US Supreme Court upholds South Carolina District 1 Congressional map

Justice Alito delivered the 6-3 majority opinion in the case Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, released on Thursday, which concluded race did not impermissibly exclude Black voters.

South Carolina District 1 was redrawn following the previous census. The Republican led legislature redrew District 1 with the goal of increasing Republican votes. This resulted in part of the Black population previously in District 1 being split into various other districts. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (NAACP) sued on the grounds this resulted in an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A three judge panel for the Columbia Division of the District of South Carolina found that the redrawing of District 1 was unconstitutional. The District Court held that race was a predominant factor in redistricting and that the legislature did not prove a compelling state interest for this use. The redrawn District 1 had a Black voting-age population (BVAP) of 17%, which, based on “[a]nalyses of partisan voting patterns within Congressional District No. 1…indicated that a district in the range of 17% African American produced a Republican tilt.” To meet this BVAP, “30,000 African American residents of Charleston County [were moved out of] Congressional District No. 1.”

This District Court ruling was the center of the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander. Under Court precedent, namely Miller v. Johnson and Shaw v. Reno, congressional maps cannot be drawn predominately based on race. Congressional districts are allowed to be drawn for partisan purposes, and in situations where race and partisan factors both play predominant roles, they “must disentangle race and politics if it wishes to prove that the legislature was motivated by race as opposed to partisanship.”

Justice Alito in Alexander held that the plaintiff did not meet this standard. Despite the “tens of thousands of maps with differently configured districts,” Justice Alito stated, “[NAACP] did not offer a single map that achieved the legislature’s partisan goal while including a higher BVAP in District 1.” Due to this failure, the NAACP was unable to disentangle race and politics, and therefore, the Court held that the District Court clearly errored in finding the redrawn District 1 to be unconstitutional.

Justice Alito was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Thomas joined the opinion in all, except Part III C. Justice Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing for the “more than plausible – findings of the District Court that the State engaged in race-based districting.”

Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, released a statement following the decision, stating,

Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court…is an egregious and blatant assault on the rights of Black voters…The Court today engaged in a horrendous abuse of power by rejecting the trial court’s factual findings and making it more difficult to challenge unconstitutional gerrymandering…the ongoing fight for fair electoral maps and unimpeded ballot access, and the relentless disenfranchisement of Black voters, is a national shame and due to a Supreme Court majority that continues to see the country through the dirty lens of their own viewpoints.

This case is not the 0nly challenge to redrawn congressional maps in recent months. Since the 2020 census began redistricting efforts across the country, multiple states have had issues with their congressional maps. In February, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld their congressional map over racial gerrymandering concerns. Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled their maps must be redrawn (not due to racial gerrymandering, but due to districts being drawn with detached territories.) The Supreme Court last June rejected the proposed Alabama map for being drawn on racial grounds.