SC’s new House map is unconstitutional, racially discriminatory, lawsuit claims
BY ZAK KOESKE
COLUMBIA, S.C. A new federal lawsuit alleges South Carolina’s redrawn state House districts continue the state's "shameful history and ongoing record of discrimination" by intentionally diluting the power of Black voters.
The complaint, filed late Thursday by a team of lawyers from across the country on behalf of the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP and a Beaufort County resident, marks the sixth consecutive redistricting cycle in which the state's maps have been challenged as unconstitutional.
It amends an October lawsuit filed over the state’s timeline for redrawing voting lines. It names as defendants Gov. Henry McMaster, House and Senate Republican leaders, and the State Election Commission’s interim director and commissioners.
The new complaint replaces much of the language about the Legislature’s “refusal to establish valid districts,” in a timely fashion with concerns about the new House district lines lawmakers adopted earlier this month, which it claims are the latest example of the Legislature's decades-long pattern of racial discrimination in redistricting.
“Defendants traded one constitutional violation — malapportionment — for two others: racial gerrymandering and intentional racial discrimination,” the suit alleges, while asserting that the U.S. congressional districts, which lawmakers have not yet redrawn, remain malapportioned.
The suit accuses lawmakers of using race as the primary factor in redrawing state House districts to pack and crack Black voters and maintain the majority’s power by denying voting power to Black residents.
It asks the court to find unconstitutional the newly adopted House districts and the yet-to-be redrawn congressional districts and to enjoin state lawmakers from holding 2022 elections until a constitutionally compliant plan is adopted.
The complaint requests the court set a Feb. 15 deadline for lawmakers to adopt new redistricting plans for state House and congressional districts, and asks that it order new redistricting plans in the event lawmakers fail to adopt constitutionally compliant ones
“This panel must therefore step in to adjudicate and potentially remedy these issues in time to avoid voter confusion and disenfranchisement in the upcoming election cycle,” the suit charges.
The amended complaint focuses exclusively on a subset of House districts and the Legislature’s failure to adopt a congressional map, but does not at this time challenge the redrawn Senate map because the Senate does not hold elections until 2024.
Instead, the Legislature used race “to maintain political power by unnecessarily packing Black South Carolinians into certain districts and cracking Black voters in other districts,” it alleges. Packing refers to the tactic of placing a greater number of Black voters in a district than is necessary to elect a candidate of their choice and cracking refers to the splitting of Black voters into different districts to prevent them from exercising greater political power.
The racial gerrymandering allegations the suit raises about the House map dovetail with concerns raised by the League of Women Voters of South Carolina, which has criticized the map for insulating incumbents, reducing the number of competitive districts in the state, and failing to respect communities of interest. A statistical analysis performed by the League found the map more extreme than all but 407 out of more than 11.8 billion simulations of possible South Carolina House maps.
McMaster signed into law the new House and Senate maps Dec. 10, a day after lawmakers adopted them.
Leading Republican lawmakers have said for months they anticipated a challenge to the new voting lines, but expect their maps to withstand legal scrutiny and don’t anticipate having to extend the candidate filing period or delay elections.
The redistricting case will be heard by a three-judge panel, as the plaintiffs have requested.
The lawyers who brought the suit represent a variety of organizations, including the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the NAACP Office of the General Counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, and two private law firms, including Boroughs Bryant in Columbia.
This article has been updated.
