he Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, a case that could help decide which party controls the House of Representatives in 2024, along with the future of minority representation and voting rights litigation in the South.

In 2018, Joe Cunningham became the first Democrat in nearly 40 years to win South Carolina’s 1st congressional district, which is centered around Charleston.

Two years later, Republican Nancy Mace defeated Cunningham by one point. But that victory was too close for comfort for Republicans.

When South Carolina’s GOP-controlled state legislature redrew the state’s congressional districts in 2021, a GOP state senator from the area said he wanted to “give the district a stronger Republican lean.” Republicans accomplished that goal by moving nearly 30,000 Black voters in Charleston County (62 percent of the county’s total Black population) from the swing 1st district to the safely Democratic seat of longtime Rep. James Clyburn, one of the most powerful House Democrats. (ProPublica reported that Clyburn worked with Republicans to add more Black voters to his district to shore it up; he has denied this and filed a brief in support of civil rights groups.)

In 2022, Mace won re-election by 14 points. Last week she made headlines by becoming one of eight House Republicans who voted to oust House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

Civil rights groups, led by the South Carolina NAACP, challenged the GOP’s map and in January a three-judge panel struck down the district as a “stark racial gerrymander.” Republicans promptly appealed to the Supreme Court.

South Carolina said the district drawn for Mace was motivated by politics, not race. “District 1 is not a racial gerrymander,” said John Gore, an attorney at Jones Day who represented South Carolina. (Gore was head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under Donald Trump and one of the driving forces behind the Trump administration’s failed effort to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, pushing the bogus argument that it was needed to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.) His argument in the Alexander case could be used to justify nearly any instance of racial gerrymandering, making it next to impossible to strike down maps that discriminate against voters of color.

The court’s conservative majority appeared sympathetic to South Carolina’s defense that it was difficult to disentangle race and politics. Chief Justice John Roberts told Leah Aden, senior counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, that civil rights groups faced a “high burden” and “you’re trying to carry it without any direct evidence, with no alternative map, with no odd shaped districts.” A ruling vacating South Carolina’s map based on what he termed “circumstantial evidence,” Roberts said, “would be breaking new ground in our voting rights jurisprudence.”

The Roberts Court has already made it very difficult to strike down gerrymandered maps, ruling that partisan gerrymandering cannot be challenged in federal court, and has reliably sided with Republicans in voting rights disputes. As Justice Elena Kagan noted, the Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause preventing federal courts from invalidating partisan gerrymandering gave states like South Carolina a green-light to enact racial gerrymanders but claim they were simply done for partisan reasons.

One surprising exception to the Court’s hostility to voting rights came last summer, when it invalidated Alabama’s congressional map because it did not include a second majority-Black district in a state that is 27 percent Black. The new seat ordered by the courts is expected to elect a new Black member of Congress from Alabama and boost Democrats’ chances of retaking the House. These developments have raised hopes that the conservative majority may be open to policing racially gerrymandered maps in a new way.

In Alabama and South Carolina, Republicans pursued different strategies to dilute Black voting strength. Republicans in Alabama simply ignored Black political power by refusing to draw a second majority-Black district. In South Carolina, “Black voters were used as political puzzle pieces in the state legislature’s attempt to ensure and insulate the legislative majority party’s power,” says Mitchell Brown, senior voting rights counsel at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

In Alabama, Republicans didn’t consider race enough. In South Carolina, they considered race too much. In that sense, civil rights groups are making an argument often used by Republicans—that race should not be the driving force in drawing political lines—to argue against racial gerrymandering.

“State legislators are free to consider a broad array of factors in the design of a legislative district, including partisanship, but they may not use race as a predominant factor and may not use partisanship as a proxy for race,” the three-judge panel wrote in South Carolina.

The Supreme Court similarly ruled in 2017 in Cooper v. Harris that a district is likely unconstitutional if “race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.”

“No party disputes Cooper’s basic legal rule that absent a compelling interest, race cannot predominate in line drawing, even as a means to achieve a partisan goal,” said Aden.

But in the Alexander case oral arguments, the Court’s conservative majority seemed to suggest that its recent decision striking down racial gerrymandering in Alabama may be a one-off.

Civil rights groups have asked the Supreme Court to issue a decision by January 1, 2024, so that new lines could take effect for the 2024 election if the lower court decision is upheld.

  • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    the district drawn was motivated by politics, not by race

    If this argument is allowed, then the entire 14th Amendment can be circumvented using any attribute with high correlation to the targeted class. Don’t want to serve black people? Just say you only serve people with a skin albedo above 0.2 - it’s about aesthetics, not race! Don’t wan to employ women? Just make short hair a requirement for the job.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If this argument is allowed, then the entire 14th Amendment can be circumvented using any attribute with high correlation to the targeted class by lying about your intention

      Fixed it for you

      • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except that’s not the issue. You can be truthful about a non-discriminatory intention and still be discriminatory. For example, neglecting wheelchair ramps because they’re too expensive is still discriminatory. Even if the redistricting was more politically motivated than racially, which it very well could have been, the end result was disenfranchisement of an overwhelmingly black population.

        • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t it? If the 14th can be circumvented by contriving a non-discriminatory-seeming pretext for the purpose, racial discrimination could be de facto legal for states if SCOTUS overlooks it with a nod and a wink by pretending that the pretext isn’t a pretext and doesn’t produce that outcome on purpose.

          Maybe I’m missing the point, but to me this feels a bit like like arguing that when they said the Civil War was about “states’ rights”, that it wasn’t about slavery.

          • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The difference is that “14A can be circumvented by lying about intent” is a weaker concern than correlative discrimination. It implies that as long as someone is being honest, they would not run afoul of non-discrimination laws. My point is that even honest and legitimate non-racially-motivated intents can still be discriminatory.

            • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks, that’s a useful distinction.

              My thought here is that it shouldn’t make a difference if they’re honest vs. lying about intent if the point to 14A’s equal protection clause is prevention of discrimination- after all, lying about intent is easy to do and hard to test

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Democrats have the house in the bag. They barely lost in a midterm year, and then the republicans showed everyone what they would do if given the chance to govern. It is the senate that democrats are going to loose in 2024 thus keeping the trifecta out of reach for another 2 years.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      As someone put it recently, Millennials and Gen Z have to turn out to vote, so that politicians start trying to court us with the issues we care about, instead of Boomers and Gen X, who are a reliable bloc but dying off.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been hearing the same thing for 20 years. “There’s more of us than them! We just gotta get people our age to vote!”

        The system has been catastrophically rigged against us. The largest block of voters is between 18 and 40, overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and have delivered the popular vote to the Democrats for 7 out of the last 8 presidential elections, but the Republicans still won 4 of them.

        • Telorand@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The largest block of voters is between 18 and 40

          Yes, but they haven’t been showing up to vote until the last several elections. Texas is a great example: large number of young voters who didn’t fucking bother to show up, and they got stuck with Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott again.

          You’ve been hearing about it for the last 20 years, sure, but nobody has taken it seriously until recently.

          And that doesn’t mean we’ll win every election, because not everyone in our cohort is on the Left, but it does mean we could easily have a meaningful majority in two voting cycles if people voted like their future depended on it.

        • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, Gen X has largely followed our Boomer parents. We were mostly locked out of power, but too many of us bought what the Boomers were selling in the hope that we’d get to share in their fortune.

        • ripcord@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is the @ing a Twitter thing or something? I see people doing this occasionally but not often.

          • rhythmisaprancer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Kbin automatically populates the reply box with these, but I think most of us (like you) delete them. I do not know if Lemmy instances do this also.

              • rhythmisaprancer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Wow, that’s really interesting. Maybe a setting difference? Screenshot of you’re interested in my view. I deleted all the @s because of the reason you asked about.

                • ripcord@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Under Settings, I’m guessing it’s “add mention tags” under “Writing”. I definitely never turned that off (but it is off).

      • Lemdee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Millennials and Gen Z have to turn out to vote

        And we are, as the midterms showed and why Republicans are so scared of elections now.

  • Zerlyna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    This shit makes me wish everyplace was just a grid and you vote on who lives in your square.

    • rhythmisaprancer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I actually live in a part of the US where there is very much a tangible grid, where the land was divided into sections (1 square miles/640 acres). Some of this is worked out to where one section is public land, the next is private, and so on, creating a checkerboard appearance on maps.

      Anyway, the problem with divvying up this ‘grid’ is that population levels here are quite low (like two hours to the next fuel stop and town low) and I would be curious how that not entirely unpopulated, but not very populated area would be handled responsibly. Size of grid sections? Shape?

    • Lemdee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds like a weird version of a political compass but with real world effects instead of terrible memes.

  • Psythik@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have ADHD and can’t comprehend this wall of text no matter how many times I re-read it; can you please post a summary?

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This Supreme Court case could decide control of Congress in 2024

    Let no one forget that there is a scenario in which Congress decides who will be president. If neither major party’s presidential candidate receives an outright majority (270) of electoral college votes, the question is thrown to the house, where state delegations vote as a bloc (each state having one vote). In this scenario, the Senate will conduct a similar process to elect a vice-president.

    And oh, boy is there room for fuckery in the process. If the house or senate do not choose a candidate (which has happened), order of succession becomes a factor in the procedures. If the House doesn’t produce a president and the Senate doesn’t provide a vice-president, Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate are first in line for president and vice-president, so there are pathways for either of them to become president.

    (The ‘no labels’ ticket, if it draws votes from both candidates, could throw the question to congress and if the GOP wins the House even with the narrowest of majorities it will likely win a contingent election by virtue of controlling more state delegations)