The League of Women Voters of South Carolina is a plaintiff in a case filed last week seeking to end partisan gerrymandering in our state. I want to share a little bit about why we are fighting this fight and what it means for the future of representative democracy.

Nationally, the league has fought against gerrymandered maps in multiple states, opposing attempts by both major parties to use redistricting to insulate their power from voters. That is what we are doing here in League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Thomas Alexander.

Unfortunately, the current S.C. congressional map was drawn by and for politicians and their party, not voters. In redrawing the state’s seven congressional districts, lawmakers treated tens of thousands of voters as pawns, shuttling them about to achieve a desired partisan outcome.

In an earlier federal case addressing the same congressional map, Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, the ACLU of South Carolina and others argued that voters were targeted by race to achieve the goal of entrenching artificial partisan advantage. The league filed an amicus brief in that case.

While a lower court agreed that evidence showed lawmakers deliberately “bleached” the 1st Congressional District by selectively moving tens of thousands of black voters into the 6th District, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. The court accepted lawmakers’ argument that they moved voters based on their voting history, not their race. Then, after once again affirming that partisan gerrymanders cannot be addressed in federal court, the court left the distorted map in place.

However, the justices left a path forward for such challenges in state courts.

It’s clear that the S.C. congressional map adopted by our legislators does not accurately represent the interests of communities in South Carolina. Between expert testimony, mathematical models of fair maps and the common sense of voters who see their districts being carved up, the facts are well established.

However, we don’t have to rely only on this evidence. The lawmakers themselves admitted what they were doing.

During federal litigation, representatives of the state told the court that both their method and their goal were partisan. John Gore, an attorney representing S.C. lawmakers before the U. S. Supreme Court, said: “The panel (of federal judges in the lower court) acknowledged that the General Assembly pursued a political goal of increasing District 1’s Republican vote share. It achieved that goal by moving Republicans into the district and Democrats out of the district.” The justices agreed. Justice Neil Gorsuch observed that the case began from the established foundation that the congressional map is a partisan gerrymander. 

So, why are we back in court? The S.C. Constitution is more explicit in defining voting rights than the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 5, guarantees “free and open elections” and an “equal right to elect officers.” These are clear grounds to demand correction of maps that are not just alleged to be a partisan gerrymander but were defined as partisan gerrymanders in federal court. The new lawsuit asks the S.C. Supreme Court to recognize a protection against partisan gerrymandering in the state Constitution, to establish standards for redistricting consistent with the Constitution and to invalidate the existing congressional map.

Partisan gerrymanders are a problem that not only can but must be addressed by our judiciary. As we are all taught in school, our system of government depends on three branches of government that work together, but also serve as checks and balances on one another. We ask that the S.C. Supreme Court exercise its authority and responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of citizens rather than the partisan interests of legislative leadership.

Lynn S. Teague is vice president for issues and action for the League of Women Voters of South Carolina.