Latest news with #AllenChaney
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oral arguments start in South Carolina Supreme Court case over 2022 congressional map
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 bcarpentier@ This article originally appeared on Greenville News: Oral arguments start in South Carolina Supreme Court congressional map case
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCDMV fixes computer glitch that blocked voter registration for thousands of teenagers
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCBD) — The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (SCDMV) confirmed Monday it has fixed a computer glitch that caused thousands of teenagers' voter registration not to be processed ahead of last November's election. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the SCDMV weeks before the Nov. 5 general election, alleging that the agency unlawfully denied thousands of first-time voters the opportunity to register to vote. They claimed more than 17,000 South Carolinians who were 17 when they attempted to register but would have reached legal voting age by Election Day were impacted. According to the State Election Commission, the SCDMV system was unable to send applications automatically to the election office for individuals who were not yet 18 when the application was completed. Though DMV employees are trained to inform individuals within that age group that the registration application will not go through the state election office and to use an alternate method, some prospective voters were not notified. SC Senate committee discusses vaccine bill The ACLU argued those individuals should have been added to the state's voter rolls as guaranteed by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires certain government agencies that provide public assistance to offer voter registration services. A circuit court judge ultimately denied the ACLU's motion, refusing to reopen voter registration for the 1,900 affected teens. But that wasn't the end of it. The ACLU, South Carolina League of Women Voters, and SC NAACP wrote a letter to the SCDMV on March 26, threatening legal action if the agency failed to 'swiftly fix' the issue. The agency responded the next day, indicating that it had resolved the glitch so that its system would now send voter registration information for individuals 16 years and older to the State Election Commission. 'I am proud of our advocacy and thankful to the DMV for agreeing to fix the system without additional litigation,' said Allen Chaney, Legal Director of ACLU of South Carolina. 'I remain frustrated, however, that state officials fought so mightily against DMV fixing this issue sooner.' In a statement to News 2, an SCDMV spokesperson said the agency would 'continue to work proactively' with the State Election Commission to ensure federal requirements are followed. 'We appreciate the efforts made by SCDMV to ensure compliance with federal and state law, and we look forward to working closely with county election offices to ensure these applications are processed in a timely and accurate manner,' a State Election Commission spokesperson said in a statement. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
