The Supreme Court has ruled to reverse a lower court's decision that had deemed a South Carolina redistricting map unconstitutional, rejecting the claim that it was racially discriminatory.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court ruled that "a party challenging a map's constitutionality must disentangle race and politics if it wishes to prove that the legislature was motivated by race as opposed to partisanship."
The case arose from a challenge by the ACLU and NAACP alleging that the redistricting efforts following the 2020 census were illegally gerrymandered. They had urged the justices to rule in time to influence upcoming congressional races.
However, a federal court panel initially struck down the maps but later allowed them to stand, stating that waiting for the Supreme Court's decision was "plainly impractical." The high court's latest ruling means the disputed map will remain in place for the 2024 elections.
In its decision, the court expressed concern over the lower court's ruling ordering South Carolina to create a new congressional map for the November 2024 election. The three-judge panel had found that the coastal 1st Congressional District, held by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, was an unlawful racial gerrymander due to the transfer of Black voters from Charleston County to the 6th Congressional District, which became more solidly Democratic.
The high court's delay in ruling means that the disputed map will remain in effect for the 2024 elections. Justice Elana Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. Kagan argued that the majority had "stacked the deck" against the Challengers and failed to adequately consider their evidence of racial discrimination in the redistricting plan.
The ruling is likely to have implications for other 2024 elections, with many states already holding primaries or setting deadlines for early voter registrations. It is unclear the extent to which it may impact these races.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority has previously expressed skepticism towards challenges to voting laws and gerrymandering. In a separate case, the court ruled in favor of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which had been created by Senator Elizabeth Warren and challenged by conservatives who argued it was unconstitutional.
The NAACP has criticized the recent Supreme Court rulings, calling them "hate-inspired." The organization has also expressed concern over how the decisions could impact upcoming elections.
