South Carolina’s House redistricting panel could advance a voting map proposal this week, roughly a week after taking public testimony on its plan. Dozens of residents, advocacy organizations, and Democratic party officials have weighed in on the proposal since it was released earlier this month, with many raising concerns about how lines were drawn and the way lawmakers have conducted the once-a-decade process of ensuring all districts have equivalent populations.

The League found that the proposed SC Senate map is in most respects reasonable and fair to the citizens of the state. We have concerns about the effects of the growth of Lowcountry suburbs on districts that have long been heavily minority and rural, especially District 39, but we don’t ask for revision that would lead to “packing” that or any other district.

We found the proposed SC House plan to be an extreme gerrymander, highly protective of incumbents, and extremely non-competitive. With more than 41,000 residents in each district, this means that the House plan would unnecessarily deprive more than a quarter million South Carolinians of the right to be represented by someone that they choose in the November general elections. The damaging impacts would be felt by voters who identify with both major parties.

It is important for everyone to remain engaged in this process. We are a long way from the finish line.

Substantial population growth along the coast and south of Charlotte, accompanied by population stagnation in the I-95 corridor, requires adjustments of district boundaries, in particular boundaries associated with Congressional District (CD) 1 and CD 6. However, at present CD 6 has a very high percentage of minority voters, especially when minorities smaller than our Black population are considered. The current minority margin can and should be reduced. We believe that the best way to achieve this is to focus CD 6 on the Midlands and upper Lowcountry, withdrawing it from the Charleston area.

When the South Carolina Senate’s redistricting committee released renderings of its proposed new map earlier in November, the results were met with a collective easy shrug by lawmakers and members of the public alike. Advocacy groups closely monitoring the process — the American Civil Liberties Union, the South Carolina League of Women Voters — offered little objection.

Meeting to discuss the maps for the first time on Nov. 10, the eight members of the House redistricting committee faced several hours of constituent testimony and criticism that the 124 districts — as drawn — discouraged competition, divided communities of interest, and were released with insufficient time to allow for informed public comment.