The Supreme Court Upholds South Carolina’s Voting Map
May 31, 2024
auto_awesome
Leading election and voting rights scholar, Joshua Douglas, discusses the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding South Carolina's voting map against a challenge from the NAACP. The podcast explores the distinctions between partisan and racial gerrymandering, implications for future boundary disputes, and the evolving views on racial gerrymandering in the Supreme Court. Additionally, the discussion delves into Justice Thomas's color blindness principle in voting rights and the potential impact of the court's decision on future voting rights and redistricting.
The Supreme Court upheld a partisan gerrymander in South Carolina, setting a precedent for future electoral district drawing processes.
The rejection of an unconstitutional racial gerrymander ruling makes it harder for plaintiffs to challenge similar maps under the Equal Protection Clause.
Justice Alito emphasized the presumption of legitimacy to state legislatures and the burden of proof for plaintiffs challenging redistricting maps.
Deep dives
The South Carolina Congressional Map Upheld by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the South Carolina Congressional Map challenged by the NAACP. The court found that the South Carolina Legislature conducted a permissible partisan gerrymander, not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This decision impacts the future of racial gerrymandering and sets a precedent in the electoral district drawing process.
Challenges of Racial Gerrymandering in South Carolina
The case involved a challenge to a South Carolina congressional map based on racial gerrymandering claims. The concept was that minority voters were concentrated in few districts to impact control, prompting the legal challenge. The court's rejection of an unconstitutional racial gerrymander ruling makes it harder for future plaintiffs to challenge similar maps under the Equal Protection Clause.
Justice Alito's Majority Opinion
Justice Alito emphasized two key principles in voting rights cases: a presumption of legitimacy to state legislatures and the court's adverse inference when plaintiffs fail to provide an alternative map. This opinion builds on prior precedents and impacts the burden of proof for plaintiffs challenging redistricting maps using racial considerations.
Justice Thomas's Dissenting Opinion
Justice Thomas advocated for the court to avoid racial gerrymandering cases altogether, suggesting that there should be no court involvement in such claims. He highlighted a preference for color-blind principles in voting rights cases and questioned the court's ability to remedy election-related issues.
The Implications for Voting Rights and the Future
The South Carolina case contributes to the broader trend of deference to state legislatures in electoral matters. While the court's decision impacts racial gerrymandering challenges, it may not drastically alter future redistricting outcomes given the increasing focus on state-level redistricting reforms. The case highlights the ongoing debate over judicial intervention in electoral processes.
On May 23, the Supreme Court issued its opinion upholding a South Carolina congressional map against a challenge from the NAACP. In Alexander v South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Court found that the South Carolina legislature had conducted a partisan gerrymander, permissible under the Court’s precedents, and not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In this episode, two leading election and voting rights scholars, Joshua Douglas of the University of Kentucky College of Law, and Derek Muller of the University of Notre Dame Law School, join Jeffrey Rosento discuss the Alexander v. NAACP majority opinion,as well as the concurrence and dissent, and review what this decision means for the future of racial gerrymandering cases.