On 23 May, the US Supreme Court issued a decision that allows for racial discrimination-based gerrymandering of election maps. Partisan gerrymandering (gerrymandering motivated by giving either the Democratic or Republican party an advantage in congressional elections) has been a problem within the US since the inception of congressional electoral district maps in the 1700s. But in recent years, the practice has been dominated by racially motivated redistricting, by Republican-controlled redistricting commissions seeking to annex minority groups. This case was brought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) against the South Carolina State Senate. They alleged that South Carolina’s 2021 electoral district map, which removed roughly 60% of black voters from District One was unconstitutional. However, in a six to three decision, the conservative-controlled Supreme Court ruled that the electoral map was constitutional, even though this was in the face of even South Carolina’s approved map maker stating that the new map creates “tremendous racial disparity”.
In coming to their decision, the Supreme Court began with the presumption that South Carolina’s lawmakers had acted “in good faith” when redistricting. The NAACP argued that the 2021 electoral district map not only diminishes the political power of black voters but also is motivated by racial discrimination. The Court ultimately found that these arguments were not sufficient to rebut the presumption and that the redistricting did not amount to racial discrimination as there had been no intent to racially discriminate, as the South Carolina legislature contended that the districts were redrawn based on political voting patterns. The Court also criticized an earlier lower court decision which found the redistricting to amount to racial discrimination for not engaging enough with the presumption. Justice Samuel Alito stated in the majority judgement that “We should not be quick to hurl such accusations at the political branches.” However, this opinion was not shared by the entirety of the Court as in her dissenting judgement Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “In the electoral sphere especially, where ‘ugly patterns of pervasive racial discrimination’ have so long governed, we should demand better – of ourselves, of our political representatives, and most of all of this Court.”
This decision comes at a time when racial and political tensions across the US are on the rise. This trend is only exacerbated by the fact that minority voters are predominantly Democrats and thus when it comes to congressional redistricting it can be hard to separate racial discrimination from partisan discrimination. Because of this ambiguity, Republican-controlled redistricting commissions have been able to hide behind ostensibly legal gerrymandering. This case sends a dangerous message to redistricting commissions across the US, as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissenting judgement, the message for politicians who “might want to straight-up suppress the electoral influence of minority voters" is: "Go right ahead."
Click here for the judgement in Alexander v South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP