Supreme Court Questions Racial Gerrymandering Claims in South Carolina Case

In an ongoing legal battle, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority recently voiced skepticism about a lower court’s determination that a congressional district in South Carolina had been racially gerrymandered, raising questions about the intertwining of racial and political considerations in the redistricting process. This case delves into the complex issue of whether it’s possible to disentangle these motivations when drawing voting lines. The Supreme Court’s deliberations centered around the credibility of testimony from experts who had appeared before a three-judge district court panel in October 2022.

The justices engaged in a two-hour argument session, where they pondered why, given the Supreme Court’s previous stance on partisan gerrymandering, mapmakers would have to impermissibly rely on race, even if it’s used as a proxy for politics. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for instance, inquired whether identifying a person’s political affiliation in the 2020 election had relevance to their voting behavior in the last election for Nancy Mace. South Carolina Republicans, who redrew the voting lines after the 2020 Census, argued that the 2020 presidential election data provided a political explanation for the design of Congressional District 1, which the lower court had deemed an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. According to them, politics was the primary motivating factor, not race.

This case stemmed from a decision by a three-judge panel in South Carolina that found that state Republican lawmakers had intentionally allowed race to influence the design of Congressional District 1. While disputes arising from the redistricting process following the 2020 Census have come before the Supreme Court before, this one focuses on the claim that race was improperly used during the map-drawing process in violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, unlike the high-profile Alabama case, which concerned potential violations of the Voting Rights Act.

Chief Justice John Roberts probed the strength of the evidence presented by the map’s challengers during lower court proceedings, expressing concern about the potential consequences of upholding the district court’s decision. He highlighted the absence of direct evidence, oddly configured districts, and the reliance on circumstantial evidence. Roberts also asked whether the Justice Department had ever supported a similar case, indicating that this case presented unique challenges.

Congressional District 1 in South Carolina has a history of electing Republicans, but it saw a shift when Democrat Joe Cunningham won the seat in 2018, followed by a narrow victory for Republican Nancy Mace in 2020. During the 2021 redistricting process, GOP officials aimed to make the district more Republican-leaning by moving over 140,000 residents into another district. This action was challenged by the NAACP’s South Carolina chapter and voter Taiwan Scott, who argued that the district’s lines were drawn with racially discriminatory intent.

The district court panel ruled in favor of the challengers, concluding that GOP lawmakers set a specific Black voting-age population target for Congressional District 1 and shifted Black residents to another district to create a Republican tilt. The district court’s decision prevented the state from conducting an election with the GOP-drawn boundaries for Congressional District 1, pending a final decision from the Supreme Court.

South Carolina Republicans appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the district court failed to consider the presumption of the Legislature’s good faith and that they had used political data to pursue political goals, not racial targets.

Civil rights groups advocating for upholding the district court’s decision argued that using race as the predominant factor for sorting voters, even for partisan gain, violated the Constitution. They contended that state lawmakers did not prove “clear error” in the district court’s factual findings.

The case revolves around whether it’s possible to distinguish between racial and political motives when drawing voting district lines, particularly in states where race and party affiliation are closely intertwined. The outcome of this case could have implications for future redistricting efforts and the balance between racial and political considerations in the process.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will shape the landscape of redistricting and its intersection with racial and political considerations in the United States. The justices are faced with a complex task of balancing these factors while upholding the principles of the Constitution.