In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the conservative Supreme Court majority made it harder for civil rights groups to bring racial gerrymandering claims against redistricted voting maps. The justices ruled that Republican lawmakers in South Carolina did not unlawfully consider race when redrawing a Charleston-area congressional district in a way that removed thousands of Black voters.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito stated the plaintiffs failed to provide “direct evidence” that race was the predominant factor considered when drawing the district, currently represented by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace. He argued circumstantial evidence “falls far short” of proving race, rather than partisan interests, drove the redistricting process.
The decision essentially raises the evidentiary bar for proving racial discrimination in redistricting cases. Alito asserted state legislators should be given deference when facing such accusations, stating “We should not be quick to hurl such accusations at the political branches.”
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan accused the majority of “stacking the deck” against challengers by allowing alternative partisan rationales to easily override evidence of a map’s discriminatory impact on minority voters.
“What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers about racial gerrymandering,” Kagan wrote, warning the ruling tells those “who might want to straight-up suppress the electoral influence of minority voters” to “Go right ahead.”
While the ruling has no immediate impact, as an interim map was approved for 2024 elections, it sets new precedent making it harder to dismantle maps that reduce the voting power of Black citizens, who tend to support Democrats in the South.
Civil rights lawyer Leah Aden, representing the plaintiffs, called the decision “disheartening,” stating “The bar keeps on getting moved, and it keeps getting harder and harder for plaintiffs to uproot racial discrimination.”
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas went further, arguing courts should have no role reviewing constitutional challenges to voting districts at all.
The ruling represents a significant setback for voting rights advocates seeking to combat racial gerrymandering through the judicial system.