Republicans claim congressional district drawn for political reasons, not racial ones, Supreme Court told.
Republican Lawmakers Argue Against Racial Gerrymandering Ruling
Republican state lawmakers made their case to the Supreme Court on Oct. 11, urging the justices to overturn a ruling that accused the South Carolina legislature of racially gerrymandering a congressional district. They argued that the redrawn map was based on political, not racial, data. This case is significant because it could impact the Republican Party’s ability to maintain their slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives after the upcoming congressional elections.
Related Stories
- Supreme Court to Consider If GOP Lawmakers Racially Gerrymandered South Carolina District – 5/15/2023
- Supreme Court Bars Federal Courts From Deciding Gerrymandering Cases – 6/30/2019
In a previous case, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions that fall outside the jurisdiction of federal courts. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that federal judges should not interfere with the allocation of political power between parties. However, racial gerrymandering remains constitutionally suspect.
The South Carolina case, known as Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, centers around the 1st congressional district. The district court found that the 2022 map violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by diluting the power of black voters. Although the mapmakers did not explicitly use race, experts argued that racial demographics influenced the redistricting process.
Republicans, including State Sen. Thomas Alexander and Speaker G. Murrell Smith Jr., filed an appeal against the district court’s ruling. They contend that the panel disregarded the legislature’s good faith efforts and wrongly labeled the redistricting as a racial gerrymander. The NAACP and its supporters argue that black voters were targeted, violating the 14th and 15th Amendments.
During oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged that the legislature pursued a partisan gerrymander but questioned whether it was permissible. Attorney John M. Gore, representing the Republicans, argued that the redistricting was not racially motivated but aimed to increase the Republican vote share. He emphasized that political, not racial, data guided the mapmakers’ decisions.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have implications for future gerrymandering disputes and the balance of power in Congress. Both sides presented their arguments, with the NAACP relying on circumstantial evidence and the Republicans challenging the district court’s findings. The outcome of this case will shape the future of redistricting and its impact on minority voting rights.
After the hearing, NAACP attorney Leah Aden expressed optimism about their chances, highlighting the high standard for overturning a finding of racial gerrymandering. The NAACP held a rally on the courthouse steps, condemning racially discriminatory gerrymandering and calling for a fair and functioning democracy.
Sam Dorman contributed to this article.
How does the “one person, one vote” principle challenge the original majority African American congressional district in the Harris v. South Carolina case?
Wn as Harris v. South Carolina, involves the redrawing of a congressional district to address racial disparities. The original district, which was majority African American, had been challenged as a result of the principle of “one person, one vote,” which requires districts to be roughly equal in population. In order to address this issue, the South Carolina legislature redrew the district lines, resulting in a new map that Republicans argue was based on political, not racial, data.
The Republican lawmakers argue that the district was redrawn to reflect changes in population and voting patterns, and that there was no intent to unfairly advantage or disadvantage any racial group. They claim that the accusations of racial gerrymandering are unfounded and that the redrawn map was a legitimate exercise of the legislature’s power to redistrict.
If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of the Republican lawmakers, it could have significant implications for the Republican Party’s ability to maintain their slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. With the upcoming congressional elections, the outcome of this case could determine the political makeup of the House and potentially impact legislative priorities for years to come.
It is important to note that this case comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2019, in which they barred federal courts from deciding gerrymandering cases. In that ruling, the Court stated that partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions that should be handled by state legislatures and not federal courts. This ruling has shifted the burden of addressing gerrymandering to the states, making the outcome of the South Carolina case all the more significant.
While the Supreme Court has recognized the constitutionally suspect nature of racial gerrymandering, the distinction between racial and political gerrymandering can be blurred. The outcome of this case will depend on how the Court interprets the intent behind the redrawing of the district lines and whether they believe it was driven by racial factors. Ultimately, the Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for the future of redistricting and the influence of political parties in shaping electoral maps.
In summary, the Republican lawmakers are arguing against the ruling that accused the South Carolina legislature of racially gerrymandering a congressional district. They insist that the redrawn map was based on political, not racial, data. The outcome of this case could impact the Republican Party’s ability to maintain their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court navigates this complex issue of racial and political gerrymandering.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
