Close Menu
SavvyDime
    What's Hot

    What is Zero-Based Budgeting?

    July 22, 2021

    Understanding Your Investment Risk Tolerance

    July 23, 2021

    5 Incredible Money-Saving Hacks

    August 9, 2021
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram RSS
    SavvyDime
    • Technology
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Lifestyle
    • Legal
    SavvyDime
    Home » Supreme Court Supports South Carolina Republicans in Gerrymandering Case, Rules Redistricting Wasn’t Driven by Race

    Supreme Court Supports South Carolina Republicans in Gerrymandering Case, Rules Redistricting Wasn’t Driven by Race

    By Julia MehalkoMay 24, 20244 Mins Read
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Email
    A group of advocates with fair map signs outside of the Supreme Court regarding the South Carolina gerrymandering case.
    Source: Shannon Finney/Stringer/Getty Images
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link

    The U.S. Supreme Court has supported South Carolina Republicans in a gerrymandering case, ruling that the Republicans’ redistricting wasn’t driven by race. Instead, it was driven by partisan politics, which isn’t illegal.

    This ruling comes as many Democrats have claimed that Republican-led states are trying to restrict areas to dilute minority votes.

    Redrawing a Congressional District

    Source: Leo Heisenberg/Unsplash

    This latest case that was heard before the Supreme Court deals with the backlash Republicans in South Carolina faced when they redrew a congressional district in Charleston.

    This redrawing of this area of the state ended up moving out 30,000 Black residents. Critics of this move have claimed that this has diluted the power of these Black residents’ vote.

    The Supreme Court’s Ruling

    Source: Adam Michael Szuscik/Unsplash

    In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled to back these South Carolina Republicans. According to the ruling, there is no proof that these Republicans gerrymandered the area because of racial discrimination.

    Redistricting an area because of race is illegal. Because there was no evidence to prove this discrimination, the justices ruled in favor of the South Carolina Republicans.

    Conservative vs Liberal Justices

    Source: Jesse Collins/Unsplash

    This 6-3 decision revealed that the conservative justices sided against the liberal justices on the bench completely.

    The liberal justices sounded the alarm about what this decision could encourage throughout the country in their dissent.

    Suppressing Minority Votes

    Source: Public Domain/Wikimedia Commons

    Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal judge, wrote in a dissent with her colleagues that this ruling could encourage other states to redistrict areas to better fit their partisan desires — or to suppress minority votes.

    “Go right ahead, this court says to states today,” Kagan wrote in the dissent.

    Reversing a Previous Ruling

    Source: Ian Hutchinson/Unsplash

    The decision to side with South Carolina Republicans resulted in the Supreme Court reversing a lower court’s previous ruling.

    This previous decision had found that the Republicans’ new map had indeed violated the rights that Black voters have, thanks to the 14th Amendment. This amendment ensures that all voters have equal protection. The Supreme Court has fully reversed this decision.

    Proving Racial Discrimination

    Source: Leo Heisenberg/Unsplash

    According to the ruling, the Supreme Court’s six conservative judges believe that there is no proof that these South Carolina Republicans redrew a congressional map because of racial discrimination.

    In their dissent, the opposing justices feel that the court’s decision could make it harder for others to prove that a redrawn map truly is the result of racially motivated discrimination.

    Alito’s Response

    Source: Public Domain/Wikimedia Commons

    Conservative Justice Samuel Alito authored the ruling that favored South Carolina Republicans. Alito explained that there is “no direct evidence” that they redesigned a district because of race.

    Alito also claimed that “circumstantial evidence falls far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process.”

    Partisan Politics

    Source: Clint Patterson/Unsplash

    In their defense, South Carolina Republicans claimed that they didn’t redraw this map because of race. Instead, they did it because of partisan politics. Redrawing the map would give them a partisan advantage come election time.

    In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that redistricting for partisan advantage is not illegal, and therefore federal courts cannot review it. Redrawing maps because of race, however, is illegal.

    Gerrymandering in the Future

    Source: Morgan Lane/Unsplash

    Though a previous court found that this case was the result of racial gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has ruled the opposite. However, Kagan has claimed that this ruling could harm much of the country.

    Kagan stated that this ruling “thwarts efforts to undo a pernicious kind of race-based discrimination.” She also added that it is “meant to scuttle gerrymandering cases.”

    Backlash to the Ruling

    Source: Cody Silver/Unsplash

    This ruling has received backlash from many liberal justices — and liberal advocates — already. Kagan also stated, “We should demand better — of ourselves, of our political representatives, and most of all of this court.”

    Meanwhile, Adriel Cepeda Derieux, an ACLU voting rights lawyer, said the ruling was “an affront to Black voters, democracy and precedent.”

    Thomas Questions Supreme Court’s Role

    Source: Public Domain/Wikimedia Commons

    Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion that questioned whether the Court even has jurisdiction to solve these types of electoral map cases.

    “Drawing political districts is a task for politicians, not federal judges,” Thomas wrote.

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Julia Mehalko

    Julia is an experienced news writer with more than 8 years of experience. With a bachelor’s degree in Journalism from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, she is skilled at writing digestible finance information and shares a particular passion for technology and innovation! When she’s not writing, Julia enjoys shopping at vintage stores, watching old movies, and traveling.

    Comments are closed.

    Trending

    Walmart Lawsuit Results in the Retailer Paying $35 Million to Former Employee it Accused of Fraud

    November 27, 2024

    Advance Auto Parts Closes Hundreds of Stores and Lays Off Staff to Avoid Bankruptcy

    November 27, 2024

    Rare Comic Books That are Extremely Valuable Today

    November 26, 2024

    Which Family Dollar Stores are Closing?

    November 26, 2024
    Savvy Dime Makes You Savvy

    Savvy Dime provides personal business and financial analysis on the topics around the world impacting your wallet and marketplace.

    We are dedicated to delivering engaging and accurate news content that keeps you informed and equips you with the information you need to make practical personal financial decisions and grow your wealth.

    savvy dime logo
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    • Home
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Editorial Standards
    • Terms of Use
    © 2025 Savvy Dime and Decido.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.