The City of Charleston recently released their proposed district maps following their redistricting process. They outlined their process and the demographic changes that impacted their effort on their website. The LWVCA has been a strong advocate for fair maps for voters throughout the redistricting process at the state level; you can read more about that work here. Local districts are just as important, with all of the same issues at play. 

During the public comment period we submitted the following letter to Charleston City Council and their redistricting team. It should be noted that incumbent protection is a problem all over South Carolina because of the standard redistricting criteria that is used here:

The League of Women Voters of the Charleston Area (LWVCA) would first like to applaud the City of Charleston on their thoughtful preparation for the redistricting process. LWVCA commends the City’s emphasis and dedication to transparency and public engagement, and specifically the efforts to provide residents with an understanding of how the redistricting process works, its implications, and the considerations governing the process. LWVCA encourages other government bodies to look to the City’s public-engagement model during future redistricting processes; because redistricting only occurs every 10 years, residents must be re-educated each time. 

While the League is grateful for an opportunity to give input on the proposed map and for the City’s continued efforts to educate the public on redistricting, we are disappointed in one of the key criteria used, which we believe negatively impacted the proposed maps. The city adherence to “constituent consistency” as a criteria amounted to a prioritization of “incumbent protection.” While the City says that this criteria “minimizes the changes to a voter’s chosen representative” in the immediate future, in the longer term it puts incumbent interests over that of voters. 

This mismatch in priorities can be clearly illustrated on the peninsula. Since 2010, growth on Johns Island, Daniel Island, and in West Ashley has far outpaced growth on the peninsula, but the draft maps were drawn to protect the 4 incumbents that live on the peninsula. This means that 4 of the 12 current council members lives on the peninsula, which comprises less than 1/10th of the city’s land area and around 1/5th of the total population. Drawing maps with a primary goal of not putting one incumbent in another’s district despite drastic population changes means the maps defy logic in many places. For instance:

• James Island is divided into 3 different districts, one with very dubious contiguity as it crosses briefly over West Ashley and onto the peninsula.
• Johns Island is also divided into three different districts, diluting the voices of those residents. There are currently no Johns Island residents on City Council. Continuing to divide the island into so many districts makes it harder for a Johns Island resident to win a seat and serve the interests of those sea island voters.
• One look at the map will be enough for the average City of Charleston resident to see there are districts that are tough to rationalize: The district that includes Hampton Park stretches all the way down the Savannah Hwy Auto Mile, while nearby Brittlebank Park is in a separate district that reaches all the way to the James Island County Park.

Prioritizing communities of interest would lead to maps that made more sense for voters.

The best practice here would be for the City Council to continue to set a leading example for redistricting and take another pass at these maps without incumbent protection in mind. At the very least, after this round of redistricting, City Council should put new redistricting criteria in place that will prioritize voters and communities of interest in the 2030 redistricting process. The City of Charleston could set the standard for other municipalities in South Carolina, and we could be on our way to getting rid of incumbent gerrymandering in the next round of redistricting.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this important endeavor. We understand the extreme complexities involved, ranging from political to technical to legal intricacies, and appreciate the ability to give input to your skilled team. We will make our input public in the interest of transparency and community engagement, and look forward to working with you going forward in the interest of democracy.