The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday that a lower court “clearly erred” in its assessment of South Carolina’s congressional district map. The high court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, declared that the circumstantial evidence presented fell “far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process.”
The case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, challenged the congressional map drawn by the Republican-controlled South Carolina legislature following the 2020 Census. The NAACP and a District 1 voter had alleged that the map was a racial gerrymander designed to dilute the voting power of Black residents.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling firmly rebuked the claim, revealing that the challengers failed to disentangle race from politics—a crucial distinction given the high correlation between race and party affiliation in South Carolina. “We start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” the Court noted.
The decision has political ramifications, particularly for District 1 which has been a hotbed of contention. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) who won the district by nearly 14 points in 2022 following the redistricting, hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling as a vindication of the legislature’s efforts to create a stronger Republican tilt in her district. The majority opinion underscored that the challengers’ evidence, which included expert reports and statistical analyses, was deeply flawed.
The Court pointed out that the experts failed to account for traditional districting principles such as geographical constraints and core retention—key factors in legitimate redistricting efforts. “The report of Dr. Kosuke Imai made no effort to disentangle race from politics,” the opinion stated. Additionally, the reports from other experts were criticized for using inferior methods and data, further weakening the Democrats’ case.
The Supreme Court also criticized the lower court for not giving enough weight to the legislature’s partisan goals, which were openly stated during the redistricting process. The legislature had aimed to solidify Republican control in District 1 while respecting traditional districting principles, a move that was deemed politically strategic rather than racially motivated. “The legislature’s priority was clear: to create a stronger Republican tilt in District 1,” the Court noted. “This political objective can explain the district’s design without resorting to racial considerations.”
Justice Alito wrote, “The Challengers provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander, and their circumstantial evidence is very weak.” He further explained, “None of the facts on which the District Court relied to infer a racial motive is sufficient to support an inference that can overcome the presumption of legislative good faith.”
Republican officials successfully argued for the map’s use due to the imminent primary elections and the impracticality of implementing a new map in such a short time frame. The decision comes after the South Carolina Legislature’s 2022 redistricting efforts altered the 1st and 6th congressional districts, leading to accusations of racial gerrymandering.
The court found that over 30,000 African American voters in Charleston County were moved to different districts, resulting in a racial gerrymander. Despite the district court’s earlier ruling against the map, the necessity of conducting the upcoming elections without logistical disruptions took precedence. The Supreme Court’s decision stands as a significant victory for Republicans, affirming their right to pursue partisan objectives in redistricting as long as they do not explicitly subordinate traditional districting principles to racial considerations.