Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case nameThomas C. Alexander, in His Official Capacity as President of the South Carolina Senate, et al., v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.
Docket no.22-807
Questions presented
(1) Whether courts must apply a presumption of good faith to a legislature's racial intent when considering a challenge to legislative districts; (2) whether courts must disentangle race from politics when considering such challenges; (3) whether courts must consider a district's compliance with traditional districting principles before finding that the legislature predominantly considered race when drawing districts.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. XIV, XV

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding racial gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering. It's the first partisan gerrymandering case taken by the Supreme Court after its landmark decision in Rucho v. Common Cause which stated that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts, and the first racial gerrymandering case after the court's landmark decision in Allen v. Milligan.[1]

Background

Before the

South Carolina's 1st Congressional District was seen as a swing district, being won by Democrat Joe Cunningham in an upset against Republican Katie Arrington in 2018 and then incumbent Republican representative Nancy Mace in 2020, both times by small margins, and between 1 and 1.5 percentage points between the winner and runner-up.[2][3]

After the

Charleston County, from the 1st District, and leaving white voters in the district, was done as a partisan gerrymander, as opposed to a racial gerrymander.[7]

Lower Court Decision

At the

Miller v Johnson, that race was the predominant factor when drawing the current shape of the 1st district, specifically, a racial target of 17% of the population of the 1st district being black, to make the district Republican leaning, however, the panel also ruled that while race was a motivating factor in the drawing of the 2nd and 5th districts, it was not the predominant factor, leaving the shapes of the 2nd and 5th districts intact.[8] while it was a partial legal win for the plaintiffs, the defendants still contended that the actual goal of their redistricting process was a partisan one, with party affiliation being the predominant factor in the redistricting of the 1st district as opposed to race.[9] The court ordered the defendants to draw a new map by March 31, 2023,[10] however the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court on January 27, 2023,[11] and the district court extending the deadline to 30 days after the Supreme Court issued a decision. On May 15, 2023,[12] the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case with oral arguments set for October 11, 2023.[13]

Supreme Court

On May 15, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the case, and also noted probable jurisdiction.

Moore v Harper.[17]

Analysis

Legal experts and news outlets agreed that the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to the arguments presented by the defendants in the case.[18][19][20][21] Legal journalist and senior correspondent for Vox, Ian Millhiser, stated that, if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the defendants, it could make gerrymandering worse, and make it "virtually impossible to challenge racial gerrymanders."[22]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Takeaways from Supreme Court Arguments Over South Carolina's Congressional Map". Democracy Docket. October 11, 2023. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
  2. Washington Post
    . November 7, 2018. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  3. New York Times
    . November 24, 2020. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  4. ^ "Congressional redistricting plan finalized". South Carolina Public Radio. January 28, 2022. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  5. New York Times
    . November 17, 2022. Retrieved January 27, 2024.
  6. ^ "Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP". League of Women Voters. October 11, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  7. ^ "Supreme Court to hear arguments in key case about gerrymandering". The Conversation. October 10, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  8. ^ "Facts of Finding and Conclusions of Law" (PDF). January 6, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  9. New York Times
    . May 15, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  10. ACLU
    . Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  11. ^ "Defendants Motion for a stay of the Courts January 6, 2023 order pending appeal to the Supreme Court" (PDF). January 27, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  12. ^ "ORDERS IN PENDING CASES" (PDF). May 15, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  13. ^ "Court to hear argument in racial gerrymandering challenge to S.C. district". SCOTUSblog. October 10, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  14. ^ "ORDERS IN PENDING CASES" (PDF). May 15, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  15. ^ "Racial gerrymandering returns to U.S. Supreme Court. This time it's South Carolina's fight". NC Newsline. October 6, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  16. New York Times
    . June 27, 2019. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  17. ^ "What the Supreme Court's rejection of a controversial theory means for elections". NPR. June 30, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  18. ^ "High Court Suggests Support for GOP-Drawn South Carolina Map". Bloomberg News. October 11, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  19. New York Times
    . June 30, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  20. ^ "This Supreme Court Case Could Decide Control of Congress in 2024". Mother Jones. October 11, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  21. ^ "Justices question finding that S.C. district was unconstitutional racial gerrymander". SCOTUSblog. October 11, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  22. ^ "A new Supreme Court case threatens to make gerrymandering even worse". Vox. May 15, 2023. Retrieved January 24, 2024.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_v._South_Carolina_State_Conference_of_the_NAACP&oldid=1214623914"