In a recent development in US electoral politics, Republican legislators in South Carolina have issued a plea to the Supreme Court, beseeching the Justices to block a federal court ruling that declared one of the state’s congressional districts as being racially gerrymandered. The politicians argue that without the intervention from the highest court in the land, the forthcoming elections would be marred by confusion and uncertainty.
The controversy arises from disagreements revolving around the electoral map adopted by South Carolina’s Republican-majority legislature in 2021, a map that, critics argue, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. According to the contested map, nearly two-thirds of Black voters in Charleston County would move out of District 1, currently held by Republican representative Nancy Mace, into District 6, which is represented by Democrat Jim Clyburn. Additional changes delineated by the map involve shifting Republican areas in three adjacent counties from District 6 into District 1.
This adopted map was subsequently challenged in court by a Black voter residing in District 1 and the South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, both parties arguing that the newly drawn district resulted from racial gerrymandering. The state’s Republican lawmakers and election officials have countered these accusations, stating instead that the alterations made to District 1 were rooted in partisanship, not race.
Following an extensive trial lasting eight days, the three-judge district court ruled that a segment of District 1 was indeed a racial gerrymander. As a result, the state was prohibited from using the contested map for District 1. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court by lawmakers, where arguments were heard in early October. Despite requests from both the appealing legislators and the challengers for a ruling by January 1, 2024, the Justices did not meet this deadline.
As things stand, the legislators have asked for a decision by March 25, before the candidate-filing period concludes in South Carolina. The lawmakers have stressed that if the court is to reverse the lower court’s finding that the electoral plan violates the Constitution, the injunction barring the state from using the planned map should be suspended.
The lawmakers also cited the Purcell principle, which proposes that federal courts should generally avoid making modifications to state election laws, inclusive of blocking redistricting plans, shortly before an election. The principle, as they argue, in addition to other components usually taken into account in deciding whether to stay a lower court’s order, are in favor of their stance.
For a more detailed report on this ongoing legal saga, consider SCOTUSblog’s coverage.