Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case name	Thomas C. Alexander, in His Official Capacity as President of the South Carolina Senate, et al., v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.
Docket no.	22-807
Questions presented
(1) Whether courts must apply a presumption of good faith to a legislature's racial intent when considering a challenge to legislative districts; (2) whether courts must disentangle race from politics when considering such challenges; (3) whether courts must consider a district's compliance with traditional districting principles before finding that the legislature predominantly considered race when drawing districts.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. XIV, XV

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding racial gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering. It's the first partisan gerrymandering case taken by the Supreme Court after its landmark decision in Rucho v. Common Cause which stated that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts, and the first racial gerrymandering case after the court's landmark decision in Allen v. Milligan. ^[1]

Background

Before the 2020 United States Census, South Carolina's 1st Congressional District was seen as a swing district, being won by Democrat Joe Cunningham in an upset against Republican Katie Arrington in 2018 and then incumbent Republican representative Nancy Mace in 2020, both times by small margins, and between 1 and 1.5 percentage points between the winner and runner-up. ^{[2] [3]}

After the 2020 United States Census had been conducted, the South Carolina Legislature had enacted a new map, which was signed by South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, in January 2022. The new congressional map changed the partisan and racial makeup of the 1st Congressional District by splitting Charleston County, in two, putting the cities of Charleston and North Charleston, into the Democratic heavy 6th Congressional district, with the intention of moving Black Democratic voters into the 6th District, while the rest of Charleston county was redistricted into the 1st Congressional district, leaving White Democratic voters in the 1st District, making it more Republican, as opposed to a swing district prior to redistricting. ^[4] The desired effect of this redistricting was seen in 2022, when Mace won reelection by almost 14 percentage points. ^[5] Multiple plaintiffs, including the South Carolina ACLU, and South Carolina NAACP, sued the stating that the congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Fifteenth Amendment. ^[6] In response to the lawsuit, the defendants, instead asserted that the move to exclude black voters, specifically voters from Charleston County, from the 1st District, and leaving white voters in the district, was done as a partisan gerrymander, as opposed to a racial gerrymander. ^[7]

Lower Court Decision

At the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, arguments were held regarding the racial makeup of the 1st, 2nd and 5th districts. The plaintiffs asserted that the predominant factor in the adoption of the current district maps was race for all three districts, while the defendants asserted that party affiliation was the main factor during the redistricting process of all 3 districts. On January 6, 2023, a three judge panel unanimously ruled using the predominance standard set forth in the 1995 United States Supreme Court case, Miller v Johnson, that race was the predominant factor when drawing the current shape of the 1st district, specifically, a racial target of 17% of the population of the 1st district being black, to make the district Republican leaning, however, the panel also ruled that while race was a motivating factor in the drawing of the 2nd and 5th districts, it was not the predominant factor, leaving the shapes of the 2nd and 5th districts intact. ^[8] while it was a partial legal win for the plaintiffs, the defendants still contended that the actual goal of their redistricting process was a partisan one, with party affiliation being the predominant factor in the redistricting of the 1st district as opposed to race. ^[9] The court ordered the defendants to draw a new map by March 31, 2023, ^[10] however the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court on January 27, 2023, ^[11] and the district court extending the deadline to 30 days after the Supreme Court issued a decision. On May 15, 2023, ^[12] the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case with oral arguments set for October 11, 2023. ^[13]

Supreme Court

On May 15, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the case, and also noted probable jurisdiction. ^[14] The case is notable for simultaneously being a partisan gerrymandering case, and a racial gerrymandering case, after the decisions of Rucho v Common Cause, and Allen v Milligan. ^[15] Particularly, in the former case, the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering, while it can be in violation of the constitution, presents political questions beyond the federal court system, and therefore can't be litigated via that system. ^[16] However, state courts can. This was reaffirmed by the decision in Moore v Harper. ^[17]

Analysis

Legal experts and news outlets agreed that the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to the arguments presented by the defendants in the case. ^{[18] [19] [20] [21]} Legal journalist and senior correspondent for Vox, Ian Millhiser, stated that, if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the defendants, it could make gerrymandering worse, and make it "virtually impossible to challenge racial gerrymanders." ^[22]

See also

• 2020 United States redistricting cycle
• United States congressional apportionment
• South Carolina's congressional districts
• South Carolina's 1st congressional district

References

External links

• Oral Arguments on C-SPAN October 11, 2023
• Post Argument Press Conference by NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund October 11, 2023 with Janai Nelson, President and Leah C. Aden, Lead Counsel, NAACP LDF; Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux with American Civil Liberties Union, Taiwan Scott, plaintiff; and Brenda Murphy, President, NAACP South Carolina State Conference.
• Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP Rally Outside U.S. Supreme Court by Southern Coalition for Social Justice with speakers including Catherine Fleming Bruce, author; Charles Mann, South Carolina Counts; Michael B. Moore, businessman and former CEO of the International African American Museum, Marilyn Hemingway, Gullah Geechie Chamber of Commerce, and activist Tamika 'Mika' Gadsden.
• Alexander v. SCNAACP, Part I by Atlantic Institute with representatives of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, and SC Counts with United States Census.
• Alexander v. SCNAACP, Part II Amicus Briefs, by Atlantic Institute with Vernon Burton, Steven Ansolabehere, and Dan T. Carter.