This night in Orangeburg: Cloudy skies. A stray bathe or thunderstorm is feasible. Low 56F. Winds mild and variable. People within the Orangeburg space will see highs within the 60s tomorrow. The forecast requires it to be a cushty 67 levels. We’ll see a low temperature of 49 levels tomorrow. Anticipate durations of solar and clouds. The Orangeburg space ought to see a lightweight breeze, with forecast exhibiting winds from the west, clocking in at 6 mph. This report is created mechanically with climate knowledge supplied by TownNews.com. Keep watch over thetandd.com for forecast data and extreme climate updates.
South-Carolina
Dec. 31, 2022 evening weather update for Orangeburg
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.
Ripe peaches are becoming increasingly available across South Carolina, from grocery stores to markets and roadside stands. The peach season has commenced, with growers optimistic about this year’s yield. Spencer McLeod, a fifth-generation farmer at McLeod Farms in McBee, mentioned, “If you love peaches, this is your year to get them. We’ll go all the way through September, so the end of August, and our best peaches are right in that July timeframe.” McLeod Farms, located in Chesterfield County, began harvesting peaches approximately two weeks ago, and the initial observations of the crop are positive. Despite weather challenges, the outlook for a successful peach season remains strong.
Statewide, the sentiment among peach growers is similarly positive. Sarah Scott, covering commercial fruit and vegetable crops for Clemson Cooperative Extension, confirmed, “We’ve got a great, full crop, so there should be plenty of peaches available.” This news is particularly welcome following the adverse impact of two freezes in March 2023, which significantly reduced the peach yield. Scott added, “This year, even though we were expected to have one of those later freeze events because we are in an El Niño year, we lucked out and we did not have any of those freeze events that were detrimental to the crop, so full crop this year.” The successful yield is crucial not only for growers but also for the state’s economy, as South Carolina is the second-largest peach producer in the United States, trailing only California. Source: wmbfnews.com
GREENVILLE, S.C. (FOX Carolina) – High School state baseball tournaments continued on Wednesday in South Carolina.
4A Upper State Champions Laurens played in a must-win game two with James Island at Laurens High School Wednesday night.
The Raiders had a lead heading into the top of the 7th inning when James Island battled back with two outs. They turned that momentum into a state championship. Defeating Laurens 10-7.
The 3A State Championship is headed to a third and final game on Friday after Powdersville wins a must-win game two on interference at the plate in the 12th inning. Powdersville had taken a 5-4 lead in the 12th on a single to keep their championship dreams alive.
The winner-take-all game three of the State Championship Series will be played at 3:00 pm on Saturday at Gilbert.
Copyright 2024 WHNS. All rights reserved.
Minneapolis, MN3 mins ago
Monitoring Minneapolis Police: The business behind overseeing court-ordered reforms
Indianapolis, IN5 mins ago
Every Indianapolis 500 Winner in History: The Youngest, Oldest and Other Superlatives
Pittsburg, PA9 mins ago
Pittsburgh mayor predicts over 1M will attend 2026 NFL draft in his city
Augusta, GA12 mins ago
Investments in 2 Georgia plants bring promises of more jobs
Washington, D.C17 mins ago
Larsen Applauds $24.2 Million for Northwest Washington Fish Passage Projects
Midwest2 years ago
See it: Tesla crashes into Columbus convention center at 70 mph
Colorado2 years ago
Colorado Rockies game no. 116 thread: Zac Gallen vs José Ureña
South1 year ago
Fox News Politics: Georgia the whole day through
South2 years ago
Death of missing Oregon girl found in stream ruled homicide
South1 year ago
At least 2 dead as tornadoes hit Alabama, damage homes across Southeast
News4 hours ago
Idaho Democratic Caucus Results
Politics5 hours ago
New Hampshire political consultant behind AI-powered Biden robocalls hit with 24 criminal charges, $6M fine
World5 hours ago
Salis under house arrest in Hungary pending trial and EU elections
News6 hours ago
Some NFL fans see disparities in its responses to Harrison Butker and Colin Kaepernick
Politics12 hours ago
AOC demands Senate Democrats investigate reports of Jan. 6 flags flown at Supreme Court Justice Alito's home
-
Politics1 week agoReports of Biden White House keeping 'sensitive' Hamas intel from Israel draws outrage
-
World1 week agoPro-Palestinian university students in the Netherlands uphold protest
-
Politics1 week agoDem newcomer aims for history with primary win over wealthy controversial congressman
-
Politics1 week agoSouthern border migrant encounters decrease slightly but gotaways still surge under Biden
-
Politics1 week agoWhite House walks diplomatic tightrope on Israel amid contradictory messaging: 'You can't have it both ways'
-
World1 week agoSlovakia PM Robert Fico in ‘very serious’ condition after being shot
-
World1 week agoCanadian Nobel-winning author Alice Munro dies aged 92
-
News1 week agoDespite state bans, abortions nationwide are up, driven by telehealth