The Supreme Court’s Indication towards a Republican-Dominant District in South Carolina

by Ethan Kim
Supreme Court South Carolina district

On Wednesday, indications from the Supreme Court pointed towards a potential decision that might uphold the Republican influence over a congressional district in South Carolina. This is amidst allegations that the district marginalizes Black voters. The ultimate decision on this matter could significantly impact the struggle over which party dominates the House of Representatives.

The six conservative members of the court expressed doubts about the lower court’s decision, which directed South Carolina to reconfigure a coastal district currently under the representation of Republican Rep. Nancy Mace.

Chief Justice John Roberts opined that a decision favoring the Black voters challenging the district would mark a notable shift in the court’s history of voting rights decisions.

It’s worth noting that in her 2020 election campaign, Mace narrowly defeated Democratic incumbent Rep. Joe Cunningham by a mere 1%, which is approximately 5,400 votes. However, post the 2022 redistricting, influenced by the 2020 census data, Mace’s victory margin surged to 14%. Notably, she was among the eight Republicans who advocated removing Kevin McCarthy from the House speaker position.

Considering the Republicans’ slim majority in the U.S. House, even a single seat’s loss or acquisition could redefine the political equilibrium post the 2024 elections.

The redistricting in 2022, orchestrated by the Republican-dominated legislature, led to the transfer of 30,000 Black Charleston residents out of Mace’s district. The state’s defense argues that the driving force behind this change was partisan objectives and coastal area population surges, not racial considerations.

Representing the state, attorney John Gore articulated to the court, “The General Assembly’s actions were devoid of racial motivations. It utilized political data to achieve its political ambitions.”

Contrastingly, the lower court inferred that the state employed race as an indirect measure of party allegiance, thereby violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, leaning more towards the challengers’ perspective, observed the unchanged percentage of Democratic-inclined Black voters in both the old and new districts. This, she pointed out, was consistent even when thousands were relocated within this district.

In a differing stance, Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed more accepting of the state’s rationale for the district’s current demarcation. He queried the court’s potential action if the state was found to have employed purely political data in the district’s design.

Previous records show that both Kavanaugh and Roberts sided with liberal justices when the court deduced that Alabama had undermined the political influence of Black voters.

With the forced redistricting in Alabama, it appears Democrats might secure an additional seat. This redistricting would result in two districts with a significant Black voter population. A parallel case in Louisiana might yield similar outcomes.

In South Carolina, even though Black voters wouldn’t dominate in a restructured district, a combination of them and a considerable number of white Democratic voters could make the Democrats formidable in this reshaped district.

Civil rights organizations managed to secure a favorable decision against the map from a united three-judge panel earlier in January.

Leah Aden, defending the lower-court’s verdict, highlighted to the justices that a significant portion of predominantly Black precincts were removed from Mace’s district, compared to a smaller fraction of majority-white voting precincts.

The execution of the lower court’s decision has been paused, allowing the state to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In January, Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey voiced that any redrawing would only happen if mandated by at least five Supreme Court justices.

Both contesting parties are eager for a decision by January 1, ensuring that the 2024 elections utilize a congressional map that adheres to the Supreme Court’s directive.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Supreme Court South Carolina district

What is the primary contention regarding the South Carolina congressional district?

The core issue revolves around the possibility of the Supreme Court upholding the Republican influence over a congressional district in South Carolina. Allegations suggest that the district may be marginalizing Black voters.

Who is the current representative of the contentious coastal district in South Carolina?

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace is the present representative of the coastal district under discussion.

How did the redistricting affect Rep. Nancy Mace’s electoral victory?

In 2020, Rep. Nancy Mace defeated Democratic incumbent Rep. Joe Cunningham by only a 1% margin. However, following the 2022 redistricting influenced by the 2020 census data, her victory margin increased significantly to 14%.

What is the state’s argument regarding the redistricting?

The state defends the redistricting by arguing that it was driven by partisan objectives and the population growth in coastal areas, rather than racial considerations.

What was the conclusion of the lower court on this matter?

The lower court deduced that the state employed race as an indirect measure of party allegiance, thereby violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Which justices displayed differing viewpoints on the issue?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed more sympathetic to the challengers, emphasizing the unchanged percentage of Democratic-inclined Black voters. In contrast, Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared more receptive to the state’s explanations for the current district demarcation.

What impact might the court’s decision have on the 2024 elections?

Given the Republicans’ slim majority in the U.S. House, the outcome of this case and the potential redistricting could play a pivotal role in deciding which party dominates the House of Representatives after the 2024 elections.

More about Supreme Court South Carolina district

You may also like


Jenny T October 12, 2023 - 12:02 am

oh wow. this really puts 2024 elections in perspective. Politics are messy!

Ben M October 12, 2023 - 4:39 am

honestly, I get lost in all this legal jargon. but Justice Jackson’s point makes a lot of sense. How does the demographic remain unchanged even after so much redistricting?

Rachel P October 12, 2023 - 9:18 am

Kavanaugh’s point is kinda valid too. If its purely political data, should the court even interfere? So confusing!

Aaron D October 12, 2023 - 2:49 pm

Is this another case of gerrymandering? Feels like every state’s got something fishy going on with their districts lately.

Lila K. October 12, 2023 - 4:55 pm

Read about Rep. Nancy Mace before and shes a strong contender. Wonder how much of this will affect her standing.

Sarah L October 12, 2023 - 6:52 pm

the law and politics are so intertwined. Its hard to know what’s right and whats just playing the game anymore.

Mike H. October 12, 2023 - 7:35 pm

I can’t believe the court is going in this direction. Why’s it always about politics and not what’s right for the people?

Tom R. October 12, 2023 - 10:55 pm

I guess, if the state’s defense is to be believed its all about partisanship not race. Still, moving 30,000 Black residents sounds sus.


Leave a Comment


BNB – Big Big News is a news portal that offers the latest news from around the world. BNB – Big Big News focuses on providing readers with the most up-to-date information from the U.S. and abroad, covering a wide range of topics, including politics, sports, entertainment, business, health, and more.

Editors' Picks

Latest News

© 2023 BBN – Big Big News