While Washington argues about “saving democracy,” courts in South Carolina just made it far easier for politicians of both parties to choose their voters instead of voters choosing them.
Story Snapshot
- The United States Supreme Court and South Carolina Supreme Court have both sided with legislators in redistricting fights, limiting how courts can police racial and partisan gerrymandering.[1][2][5]
- Voting-rights groups warn these rulings will entrench one-party control and weaken Black and Democratic voters’ influence in South Carolina.[2][4][5]
- Both courts now describe partisan gerrymandering as a “political question,” pushing responsibility back to the same politicians who benefit from the maps.[5][6]
- South Carolina is part of a broader mid-decade redistricting wave that is reshaping the 2026 House elections across multiple states.[5]
Supreme Court narrows racial gerrymandering claims in South Carolina
The United States Supreme Court recently reversed a unanimous lower-court ruling that had struck down South Carolina’s First Congressional District as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.[1][2][4] In a six-to-three decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the plaintiffs, led by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, had not proven that race rather than politics drove the lines.[1][2] Justices returned parts of the case to the lower court but allowed the current map to stand for now.[1][2][4]
The federal three-judge district court had previously found that state legislators set an impermissible racial target and removed thousands of Black voters from District One, violating the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.[4] By overturning that finding, the Supreme Court raised the burden of proof for future racial gerrymandering challenges.[2][7] Legal analysts and advocacy groups argue this ruling makes it easier for mapmakers to sort voters by race so long as they can frame their decisions as partisan strategy instead of explicit racial intent.[2][4][7]
State Supreme Court shuts the door on partisan gerrymandering claims
The South Carolina Supreme Court separately dismissed a lawsuit from the League of Women Voters of South Carolina that challenged the state’s congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.[5][6] In a five-to-zero opinion, the justices labeled partisan gerrymandering a “nonjusticiable political question,” meaning state courts will not referee whether one party has tilted the map too far in its favor.[5][6] The ruling effectively leaves redistricting policy to the state legislature, which is firmly controlled by Republicans.[5][6]
Justice George C. James Jr. wrote that no South Carolina constitutional provision or statute directly limits partisan gerrymandering in congressional redistricting, and he saw no workable standard for courts to apply.[6] This echoes the United States Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which also declared federal courts closed to partisan gerrymandering claims even while calling the practice “incompatible with democratic principles.”[5] After the decision, South Carolina Senate Republicans praised the ruling as a victory over “liberal activists” seeking to undo the 2022 map.[6]
What these rulings mean for voters and party power
Advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Campaign Legal Center argue the combined effect of these decisions is to “green-light” maps that reduce the political power of Black voters and Democrats in South Carolina.[2][4][5] Roughly forty percent of South Carolina voters supported the Democratic presidential candidate in the last election, yet the state’s congressional delegation currently sits at six Republicans and one Democrat.[5] Critics say this gap shows how aggressively drawn districts can lock in single-party dominance despite a substantial opposition vote.[5]
The concern goes beyond South Carolina. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that states have increasingly turned to “mid-decade redistricting,” revisiting maps between censuses to seek partisan advantage or respond to new court rulings.[5] Harvard’s redistricting explainer notes recent fights in Texas, California, Virginia, and Florida, describing a national pattern of both parties using legal openings to rework districts mid-cycle.[2] That escalation fuels a perception on both left and right that political elites are gaming the system instead of competing fairly for voters.[2][5]
South Carolina’s fight inside a larger national redistricting wave
Election analysts at the Cook Political Report and the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics estimate that mid-decade map changes in multiple states could shift several seats in the 2026 United States House elections.[4][6][7] Their modeling suggests Republicans currently have more opportunities to lock in or expand advantages in southern states such as Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, while Democrats are exploring counter-moves in states like California.[2][4][7] This tit-for-tat mapmaking arms race reinforces fears that election rules are being rewritten for partisan gain.
The South Carolina Senate just invoked cloture on the second reading of the bill to redraw the state's congressional map.
Republicans are on the verge of their 17th nominal redistricting pickup of the cycle.
Not all of these seats are going to flip in November. Democrats are… pic.twitter.com/XjsZh4qCOi
— Christian Heiens 🏛 (@ChristianHeiens) May 23, 2026
The National Conference of State Legislatures emphasizes that mid-cycle redistricting is usually legal as long as states obey population-equality and civil-rights requirements.[5] However, the South Carolina and United States Supreme Court rulings mean courts will rarely step in on partisan grounds and will demand strong proof to find racial discrimination in maps.[1][2][4][5] For citizens frustrated with both parties and distrustful of a distant political class, these decisions underscore a hard truth: unless state constitutions are amended or voters win structural reforms, politicians who benefit from these maps are largely in charge of drawing, defending, and, when it suits them, redrawing them.[2][5]
Sources:
[1] YouTube – Congressional redistricting battles heat up ahead of 2026 midterms
[2] Web – Explainer: What’s happening with gerrymandering in the United …
[4] Web – 2025-2026 Mid-Decade Redistricting Map – Cook Political Report
[5] Web – Changing the Maps: Tracking Mid-Decade Redistricting
[6] Web – Sabato’s Crystal Ball – UVA Center for Politics
[7] Web – A Simple Model for Forecasting the Impact of Mid-Cycle Redistricting …
