Supreme Court upholds South Carolina congressional map previously criticized for diminishing Black voting influence

The Supreme Court upheld a pro-Republican South Carolina congressional map on Thursday, rejecting the argument raised by civil rights groups that lawmakers impermissibly used race as a proxy to bolster the GOP’s chances. The decision, with a 6-3 vote along conservative-liberal lines, will likely have significant legal consequences.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated that the evidence presented by the challengers fell short of proving that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process. The challenge in cases like these is disentangling race from party affiliation, as they sometimes align.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote a scathing dissent, arguing that the majority’s decision will incentivize state lawmakers and mapmakers to use race as a proxy to achieve partisan ends. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurrence, questioned whether federal courts should be policing racial gerrymanders at all, suggesting that the issue should be left to politicians.

The outcome of similar legal skirmishes over redistricting cases could impact which party controls the US House of Representatives. In South Carolina, the contested district was redrawn in 2020 to benefit the GOP, leading to accusations of intentional dilution of Black voters’ power. The case highlighted the complex interplay between race and politics in redistricting decisions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have far-reaching implications for future redistricting battles and the balance of power in Congress. With state election deadlines approaching, the legal battle over South Carolina’s congressional map is far from over.