Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP: What are the key distinctions between partisan and racial gerrymandering?

By: Pavan Acharya

edited by: Jack Pacconi and micah sandy

This term, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering cases related to social media, maritime law, and gun rights, among other hot-button topics. Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, one of the highest profile cases justices will consider over the coming months, could significantly impact voting rights for non-white voters. The Supreme Court will release its decision on the case next year, which will determine whether South Carolina’s 1st congressional district was racially gerrymandered to benefit Republicans. [1] Gerrymandering refers to the political manipulation of boundaries within an electoral constituency to benefit one party. If justices rule in favor of the state of South Carolina, a likely result given the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, the Court will allow future redistricting by state legislators and courts that could further limit the voting power of non-white — and specifically Black — voters.

In this case, Justices will determine the validity of a federal district court’s ruling that District 1’s boundaries were a product of gerrymandering. Since South Carolina’s redistricting took place in 2022, Republican Rep. Nancy Mace saw her margin of victory in District 1 increase from 1% in 2020 to 14% in that year’s election. [2] The redistricting had moved 30,000 Black residents — or two-thirds of Black voters in Charleston County — out of Mace’s district and into District 6, represented by Rep. Jim Clyburn, the sole Democrat in South Carolina’s congressional delegation. However, conservative justices on the Court expressed skepticism about the lower court’s decision during the case’s hearing in mid-October, suggesting there was insufficient evidence to support the assertion that the remapped district was a product of racial gerrymandering. If the Supreme Court overturns the decision, then it could create a more defined legal difference between racial and partisan gerrymandering cases, which often yield different rulings from one another.

The Supreme Court has a history of distancing itself from partisan gerrymandering cases, as shown by its past decisions. The high court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, a landmark Supreme Court case regarding gerrymandering, said, “partisan gerrymandering claims present claims beyond the reach of federal courts.” [3] Though Rucho was a setback for voter’s rights advocates as it determined the Supreme Court cannot rule in solely partisan gerrymandering cases, the Justices have since heard cases related to racial gerrymandering. One of these cases was Allen v. Milligan, a 2022 case in which the plaintiffs contended that Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan discriminated against Black voters in the state. Though Alabama’s population is around 34% Black, just one district held a Black majority under the 2021 plan. Justices ruled 5-4 in favor of the plaintiffs, agreeing with their assertions that Alabama’s congressional districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. [4] For Allen, the Court implemented a three-pronged framework for evaluating claims under Section 2, established in the 1986 case Thornburg v. Gingles. [5] Under the framework, the plaintiffs would have to have proven a minority group is geographically compact and large enough to be a majority in a “reasonably configured district”; is politically cohesive; and does not have equal access to the political process. The three-pronged approach, however, is not expected to be considered in the Court’s forthcoming decision in Alexander since this case concerns potential violations of the Constitution rather than the Voting Rights Act.

Although Alexander is also a racial gerrymander case, the grounds for the case are different. [6] The district court held that South Carolina’s congressional map violated constitutional safeguards against race discrimination rather than Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act itself. Therefore, the three-pronged approach established in Thornburg v. Gingles is irrelevant. Instead, the Court will decide whether the redistricting act was racial or partisan gerrymandering, which the state of South Carolina contends. Though previous Supreme Court decisions have been aimed at preventing discrimination toward voters based on political affiliation, it is unclear whether these protections apply to gerrymanders, racial or partisan. But, if the Supreme Court finds that the gerrymander was solely partisan, the lower court’s ruling will likely be overturned due to the precedent established by Rucho. If the ruling is overturned, the Supreme Court could set a new precedent that racial gerrymandering claims can be averted if the party that created those maps contends that they are the product of “partisan gerrymandering,” as South Carolina did in its arguments. [7] In an amicus brief filed on behalf of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, lawyers wrote that “the correlation between race and party does not insulate excessive race-based redistricting decisions from judicial scrutiny.” If the Court rules in favor of South Carolina, then the legal line between race and partisanship may become even more defined.

Notes:

1. Amy Howe. “Justices Question Finding That S.C. District Was Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander.” SCOTUSblog, October 14, 2023. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/10/justices-question-finding-that-s-c-district-was-unconstitutional-racial-gerrymander/. 

2. Mark Sherman. “The Supreme Court Signals Support for a Republican-Leaning Congressional District in South Carolina.” AP News, October 11, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-redistricting-south-carolina-racial-gerrymander-840b39465b24b8d82b334dda53c908fa. 

3. “Rucho v. Common Cause.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-422. 

4. “Merrill v. Milligan (Now Allen v. Milligan).” Merrill v. Milligan (now Allen v. Milligan) | League of Women Voters. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://www.lwv.org/legal-center/merrill-v-milligan. 

5. “Allen v. Milligan.” Oyez. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1086. 

6. Ian Millhiser. “The High Stakes in a New Supreme Court Showdown over Gerrymandering.” Vox, October 5, 2023. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/5/23893286/supreme-court-voting-rights-gerrymandering-race-south-carolina-alexander-naacp. 

7. “Friend of the Court Brief - Alexander V. South Carolina State Conference of NAACP.” Campaign Legal Center. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://campaignlegal.org/document/friend-court-brief-alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-naacp.

Bibliography:

“Allen v. Milligan.” Oyez. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1086. 

“Friend of the Court Brief - Alexander V. South Carolina State Conference of NAACP.” Campaign Legal Center. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://campaignlegal.org/document/friend-court-brief-alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-naacp. 

Howe, Amy. “Justices Question Finding That S.C. District Was Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander.” SCOTUSblog, October 14, 2023. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/10/justices-question-finding-that-s-c-district-was-unconstitutional-racial-gerrymander/. 

“Merrill v. Milligan (Now Allen v. Milligan).” Merrill v. Milligan (now Allen v. Milligan) | League of Women Voters. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://www.lwv.org/legal-center/merrill-v-milligan. 

Millhiser, Ian. “The High Stakes in a New Supreme Court Showdown over Gerrymandering.” Vox, October 5, 2023. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/5/23893286/supreme-court-voting-rights-gerrymandering-race-south-carolina-alexander-naacp. 

“Rucho v. Common Cause.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-422. 

Sherman, Mark. “The Supreme Court Signals Support for a Republican-Leaning Congressional District in South Carolina.” AP News, October 11, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-redistricting-south-carolina-racial-gerrymander-840b39465b24b8d82b334dda53c908fa.