYSIS
on May 23, 2024
at 4:23 pm
The justices ruled in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP on Thursday. (J Main via Shutterstock)
The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a ruling by a federal district court holding that a congressional district on the South Carolina coast was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, it sorted voters based primarily on their race. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the justices cleared the way for the state to use the map going forward. The 6-3 decision, with the justices divided on ideological lines, means that the disputed district will remain a safe seat for Republicans, who hold a 6-1 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation. More broadly, Thursday’s decision creates a high bar for plaintiffs in future racial gerrymandering cases to meet.
The issue at the center of the case was how courts should distinguish between the roles played in redistricting by race and party affiliation, when there are often close correlations between the two. In South Carolina, for example, exit polls in the 2020 election indicated that at least 90% of Black voters supported Democrat Joe Biden.
A lower court in March ordered the map to be used for the 2024 elections, after the Supreme Court failed to rule in the case by a proposed Jan. 1 deadline.
In his opinion for the majority, Alito rejected the lower court’s conclusion that the state’s Republican-controlled legislature had improperly relied too heavily on race in drawing the challenged district. “[I]nferring bad faith based on the racial effects of a political gerrymander in a jurisdiction in which race and partisan preference are very closely correlated” would, Alito suggested, allow litigants and courts to circumvent the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, holding that federal courts should not consider claims of partisan gerrymandering. Specifically, Alito posited, litigants could simply “repackage” their claims that legislatures relied too heavily on partisanship as contentions that the legislatures relied too much on race.
Joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan dissented from the court’s decision. Kagan took a very different view of the effects of Thursday’s decision, writing that it told legislators who wanted to rely on race – either “as a proxy to achieve partisan ends” or to “straight-up suppress the electoral influence of minority voters” – to “[g]o right ahead.” Legislators and mapmakers, she complained, can evade scrutiny by explaining that they relied on factors other than race.
The case began in 2021, when the legislature drew the district at the center of the dispute, known as District 1. The South Carolina chapter of the NAACP and Taiwan Scott, a Black voter who lives in the district, went to federal court to challenge the district as the product of racial gerrymandering. The new map moved nearly two-thirds of the Black voters in Charleston County out of District 1, they noted, which is currently represented by Republican Nancy Mace, into District 6, represented by Democrat Jim Clyburn. The map also moved Republican areas in nearby Beaufort, Berkeley, and Dorchester Counties into District 1 from District 6.
Defending the plan, the state argued that the legislature’s goal in enacting the map was to ensure that the district remained a safe seat for Republicans: Although the district had historically elected Republicans since 1980, in 2018 a Democrat, Joe Cunningham, won in an upset. Mace defeated him in 2020 by less than 1%.
In Jan. 2023, a three-judge federal district court – which hears challenges to the constitutionality of a congressional map – agreed with the challengers that District 1 violated the Constitution because it was the product of racial gerrymandering. The court ordered the state to draw a new map, although that order had been on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.
In a 34-page opinion, Alito stressed the high bar that plaintiffs bringing a racial gerrymandering case must meet, observing that the court had “repeatedly emphasized that federal courts must ‘exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims that a State has drawn district lines on the basis of race.” “Such caution,” he explained, “is necessary because “[f]ederal-court review of districting legislation represents a serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions.”
Thus, Alito continued, plaintiffs in racial gerrymandering cases must first “disentangle race and politics” – that is, to show that race was the primary factor behind the legislature’s decision to move voters into or out of a district. They can do so using direct evidence, Alito wrote, or circumstantial evidence, although relying solely on circumstantial evidence makes their task “much more difficult.” This is particularly true, Alito added, when the state counters that the moves were made for partisan reasons, rather than on the basis of race.
And nearly a quarter-century ago, Alito noted, the Supreme Court suggested that one way for plaintiffs to clear the “high bar” for racial gerrymandering cases would be to submit their own map, showing that a legislature could have drawn a different map that achieved the state’s political goals but without relying so heavily on race. If plaintiffs cannot provide such a map, Alito emphasized, “it is difficult for plaintiffs to defeat our starting presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.” Such a presumption, Alito wrote, “reflects the Federal Judiciary’s due respect for the judgment of state legislators” and avoids the declaration “that the legislature engaged in ‘offensive and demeaning conduct’” that would flow from a finding that “race drove a legislature’s districting decisions.”
Applying this standard to the case before him, Alito observed that the plaintiffs needed to show that the legislature put race before other traditional redistricting principles when drawing District 1. The lower court’s conclusion that they had met this “demanding” standard, he wrote, was “clearly” wrong: “They provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander, and their circumstantial evidence is very weak,” relying on “deeply flawed expert reports.” Moreover, he added, the plaintiffs’ experts did not provide a map that achieved the legislature’s goal of making the seat a safer one for Republicans while putting more Black voters in the district.
The court sent the case back for the lower court to take another look at the plaintiffs’ claim that the 2021 map also diluted the votes of Black voters – an issue on which the plaintiffs had also prevailed below.
In her 34-page dissent, Kagan characterized the majority opinion as “seriously wrong.” She first lamented that the majority should have been more deferential to the lower court’s findings about the facts of the case and the legislators’ motives. The Supreme Court, she said, is required to give such findings “significant deference” as long as they are “plausible.” But although the plaintiffs “introduced more than enough evidence of racial gerrymandering to support the District Court’s judgment,” she wrote, the majority substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower court, even on questions like the credibility of witnesses that are the quintessential purview of trial judges.
But to “justify its ruling on the facts,” Kagan continues, the majority must “rework[] the law” in two different ways that will make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in future racial gerrymandering cases as well. First, Kagan challenged the majority’s reliance on a presumption that the legislature has acted in good faith. The majority’s “approach,” Kagan wrote, “conflicts with this Court’s precedent.” Although the presumption “tells a court not to assume a districting plan is flawed or to limit the State’s opportunities to defend it,” and “reminds a court that it is a serious matter to find a State in breach of the Constitution,” there is nothing in the Supreme Court’s decisions holding that “a trial court must resolve every plausibly disputed factual issue for the State.”
Second, Kagan accused the majority of “invent[ing] a new rule of evidence” – the submission of an alternative map – “to burden plaintiffs in racial-gerrymandering cases.” “Such micromanagement of a plaintiff’s case is elsewhere unheard of in constitutional litigation,” Kagan wrote.
But, Kagan concluded, “[p]erhaps most dispiriting is what lies behind the Court’s new approach — its special rules to specially disadvantage suits to remedy race-based redistricting.” In her view, instead of “throw[ing] up novel roadblocks enabling South Carolina to continue dividing citizens along racial lines,” the Supreme Court should instead have upheld the “more than plausible” conclusion of the lower court that District 1 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and should be redrawn.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part with the majority. He contended that Alito’s “searching review” of the expert reports went beyond the kind of scrutiny normally used for factual findings by lower courts. But it ultimately didn’t matter, Thomas continued, because the lower court made legal errors – for example, failing to look at evidence regarding the correlation between race and politics “with the necessary presumption of legislative good faith” and failing to take into account the lack of an alternative map by the plaintiffs – that warranted reversal. But he wrote separately – in a 29-page opinion – to set out his view that federal courts should not have the power to weigh in on racial gerrymandering and vote dilution claims.
Both the challengers and the state had asked the Supreme Court to issue its decision by Jan. 1, 2024. When the court had not yet acted by mid-March, the Republican legislators returned to the court, seeking to be allowed to use the 2021 map for the 2024 elections even though the lower court had ruled that District 1 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Before the Supreme Court could act on the legislators’ request, however, the three-judge district court issued an order leaving the 2021 map in place for the 2024 elections. In an order on March 28, the district court concluded that, “with the primary election procedures rapidly approaching, the appeal before the Supreme Court still pending, and no remedial plan in place, the ideal must bend to the practical.”
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
A bill that could make it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion is moving to the full South Carolina Senate with just a few weeks left in the legislative session.
The South Carolina Senate medical affairs committee continued a debate of Senate Bill 1095 on April 21 in Columbia. The bill, sponsored by State Sen. Richard Cash, R-Anderson, builds on a restrictive abortion bill that failed to progress in the fall.
The committee passed the measure in an 8-4 vote, moving it to the full Senate for consideration. Lawmakers have until May 14, the last day of the 2026 legislative session, to pass the bill for it to become law.
Senate Bill 1095, also called the “Unborn Child Protection Act,” bans performing an abortion or supplying abortion drugs. It makes it illegal for a woman to get an abortion, with the only exception being to save a pregnant woman’s life.
It also makes mifepristone and misoprostol Schedule IV controlled substances. Alprazolam (Xanax) and zolpidem (Ambien) are two other examples of Schedule IV substances.
Pro-Life Greenville, an anti-abortion organization based in Greenville, responded to the bill’s progress with “full endorsement” of the legislation.
“Unborn children, like all human beings, deserve to have their lives protected under law here in the Palmetto State,” Pro-Life Greenville stated. “Today’s vote by the SC Senate Medical Affairs Committee brings that urgent need one step closer to reality.”
Under the bill, a woman who has an abortion could face misdemeanor charges. The maximum sentence would be two years in jail with a $1,000 fine.
Those found guilty of performing an abortion or providing a pregnant woman with abortion-inducing drugs could face felony charges, a maximum sentence of 20 years in jail, and a possible $100,000 fine.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PPSAT), a firm opponent of the bill, decried the Senate committee passage. PPSAT Director of Public Affairs Vicki Ringer said in a statement that the bill will cost people their lives, and it will make it more difficult for women to get reproductive and pregnancy healthcare.
“Abortion bans have and will continue to cost people their lives,” Ringer stated. “As this ban inches closer to the governor’s desk, it is becoming increasingly clear just how many of our lives anti-abortion lawmakers are willing to endanger in service to their agenda.”
Bella Carpentier covers the South Carolina legislature, state, and Greenville County politics. Contact her at bcarpentier@gannett.com
BARNWELL, S.C. (WRDW/WAGT) – An officer was injured, and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has issued a Blue Alert for an “armed and dangerous” woman.
According to the Blue Alert, Cushman is wanted in connection with an officer being injured.
The location of the assault was Gardenia Road in Blackville, S.C.
On Monday night around 10:35 p.m., officials said they were looking for Lacey Cushman, 37, a white woman who is 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs about 210 pounds.
According to SLED, she has brown eyes and an unknown hair color. Her hairstyle and clothing are unknown.
She was last seen driving a 2011 white Chevrolet Traverse with an S.C. tag, 706IRU, in Barnwell County.
Her last known direction of travel was toward Bamberg County.
If you see her or have information, call 911 immediately.
Feel more informed, prepared, and connected with FOX Carolina. For more free content like this, download our apps.
Copyright 2026 WHNS. All rights reserved.
by MARK POWELL
***
South Carolina’s first Republican gubernatorial debate in Newberry earlier this month was a cordial affair. Candidates stayed focused on the issues – and kept things civil.
Will the same be said after this week’s second round?
When the curtain rises on Tuesday evening (April 21, 2026) at the College of Charleston’s Sottile Theatre, five of the six GOP candidates have committed to being on stage. Attorney general Alan Wilson, fifth district congressman Ralph Norman and state senator Josh Kimbrell will appear before votes a second time, while lieutenant governor Pamela Evette and Lowcountry businessman Rom Reddy – both of whom skipped the first debate – will make their 2026 debuts.
As of press time, congresswoman Nancy Mace – who had a solid performance during the first exchange – was the only uncommitted candidate, waiting to see how the U.S. House of Representatives’ schedule unfolded.
Regardless of whether there will be five podiums on stage or six, the stakes are incredibly high as we are now just fifty (50) days away from the decisive Republican gubernatorial primary in the Palmetto State. I say “decisive” because the GOP nominee has won the last six governor’s races in South Carolina. Republican nominees are winning by bigger and bigger margins, too, as the last Democrat gubernatorial nominee barely clearly the 40% threshold in 2022.
***
The closer we get to primary day, the more likely things are to get nasty – meaning this week’s GOP exchange is expected to yield far more fireworks than the last one.
We’re told several candidates spent the weekend prepping for this upcoming encounter, boning up on stats and pre-planning “off the cuff” zingers the way college students cram for their finals. They were wise to invest time in such planning, too – because a debate this close to the primary isn’t something a serious candidate wings.
A single, careless slip of the tongue or inadvertent stumble could instantly turn into a lethal landmine – crippling a frontrunner and killing their momentum. Conversely, the ability to think fast on one’s feet when opportunity arises can produce the modern-day political equivalent of the Holy Grail – a viral moment that captures lightning in a bottle, resonates with broad swaths of the electorate and propels a candidate to the front of the pack.
If recent polling is accurate, each campaign needs such a boost, too, as “undecided” still sits squarely in the driver’s seat in this race. Remember this, too: if no candidate receives a majority of votes on June 9, the top two vote-getters would face off in a head-to-head runoff election two weeks later.
Here’s a recap of what to watch for on Tuesday night as each of the six contenders (including Mace, should she show) jockey for position…
***
JOSH KIMBRELL
***
NEEDS: Relevancy
NEEDS TO AVOID: Fallout from his legal drama
WATCH FOR: Who he attacks (and defends)
Let’s be frank: The senator from Spartanburg County is faring so poorly in the polls that it’s unlikely his opponents will waste any of their political capital attacking him.
Also, if recent headlines are any indication, Kimbrell is doing a good enough job damaging his own candidacy.
Things could change in the event Kimbrell – who also performed well during the first debate – manages to land an effective jab against a rival. Guns could then swing his way, and he would likely find himself on the explaining end of unpleasant questions about his ongoing legal woes.
And as they say in politics, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.
For Kimbrell, simply coming off the stage with his campaign maintaining a fluttering pulse would be a win – although as we continue to note, his legal troubles have become all-consuming.
Something worth watching is how Kimbrell interacts with the other candidates. Does he attack any of them? Laud any of them? Given the close relationships between certain consultants in this race, the direction of his venom – or praise – could prove telling.
***
PAMELA EVETTE
NEEDS: To step out of the current governor’s shadow
NEEDS TO AVOID: Falling on her face as she does so
WATCH FOR: The number of times she says ‘Trump’
It’s not easy being second banana in South Carolina, where the executive branch is already constitutionally neutered. It gets even harder when your time comes to seek the top job – and there’s very little to show for your time in office.
Such is the dilemma confronting the “lite governor.”
Yes, Pamela Evette has been long-serving governor Henry McMaster‘s dutiful co-pilot these past eight years. And yes, she has reaped the backing of a big chunk of the state’s GOP establishment as her reward. But when the question turns to, “what has she really accomplished?” the answers don’t suggest bold visionary leadership. Sure, highway beautification, stepping on golden shovels at groundbreakings, and saluting student accomplishments are all well and good. But at a moment in its history when South Carolinians are restless and increasingly intolerant of the status quo, such establishment photo-ops “don’t feed the bulldog,” as they say.
The noticeable lack of yeast in Evette’s polling numbers (despite her spending more money than any other candidate) bears witness to her struggle.
In fairness to Evette, the office she currently occupies was specifically designed not to accomplish much (thus ensuring the spotlight always falls on the governor). Still, she needs to move beyond, “if you like what you got from Henry these last ten years, you’ll love what you’ll get from me.”
Voters aren’t having that this cycle, which is one reason why Evette hasn’t advanced in the polls.
It’s a tightrope, though. At the same time she seeks to distance herself from the status quo, Evette can’t afford to let a single ray of sunlight come between her and her boss, either. Or else it’s an indictment of her, too.
This much is certain: Expert to hear that Evette loves Donald Trump. A lot.
Many believe Evette’s only path to victory is by securing Trump’s endorsement – something it appeared for awhile as though she had the inside track to receive. The longer she goes without getting it, though, the narrower her path becomes.
***
NANCY MACE
NEEDS: An electability argument
NEEDS TO AVOID: Aggression overload
WATCH FOR: Her homestretch strategy
Should she show up, you’ve got to wonder which version of Nancy Mace will take the stage. Will it be the “Nice Nancy” we saw at Congressman Russell Fry’s recent candidate forum in Florence? Or will it be the “Primary Pitbull,” the Mace who unofficially kicked off her campaign with a scathing “scorched earth” attack on Alan Wilson delivered from the floor of the U.S. House?
Mace can be a polarizing political personality. Those who like her really, really like her; conversely, those who dislike her do so with a vengeance. But with the primary so close at hand – and so many voters still undecided – she needs to convince the GOP base of her electability. Being a bomb thrower on issues she feels passionate about may be good for grabbing headlines, but is it a sound approach to winning over eleventh hour converts?
Then there are her personal issues. Most notably, her infamous meltdown with officials at Charleston’s airport late last October. Although Mace’s base stayed with her after that contretemps, conventional wisdom suggests the disapproval it produced in other Republicans is too baked into the cake to overcome.
Should she participate, the debate could be her last best chance to turn the page once and for all.
Mace’s performance in Charleston – her backyard – will also reveal what sort of approach she intends to bring to the final seven weeks of this race.
***
RALPH NORMAN
NEEDS: A rebound
NEEDS TO AVOID: Being cast as a D.C. insider
WATCH FOR: A breakout ‘relatability’ moment
Ralph Norman didn’t have his best performance during the first GOP debate – but he’s promised his supporters he’s not going to let it happen again.
For Norman to succeed onstage in Charleston, he needs to differentiate. This being South Carolina, every candidate with an ‘R’ beside their name claims to be a conservative. But a growing number of those on the right flank of the ideological spectrum – including the founding editor of this media outlet – insist that’s no longer good enough.
And South Carolina’s consistently less-than-robust outcomes would support that view…
These voters want proof that a candidate’s conservative rhetoric on the campaign trail is matched by a consistently conservative voting record in office. As a member of the U.S. House’s Freedom Caucus, Ralph Norman’s bona fides are established. However, serving on Capitol Hill these days is accompanied by the tainted stench of Washington. Look for someone to try to tag him as a “Washington Insider,” a point which Norman has given them some ammunition to hit him with.
Norman has done a good job of differentiating so far. For example, while most of the candidates who appeared at Fry’s forum mentioned earlier discussed the same issues (deplorable roads, the pressing need for judicial reform, etc.), Norman talked about them in a down-home, folksy way that had many in the audience nodding in agreement.
If he establishes “relatability street cred” Tuesday night, it could open up a new path for support while also creating new headaches for his opponents.
***
ROM REDDY
NEEDS: A breakthrough
NEEDS TO AVOID: Talking over people
WATCH FOR: A new dynamic to the debate
You never get a second chance to make a first impression, as the old saying goes… and the Charleston debate will be a political first date of sorts for Rom Reddy, a local multi-millionaire and founder of the since-scuttled DOGE SC movement. A known commodity in the Palmetto Lowcountry, Reddy remains a mystery to many rank-and-file Republicans across the state.
Seeing as this will be the first time a substantial number of them take his measure, how will the diminutive Indian-Italian stack up next to the competition? Reddy has previously bashed his rivals as “clowns.” What happens if he fails to impress against them?
Because he’s only been in the race for six weeks – during which time he’s spent at least $1.5 million to boost his name identification – Reddy is a definitional wildcard. He’s also a political novice, one who will be surrounded on stage by experienced campaigners.
Reddy has many bold, innovative ideas for the state. However, he needs to avoid unloading too many at once and steer clear of diving into too many policy details. Voters are just getting to know him, after all.
Still, there’s no denying that Reddy has a strategic opportunity to turn this race on its head.
Will he seize it on Tuesday night?
Reddy must also learn to adapt to political realities. Jumping in the race so late means he has to make up a lot of ground – in a limited amount of time. For him to have a chance to make the GOP runoff election on June 9, he needs to take out the politician most likely to capture the votes he needs. That’s Norman – so watch and see if Reddy trains his fire on his fellow multi-millionaire during Tuesday night’s exchange.
***
ALAN WILSON
NEEDS: To be the adult on stage
NEEDS TO AVOID: Taking the bulk of the attacks
WATCH FOR: Strong counterpunches
Alan Wilson’s newly released campaign commercial touts his service in the Iraq War. That experience will likely come in handy on Tuesday night, as the four-term attorney general – the race’s frontrunner – is expected to face a barrage of incoming attacks.
Wilson leads his rivals in the polls – and in the pivotal money battle. That makes him the top target in this race, and the likely recipient of the most attacks on the debate stage Tuesday evening (Evette in particular is likely to be gunning for him).
There’s a big risk with the strategy of attacking Wilson, however. The veteran prosecutor has tried to remain above the fray throughout this contest, and for the most part he’s succeeded. But as the old saying reminds us, you can only poke the bear so many times before the bear roars back.
Wilson has strategically absorbed several punches during this race – but he will not permit himself to become a punching bag as it enters its pivotal phase. In other words, candidates who insist on going after him should be prepared for him to punch back.
Wilson’s team has portrayed him as the grown-up in this race, the one candidate who has stayed above name-calling and petty mudslinging. They would like to preserve that image – but it may not be possible much longer.
It’s often remarked in political circles that Wilson is a gentleman, a truly nice guy. But opponents who think he’ll simply roll over and play dead without fighting back could be in for a surprise. Because sometimes, even the most polished gentleman has a good right hook – and reason to use it.
We have no idea what counterpunches the Wilson campaign is cooking up. But we would be thunderstruck if he walks onto that stage with his guard down.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
J. Mark Powell is an award-winning former TV journalist, government communications veteran, and a political consultant. He is also an author and an avid Civil War enthusiast. Got a tip or a story idea for Mark? Email him at mark@fitsnews.com.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
-
New York8 minutes agoN.Y.P.D. Narcotics Unit Under Review After a Beating Is Caught on Tape
-
Detroit, MI38 minutes agoMI Healthy Climate Conference in Detroit focuses on green funding and strong future
-
San Francisco, CA50 minutes agoCalifornia’s New Hotel Edit: The Best Places to Stay Across the Golden State in 2026
-
Dallas, TX56 minutes agoThe Brandon Aubrey Deal | DZTV
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoRanking the Miami Heat’s Top Trade Targets
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoFormer Massachusetts doctor faces 81 new sexual assault charges
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoHouston County murder suspect returns to face charges after her arrest in Denver
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoWest Seattle Tool Library to host annual tool sale this Saturday, April 25 | The White Center Blog