Proposed Congressional District map shifts Pee Dee region but sees public support

 by Andrew James

HORRY COUNTY, S.C. (WPDE) — The clock is ticking for state lawmakers to reach a conclusion on what Congressional maps should look like for the upcoming 2022 elections.

If lawmakers do not come to an agreement on the proposed options, they may risk pushing back the primaries for congressional seats. As it stands, the statewide district maps have passed the legislature and Gov. McMaster's pen, however, they are facing legal challenges already from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union.

Thursday, Senators took a look for the first time at an option to redraw the Congressional districts that would greatly split the Pee Dee region. District 7 is the newest territory for South Carolina. It was formed out of the 2010 Census, and growth once again has proven a challenge for lawmakers to make sure all is square within the federal voting districts.

The District, which is represented currently by Republican Tom Rice, stretches from the coast of Georgetown and Horry County inland to the western edges of Chesterfield and Darlington Counties. Under one proposed map before the Senate and another that the State House approved Wednesday, the district would remain mostly unscathed.

However, one map would shift the congressional representation. Under the 2nd map amendment before the Senate Redistricting Subcommittee, the lines would be redrawn pushing most of the Pee Dee back into District 5. The coastal counties would shift and District 7 would cut into the SC Lowcountry including most of Berkley County and a majority of Dorchester County.

"On the whole, I think it is very true to communities of interest," said Lynn Teague with the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of South Carolina. "If you look at the way District 7 is drawn in there. You are basically linking in a high growth area there on the northern coast with areas that are also high-growth, new development business and so forth moving south."

Before the senate subcommittee, a delegation of leaders from the Dorchester and Berkley County area spoke against the proposed map.

"Everything we do is aligned with Charleston and Berkley Counties," said Robert Robbins who represents the area on the SCDOT Board of Commissioners and also practices law in Summerville. "Our infrastructure and our economic development are all connected to the Tri-County Region. If we were placed in the 7th Congressional District with all due respect to your area, if it's communities of interest, we don't have a whole lot in common with the Pee Dee and Grand Strand area."

The current benchmark maps have too great a disparity in the Lowcountry and Midlands districts 1 and 6. The debate has been mostly about keeping the city of Charleston into one solid district and splitting the Columbia metro area where the geographic boundary sits at Lexington and Richland County.

As for District 7, the shift could possibly mean representation for the coast comes from Summerville or representation for the sprawling Charleston suburb hails from Conway. The same disparity can be said for the proposed District 5. Representation for the Pee Dee region could be based in the Upstate, Rock Hill area and just the opposite, the people of the Charlotte suburb may see representation from someone who lives in dominant farm-communities of the Pee Dee.

That political power on the economy of the region also has the Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce concerned. Government Affairs Director Jimmy Gray spoke to the subcommittee asking that the "status quo" be maintained for District 7. 

"We are the biggest tourism destination on the east coast without interstate access. And stripping out those counties that are a part of the I-73 corridor kind of weakens our federal efforts to secure federal dollars for interstate 73," Gray said.

However, Teague said the 2nd option or the "Whole-county Option" has many elements that make it more competitive and fair for the state's voting population.

"That second map I think is a highly commendable attempt to get away from legacies, to get away from a history of distorted maps in our state and something that is truer to communities of interest," Teague said.

There is also the concern of making sure the maps have legality once approved and can withstand a legal challenge. The SC NAACP already filed a lawsuit anticipating the maps state and federal would be gerrymandered. However, Sen. Dick Harpootlian (D-Richland) has brought in a legal expert to test the muster of the three maps that stand before the Senate.

“There is no other reasonable explanation for the lines in either the House plan that was passed or Senate Amendment 1. Race is the only plausible explanation for that which suggest a racial motive in these map draws, which would be unconstitutional," said attorney Joseph Oppermann. "Amendment 1 has much more bizarre shapes than the whole-county map. Those shapes can only be reasonably explained by a predominantly and overarching racial policy."

A key issue Sen. Harpootlian brought up was if the maps adhere to requirements under the federal Voting Rights Act such as Section 2. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act. Oppermann said the "Whole County" Map would be a proper example of redistricting that did not contradict this requirement.

If lawmakers move forward with that proposed map, it will lead to more competition in general elections with the latest partisan voting data showing that had the map been drawn like they are proposed for the 2020 Presidential Elections, Joe Biden would have taken Districts 6, District 1, and competed to claim District 5. In reality, the current maps gave the state to Donald Trump with a 6 to 1 district majority.

"It would produce two competitive districts, CD 6 would remain a Voting Rights Act compliant, minority, heavily minority district, but then 1 and 5 would become competitive," Teague said. "The other districts would then remain strongly Republican."

For Teague, she said that map may not be what the Senate comes to a full agreement over, but it's a step in the right direction compared to the first option and the State House option. She said the legislature would most likely see litigation if they keep the first map and make no changes. That's because it clearly pulls Charleston out into District 6 and wraps around minority populations in the Columbia metro area, according to Teague.

"The more you do this so that the election is decided in the primary, the more you give the decision-making power to a very small part of the population," Teague said. "That tends to be the most partisan element of the population, no matter which party it is, that votes in the primary and in some cases the most extreme parts of the population votes in the primary."

The subcommittee agreed to send the maps to the full Senate Judiciary Committee. If you want to weigh in, they are accepting comments at redistricting [at] scsenate.gov" href="https://wpde.com/news/local/redistricting [at] scsenate.gov" target="_blank">redistricting [at] scsenate.gov or by phone at (803) 212-6634.