Racial gerrymandering returns to U.S. Supreme Court. This time it’s South Carolina’s fight.

Civil rights groups will be closely watching the U.S. Supreme Court next Wednesday when the justices hear a challenge to South Carolina’s congressional redistricting map.

In Alexander v. SC State Conference of the NAACP, the plaintiffs contend South Carolina’s legislature adopted a racially gerrymandered congressional map last year, moving hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians to different congressional districts and lowering the Black populations in all but one district.

They contend that maneuver denied Black voters the equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

A three-judge federal panel ruled in early January that the Republican-controlled legislature in the Palmetto state had in fact created a map that split-up Black voters in the state’s first congressional district. A “stark racial gerrymander” was how the court described the map that moved more than 30,000 Black residents in Charleston to a neighboring district with a Black majority.

The South Carolina legislature appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court denying any discriminatory motive.

“The Supreme Court has said that the predominant use of race in redistricting is suspect, and that the state has to show that there is an overwhelming need to use race to achieve a certain aim,” explained Mitchell Brown, senior counsel with Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “So, in this case, we argue that the South Carolina state legislature does not have a compelling reason to use race in this moving of black voters from district to district in South Carolina.”

Brown said the effort to gerrymander the maps and dilute the power of Black voters is not just isolated to South Carolina. He says it’s becoming a problem across the country, specifically the south with conservative legislatures alleging that they are not discriminating on the basis of race, but on the basis of party.

“Then they leave it to the court to determine the truth of the matter,” Brown said. “And that’s an issue because, you know, many times, racial discrimination is hidden under partisan motivations. And it’s up to the court to disentangle those motivations. Sometimes the court does, and sometimes the court doesn’t.”

Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, said residents in Charleston County who attended the same schools, the same churches, had similar resources, suddenly found themselves divided and not truly represented by someone from their community.

“We need to have someone that knows what our needs are, will listen to us in terms of what those needs are, and also advocate for those needs,” Murphy said.

Antonio L. Ingram II, assistant counsel with NAACP Legal Defense Fund, agrees with that assessment.

Ingram said the South Carolina congressional map selectively moved Black voters and split Black communities in Charleston County, in contrast to communities lived in by white voters that were kept whole.

For the Legal Defense Fund, Ingram said this is not just about a right to vote. It’s about how Black communities are harmed and can be neglected when their votes are diluted.

“That means the Black community in South Carolina, do not have advocates in the halls of Congress to fight for a greater broadband internet access, to fight for Medicaid expansion to fight for caps on the cost of insulin, to fight for funding for infrastructure in roads and bridges, to fight for historically Black colleges and universities to receive their proper funding,” he said.

Taiwan Scott, a South Carolina voter and individual plaintiff in the case, believes the legislature’s “cracking” of districts further harms the Gullah Geechee culture.

“We are faced with continuing issues with having someone to speak on our behalf in regard to heirs property, land loss, economic sustainable opportunities, infrastructure.”

Living on Hilton Head Island, Scott said historic Gullah neighborhoods have faced unprecedented development pressure with little political representation.

“Just having a voice and an advocate for our community is important because without the people we lose the culture,” shared Scott.

As the South Carolina case heads to court, North Carolina awaits new maps

As Alexander v. SC State Conference of the NAACP is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, North Carolina’s legislature will be actively drawing new maps for the Tar Heel state’s legislative and congressional districts.

Like Scott and Murphy, Karen Alexander of Johnston County, worries that those with the power of the redistricting pen could diminish the rights her ancestors fought so hard to gain.

“How does one enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if not allowed the full participation in our democracy?” said Alexander before a legislative hearing in Raleigh. “Electoral maps drawn in a matter that fails to make it possible for every eligible citizen an equal opportunity to vote fails to fulfill the promise of democracy.”

Mitchell Brown, the senior counsel with Southern Coalition for Social Justice, hopes North Carolina lawmakers are paying attention to those advocating for fair maps as well as the recent ruling in the Milligan case out of Alabama, that prohibited maps drawn to dilute minority voting strength.

“I would hope that legislators are [also] looking at what’s happening in the Alexander case and using that information in and how they draw the legislative and congressional maps that are forthcoming,” said Brown. “[But] it’s not a very transparent process. That causes a lot of questions and a lot of concerns.”

Oral arguments will be heard October 11^th in the South Carolina case with the Supreme Court expected to deliver a decision by January 2024.

North Carolina’s newly minted maps could become public next week. A vote by lawmakers is expected later this month.