Second link is Scotusblog record for the case, third link is Supreme Court docket for the case.
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.
This comes up as an appeal of right from a three Judge District Court panel. Probable jurisdiction was noted, meaning the Supreme Court will go straight to the merits on this case and not consider any threshold jurisdictional issues.
Most likely, the Supreme Court will overturn the District Court and restore the South Carolina Legislature’s original districts.
I would note that I agree with Petitioner’s that the District Court failed to give the State the required good faith presumption. That alone is sufficient for the Supreme Court to vacate the judgement of the District Court and remand for further proceedings. But there are additional errors with the District Court judgement that warrant a vacate and remand.
Districts should be drawn to enclose the correct number of Persons within the shortest average length of district boundary lines for the State and population distribution in question.
Lumpish shapes would result but there would be no more gerrymandering.
The Federal Courts may alter districts if they were drawn with the INTENT of harming a particular race.
From Article I of the Constitution:
Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Congress could go so far as to take outright control of redistricting. They could require that States use non-partisan commissions. They could prescribe standards that State Legislatures would be required to follow.
While Congress has not done any of these things to this point, they clearly have the power to override the States, should they wish.
The founders were very clear in Section 4. that Congress is supreme in this area. In fact, they specifically added the limitation on chusing Senators because that would have allowed Congress to tell each State where to locate its Capitol.
But if either party ever gets sufficient control of the Federal Government (and eliminates the Senate filibuster) they could designate a nationwide policy for redistricting, among other things.
If it’s something the NAACP wants I guarantee it is something in the best interest of the NAACP/woke libs not your average everyday Americans.
Why is it when the GOP is in power the libs sue like hell over redistricting and when the dems are in control we are just told to bite them we have no say in the matter?
