WASHINGTON, DC — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an attempt by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NACP) to redistrict South Carolina to turn a Republican seat into a Democratic one.
Representative Nancy Mace (Republican), who currently holds a competitive seat in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, filed a lawsuit against the NAACP alleging that the current map is racially discriminatory and violates the 14th Amendment. The Court voted 6-3 to reject the Democrats’ argument.
Justice Samuel Alito I have written For the majority of people:
The Constitution gives state legislatures primary responsibility for drawing congressional districts, and redistricting is an inevitable political enterprise. Lawmakers almost always recognize the political implications of the maps they adopt, and arguments that maps drawn to achieve partisan purposes are unconstitutional are not open to review in federal courts.
Alito explained that because lawmakers can get political in redistricting — and, in fact, it’s impossible for politicians to ignore politics — “parties challenging the constitutionality of districts must separate race and politics if they want to prove that Congress acted on race and not partisanship.”
But the Supreme Court “has left the door open, at least in theory, to rare cases in which the shape of a district is so odd on its face that it reveals racial intent beyond any other explanation,” Alito noted.
Justice Samuel Alito (Erin Schaff/The New York Times, via Associated Press, Pool)
“Where partisanship and race are correlated, of course, maps that are rigged to achieve partisan purposes can look very similar to maps that are rigged racially,” the court reasoned. “Thus, our past decisions have made clear that jurisdictions can engage in constitutional political rigging even if the most loyal Democrats happen to be black Democrats, and even if the state knows that fact.”
“If either politics or race can explain the contours of districts, plaintiffs have not cleared the hurdle of showing that districts were unconstitutionally drawn with a racial focus,” Alito said.
“Absent a replacement map, it is difficult for plaintiffs to overcome the initial presumption that the Legislature acted in good faith,” the ruling continued. “This presumption of legislative good faith directs district courts to draw inferences in favor of the Legislature when faced with evidence that plausibly supports multiple conclusions.”
The majority also noted an allusion to the ongoing legal battle against former President Donald Trump over redistricting, warning that “we must be wary of plaintiffs who seek to turn our federal courts into weapons of political battle, to deliver victories that could not be won in the political arena.”
Focusing on the facts of the case and whether Mace’s districts constituted unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, the majority reasoned:
But when race and partisan preferences are so closely tied, as they are here, it’s hard to imagine that BVAP in the 1st District would be able to win. [Black Voting Age Population] Even if it were more or less constant, it hardly proves anything. It is clear that if 100% of black voters voted for the Democratic candidate, then a map with the partisan breakdown the Congress is seeking in the 1st District (54% Republican, 46% Democrat) would necessarily exclude a disproportionate number of black voters. And since roughly 90% of black voters vote for the Democratic candidate, the same phenomenon is very likely to occur.
… Thus, there is strong evidence that the district’s 17 percent BVAP was simply a side effect of the Legislature’s partisan goals. And there is nothing to deny that possibility. In light of the presumption of legislators’ good faith, that possibility is conclusive.
All the NAACP has left are the expert reports, but “these reports are flawed because they ignore certain traditional redistricting criteria, such as geographic constraints and the partisan interests of Congress,” Alito noted. “Because these reports do not reflect the myriad considerations Congress must balance as part of its redistricting efforts, they cannot support a conclusion that race played a major role in drawing the boundaries of the 1st District.”
The justices also criticized the court for failing to note that Democrats had not offered “an alternative map showing how the state could have created significantly greater racial balance in the 1st District while still achieving its legitimate political objectives.”
“Constructing an alternative map would not be difficult,” the majority argued. “Any expert equipped with a computer could easily construct a redistricting map that took into account any number of specific criteria, such as past voting patterns or party registration.”
For all these reasons, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower court committed “clear error” in its findings of fact and reversed the trial court’s decision.
Justice Clarence Thomas joined most of Alito’s opinion and also wrote a concurring opinion, saying the Court should reconsider some of its past decisions on voting rights and reexamine some of the broader legal principles that the Court applies in cases like this one.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined.
This incident Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP ConferenceCase No. 22-807, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Breitbart News senior legal contributor Ken Kurkowski is a former White House and Justice Department lawyer. Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) Kenkrukowski.
