Supreme Court to Decide Gerrymandering Case with Nationwide Voting Rights Implications
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on a significant gerrymandering case in South Carolina that could have far-reaching consequences for voting rights across the country. The case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, revolves around the redrawing of state voting maps and how state legislatures consider race and party affiliation in the process.
Gerrymandering refers to the practice of manipulating legislative district lines to maximize political power. In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled in Shaw v. Reno that racial gerrymandering, where districts are drawn primarily based on race, is unconstitutional. However, the issue of considering party affiliation in redistricting remains contentious.
At the center of the case is the South Carolina Legislature’s redrawing of the 1st Congressional District after the 2020 census. Majority Republican lawmakers moved over 140,000 residents from the district into the 6th Congressional District. The NAACP argues that over 30,000 of these residents were moved solely because they were Black, violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court has previously interpreted the equal protection clause to prohibit racial gerrymandering. However, South Carolina defends its actions, asserting that the residents were moved to ensure a majority-Republican district and that race was not a significant consideration.
The case began when the NAACP and a South Carolina voter challenged several of the state’s new congressional and state districts in federal court in October 2021. In January 2023, a three-judge panel ruled that the Legislature had primarily moved residents based on race. The panel ordered the Legislature to submit a new map by March 31, 2023. However, the state appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in May 2023.
As experts in legislative and judicial politics, we believe that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Alexander case will have profound implications for future redistricting efforts. Redistricting remains an unsettled area of law, as evidenced by recent Supreme Court rulings on voting rights.
In Allen v. Milligan, the court required Alabama to create an additional district with a majority Black population to protect the voting rights of Black citizens. In Moore v. Harper, the court reaffirmed that state courts can have a role in deciding redistricting cases, highlighting the limitations on state legislatures’ control over the process.
While the Milligan and Moore cases dealt with different legal questions, they provide some insights into how the Supreme Court may rule in Alexander. However, the outcome of the case remains uncertain, and it is essential to consider the diverse perspectives surrounding redistricting.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP will undoubtedly shape future redistricting practices. The decision will not only have implications for South Carolina but also for voting rights across the United States. As the court deliberates on this critical issue, it remains to be seen how they will strike a balance between political power and the protection of voting rights.
