921 S.E.2d 660
S.C.2025Background
- The League of Women Voters challenged South Carolina’s 2022 congressional redistricting statute (S.865 / S.C. Code § 7-19-45), alleging it is an extreme partisan gerrymander that violates multiple provisions of the South Carolina Constitution.
- The Plan primarily changed Districts 1 and 6 to rebalance population after the 2020 census, moving Republican-leaning portions into District 1 and shifting some Charleston precincts into District 6.
- The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed overlapping racial-gerrymandering claims in Alexander v. S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP, held politics predominated but found insufficient evidence that race predominated, and remanded remaining racial claims (some were later dismissed by plaintiffs); the Court also treated partisan gerrymandering as nonjusticiable under the U.S. Constitution per Rucho.
- The League sued in the South Carolina Supreme Court under the State Constitution, asserting violations of: the Free and Open Elections Clause (art. I, § 5); Equal Protection (art. I, § 3); Free Speech (art. I, § 2); and the county-whole provisions (art. VII, §§ 9 & 13).
- The South Carolina Supreme Court concluded there are no state constitutional provisions or statutes supplying judicially discoverable and manageable standards to adjudicate partisan-gerrymandering claims and held such claims present a nonjusticiable political question under South Carolina law; it dismissed the League’s claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Free and Open Elections Clause (art. I, § 5) prohibits partisan gerrymandering | Clause protects voters’ equal influence and thus forbids maps designed to advantage a party | Clause protects the right to vote and ballot equality but does not guarantee partisan outcomes; courts would be unworkable if policing partisan results | Clause does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering; Plan valid under § 5 |
| Whether Equal Protection (art. I, § 3) prohibits partisan gerrymandering | Plan intentionally treats similarly situated voters differently and dilutes votes of disfavored party | Map does not deny suffrage or unequal weight; no showing of disparate treatment or vote dilution | No equal protection violation; plaintiff failed to show similarly situated voters received disparate treatment |
| Whether Free Speech (art. I, § 2) bars partisan gerrymandering | Map penalizes voters for political viewpoints/ballot history, implicating free speech/association | Redistricting does not restrict speech or association; voters remain free to speak and organize regardless of lines | Free Speech Clause does not apply; no speech restriction found |
| Whether art. VII, §§ 9 & 13 (county-whole directive) limit county splits for partisan reasons | Sections preserve counties as election districts; partisan motive cannot justify unnecessary splits | Constitution vests redistricting authority in Legislature; provisions contain no standards forbidding splits for partisan ends | No constitutional prohibition on county splits; League offered no manageable standard to adjudicate county-splitting disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) (federal partisan-gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions; state law may provide relief)
- Alexander v. S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024) (U.S. Supreme Court reviewed South Carolina Plan for racial predominance and observed overt partisan objectives in mapmaking)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (political-question doctrine and the limits of judicial review)
- Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) (plurality discussing difficulties in judicially manageable standards for partisan gerrymandering)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (congressional districts must be as nearly equal in population as practicable)
- Harper v. Hall, 384 N.C. 292 (N.C. 2023) (state supreme court holding partisan-gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable under state constitution)
- Brown v. Sec'y of State, 176 N.H. 319 (N.H. 2023) (state court finding no judicially manageable standards in state constitution for partisan-gerrymandering claims)
- Rivera v. Schwab, 315 Kan. 877 (Kan. 2022) (state court holding partisan-gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable absent statutory or constitutional standards)
- Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State, 440 S.C. 465 (S.C. 2023) (discusses presumption of constitutionality and standards for facial challenges)