Following the 2020 census, South Carolina redrew the state’s seven congressional districts. Although the existing map required only small changes to bring it into compliance with the federal constitution’s population equality requirements, the map lawmakers created moved hundreds of thousands of mostly Black voters between two districts, turning a previously competitive district into one that reliably elects Republicans by large margins. In separate litigation, Black voters challenged the new map under the federal constitution as a racial gerrymander. But lawmakers testified under oath that partisan advantage was the primary goal of mapping choices and in May 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the claim of racial gerrymandering.
After the Court’s decision, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina filed an original action at the South Carolina Supreme Court alleging that the congressional map constitutes an intentional partisan gerrymander in violation of several provisions of South Carolina’s Constitution, including its Free and Open Elections Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Free Speech and Assembly Clause, and a provision requiring preservation of county boundaries.
The Brennan Center, along with co-counsel O’Melveny & Myers, filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and state constitutional law professor Robert F. Williams in support of the League’s challenge. The brief argues that South Carolina’s constitution goes well beyond the federal constitution to protect the rights of South Carolinians to participate as equals in the political process: it safeguards the link between voters and elected representatives, guarantees voters an equal right to elect officers, and empowers popular majorities to act as a vital check on government officials. The brief also explains why the South Carolina Supreme Court should not look to federal courts for guidance in interpreting its state constitution, reasoning that federal jurisprudence is particularly inapposite in this case.
