The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of South Carolina Republicans, allowing them to continue using a congressional map that had been deemed an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by a lower court. The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, stated that courts should generally credit lawmakers’ assertions that their redistricting decisions were based on partisan, rather than racial, factors. This decision has implications beyond South Carolina and may make it easier for Republican states to engage in redistricting to maximize their political power, according to legal experts.
This ruling is part of a series of closely divided decisions on elections by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts, which have made it easier to restrict voting, amplified the role of money in politics, and exempted partisan gerrymandering from federal court review. While there have been some exceptions, the overall trend has been to limit oversight of elections by Congress and federal courts, generally benefiting Republicans. In this case, the court’s majority held that accusations of racial gerrymandering against state lawmakers should not be made lightly, and that legislatures should generally be presumed to have acted in good faith.
The dissenting opinion by Justice Kagan accused the majority of making it nearly impossible to challenge voting maps as racial gerrymanders, and argued that the state should be required to redraw the district in question without targeting African-American citizens. Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion, argued that the court should not be involved in assessing claims of racial gerrymandering at all, as he believes that drawing political districts should be left to politicians rather than federal judges.
The case at hand involved South Carolina’s First Congressional District, which had been redrawn by Republican lawmakers after the 2020 census to create a stronger Republican tilt. The redistricting resulted in the “bleaching” of African American voters from the district, making it a Republican stronghold. In November, Republican incumbent Nancy Mace won re-election by 14 percentage points. Challenges to two other House voting districts were rejected by the court, as civil rights groups failed to demonstrate that they had been drawn to dilute Black voting power.
The Supreme Court has traditionally called for close scrutiny of states’ actions when race is the predominant factor in drawing legislative districts, in order to prevent the dilution of minority voting power. In this case, civil rights groups argued that the map hurt Black voters by moving them from one congressional district to another. The Supreme Court’s decision sets a precedent for how racial gerrymandering cases may be approached in the future, and underscores the ongoing debate about the role of race and partisanship in redistricting decisions.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case highlights the contentious issue of gerrymandering and the impact it can have on elections and representation. The decision to allow South Carolina Republicans to maintain their contested congressional map reflects broader trends in election law that have favored Republicans in recent years. The implications of this decision may be felt in future redistricting cases and will likely continue to be subject to debate and scrutiny.
