Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Last updated

Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case name Thomas C. Alexander, in His Official Capacity as President of the South Carolina Senate, et al., v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.
Docket no. 22-807
Questions presented
(1) Whether courts must apply a presumption of good faith to a legislature's racial intent when considering a challenge to legislative districts; (2) whether courts must disentangle race from politics when considering such challenges; (3) whether courts must consider a district's compliance with traditional districting principles before finding that the legislature predominantly considered race when drawing districts.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. XIV, XV

Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding racial gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering. It's the first partisan gerrymandering case taken by the Supreme Court after its landmark decision in Rucho v Common Cause which stated that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts, and the first racial gerrymandering case after the court's landmark decision in Allen v Milligan [1]

Contents

Background

Before the 2020 United States Census, South Carolina's 1st Congressional District was seen as a swing district, being won by Democrat Joe Cunningham in an upset against Republican Katie Arrington in 2018 and then incumbent Republican representative Nancy Mace in 2020, both times by small margins, and between 1 and 1.5 percentage points between the winner and runner-up. [2] [3]

After the 2020 United States Census had been conducted, the South Carolina Legislature had enacted a new map, which was signed by South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, in January 2022. The new congressional map changed the partisan and racial makeup of the 1st Congressional District by splitting Charleston County, in two, putting the cities of Charleston and North Charleston, into the Democratic heavy 6th Congressional district, with the intention of moving Black Democratic voters into the 6th District, whilst the rest of Charleston county was redistricted into the 1st Congressional district, leaving White Democratic voters in the 1st District, making it more Republican, as opposed to a swing district prior to redistricting. [4] The desired effect of this redistricting was seen in 2022, when Mace won reelection by almost 14 percentage points. [5] Multiple plaintiffs, including the South Carolina ACLU, and South Carolina NAACP, sued the stating that the congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Fifteenth Amendment. [6] In response to the lawsuit, the defendants, instead asserted that the move to exclude black voters, specifically voters from Charleston County, from the 1st District, and leaving white voters in the district, was done as a partisan gerrymander, as opposed to a racial gerrymander. [7]

Lower Court Decision

At the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, arguments were held regarding the racial makeup of the 1st, 2nd and 5th districts. The plaintiffs asserted that the predominant factor in the adoption of the current district maps was race for all three districts, whilst the defendants asserted that party affiliation was the main factor during the redistricting process of all 3 districts. On January 6, 2023, a three judge panel unanimously ruled using the predominance standard set forth in the 1995 United States Supreme Court case, Miller v Johnson, that race was the predominant factor when drawing the current shape of the 1st district, specifically, a racial target of 17% of the population of the 1st district being black, to make the district Republican leaning, however, the panel also ruled that whilst race was a motivating factor in the drawing of the 2nd and 5th districts, it was not the predominant factor, leaving the shapes of the 2nd and 5th districts intact. [8] Whilst it was a partial legal win for the plaintiffs, the defendants still contended that the actual goal of their redistricting process was a partisan one, with party affiliation being the predominant factor in the redistricting of the 1st district as opposed to race. [9] The court ordered the defendants to draw a new map by March 31, 2023, [10] however the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court on January 27, 2023, [11] and the district court extending the deadline to 30 days after the Supreme Court issued a decision. On May 15, 2023, [12] the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case with oral arguments set for October 11, 2023. [13]

Supreme Court

On May 15, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the case, and also noted probable jurisdiction. [14] The case is notable for simultaneously being a partisan gerrymandering case, and a racial gerrymandering case, after the decisions of Rucho v Common Cause, and Allen v Milligan. [15] Particularly, in the former case, the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering, whilst it can be in violation of the constitution, presents political questions beyond the federal court system, and therefore can't be litigated via that system. [16] However, state courts can. This was reaffirmed by the decision in Moore v Harper. [17]

Analysis

Legal experts and news outlets agreed that the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to the arguments presented by the defendants in the case. [18] [19] [20] [21] Legal journalist and senior correspondent for Vox, Ian Millhiser, stated that, if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the defendants, it could make gerrymandering worse, and make it "virtually impossible to challenge racial gerrymanders." [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001), is an appeal of the United States Supreme Court case Hunt v Cromartie. The case defendant is Mike Easley, who became North Carolina governor following Jim Hunt. The court's ruling on April 18, 2001, stated that redistricting for political reasons did not violate Federal Civil Rights Law banning race-based gerrymandering..

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund</span> Organization in New York, United States

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is an American civil rights organization and law firm based in New York City.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North Carolina's congressional districts</span> U.S. House districts in the state of North Carolina

North Carolina is currently divided into 14 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. After the 2000 census, the number of North Carolina's seats was increased from 12 to 13 due to the state's increase in population. In the 2022 elections, per the 2020 United States census, North Carolina gained one new congressional seat for a total of 14.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alabama's congressional districts</span>

The U.S. state of Alabama is currently divided into seven congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives.

<i>Shaw v. Reno</i> 1993 US Supreme Court gerrymandering case

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a "majority-minority" Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued to challenge this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. In contrast, Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5–4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and on the basis that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South Carolina's 1st congressional district</span> U.S. House district for South Carolina

South Carolina's 1st congressional district is a coastal congressional district in South Carolina, represented by Republican Nancy Mace since January 3, 2021. She succeeded Democrat Joe Cunningham, having defeated him in the 2020 election. Cunningham was the first Democrat to represent the district since the 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South Carolina's congressional districts</span> U.S. House districts in the state of South Carolina

There are currently seven United States congressional districts in South Carolina. There have been as few as four and as many as nine congressional districts in South Carolina. The 9th district and the 8th district were lost after the 1840 census. The 5th district and the 6th district were also briefly lost after the Civil War, but both had been regained by the 1880 census. Because of the state population growth in the 2010 census, South Carolina regained its 7th district, which had remained unused since the Civil War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Virginia's congressional districts</span> U.S. House districts in the state of Virginia

Virginia is currently divided into 11 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. The death of Rep. Donald McEachin on November 28, 2022, left the 4th congressional district seat empty. Following the results of a special election to fill his seat on February 21, 2023, Jennifer McClellan made history by becoming Virginia's first black congresswoman.

Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. Subsequent to the ruling, partisan bias in redistricting increased dramatically in the 2010 redistricting round.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gerrymandering in the United States</span> Setting electoral district boundaries to favor specific political interests in legislative bodies

Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) is a US organization that focuses on redistricting and is affiliated with the Democratic Party. The organization coordinates campaign strategy, directs fundraising, organizes ballot initiatives and files lawsuits against state redistricting maps. At launch, the organization announced that it intends to support Democratic candidates for local and state offices in order for them to control congressional map drawing in the redistricting cycle following the 2020 United States census.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 United States redistricting cycle</span>

The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.

Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Other forms of gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic grounds had been deemed unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court had identified that extreme partisan gerrymandering could also be unconstitutional, the Court had not agreed on how this could be defined, leaving the question to lower courts to decide. That issue was later resolved in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court decided that partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question.

Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), and Lamone v. Benisek, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), were a pair of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case dealing with the topic of partisan gerrymandering arising from the 2011 Democratic party-favored redistricting of Maryland. At the center of the cases was Maryland's 6th district which historically favored Republicans and which was redrawn in 2011 to shift the political majority to become Democratic via vote dilution. Affected voters filed suit, stating that the redistricting violated their right of representation under Article One, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution and freedom of association of the First Amendment.

Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the redistricting of the state of Texas following the 2010 census.

Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in North Carolina</span> USA gerrymandering controversy (2010-)

Redistricting in North Carolina has been a controversial topic due to allegations and admissions of gerrymandering.

Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The appellees and respondants argued that Alabama's congressional districts discriminated against African-American voters. The Court ruled 5–4 that Alabama’s districts likely violated the VRA, maintained an injunction that required Alabama to create an additional majority-minority district, and held that Section 2 of the VRA is constitutional in the redistricting context.

Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States related to independent state legislature theory (ISL), a doctrine that asserts state legislatures have sole authority to establish election laws for federal elections within their respective states without judicial review by state courts, presentment to state governors, and without constraint by state constitutions. The case arose from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 United States census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party.

References

  1. ↑ "Takeaways from Supreme Court Arguments Over South Carolina's Congressional Map". Democracy Docket . October 11, 2023. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
  2. ↑ "Democrat Joe Cunningham wins seat S.C.'s Sanford lost in primary". Washington Post . November 7, 2018. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  3. ↑ "South Carolina Election Results: First Congressional District". New York Times . November 24, 2020. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  4. ↑ "Congressional redistricting plan finalized". South Carolina Public Radio. January 28, 2022. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  5. ↑ "South Carolina First Congressional District Election Results". New York Times . November 17, 2022. Retrieved January 27, 2024.
  6. ↑ "Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP". League of Women Voters . October 11, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  7. ↑ "Supreme Court to hear arguments in key case about gerrymandering". The Conversation . October 10, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  8. ↑ "Facts of Finding and Conclusions of Law" (PDF). January 6, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  9. ↑ "Supreme Court to Consider South Carolina Voting Map Ruled a Racial Gerrymander". New York Times . May 15, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  10. ↑ "SC NAACP V. ALEXANDER". ACLU . Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  11. ↑ "Defendants Motion for a stay of the Courts January 6, 2023 order pending appeal to the Supreme Court" (PDF). January 27, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  12. ↑ "ORDERS IN PENDING CASES" (PDF). May 15, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  13. ↑ "Court to hear argument in racial gerrymandering challenge to S.C. district". SCOTUSblog . October 10, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  14. ↑ "ORDERS IN PENDING CASES" (PDF). May 15, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  15. ↑ "Racial gerrymandering returns to U.S. Supreme Court. This time it's South Carolina's fight". NC Newsline. October 6, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  16. ↑ "Supreme Court Bars Challenges to Partisan Gerrymandering". New York Times . June 27, 2019. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  17. ↑ "What the Supreme Court's rejection of a controversial theory means for elections". NPR . June 30, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  18. ↑ "High Court Suggests Support for GOP-Drawn South Carolina Map". Bloomberg News . October 11, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  19. ↑ "Justices Poised to Restore Voting Map Ruled a Racial Gerrymander". New York Times . June 30, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  20. ↑ "This Supreme Court Case Could Decide Control of Congress in 2024". Mother Jones . October 11, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  21. ↑ "Justices question finding that S.C. district was unconstitutional racial gerrymander". SCOTUSblog . October 11, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  22. ↑ "A new Supreme Court case threatens to make gerrymandering even worse". Vox . May 15, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.