Oral arguments start in South Carolina Supreme Court case over 2022 congressional map

Yahoo

3 days ago

Oral arguments in a legal dispute over the 2022 congressional map commenced in the South Carolina Supreme Court on June 24.
Allen Chaney, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, stood before a five-judge panel in the Columbia courthouse on behalf of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina in a 2024 lawsuit.
The League of Women Voters is accusing the state of reworking district lines to give Republican candidates an advantage with the congressional redistricting plan, which Gov. Henry McMaster signed on Jan. 26, 2022.
More: New lawsuit claims SC lawmakers 'violated' state constitution after redrawing maps
"Elections in the first congressional district are neither free nor open," Chaney said.
There are three respondents: State Senate President Thomas Alexander, State House Speaker Murrell Smith and South Carolina Election Commission's Executive Director, Howard Knapp.
Plaintiffs argue that lawmakers moved thousands of Democratic voters out of the competitive Congressional District 1 and into blue-leaning District 6 to give Republicans an advantage.
"The congressional redistricting plan was extremely effective at entrenching Republican advantage in CD1," the lawsuit stated.
According to election results from SC Votes, the Democratic candidate won CD1 by 1.38% in 2018. They lost by 13.92% in 2022. The Democratic majority in CD6 also dropped in the same period from a 41.9% to 24.19%.
District/Party Affiliations
2018 Election Results
2020 Election Results
2022 Election Results
CD1 Democratic Candidate
145,455 (50.60%)
210,627 (49.31%)
115,796 (42.47%)
CD1 Republican Candidate
141,473 (49.22%)
216,042 (50.58%)
153,757 (56.39%)
CD6 Democratic Candidate
144,765 (70.13%)
197,477 (68.18%)
130,923 (62.04%)
CD6 Republican Candidate
58,282 (28.23%)
89,258 (30.82%)
79,879 (37.85%)
Plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit the 2022 congressional map strongly impacted election results that year, as seen with the Republican candidate's more significant win margin after the new lines were established.
"Today, we've asked the Court to restore the State Constitution's promise of free and fair elections where every South Carolinian's vote counts the same," Adriel L. Cepeda Derieux, the deputy director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. "South Carolina's constitution protects voters from having their voices manipulated for partisan gain."
League of Women Voters of South Carolina says the state's current congressional map violates several parts of South Carolina's constitution, including the Free and Open Elections Clause and the Equal Protections Clause.
"There is direct evidence of intent and clear evidence of effect," Chaney said.
In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled in a separate lawsuit (South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Alexander) that South Carolina's legislature racially gerrymandered CD1 by transitioning 30,000 Black Charleston County residents out of CD1 and into CD6.
The state appealed that decision, moving the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court decided in May 2024 that the redistricting was with partisan intent, not on the basis of race.
The case was thrown out based on a previous ruling that stated federal courts should not consider partisan gerrymandering cases, and the 2022 congressional map stayed in place.
Lynn Teague, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina vice president for issues and action, said this lawsuit is different from the previous one, which alleged racial gerrymandering.
"The U.S. Supreme Court had decided they would not consider any gerrymandering other than racial," Teague said. "The state constitutional provides a broader range of very shallow reasons why it could be justiciable."
Three lawyers representing each state official spoke after Chaney's initial remarks.
One of those lawyers was John Gore, who is representing Senate President Alexander.
His legal defense points to the state constitution and how it makes no mention of partisan gerrymandering and whether it is unlawful.
"The constitution does not use the words 'partisan gerrymandering' and does not address partisan gerrymandering in any of the provisions," Gore said. "Instead, the constitution empowers the general assembly to arrange counties into congressional districts as it deems wise and proper."
Chief Justice John Kittredge questioned Gore on whether the state's constitution creates room for a valid legal claim on politician gerrymandering in the state.
He asked Gore to respond to arguments in a New Hampshire gerrymandering case — that stated voters should select their representatives. Representatives should not select their voters.
Gore said he does not believe there is room for a valid legal claim in this case since the state's constitution does not make mention of political gerrymandering.
"There's no debate that politics was a factor in drawing District 1," Gore said. "But it wasn't the only factor or the predominant factor."
Several justices questioned Chaney about the implications of his client's claims and what a decision could mean for next steps.
"What I hear you saying is that you're asking us to take it upon ourselves to decree who gets political power," Justice George James Jr. asked Chaney. "Where are the management standards?"
Kittredge said part of the burden in this case is figuring out how the courts can create a legal framework on this topic that's objective and measurable.
"Let's just say that you're correct. Where do we go from here?" Kittredge asked. "Does it go back to the legislature?"
"I think the only thing the court would need to tell the General Assembly is that you cannot intentionally dilute the electoral influence of a group of voters," Chaney responded.
The court adjourned after about an hour and a half. It is now up to the justices to decide what happens next with the case.
Bella Carpentier covers the South Carolina legislature, state and Greenville County politics. Contact her at [e-mail].
This article originally appeared on Greenville News: Oral arguments start in South Carolina Supreme Court congressional map case