Case Summary
LWVSC filed a lawsuit invoking the Supreme Court of South Carolina’s original jurisdiction, arguing the state’s congressional districts were gerrymandered to favor Republicans in violation of the state’s Constitution.
After the 2020 Census, South Carolina was allocated seven congressional districts. Among these was the First Congressional District, which had been closely contested since the 2018 midterm elections, with Democratic candidate Joe Cunningham winning in 2018, and Republican Nancy Mace winning in 2020, both by narrow margins. The remaining districts were either safely Republican or safely Democratic, with either party’s candidates winning by large margins.
States are required to redraw congressional districts to account for population changes each decade after the Census. In 2021, the South Carolina Legislature made significant changes to the First Congressional District, which included Charleston, the state’s largest city. The new maps that were signed into law moved almost 30,000 Black voters in North Charleston and Charleston into the Sixth Congressional District, which was centered on the state capital of Columbia, which is located almost 100 miles from Charleston and the coastline. This had the effect of making the new First Congressional District more Republican-leaning than it had been previously. In 2022, the Republican candidate won the district by a 56.4% to 42.5% margin.
On October 12, 2021, the South Carolina NAACP filed a federal lawsuit, asserting the changes were a racial gerrymander in violation of the US Constitution. At trial, the South Carolina Legislature’s leaders argued the map was a partisan gerrymander designed to ensure Republican victory in the previously competitive First Congressional District, and leave Democrats with only one congressional seat out of seven. Because the US Supreme Court had declared partisan gerrymandering non-justiciable in Rucho v. Common Cause, a finding that the map was a partisan, not racial, gerrymander would have ensured the legislature prevailed in the federal case. After a three-judge panel struck down the map as racially gerrymandered, the defendants appealed to the US Supreme Court. LWVSC and the League of Women Voters of the United States filed amicus briefs in the case at the US Supreme Court supporting the plaintiffs.
On May 23, 2024, the US Supreme Court upheld the new map in a 6-3 decision, ruling that the map was not a racial gerrymander.
On July 29, 2024, LWVSC filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of South Carolina, asking the court to exercise original jurisdiction and hear the case immediately. The League argued that the congressional map violated the Free and Open Elections and Equal Protection Clauses of the South Carolina State Constitution, as well as its protections of freedom of speech and the long-standing state policy of preserving county boundaries in redistricting.
On October 3, 2024, the South Carolina State Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
LWVSC was represented in this matter by the ACLU of South Carolina, ACLU, Duffy & Young, LLC, and the Harvard Election Law Clinic.
LWVSC Press Release: League of Women Voters as plaintiff in SC gerrymandering suit | MyLO
LWV Timeline
LWVSC files lawsuit
LWVSC files a lawsuit, asserting the state’s congressional districts are a partisan gerrymander in violation of the state’s Constitution.
LWVSC requests original jurisdiction
The League requests the state Supreme Court take up the case directly and bypass the lower courts.
The South Carolina Supreme Court accepts jurisdiction
The South Carolina Supreme Court accepts the League’s request to hear the case.
LWV South Carolina files opening brief
LWV South Carolina files its opening brief, asserting the state's congressional districts are an extreme partisan gerrymander, as admitted by the state legislature in South Carolina NAACP v. Alexander. The brief argues the districts violated the state constitution's free and open elections clause, equal protection clause, and restrictions on splitting counties.
South Carolina Supreme Court rules against LWVSC and allows 2022 maps to remain in effect
The state supreme court rules that the partisan gerrymandering claim presents a nonjusticiable political question under the state's constitution that the court cannot consider. It rules against LWVSC and co-plaintiffs, allowing the 2022 maps to remain in effect.