SC Supreme Court to rule on gerrymandering case

The South Carolina Supreme Court soon will decide whether the state has illegally gerrymandered its congressional districts — as experts disagree about what the court will decide.

The League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union are among those fighting against what they believe is gerrymandering favoring Republican Party candidates. They argue the state’s map, which is redrawn as the state’s population grows, violates the South Carolina constitution’s “free and open” elections clause.

Opponents say South Carolina Republicans have gerrymandered the most recent map by loading many Democratic voters into just one district so they can more easily win in the other districts.

The state’s congressional map has been criticized by the ACLU for moving Democratic voters into the 6th District, to give Democrats an advantage in just one of seven districts in the state.

“In South Carolina, where Republicans hold more power, they partisan gerrymander for their gain, and either way, it’s the voters who lose,” ACLU spokesman Paul Bowers told the Carolina News & Reporter.

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, a Democrat who represents the 6th District, won his most recent election in 2024 with more than 59% of the votes. He’s the only Democrat representing South Carolina in Congress.

His district reaches from parts of Richland County all the way to areas in North Charleston, more than 100 miles away.

The ongoing Women Voters of South Carolina vs. Thomas Alexander case will have its next hearing June 24 in the Supreme Court.

Lynn Teague, vice president for issues and action at the S.C. League of Women Voters, who has previously testified in the case, said gerrymandered maps take away people’s voting rights.

“It disadvantages the Democrats because Republicans have a super majority that allows them to draw the maps they want,” Teague said.

The ongoing legal battle follows a history of similar concerns, including a 2019 allegation by the state office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People that the state’s district maps were drawn in a way that weakened the voting power of Black communities in North Charleston.

In 2019, the NAACP alleged the congressional maps were packing Black neighborhoods into District 6 to dilute Black voters’ power.

“They sought to remove African American voters from that district (District 1) and move them into Congressional District 6, which is this really funny shaped district that goes all the way up to parts of Columbia,” Bowers said.

The state Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in May 2024 that South Carolina’s congressional map did not violate the constitution by racially discriminating against Black voters.

The new lawsuit accuses Republicans of gerrymandering not by race but for partisan gain, which the League and the ACLU say goes against the state constitution.  

The ACLU said lawmakers have admitted drawing the lines to favor Republicans.

“The facts of the case aren’t really up for debate, because the defendants here have sworn in court that they were partisan gerrymandering,” Bowers said. “The question is whether that’s allowed under our state constitution.”

While a ruling is pending in South Carolina, some other states have already settled their battles.

Jonathan Cerves, who works on the Princeton Gerrymandering project, said the South Carolina case is similar to one debated in Pennsylvania in 2018. 

Like South Carolina, Pennsylvania has a provision in its constitution that states all elections need to be free and equal. But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 2011 the state violated the constitution.

If the South Carolina Supreme Court rules the S.C. map is unconstitutional, the state has different options to rectify it.

One solution popular among activists is to enact an independent commission to redraw lines. Some state legislators attempted to do exactly that in 2023 with the Anti Gerrymandering Act, but it’s been stuck in the House Judiciary Committee since. Without a hearing it would die after this legislative session, which ends in June.

Other states have adopted independent commissions, among them California, Arizona and Michigan.

“The idea here is that we would like to have a relatively neutral process to translate votes into seats, but if somebody has the power to draw lines, they may face the temptation to help their own themselves as individuals,” said Samuel Wang from Princeton’s Gerrymandering Project.

While South Carolina may not empower an independent commission, it still has to decide how its constitution’s language dictates how maps will be drawn.

A 2023 gerrymandering ruling in New York said those maps needed to be redrawn because they went against the state’s constitution. It was an easy win because that constitution has explicit language that states gerrymandering is not allowed, Cerves said.

The New York State Constitution states, “Districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.” 

South Carolina’s language is not as explicit, making it a question of what it means to hold a “free and equal” election.

South Carolina’s constitution states, “All elections shall be free and open, and every inhabitant of this State possessing the qualifications provided for in this Constitution shall have an equal right to elect officers and be elected to fill public office.”

Bowers and Teague aren’t confident the S.C. Supreme Court will shut down gerrymandering. 

Teague said her hope is for the state to redraw the maps fairly to encourage better voter turnout among Democrats and moderates.

“I think it is incredibly discouraging,” Teague said. “I think, you know, it is very hard to get people to vote if they don’t believe their vote is going to matter.”