2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: South Carolina

[Oryxslayer]

Second lawyer Flynn for solicitor General arguing on behalf of the Federal Government.  

Thomas questioned on the standards of Arlington Heightsand wanted a specific statement how they apply here.

Alito asks her the same questions he asked before over the experts and their evidence.

Kagan confronts her with with the argument that the state didn't try to maintain the prior BVAP while increasing GOP partisanship. Asks why race would be used as the proxy since the court ruled in favor of legal partisan gerrymandering in 2020. Flynn says the state had minimal data, and the two are highly correlated in the south.

Thomas gets a statement from her that they do believe race should have no part in redistricting under the 14th amendment, except when the overriding data necessitates VRA compliance. But the VRA isn't truly necessary here. Which kinda fits into his worldview.

Kav and Gorsech asks how the defense of playing politics isn't correct. She says the district court found that the political data was not enough. Kav asking what if the political data was enough, defense says one election would not be enough for a true functional analysis. Also that reaching a goal through race, no matter what it is, is illegal.

Barrett speaking (for the first time?) mentions that racial gerrymandering requires high standards on the parts of the plaintiffs and starts with the presumption of innocence "good faith standard" on the part of the state body. Asks about clear error measurement, so is there is an expert report that considered all factors, like political data, contiguity, compactness etc. Parties argued that different experts considered different factors.

[wbrocks67]

So apparently Roberts and Thomas both made comments strongly in favor of South Carolina.  This one is probably over. 

Strongly in favor of South Carolina in terms of...?

[Oryxslayer]

SC's closing rebuttal focuses on the lack of an alternative map and their belief that the experts are incorrect, blurring the lines between partisan and racial gerrymandering.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Would we say after today this case is lean South Carolina, since it sounds like none of the Conservatives other than maybe Thomas said things mostly in favor of South Carolina?

Obv though there can always be surprises (see Milligan)

[Oryxslayer]

Would we say after today this case is lean South Carolina, since it sounds like none of the Conservatives other than maybe Thomas said things mostly in favor of South Carolina?

Obv though there can always be surprises (see Milligan)

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1712143281511883054?s=20

I would say there are four votes for the plaintiffs between the Liberals and Thomas, who didn't seem to have changed from Cooper (NC 2016), and two votes for the State in Alito and Gorsuch. Barrett may be also with the State but she said very little. Which is a bigger window than in Alabama, but it could lead to a interesting opinion if the court upholds the lower court ruling for the plaintiffs by a wide margin.

[Gass3268]

So apparently Roberts and Thomas both made comments strongly in favor of South Carolina.  This one is probably over. 

Strongly in favor of South Carolina in terms of...?

He has a different read than Politico did.

https://twitter.com/zachmontellaro/status/1712176384762679502?s=46

[Gass3268]

So apparently Roberts and Thomas both made comments strongly in favor of South Carolina.  This one is probably over. 

Strongly in favor of South Carolina in terms of...?

He has a different read than Politico did.

https://twitter.com/zachmontellaro/status/1712176384762679502?s=46

But similar to a guy from Vox:

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1712172120510193837?s=46

[Tekken_Guy]

SC-01 could honestly become a pure swing seat later in the decade if more Dem voters move to Charleston.

[Oryxslayer]

Well the result is the same no matter who you think came out better: we wait a few months to see the decision. All reporting on Milligan was against the plaintiffs, and that came down in a positive manner.

[Nyvin]

Alito was FERVENTLY against the plaintiffs, to the point that one would think he's a defendant in the case.  I mean, holy crap, the anger in his voice could be heard sometimes.

Gorsuch also seems like a big doubter and most likely will be against the plaintiffs.

Roberts and Barret didn't really say enough to judge which way they go.

I kinda got the inclination that Thomas was more against than for the plaintiffs, but don't really know.  His question about not using the 14th amendment in this way for any other case indicates he's not a fan to me.

[Tintrlvr]

The 1st probably becomes a legitimate tossup if SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs

And if it is, something makes me think the NRCC won't be chomping at the bit to bail Mace out.

Nope, but Mace also will do everything to make people think she's the second coming of liberal Rockefeller Republicans if necessary.

I doubt that’d play well. In South Carolina republicans are largely evangelical social issue absolutists while democrats are minorities (mostly blacks) and a moderately sized minority of left leaning whites. I don’t see how acting “moderate” would appeal to many.

Also a lot of us don’t like New York as a concept so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Charleston is the kind of place where this could work (as is Hilton Head, the other significant population center likely to be in the district). But Mace probably just shot herself in the foot by voting to remove McCarthy if her district does end up redrawn; I don't think there's recovery among "genteel" Republicans from that.

[Oryxslayer]

Alito was FERVENTLY against the plaintiffs, to the point that one would think he's a defendant in the case.  I mean, holy crap, the anger in his voice could be heard sometimes.

This should be the takeaway and why its rather muddy about who is favored and where loyalties stand. This was the Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan show. And Alito did most of the conservative action for the state at every point. Maybe he speaks for more, maybe he was trying to convince them. The rest had minimal to say, especially Barrett.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Is there any reason the plantiffs didn't provide any sort of "alternative maps"? That seems to be a very discussed topic in the oral arguments.

[Oryxslayer]

Is there any reason the plantiffs didn't provide any sort of "alternative maps"? That seems to be a very discussed topic in the oral arguments.

it's not really required for racial gerrymandering cases, though may be when the proof is less clear cut, at least from the plaintiffs perspective. And thats a standard set by stuff like Cooper.

it is a required burden for section 2 VRA cases. Which should tell you why Alito liked taking about it, cause while it is not immediately relevant, it could be made relevant and sounds relevant, and of course its something the plaintiffs can't easily rebut.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

SC-01 could honestly become a pure swing seat later in the decade if more Dem voters move to Charleston.

The entire Charleston peninsula was moved into Clyburn's district along with one of its suburbs (West Ashley). SC-01 is now mainly Mount Pleasant, Kiawah, Seabrook, and parts of Berkeley County.

I'm not sure why the map needed to be redrawn except that Joe Cunningham turned SC-01 blue in 2018 and almost got re-elected in 2020.

[Tekken_Guy]

SC-01 could honestly become a pure swing seat later in the decade if more Dem voters move to Charleston.

The entire Charleston peninsula was moved into Clyburn's district along with one of its suburbs (West Ashley). SC-01 is now mainly Mount Pleasant, Kiawah, Seabrook, and parts of Berkeley County.

I'm not sure why the map needed to be redrawn except that Joe Cunningham turned SC-01 blue in 2018 and almost got re-elected in 2020.

The new seat is only 2-3 points redder than the old one, and it would have still been close in 2018 and 2020.

[ProgressiveModerate]

SC-01 could honestly become a pure swing seat later in the decade if more Dem voters move to Charleston.

The entire Charleston peninsula was moved into Clyburn's district along with one of its suburbs (West Ashley). SC-01 is now mainly Mount Pleasant, Kiawah, Seabrook, and parts of Berkeley County.

I'm not sure why the map needed to be redrawn except that Joe Cunningham turned SC-01 blue in 2018 and almost got re-elected in 2020.

The new seat is only 2-3 points redder than the old one, and it would have still been close in 2018 and 2020.

Yeah, the issue for SC Rs is that SC-01 is "trapped" along the coast, so the map they drew basically maximizes it to be as red as possible given these constraints. If Charleston continues to get bluer long term it'll be harder for the GOP to secure a 6R-1D map long term (though by then coalitions could look dramatically different so who knows).

Given how Southern politics, this means to achieve this goal you end up with somewhat of a racial sort between SC-01 and SC-06.

[Oryxslayer]

Supreme Court with a Ideological-Line opinion affirming SC's map, but not really changing the racial gerrymandering law. Basically just critiqued on the alternative-map requirement.


With that the 2024 redistricting cycle is over for congressional lines.

[Skill and Chance]

Supreme Court with a Ideological-Line opinion affirming SC's map, but not really changing the racial gerrymandering law. Basically just critiqued on the alternative-map requirement.


With that the 2024 redistricting cycle is over for congressional lines.

This looks to me like it could be more significant?  The Alito opinion seems to embrace a greater degree of deference to the legislature's partisan redistricting goals, basically placing a burden on the plaintiffs to show a map that resolves the racial gerrymander without altering the overall partisan balance of the map (i.e. no additional Dem seats vs. what the legislature intended) in order to prevail? 
However, I believe this is a 14th Amendment racial gerrymandering lawsuit process, and there is a distinct VRA Section 2 lawsuit process to achieve proportionality, which the court viewed more favorably last year in Milligan even at the expense of eliminating an R seat intended by the legislature.

[Oryxslayer]

Supreme Court with a Ideological-Line opinion affirming SC's map, but not really changing the racial gerrymandering law. Basically just critiqued on the alternative-map requirement.


With that the 2024 redistricting cycle is over for congressional lines.

This looks to me like it could be more significant?  The Alito opinion seems to embrace a greater degree of deference to the legislature's partisan redistricting goals, basically placing a burden on the plaintiffs to show a map that resolves the racial gerrymander without altering the overall partisan balance of the map (i.e. no additional Dem seats vs. what the legislature intended) in order to prevail?  
However, I believe this is a 14th Amendment racial gerrymandering lawsuit process, and there is a distinct VRA Section 2 lawsuit process to achieve proportionality, which the court viewed more favorably last year in Milligan even at the expense of eliminating an R seat intended by the legislature.

Yes, this is a entirely separate beast from section 2 VRA.

If you have actually followed these type of cases, you know that it doesn't really matter what type of map evidence is required. A good suit provides a litany of it. It's never implemented. The remedial process is it's own thing, and that is more or less down to judges. So from my view nothing really changes: it doesn't matter how many hoops you have to jump through if the panel you are arguing before is ideologically against or for you. Their preconceived opinions now just have new citations.

[politicallefty]

If this wasn't the result you were expecting, you haven't been paying attention. I do remember mentioning somewhere that trying to use the 14th Amendment is a huge mistake with this Court. This decision is probably worse than I expected. The fact that it was Alito opinion should tell you exactly where this Court is. There is no liberal cause that can be advanced through this Supreme Court by using the 14th Amendment. We're lucky enough as it is that Roberts and Kavanaugh did what they did with the Southern VRA districts.

If you want to see how bad things can get, look at the Thomas concurrence. He definitely is not the only Justice to believe in overturning Baker v. Carr and its progeny.