SCOTUS Cases May Establish Brackets for Race and Redistricting Claims | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the John Locke Foundation. The author of this post is Dr. Andy Jackson.

    A case out of South Carolina could help set limits on claims of racial gerrymandering, further clarifying how such claims may affect districts the North Carolina General Assembly will draw later this month.

    Alabama Case's Limited Impact

    I noted in June how a racial gerrymandering case from Alabama, Allen v. Milligan, would likely have little impact on redistricting in North Carolina:

    We should therefore expect that Allen v. Milligan will have little to no impact on North Carolina's congressional districts when the General Assembly redraws them later this year. The only possible exception is Rep. Don Davis' 1st Congressional District in the northeastern part of the state. The Cook Political Report changed its rating for the district from toss-up to lean Democratic in anticipation of the General Assembly keeping more Black voters in his district.

    Like much of rural North Carolina, however, Davis' district is trending to the right and will likely lean Republican by the decade's end. The only way to avert that trend would be to add urban Durham County to the district, but doing so would involve ignoring traditional districting principles, the very behavior that caused the Supreme Court to overturn North Carolina's congressional map in Shaw v. Reno.

    The factors leading up to that "therefore" include a relative lack of racially polarized voting by Whites in North Carolina and the state's political geography allowing legislators to draw enough VRA-compliant districts without using racial data to draw districts based on race intentionally.

    South Carolina: Partisan, not Racial, Gerrymandering

    The United States Supreme Court heard another racial gerrymandering claim on October 11. They will not issue a ruling for several months, too late to affect the General Assembly map drawing later this month. But it could influence the course of the inevitable lawsuits that come after those maps are drawn.

    The case is Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. The heart of the case is the question of whether a partisan gerrymander is also automatically a racial gerrymander in a state with a substantial Black population.


    Several justices also pointed out that plaintiffs failed to provide an alternative map that would accomplish the defendants' goals of maximizing the number of Republicans in the state's congressional delegation. The Supreme Court determined in a 2019 case from North Carolina, Rucho v. Common Cause, that political gerrymandering is a nonjusticiable political question and therefore outside of the court's purview.

    Chief Justice John Roberts seemed exacerbated by the plaintiffs' lack of direct evidence of a racial gerrymander:

    "We've never had a case where there has been no direct evidence, no map, no strangely configured districts," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "Instead, it [is] all resting on circumstantial evidence." Roberts said that it wasn't impossible to bring a racial gerrymander claim on circumstantial evidence, but "this would be breaking new ground in our voting rights jurisprudence."

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed convinced that the state likely relied on political, rather than racial, data to draw the congressional map:

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on the other hand, seemed to have little trouble with the state's explanations for how the map ended up as it did. Kavanaugh asked what the court should do if it finds the state relied on solid political, rather than racial, data to draw the district.

    "If that data is good, should we reverse?" he asked.

    Roberts' and Kavanaugh's views are important because they joined the three progressive justices on the court to overturn Alabama's congressional map as a racial gerrymander in Milligan. With both openly skeptical of the plaintiffs' claims in this case, it appears likely that using racial gerrymandering claims as an alternative route to strike down political gerrymanders will be a legal dead end.


    What Would a Reversal in the South Carolina Case Mean?

    If the Supreme Court overturns the lower court ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and upholds that state's maps, it will eliminate a potential route for a racial gerrymandering claim against North Carolina's new congressional and state legislative maps.

    In one sense, such a ruling would reinforce the lesson from the Alabama case: as long as the North Carolina General Assembly follows traditional redistricting criteria and does not use racial data, its maps should be safe from lawsuits claiming racial gerrymandering.
Go Back

Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )

House Speaker Tim Moore ‘humbled’ by visit to southern border News Services, Statewide, John Locke Foundation Guest Editorial, Editorials, Government, Op-Ed & Politics, State and Federal Empowering Oversight: Perspective on Oversight Commission’s New Powers


Latest State and Federal

The Missouri Senate approved a constitutional amendment to ban non-U.S. citizens from voting and also ban ranked-choice voting.
Police in the nation’s capital are not stopping illegal aliens who are driving around without license plates, according to a new report.
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) is looking into whether GoFundMe and Eventbrite cooperated with federal law enforcement during their investigation into the financial transactions of supporters of former President Donald Trump.
Far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was mocked online late on Monday after video of her yelling at pro-Palestinian activists went viral.
Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro, along with hosts Matt Walsh, Andrew Klavan, and company co-founder Jeremy Boreing discussed the state of the 2024 presidential election before President Joe Biden gave his State of the Union address on Thursday.
Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said this week that the criminal trials against former President Donald Trump should happen before the upcoming elections.
Vice President Kamala Harris ignored recommendations while attorney general of California to investigate an alleged pyramid scheme at a company linked to her husband, according to documents obtained by The New York Post.
'The entire value add of Hunter Biden to our business was his family name and his access to his father, Vice President Joe Biden'


Back to Top