Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Racial Gerrymandering in South Carolina
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case regarding racial gerrymandering in South Carolina. The case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, focuses on the state’s congressional map and could have significant implications for the 2024 election.
The new map, signed into law in January 2022, was quickly challenged by civil rights advocates who claim it was designed with a discriminatory purpose. They argue that it violates the 14th and 15th amendments of the U.S. Constitution by diminishing Black voting power. Specifically, they claim that thousands of Black Charlestonians were moved from District 1, currently held by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, to District 6, represented by Rep. James Clyburn, a top Democrat and the state’s lone Black congressman.
In January 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina unanimously found that the South Carolina legislature did engage in racial gerrymandering. The lawsuit was then appealed to the Supreme Court by South Carolina’s legislature in May.
During the recent oral arguments, Leah Aden, senior counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), faced a barrage of questions from the justices. However, she remained composed and defended the lower court’s finding of racial gerrymandering. Aden argued that the South Carolina lawmakers consistently used race as a predictor of political performance when redrawing the map.
The defendants, on the other hand, argued that redistricting is primarily the duty and responsibility of the state. They asserted that federal courts must exercise caution when adjudicating claims of race-based district lines. They also claimed that states should have the discretion to balance competing interests, including political considerations, in the redistricting process.
During the arguments, some of the conservative justices suggested that the plaintiffs may not have sufficient evidence to prove the state lawmakers’ focus on race in redrawing the map. Chief Justice John Roberts referred to the difficulty of disentangling race and politics. However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson countered that the plaintiffs didn’t need a smoking gun to argue that race was the state’s focus.
Leah Aden, a member of the LDF team and one of the few Black women oralists in the country, expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would agree with the lower court’s ruling after a full review of the record. Aden’s work is informed by her belief that injustice is an affront to the Constitution.
The case was filed on behalf of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and Taiwan Scott, a member of the Gullah Geechee community. The plaintiffs are also represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of South Carolina, and the law firm Arnold & Porter.
The final decision from the Supreme Court is awaited, as it will determine the congressional map that South Carolina will use. The outcome of the case could have significant consequences and policy implications for the lives of the people impacted by it.
