Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?



The Supreme Court has ruled that there was no discrimination against Black voters in a congressional district in South Carolina

The U.S. Supreme Court (Via Ben Kane/Shutterstock)

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court upheld a South Carolina congressional district held by Republicans, overturning a lower court’s decision that found it discriminated against Black voters.

Liberal justices disagreed in their dissent, cautioning that the ruling could shield states from challenges of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

In a 6-3 vote, the court determined that South Carolina’s GOP-led legislature acted within bounds during redistricting by altering the boundaries to bolster Rep. Nancy Mace’s position in the coastal district, which involved relocating 30,000 Black residents from Charleston who typically support Democrats.

“I’m deeply troubled by this outcome. It feels like our concerns aren’t being considered. But they are, and our voices deserve respect,” remarked Taiwan Scott, a Black voter who filed suit against the redistricting.

President Joe Biden, whose administration supported Scott and other plaintiffs, criticized the decision, stating, “The Supreme Court’s ruling today undermines the fundamental principle that voting practices should not discriminate based on race, and that is unjust.”

The Appeal to Heaven Flag (Via Ben Kane/Shutterstock)

Responding to the ruling, Mace commented, “It reaffirms what South Carolinians already know—that the district lines were not drawn based on race.”

The case presented a challenge for the court in distinguishing between race and political factors. South Carolina argued that partisan considerations and population growth along the coast influenced the congressional map. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that it is acceptable to redraw districts based on political affiliation, rather than race.

A lower court had ordered South Carolina to revise the district boundaries after finding that the state used race as a substitute for partisan identification, violating the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like


Rudy Giuliani, who served as mayor of New York City and as an attorney for Donald Trump, was formally processed on Monday as part...


Two men have been found guilty for their involvement in an armed standoff on a busy Massachusetts highway in 2021. The incident, which lasted...


Stocks fell and Treasury yields rose sharply on Friday after the government released a jobs report with higher-than-expected numbers. The report suggests that markets...


A man who crashed a stolen police car, survived gunfire from 11 police officers, and then crashed another police vehicle — all while wearing...