U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Appeal in South Carolina Redistricting Case That Held State Gerrymandered Black Voters
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court today said it will hear an appeal to a ruling that ordered South Carolina to redraw its congressional map because the state’s Congressional District 1 discriminated against Black voters on the basis of race.
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Carolina, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and Arnold & Porter challenged the map on behalf of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and an individual voter, Taiwan Scott.
In January 2023, a unanimous federal three-judge panel ordered South Carolina to redraw its 2022 enacted congressional map following an eight-day trial. Plaintiffs highlighted how the Legislature sorted Black voters on the basis of race without a compelling reason and also purposefully engineered the map to dilute Black voting power.
The state appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which will hear the case next term.
The following comments are from:
Joint comment from South Carolina NAACP and Taiwan Scott, plaintiffs: “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will come to the same conclusion that the federal panel did in ruling correctly that our state’s 2022 enacted congressional map was discriminatorily drawn. 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. As the case moves to oral argument, we implore the court to uphold the panel’s decision and protect Black South Carolina voters from this egregious form of discrimination.”
Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project: “The facts and law are clear: South Carolina mapmakers brazenly moved Black voters in disproportionate numbers out of the Charleston County-anchored Congressional District 1 in order to hold on to political power. This was a textbook racial gerrymander and discriminatory map, as the lower court recognized. We are confident that the Supreme Court will do so as well on direct appeal, and we will fight until Black South Carolina voters have a lawful map that fairly represents them.”
Allen Chaney, legal director of the ACLU of South Carolina: “The lower court reached its decision by applying firmly-rooted Supreme Court precedent to well-supported factual findings. Now that the case is on appeal, we expect that the Supreme Court will follow a similar path and affirm.”
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 post-trial 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 unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and intentional vote dilution. We will continue to fight for the constitutional rights and dignity of Black South Carolinian voters.”
John A. Freedman, Arnold & Porter’s senior pro bono counsel: “We are confident that after a full review, the Supreme Court will conclude that the trial court determination that South Carolina engaged in impermissible racial gerrymandering is supported by a mountain of evidence and will affirm. We look forward to sustaining our trial court victory for our clients.”
Order:
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.”