Dem
51
GOP
49
In Alabama, after the 2020 census, the state needed only to make small tweaks to its House districts because the state's overall population was stable, and the size of its House delegation was unchanging. And yet somehow, by an amazing coincidence, AL-02 became less Black after redistricting than it previously was. This despite the fact that Black voters became a slightly larger percentage of the population between 2010 and 2020 (with white voters becoming a slightly smaller percentage; hence the stability of the total population). This maneuvering was transparent enough that every level of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court, insisted that the Alabamians go back and make AL-02 a majority-Black district. When the Alabamians declined, a special master did the job for them, with the result that the Democrats are all-but-certain to pick up a seat in the state next year.
Something pretty similar happened in South Carolina. Over the course of the 2010s, the population of SC-06 (the district of Rep. Jim Clyburn, D, which was then D+19) shrank, while the population of SC-01 (the district now represented by Rep. Nancy Mace, R, which was then R+10) grew. In order to rectify the situation, it would have been enough to shift a relatively small chunk of SC-01 to SC-06. However, doing so risked making the district permanently competitive. So, the South Carolina map-drawers bent over backwards to move white, Republican voters from SC-06 to SC-01, and then carefully shifted Black, Democratic voters to SC-06. The result was that SC-06 ended up as D+14, while SC-01 ended up R+7—just white, and Republican, enough to remain safely GOP.
These machinations were obvious enough that they not only triggered a lawsuit, but one that was successful at both the district and appeals level. The appellate ruling went so far as to refer to the "bleaching" of SC-01, and ordered the legislature of the state to do better. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the state's appeal and, given what happened with Alabama, Democrats and civil rights organizations were expecting another win, and thus another seat in Congress.
Not so much, if the questions asked by the conservative justices during yesterday's oral arguments are any indication. In short, even though a lower court looked closely at the matter and concluded "illegal racial gerrymander," and even though the Supreme Court was theoretically just looking to see if a reversible error had been made by the lower court, the Supremes (particularly Samuel Alito, John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch) appeared to take the position that what South Carolina did was not a racial gerrymander, it was a political gerrymander. And per the jurisprudence that came from this very court, political gerrymanders are a-OK.
There is a rather obvious problem here, at least in Southern states, namely that there is a great deal of overlap between "Black voters" and "Democratic voters." Just about any political gerrymander, at least in the former Confederate states, is going to be racial. It's hard to imagine what a completely non-racial political gerrymander would even look like in the Palmetto State.
The questions asked during oral arguments are not always instructive, and people have certainly read those tea leaves incorrectly before. That said, just about everyone in the room yesterday sensed that the matter is settled, and that SCOTUS is going to overrule the lower court. If so, then Roberts & Co. will be encouraging the exact sort of rebellious behavior they just rebuked the Alabamians for. After all, if the determination of "racial gerrymander" is essentially random, why not try, try again if at first you don't succeed? (Z)