Oral Arguments Wrap in U.S. Supreme Court Case Challenging South Carolina’s Congressional Map for Racial Discrimination
WASHINGTON — This morning, oral arguments concluded in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the U.S. Supreme Court case that will determine the fate of South Carolina’s congressional map. Shortly after the map was enacted, plaintiffs challenged it as a racial gerrymander designed with a discriminatory purpose under the 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. was filed on behalf of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and Taiwan Scott, a Hilton Head resident and member of the Gullah-Geechee community. They are represented by the (LDF), American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Carolina, and Arnold & Porter.
In January, after an eight-day trial, a unanimous three-judge panel ordered South Carolina to redraw its 2022 enacted congressional map after finding that the South Carolina General Assembly targeted Black voters by removing more than 30,000 Black Charlestonians out of Congressional District 1 based on their race and to diminish their voting power.
Today, LDF Senior Counsel Leah Aden argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of Black South Carolina voters, explaining why the Court should affirm the panel’s finding of “stark racial gerrymandering.”
“They [legislators] were consistently looking at race because they had an expectation that race was a predictor of how political parties would perform,” said Aden.
“In light of the total record, it reflects that there was a racial target, it reflects that there was a significant sorting of Black people, it reflects unrebutted expert evidence of race rather than party explaining the assignment of voters, it reflects a disregard of traditional redistricting principles — and all of that evidence in total is more than plausible, in the record, for using race as a means to harm individual plaintiffs,” Aden added.
Following oral arguments, plaintiffs held a press conference where they highlighted what’s at stake in this critical voting rights case.
Brenda Murphy, president of NAACP South Carolina State Conference and plaintiff: “Black voters in South Carolina deserve to fully and fairly participate in a democratic process where we are represented and our communities are accounted for. It is crucial that every voter is fairly represented in our democracy, and we hope the Court rules in favor of this fundamental truth.”
Taiwan Scott, plaintiff: “For too long, our state’s electoral process has silenced us and severely weakened the ability of our communities to be fully and fairly represented and accounted for. South Carolina’s congressional map is the latest instance in our state’s long, painful history of racial discrimination that must be remedied.”
Leah Aden, LDF’s senior counsel: “We are confident that after a full review of the record, the Supreme Court will agree with the panel’s ruling because the law and facts are on plaintiffs’ side. South Carolina’s Congressional District 1, anchored in Charleston County, is a blatant example of racially discriminatory redistricting. We will not back down from the fight for the constitutional rights and dignity of Black South Carolinian voters.”
Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project: “Today’s argument confirmed what we’ve long known: South Carolina’s Legislature brazenly moved Black voters out of Congressional District 1 for the sake of partisan advantage. This was a textbook racial gerrymander, as the lower court found, and we are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”
Allen Chaney, ACLU of South Carolina legal director: “Win or lose, it cannot be overlooked that today the South Carolina legislature argued, yet again, that its conscious goal was to cheat South Carolina voters out of a fair and representative congressional map. Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”
John A. Freedman, Arnold & Porter’s senior pro bono counsel: “As today’s argument confirmed, the rights of Charlestonians and all South Carolinians to have their congressional districts drawn in a legal, fair, and non-discriminatory manner were unquestionably violated in this case. We are proud to stand with our co-counsel and clients to vindicate these important principles.”
This case is part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.
Voting Rights
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (Congressional Map Challenge)
Voting Rights
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (Congressional Map Challenge)
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”