Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Redistricting in South Carolina after the 2020 census

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Election Policy VNT Logo.png
Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures • Majority-minority districts • Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 • Congressional apportionment • Redistricting committees • Deadlines • 2022 House elections with multiple incumbents • New U.S.House districts created after apportionment • Congressional maps • State legislative maps • Lawsuits • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections • Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker


Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in South Carolina.

On May 23, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court's Jan. 6, 2023, decision striking down South Carolina's congressional map as unconstitutional. As a result, this map was used for South Carolina's 2024 congressional elections. According to the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion:

“ A plaintiff pressing a vote-dilution claim cannot prevail simply by showing that race played a predominant role in the districting process. Rather, such a plaintiff must show that the State 'enacted a particular voting scheme as a purposeful device to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities.' ... In other words, the plaintiff must show that the State’s districting plan 'has the purpose and effect' of diluting the minority vote.[1][2] ”

South Carolina enacted new state legislative district maps on December 10, 2021, when Gov. McMaster signed a proposal approved by the South Carolina House and Senate into law. The South Carolina Senate approved House and Senate map proposals in a 43-1 vote on December 7, 2021, and the House approved the new districts in a 75-27 vote on December 9, 2021. Gov. McMaster signed the bill into law the next day.[3]
The House maps were updated on June 28, 2022, by Senate Bill 1024. The updated maps became effective for the 2024 elections.[4][5]

Click here for more information.

South Carolina's seven United States representatives and 170 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

  1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
  2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
  3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
  4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
  5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
  6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in South Carolina is also provided.

Summary

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

  • May 23, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Jan. 6, 2023, decision striking down South Carolina's congressional map. As a result, this map was used for South Carolina's 2024 congressional elections.
  • May 15, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the South Carolina legislature's appeal of the federal three-judge panel's ruling that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional.
  • February 17, 2023: Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling that required the state to redraw its congressional district boundaries to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • January 6, 2023: A federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The ruling ordered the General Assembly to submit a remedial map for its review by March 31, 2023.
  • January 26, 2022: Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed the Congressional map into law.
  • January 26, 2022:The South Carolina House approved an amended congressional map proposal in a 72-33 vote.
  • January 20, 2022: The South Carolina Senate approved a congressional district map proposal.
  • January 19, 2022: The South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee voted 14-8 to approve a congressional map proposal.
  • January 13, 2022: The full South Carolina House approved a congressional map proposal in a 74-35 vote.
  • January 10, 2022: The House Redistricting Ad Hoc Committee and House Judiciary Committee approved a congressional map proposal.
  • December 24, 2021: The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the State of South Carolina arguing that the state's House maps were illegally drawn.
  • December 22, 2021: The House released a congressional map proposal.
  • December 16, 2021: The House released a congressional map proposal.
  • December 10, 2021: Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed the state legislative map proposals into law.
  • December 9, 2021: The House approved state legislative maps and sent them to Gov. McMaster.
  • December 7, 2021: The Senate approved state legislative map proposals.
  • December 6, 2021: The Senate Judiciary Committee passed a proposed map of Senate districts in a 22-1 vote.
  • December 2, 2021: The House approved a proposed map of its own districts in a 96-14 vote.
  • November 18, 2021: Senate President Harvey Peeler (R) said senators will meet Decemeber 6 at 1 p.m. in a special session to address redistricting.
  • November 16, 2021: The House Judiciary Committee voted 21-2 to approve a House district proposal.
  • November 8, 2021 The House Judiciary Committee released a House district proposal.
  • November 4, 2021: The Senate Redistricting Committee released a Senate map proposal.
  • October 16, 2021: The Senate Judiciary Committee released a series of Senate map proposals.
  • October 12, 2021: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP filed a lawsuit in federal court against the South Carolina Legislature asking the court to set a deadline for legislators to return to session.
  • September 24, 2021: South Carolina Senate President Harvey Peeler (R) canceled a special senate session originally scheduled to begin October 12, 2021.
  • September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
  • September 8, 2021: The South Carolina House Redistricting Ad Hoc Committee began its round of 10 public hearings meant to solicit citizen feedback on reapportionment of the South Carolina General Assembly.
  • August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
  • April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On May 23, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court's Jan. 6, 2023, decision striking down South Carolina's congressional map as unconstitutional. As a result, this map was used for South Carolina's 2024 congressional elections. According to the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion:

“ A plaintiff pressing a vote-dilution claim cannot prevail simply by showing that race played a predominant role in the districting process. Rather, such a plaintiff must show that the State 'enacted a particular voting scheme as a purposeful device to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities.' ... In other words, the plaintiff must show that the State’s districting plan 'has the purpose and effect' of diluting the minority vote.[1][2] ”

On May 15, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the South Carolina legislature's appeal of a federal three-judge panel's ruling that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional.[6] That three-judge panel ruled on January 6, 2023, that the state's 1st Congressional District violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using it. The ruling ordered the General Assembly to submit a remedial map for its review by March 31, 2023.[6] South Carolina enacted new congressional district maps on January 26, 2022, when Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed a proposal approved by the South Carolina House and Senate into law.[7]

On January 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 14-8 in favor of the "Amendment 1" proposal.[8] On January 20, the South Carolina Senate approved the congressional district proposal in a 26-15 vote along party lines, with Republicans supporting the proposal and Democrats opposing it.[9] The South Carolina House approved the amended proposal on January 26 in a 72-33 vote along party lines, with Republicans voting for the proposal and Democrats voting against it.[10] This map took effect for South Carolina's 2022 congressional elections. Click here for more information.

Congressional map

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

South Carolina Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

South Carolina Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

The South Carolina chapter of the NAACP said, “The South Carolina Legislature has yet again used its redistricting power to harm South Carolina voters and discriminate against Black voters.”[11] Rep. Jay Jordan (R) said potential litigation was "one of the main reasons we’ve worked as hard as we have to move the process along, of checking all the boxes, but at the same time, not wasting any time. At the end of the day, time will tell.”[12]

2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[13] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[14]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, South Carolina
District 2022 district Political predecessor district
Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party
South Carolina's 1st 44.9% 53.5% 46.1% 52.1%
South Carolina's 2nd 43.9% 54.5% 43.6% 54.9%
South Carolina's 3rd 30.6% 68.0% 30.5% 68.1%
South Carolina's 4th 39.8% 58.4% 38.9% 59.3%
South Carolina's 5th 40.2% 58.4% 41.0% 57.6%
South Carolina's 6th 65.3% 33.2% 67.0% 31.8%
South Carolina's 7th 40.2% 58.8% 40.2% 58.8%

Enacted state legislative district maps

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

South Carolina enacted new state legislative district maps on December 10, 2021, when Gov. McMaster signed a proposal approved by the South Carolina House and Senate into law. The South Carolina Senate approved House and Senate map proposals in a 43-1 vote on December 7, 2021, and the House approved the new districts in a 75-27 vote on December 9, 2021. Gov. McMaster signed the bill into law the next day.[15]
The House maps were updated on June 28, 2022, by Senate Bill 1024. The updated maps became effective for the 2024 elections.[16][17]

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

South Carolina State Senate Districts
until November 10, 2024

Click a district to compare boundaries.

South Carolina State Senate Districts
starting November 11, 2024

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

South Carolina State House Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

South Carolina State House Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

Rep. Wendy Brawley (D) said “The map we have before us from the House Judiciary Committee is highly gerrymandered. That has been determined. It highly protects — and, to the disadvantage of most Democrats and to the disadvantage of many minorities — it protects Republicans.”[18] Lynn Teague, vice president for the South Carolina League of Women Voters, said, “[The House map's] lack of competition is a very serious threat to representative democracy. General election votes become meaningless because the outcome is certain, or nearly so."[19]

Rep. Jay Jordan (R ) said, “The committee, before the — to go through the entire process worked very hard, traveling across the entire state, taking testimony, looking at all the different proposed maps. We worked very hard to make sure that was not the case, and I feel very comfortable in saying that was not the case.”[18] Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Luke Rankin (R) said, “Democrats: Be happy. Republicans: Don’t be greedy. This is a good plan.”[19]


Drafting process

In South Carolina, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the state legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor.[20]

South Carolina's legislative redistricting committees adopted redistricting guidelines in 2011. These guidelines recommend that all congressional and state legislative districts be contiguous and "attempt to preserve communities of interest and cores of incumbents' existing districts." Further, the guidelines suggest that districts should "adhere to county, municipal, and voting precinct boundary lines." These guidelines may modified by the legislature at its discretion.[20]

Timeline

On November 18, 2021, Senate President Harvey Peeler (R) said senators will meet December 6, 2021, at 1 p.m. in a special session to address redistricting.[21]

The following public hearing schedule was posted on the South Carolina Senate website.[22][23]

South Carolina Senate Redistricting Committee public hearing schedule, 2020 cycle
Date Location Time
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 Gressette Building on State House grounds, Columbia 6:30 pm
Wednesday, July 28, 2021 Central Carolina Technical College, Sumter 6:30 pm
Thursday, July 29, 2021 York Technical College, Rock Hill 6:30 pm
Monday, August 2, 2021 Greenville County Council Chambers, Greenville 6:30 pm
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 Florence-Darlington Technical College, Florence 6:30 pm
Wednesday, August 4, 2021 Technical College of the LowCountry, Beaufort 6:30 pm
Monday, August 9, 2021 Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College, Orangeburg 6:30 pm
Tuesday, August 10, 2021 Trident Technical College, Charleston 6:30 pm
Wednesday, August 11, 2021 Horry-Georgetown Technical College, Conway 6:30 pm
Thursday, August 12, 2021 Aiken Technical College, Aiken 6:30 pm
Wednesday, September 8, 2021 Horry-Georgetown Technical College, Myrtle Beach 6:00 pm
Thursday, September 9, 2021 Florence-Darlington Tech, Florence 6:00 pm
Monday, September 13, 2021 York Tech Barnes Theater, Rock Hill 6:00 pm
Tuesday, September 14, 2021 Greenville Senior High School, Greenville 6:00 pm
Wednesday, September 15, 2021 North Charleston City Hall, North Charleston 6:00 pm
Thursday, September 16, 2021 Bluffton High School Auditorium, Bluffton 6:00 pm
Monday, September 20, 2021 Aiken Tech Amphitheater, Graniteville 6:00 pm
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 Piedmont Tech - Medford Center, Greenwood 6:00 pm
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 Orangeburg Tech- Roquemore Auditorium, Orangeburg 6:00 pm
Tuesday, September 28, 2021 Blatt Building, Columbia 4:30 pm
Monday, October 4, 2021 Blatt Building, Columbia 4:30 pm

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

Listed below are the members of the South Carolina Senate Redistricting Subcommittee and House Redistricting Ad Hoc Committee in the 2020 cycle:[24]

South Carolina Senate Redistricting Subcommittee membership, 2020 cycle
Name Member type Partisan affiliation
Sen. Ronnie Sabb Legislator Electiondot.png Democratic
Sen. Dick Harpootlian Legislator Electiondot.png Democratic
Sen. Margie Bright Matthews Legislator Electiondot.png Democratic
Sen. Luke Rankin Legislator Ends.png Republican
Sen. George Campsen Legislator Ends.png Republican
Sen. Scott Talley Legislator Ends.png Republican
Sen. Tom Young Legislator Ends.png Republican


South Carolina House Redistricting Ad Hoc Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name Member type Partisan affiliation
Rep. Beth E. Bernstein Legislator Electiondot.png Democratic
Rep. Patricia Henegan Legislator Electiondot.png Democratic
Rep. Justin Bamberg Legislator Electiondot.png Democratic
Rep. Neal Collins Legislator Ends.png Republican
Rep. Jason Elliott Legislator Ends.png Republican
Rep. Jay Jordan Legislator Ends.png Republican
Rep. Brandon Newton Legislator Ends.png Republican
Rep. Weston Newton Legislator Ends.png Republican

Pre-drafting developments

On September 24, 2021, South Carolina Senate President Harvey Peeler (R) canceled a special senate session originally scheduled to begin October 12, 2021. The Senate had planned to address COVID spending and redistricting during the special session, but the Senate redistricting committee asked for more time, saying it would not be able to draft district maps until later in the month.[25]

On September 8, 2021, the South Carolina House Redistricting Ad Hoc Committee began its round of 10 public hearings meant to solicit citizen feedback on reapportionment of the South Carolina General Assembly.[26] Click here to see the full schedule of hearings.

Drafts and proposals

Legislative maps

The South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee released a series of publicly submitted Senate map proposals on October 16, 2021.[27] The committee met on October 21, to go over the submissions and speak with members of the public.[28] On November 4, the Senate Redistricting Committee released a Senate map proposal and held a public hearing on November 6. Members of both chambers said they planned to hold special sessions in early December to consider state legislative and Congressional maps.[29] On December 6, the committee passed a proposed district map in a 22 to 1 vote.[30]

On November 8, the House Judiciary Committee released a House district proposal. On November 16, the committee voted 21-2 to approve a modified version of the November 8 proposal, sending it to the full House for a vote.[31] On December 2, the House approved the proposed map of its own districts in a 96-14 vote.[32] The Senate approved the state legislative map proposals in a 43-1 vote on December 7, and the House approved them in a 75-27 vote on December 9.[33]

Click on the links below to view each map:

Plans drafted by the public
Plans drafted by the legislature

Congressional maps

The South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee accepted public submissions until November 1, 2021. On December 16, [34] Senate members released a congressional map proposal on November 29, and the House debuted its own version on December 16.[35] The House released another alternative congressional plan on December 22.[36]

On January 10, 2022, the House Redistricting Ad Hoc Committee approved a congressional map proposal which was then approved by the House Judiciary Committee in a 13-6 vote along party lines, with all Republicans on the committee supporting the proposal and all Democrats voting against it.[37] The full South Carolina House approved a congressional map proposal in a 74-35 vote on January 13.[38]

On January 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 14-8 in favor of the "Amendment 1" proposal.[39] On January 20, the South Carolina Senate approved the congressional district proposal in a 26-15 vote along party lines, with Republicans supporting the proposal and Democrats opposing it.[40] The South Carolina House approved the amended proposal on January 26 in a 72-33 vote along party lines, with Republicans voting for the proposal and Democrats voting against it.[41] Click the links below to see proposed congressional maps.

Apportionment and release of census data

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.[42]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. South Carolina was apportioned seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[43]

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for South Carolina
State 2010 census 2020 census 2010-2020
Population U.S. House seats Population U.S. House seats Raw change in population Percentage change in population Change in U.S. House seats
South Carolina 4,645,975 7 5,124,712 7 478,737 10.30% 0


Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021.[44][45][46][47] The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.[48][49]

Court challenges

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.

South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Alexander

U.S. Supreme Court upholds South Carolina's congressional map

On May 23, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court's Jan. 6, 2023, decision striking down South Carolina's congressional map as unconstitutional. As a result, this map was used for South Carolina's 2024 congressional elections. According to the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion:

“ A plaintiff pressing a vote-dilution claim cannot prevail simply by showing that race played a predominant role in the districting process. Rather, such a plaintiff must show that the State 'enacted a particular voting scheme as a purposeful device to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities.' ... In other words, the plaintiff must show that the State’s districting plan 'has the purpose and effect' of diluting the minority vote.[1][2] ”

U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear case

On May 15, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the South Carolina legislature's appeal of the federal three-judge panel's ruling that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional.[50] On February 17, 2023, Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling that required the state to redraw its congressional district boundaries to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alexander's appeal argues: In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.[51]

Federal three-judge panel rules state's 1st Congressional District unconstitutional

On January 6, 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that South Carolina's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1. With the movement of over 30,000 African American residents of Charleston County out of Congressional District No. 1 to meet the African American population target of 17%, Plaintiffs’ right to be free from an unlawful racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been violated. Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[52] The ruling ordered the General Assembly to submit a remedial map for its review by March 31, 2023, and said, "the Court hereby enjoins the conducting of an election under congressional District No. 1 until a constitutionally valid apportionment plan is approved by this Court."[52]

The three-judge federal panel also determined that the state's 2nd and 5th District boundaries were constitutional and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims regarding those: "Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to prove that race was the predominant factor in the design of Congressional District Nos. 2 and 5. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding the claims of racially discriminatory intent under Count Two of the Third Amended Complaint concerning Congressional Districts Nos. 2 and 5."[52]

Complaint amended to include congressional map

On February 10, 2022, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a South Carolina voter filed an amended complaint against State Senate President Thomas Alexander (R), four other state legislators, and the members of the South Carolina State Election Commission challenging the congressional district boundaries the state enacted on January 26, 2022. The complaint argued that South Carolina's enacted congressional map "discriminates on the basis of race by appearing to preserve the ability of Black voters to elect in Congressional District 6 (“CD”) while working adeptly to deny the ability of Black voters to elect or even influence elections in any of the other six congressional districts. For example, S.865 purposefully moves a disproportionate number of white voters from CD 1 and CD 2 into CD 6, as compared to Black voters from the same areas."[53] The complaint also argued that "the Legislature subordinated racially redistricting principles and used race as a predominant factor to enact South Carolina Congressional Districts 1, 2, and 5 (the “Challenged Congressional Districts”). The Challenged Congressional Districts are not narrowly tailored to comply with Section 2 of the VRA or any other compelling governmental interest."[53]

ACLU lawsuit

On December 24, 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the State of South Carolina arguing that the state's legislative maps were illegally drawn. The organization said the state House map "dilute[s] the voting strength of Black voters and undermine[s] the political power of communities of color by denying us equal participation in the political process," and that legislators "largely avoided public input and left electoral districts wildly out of proportion just months before election season.”[54] The ACLU previously sued the South Carolina Legislature in federal court on October 12. The organization asked the court to set a deadline for legislators to return to session and said a delay in redistricting procedures would prevent any potential lawsuits from being resolved before the new districts take effect.[55]

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[56][57]

“ 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.[2] ”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[58][59][60]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[60]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[60]

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

  1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[60][61]
  2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[60][61]
  3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[60][61]
  4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[60][61]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[62]

  1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
  2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
  3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.
See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[63][64]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[65]

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[66][67]

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[52] Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.[68] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[69]

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.[70] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.[71]

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[72]

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[73]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[74][75][76]

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[77][78][79][80]

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[81][82][83]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[84][85][86][87]

Trifectas and redistricting

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status
State Primary redistricting authority Pre-2010 trifecta status Post-2010 trifecta status Post-2018 trifecta status
Alabama Legislature Divided Republican Republican
Colorado Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission		 Democratic Divided Democratic
Indiana Legislature Divided Republican Republican
Iowa Legislature Democratic Divided Republican
Maine Legislature Democratic Republican Democratic
Michigan Legislature Divided Republican Divided
New Hampshire Legislature Democratic Divided Divided
North Carolina Legislature Democratic Divided Divided
Ohio Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission		 Divided Republican Republican
Oregon Legislature Democratic Divided Democratic
Pennsylvania Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission		 Divided Republican Divided
Wisconsin Legislature Democratic Republican Divided

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in South Carolina after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, South Carolina gained a congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held the governorship and both chambers of the South Carolina State Legislature. A redistricting plan was adopted by the legislature on July 26, 2011. The governor signed it into law on August 1, 2011. On November 11, 2011, a group of Democratic voters challenged the new congressional and state legislative district maps in federal court, alleging that the new maps constituted "unlawful racial gerrymandering and a violation the Voting Rights Act." The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina rejected the challenge on March 9, 2012. The case, filed as Backus v. South Carolina, was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision on October 1, 2012.[20][88]

On August 29, 2013, in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the plaintiffs attempted to revive the case. The trial court rejected the attempt on March 10, 2014, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed that decision on October 6, 2014.[20][88]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On June 22, 2011, the state legislature approved a state legislative redistricting, plan which was signed into law on June 28, 2011. On November 11, 2011, a group of Democratic voters challenged the new congressional and state legislative district maps in federal court, alleging that the new maps constituted "unlawful racial gerrymandering and a violation the Voting Rights Act." The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina rejected the challenge on March 9, 2012. The case, filed as Backus v. South Carolina, was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision on October 1, 2012.[20][88]

On August 29, 2013, in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the plaintiffs attempted to revive the case. The trial court rejected the attempt on March 10, 2014, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed that decision on October 6, 2014.[20][88]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S, Supreme Court, "Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP," May 23, 2024
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. ↑ LegiScan, "South Carolina House Bill 4493," accessed December 14, 2021
  4. ↑ South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office, "SC General Assembly," accessed March 17, 2025
  5. ↑ LegiScan, "South Carolina Senate Bill 1024," accessed March 17, 2025
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Politico, "Supreme Court to hear racial redistricting case from South Carolina," May 15, 2023
  7. ↑ All About Redistricting, "South Carolina," accessed April 27, 2022
  8. ↑ WLTX, "Senate moves forward with Congressional redistricting map," January 19, 2022
  9. ↑ Charlotte Observer, "SC Senate passes new US House districts with minimal changes," January 21, 2022
  10. ↑ WISTV, "New US House maps in South Carolina heading to governor," January 27, 2022
  11. ↑ WISTV, "Lawsuit challenges SC’s new Congressional map, claiming it’s racially gerrymandered, discriminatory," February 11, 2022
  12. ↑ Post and Courrier, "SC House adopts Republican-dominant congressional redistricting plan; signed by Gov. McMaster," January 26, 2022
  13. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
  14. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
  15. ↑ LegiScan, "South Carolina House Bill 4493," accessed December 14, 2021
  16. ↑ South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office, "SC General Assembly," accessed March 17, 2025
  17. ↑ LegiScan, "South Carolina Senate Bill 1024," accessed March 17, 2025
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 WTOC, "S.C. House approves new map in redistricting process," December 2, 2021
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Index Journal, "State House, Senate districts OK’d in South Carolina," December 7, 2021
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 All About Redistricting, "South Carolina," accessed May 8, 2015
  21. ↑ News 19, "South Carolina Senate plans December 6 special session," November 18, 2021
  22. ↑ South Carolina State House, "Senate Meeting Schedule," accessed July 27, 2021
  23. ↑ News19, "South Carolina lawmakers begin redistricting process," accessed July 27, 2021
  24. ↑ South Carolina Legislature, "Senate Judiciary Committee," accessed July 21, 2021
  25. ↑ U.S. News, "South Carolina Senate Cancels Next Month's Special Session," September24, 2021
  26. ↑ KPVI, "South Carolina House begins post-census reapportionment hearings," September 7, 2021
  27. ↑ The State, "SC Senate to take input on redistricting proposals," October 16, 2021
  28. ↑ WBTW, "South Carolina lawmakers review redistricting map submissions from public," October 21, 2021
  29. ↑ Live 5 News, "SC House to release its redistricting maps; Senate’s are out," November 7, 2021
  30. ↑ WLTX, "Senate Judiciary Subcommittee approves redistricting plans," December 6, 2021
  31. ↑ Herald Online, "SC House redistricting plan that removes Richland seat advances. Here’s what’s next," November 16, 2021
  32. ↑ WLTX, "SC House gives key approval to plan to redraw voting lines for House districts," December 2, 2021
  33. ↑ Legiscan, "H4493," accessed December 13, 2021
  34. ↑ WBTW, "South Carolina lawmakers review redistricting map submissions from public," October 21, 2021
  35. ↑ Live 5 News, "House staff’s Congressional map proposal presented as SC’s redistricting process continues," December 16, 2021
  36. ↑ Count on News2, "SC House releases proposed alternative congressional map that further splits SC-01," December 22, 2021
  37. ↑ The State, "Congressional map likely to leave SC with no competitive seats advanced by House panel," January 10, 2022
  38. ↑ WLTX, "South Carolina lawmakers redrawing Congressional voting lines ahead of election," January 13, 2022
  39. ↑ WLTX, "Senate moves forward with Congressional redistricting map," January 19, 2022
  40. ↑ Charlotte Observer, "SC Senate passes new US House districts with minimal changes," January 21, 2022
  41. ↑ WISTV, "New US House maps in South Carolina heading to governor," January 27, 2022
  42. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
  43. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
  44. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
  45. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
  46. ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
  47. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
  48. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
  49. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
  50. ↑ Politico, "Supreme Court to hear racial redistricting case from South Carolina," May 15, 2023
  51. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
  52. ↑ 52.0 52.1 52.2 52.3 United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
  53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," February 10, 2022
  54. ↑ WAVY, "ACLU announces it will sue South Carolina over ‘illegally gerrymandered’ redistricting maps," December 24, 2021
  55. ↑ The Hill, "ACLU, NAACP sue South Carolina over redistricting delay," October 12, 2021
  56. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
  57. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
  58. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
  59. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.3 60.4 60.5 60.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
  61. ↑ 61.0 61.1 61.2 61.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
  62. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
  63. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  64. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
  65. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
  66. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
  67. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
  68. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
  69. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
  70. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
  71. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
  72. ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
  73. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
  74. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
  75. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
  76. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
  77. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
  78. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
  79. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
  80. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
  81. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
  82. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
  83. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
  84. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
  85. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
  86. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
  87. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
  88. ↑ 88.0 88.1 88.2 88.3 Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014: the senators, the representatives and the governors: their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content
v • e
Redistricting after the 2020 census
State-by-state
Overviews
Flag of South Carolina
v • e
State of South Carolina
Columbia (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Redistricting_in_South_Carolina_after_the_2020_census&oldid=10291405"