Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-807.html

Supreme Court docket in #22-807.

Issues:

(1) Whether the district court erred when it failed to apply the presumption of good faith and to holistically analyze South Carolina Congressional District 1 and the South Carolina General Assembly’s intent;

(2) whether the district court erred in failing to enforce the alternative-map requirement in this circumstantial case;

(3) whether the district court erred when it failed to disentangle race from politics;

(4) whether the district court erred in finding racial predominance when it never analyzed District 1’s compliance with traditional districting principles;

(5) whether the district court clearly erred in finding that the General Assembly used a racial target as a proxy for politics when the record showed only that the General Assembly was aware of race, that race and politics are highly correlated, and that the General Assembly drew districts based on election data; and

(6) whether the district court erred in upholding the intentional-discrimination claim when it never even considered whether—let alone found that—District 1 has a discriminatory effect.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow in this case, which is the final case of the October sitting.

This case is substantially different from the Alabama redistricting case. Here the issue is not whether a second black district should be created, that would be clearly impossible to do.

Rather, this case involves around the State Legislature dividing the population of Charleston County (by race) in such a way as to ensure that no partisan Democratic district would be created.

Race was being used for partisan purposes, rather than being used as an end unto itself.

This could be another case where Roberts and Kavanaugh make the difference.

I can easily see this case going either way.

2 Likes

I don’t agree with this statement.

1 Like

Prior to the redistricting, District 1 had been extremely competitive the two previous election cycles. A Democrat won narrowly in 2018 and a Republican won narrowly in 2020. A true tossup district, the kind I wish all 435 seats in the House could be.

In the 2020 redistricting, the Republican Legislature yanked a chunk of 30,000 black voters in Charleston from District 1 and put them in District 6. Yanking a block of presumably Democrat voters from District 1 had the desired effect, changing District 1 from tossup to Safe Republican.

Race was thus used as a proxy for partisanship.

The Supreme Court should uphold the District Court, which would essentially restore District 1 to being a tossup district, something this country desperately needs more of.

Representatives of either party from tossup districts are generally more moderate and less likely to engage in jackass behavior and obstructionism, since they must appeal both to their own party and moderates of the opposite party.

If the black nation voted republican?

It’s not about race.

1 Like

Not sure why that’s a hard concept to understand.

Was the district redrawn to make the district more in alignment with state demographics?

My guess they used realignment to capture as many of opposing party and still win.

Example. Out here, they drawn large percentage of suburbs who are mostly republicans into sound transit knowing right where to draw that line so Seattle voters would still approve it. They wanted suburb tax base to help fund it.

And yes, if you’re talking about race…race does play into it in districts that matter knowing certain amount of votes insure as win.

black /=/ democrat

same error the court made in AL, presuming black = democrat

the court is just wrong.

and the court did not find in AL that there had to be a 2nd minority district, they specifically said that was not the intent (and then did it anyway)

1 Like