Supreme Court Upholds Republican-Backed South Carolina Election Maps

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court upheld Republican-backed electoral maps in South Carolina, affirming their legality in a 6-3 ruling. The Court found that the plaintiffs, including chapters of the NAACP and ACLU, failed to prove the maps were racially gerrymandered.

Key Points:

• Supreme Court Decision
  The majority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, concluded that the challengers did not meet the high bar required for a racial-gerrymandering claim. Alito emphasized that the overlap between partisanship and race does not inherently imply racial gerrymandering.

• Concurrence by Justice Thomas
  Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, argued that the Court should not involve itself in electoral district disputes, asserting that such matters are best left to the political branches.

The lower U.S. district court had previously ruled the South Carolina maps unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, allowing the maps approved by the Republican-controlled legislature to stand. Alito’s opinion was supported by Justices John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Thomas.

Alito stated, “When partisanship and race correlate, it naturally follows that a map that has been gerrymandered to achieve a partisan end can look very similar to a racially gerrymandered map.” He noted that the plaintiffs did not provide an alternative map demonstrating that a non-racially motivated legislature would have drawn districts with greater racial balance.

Dissenting Opinion
The liberal justices, including Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. They supported the lower court’s findings, arguing that it was "more than plausible" that South Carolina’s districting was race-based. The dissent criticized the majority for favoring the state's narrative over a more credible challenge.

Justice Thomas's concurrence further highlighted the Court's lack of authority in these matters, stating, “Drawing political districts is a task for politicians, not federal judges. There are no judicially manageable standards for resolving claims about districting, and, regardless, the Constitution commits those issues exclusively to the political branches.”

Impact on Upcoming Elections
The contested maps will be used in the 2024 elections due to the extended deliberations over the case. This ruling marks a notable victory for the GOP, potentially influencing the balance of power in South Carolina.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the ongoing complexities and political implications of redistricting in the United States. As both parties continue to navigate the legal landscape of electoral maps, the Court’s ruling sets a precedent for future gerrymandering disputes.

Share this article or subscribe to our newsletter to stay updated on the latest legal and political developments.

Supreme Court Upholds Republican-Backed South Carolina Election Maps