2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: South Carolina

[politicallefty]

Please temper your expectations and anticipate SCOTUS to stay the ruling on appeal.

The rulings in AL and LA were stayed on the Purcell principle. This is a different scenario as we are over a year from the next elections.

He's not wrong. SCOTUS will take and squash this decision.

[Tekken_Guy]

Please temper your expectations and anticipate SCOTUS to stay the ruling on appeal.

The rulings in AL and LA were stayed on the Purcell principle. This is a different scenario as we are over a year from the next elections.

He's not wrong. SCOTUS will take and squash this decision.

How do you know?

[BenjiG98]

As expected, the racial gerrymander ruling has been appealed to SCOTUS.

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1619105371108577280?s=20

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As expected, the racial gerrymander ruling has been appealed to SCOTUS.

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1619105371108577280?s=20

What is the map to the right?

[ProgressiveModerate]

As expected, the racial gerrymander ruling has been appealed to SCOTUS.

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1619105371108577280?s=20

What is the map to the right?

Fair alternative; in the Alabama and Louisiana cases they presented alternative maps as well to just show what they're trying to achieve is *possible*.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/186740d8-dade-4937-a1c3-4be59eae735f
I think this is what guess that map was.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Everyone knows *why* SC-01 was redrawn. Whether the SCOTUS rules the correct way remains to be seen. Essentially, after Cunningham won in 2018, they moved the more racially diverse areas into Clyburn's district and left SC-01 with the Charleston suburbs and resort towns that are more Republican/retirees.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Everyone knows *why* SC-01 was redrawn. Whether the SCOTUS rules the correct way remains to be seen. Essentially, after Cunningham won in 2018, they moved the more racially diverse areas into Clyburn's district and left SC-01 with the Charleston suburbs and resort towns that are more Republican/retirees.

It also took in the entirety of Berkeley county which is an odd move. It kind of reminds me of the 43rd State Senate district how it snakes along the sea islands

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Everyone knows *why* SC-01 was redrawn. Whether the SCOTUS rules the correct way remains to be seen. Essentially, after Cunningham won in 2018, they moved the more racially diverse areas into Clyburn's district and left SC-01 with the Charleston suburbs and resort towns that are more Republican/retirees.

It also took in the entirety of Berkeley county which is an odd move. It kind of reminds me of the 43rd State Senate district how it snakes along the sea islands

Berkely County is 87% white and mostly rural. It's a heavily Republican County. That's why they moved the rest of the Charleston peninsula and West Ashley suburbs out of SC-01 and replaced it with Berkeley County.

The Republicans in the legislature did not want a repeat of what happened in 2018.

[Tekken_Guy]

Everyone knows *why* SC-01 was redrawn. Whether the SCOTUS rules the correct way remains to be seen. Essentially, after Cunningham won in 2018, they moved the more racially diverse areas into Clyburn's district and left SC-01 with the Charleston suburbs and resort towns that are more Republican/retirees.

It also took in the entirety of Berkeley county which is an odd move. It kind of reminds me of the 43rd State Senate district how it snakes along the sea islands

Berkely County is 87% white and mostly rural. It's a heavily Republican County. That's why they moved the rest of the Charleston peninsula and West Ashley suburbs out of SC-01 and replaced it with Berkeley County.

The Republicans in the legislature did not want a repeat of what happened in 2018.

The seat shifted 2.5 points to the right. That’s not a lot and it’s not hard to see the seat become competitive again.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Everyone knows *why* SC-01 was redrawn. Whether the SCOTUS rules the correct way remains to be seen. Essentially, after Cunningham won in 2018, they moved the more racially diverse areas into Clyburn's district and left SC-01 with the Charleston suburbs and resort towns that are more Republican/retirees.

It also took in the entirety of Berkeley county which is an odd move. It kind of reminds me of the 43rd State Senate district how it snakes along the sea islands

Berkely County is 87% white and mostly rural. It's a heavily Republican County. That's why they moved the rest of the Charleston peninsula and West Ashley suburbs out of SC-01 and replaced it with Berkeley County.

The Republicans in the legislature did not want a repeat of what happened in 2018.

The seat shifted 2.5 points to the right. That’s not a lot and it’s not hard to see the seat become competitive again.

Fair, but it's pretty much impossible to make SC-01 much redder as it's geographically trapped. It's the same way seats like IL-17 or IL-13 could theoretically fall, but they're clearly gerrymandered to provide Democrats a seat where they otherwise wouldn't have one.

[Tekken_Guy]

Everyone knows *why* SC-01 was redrawn. Whether the SCOTUS rules the correct way remains to be seen. Essentially, after Cunningham won in 2018, they moved the more racially diverse areas into Clyburn's district and left SC-01 with the Charleston suburbs and resort towns that are more Republican/retirees.

It also took in the entirety of Berkeley county which is an odd move. It kind of reminds me of the 43rd State Senate district how it snakes along the sea islands

Berkely County is 87% white and mostly rural. It's a heavily Republican County. That's why they moved the rest of the Charleston peninsula and West Ashley suburbs out of SC-01 and replaced it with Berkeley County.

The Republicans in the legislature did not want a repeat of what happened in 2018.

The seat shifted 2.5 points to the right. That’s not a lot and it’s not hard to see the seat become competitive again.

Fair, but it's pretty much impossible to make SC-01 much redder as it's geographically trapped. It's the same way seats like IL-17 or IL-13 could theoretically fall, but they're clearly gerrymandered to provide Democrats a seat where they otherwise wouldn't have one.

That is true. But a lot of people are acting as if it went from a swing seat to a Solid R seat in redistricting.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Everyone knows *why* SC-01 was redrawn. Whether the SCOTUS rules the correct way remains to be seen. Essentially, after Cunningham won in 2018, they moved the more racially diverse areas into Clyburn's district and left SC-01 with the Charleston suburbs and resort towns that are more Republican/retirees.

It also took in the entirety of Berkeley county which is an odd move. It kind of reminds me of the 43rd State Senate district how it snakes along the sea islands

Berkely County is 87% white and mostly rural. It's a heavily Republican County. That's why they moved the rest of the Charleston peninsula and West Ashley suburbs out of SC-01 and replaced it with Berkeley County.

The Republicans in the legislature did not want a repeat of what happened in 2018.

I know why they did it it’s just a strange move for all the reasons you said. While it does technically Charleston is in it, the northern half of it is closer to Orangeburg or St. George then Mount Pleasant and Charleston.

Even if this challenge fails I doubt this seat will last the decade.

[Oryxslayer]

14th Amendment Racial gerrymandering case scheduled to be before the Supreme Court October 11.

[Spectator]

Funny how the discourse from January on this was that SCOTUS would let the gerrymander stay. Highly doubt it now based on the AL/LA cases

[politicallefty]

It's one thing to get a victory on statutory interpretation. It's quite another to get one based on the 14th Amendment. They're two completely different things.

[Skill and Chance]

It's one thing to get a victory on statutory interpretation. It's quite another to get one based on the 14th Amendment. They're two completely different things.

This.

1. A 14th Amendment ruling would presumably lock this practice in for all time.  Kavanaugh seems extremely unlikely to do this.  He really emphasized the idea that VRA districts are simply a remedial measure within the power of congress in his Milligan concurrence and that they might reasonably have an expiration date.

2.  The aesthetics of what you have to do with the map to get a 2nd black VRA district in SC just look fundamentally fishier and could make it distinguishable from AL and LA on a purely pragmatic level. 

[Oryxslayer]

It's one thing to get a victory on statutory interpretation. It's quite another to get one based on the 14th Amendment. They're two completely different things.

14th Amendment racial gerrymandering claims going before this court will be in interesting debate, because on paper they are arguably exactly what they want from redistricting. The basis of such a claim is "improper use of race during the redistricting process," after accounting for VRA seats and the like. This historically has meant all groups, including Whites, can bring suits over improper use.

While the name of the claim is racial gerrymandering, it might better be called gerrymandering by race. Proof of such a claim begins with the map as passed, and using it as evidence when compared to prior maps or legally defined borders like counties or cities.  How much did a district change, to what extent, and is there a clear racial angle. To this end, Whites arguably have better success at claims of racial gerrymandering than minority groups. For example, the three big minority congressional racial gerrymandering claims so far are: SC with removal of AA voters from SC-01 into a already performing African American district, GA with GA-06 being a 99.99% ideal district by population after the 2020 census but was radically redrawn and bleached, and AR-02 with targeted cracking of Little Rock and Pulaski County.

I don't know where people got the idea that the suit against SC desires the state to draw a second 50% BVAP seat, that is nowhere in their complaint and it isn't the plaintiffs purpose. IMO, if the geography worked out like in AL, it would be a Section 2 VRA claim not a argument about how voters were sorted based on race when adjacent to SC-06. Arguably the desired relief is a restoration of multiracial community unity as much as possible, at least in relation to the coast, Richland, and Sumter.

By contrast, during the 90s and 00s White groups more or less pointed at the shape of the lines and got maps undone. Though the Dems of those times drew abhorrent minority districts specifically because said districts were surrounded by GOP whites, the areas where there were Dem whites didn't get said access seats initially unless forced.

The relief for said claims is also a lot more nebulous. In the three claims above brought by minority voters, the desired relief is obvious and that is on purpose. Too much leeway in this matter and the implemented outcome will achieve only the narrow rather than wider purpose. The desired relief is also often times not a majority-minority seat, like Section 2 VRA claims.

So in theory racial gerrymandering claims start race-blind, and seek to correct for racially motivated practices, which aligns with the courts conservative idealists. In practice though the GOP fully controls the south right now where such claims are most viable, so it is minorities bring them. I am only aware of a failed legislative GOP claim in downstate Illinois and a failing one in Washington State this decade brought by whites. Obviously such tools would be desirable for Whites if things start spinning out of control in Texas and Georgia. But the court once again will find itself deciding between something that at the present benefits liberals, but in the past and future would facilitate their race-blind ideal.

[politicallefty]

I absolutely get what you're saying. I just don't see it flying with this Court. Milligan happened in the context of Alabama, one of the most racially polarized states in the country. The only real alternative to that decision would be to render Section 2 of the VRA a nullity. If the Court struck down Section 2, the Democratic Party would easily declare open warfare on the Supreme Court.

(Btw, please don't mistake my brevity for not reading or considering everything you said. I just cannot see this Court striking down Congressional maps on 14th Amendment grounds. Not even Wesberry was based on the 14th Amendment.)

[Oryxslayer]

I absolutely get what you're saying. I just don't see it flying with this Court. Milligan happened in the context of Alabama, one of the most racially polarized states in the country. The only real alternative to that decision would be to render Section 2 of the VRA a nullity. If the Court struck down Section 2, the Democratic Party would easily declare open warfare on the Supreme Court.

(Btw, please don't mistake my brevity for not reading or considering everything you said. I just cannot see this Court striking down Congressional maps on 14th Amendment grounds. Not even Wesberry was based on the 14th Amendment.)

All I'm saying is that it's going to be interesting - someone in an Amicus brief is going to bring up racial blindness in redistricting outside of section 2 VRA and College Admissions.


Also, I'm fairly confident Cooper v. Harris (NC 2016) was the last time Racial Gerrymandering went up to the court and that produced weird coalitions - though the  plaintiffs made the mistake of desiring expansive rather than specific remedies so the map went from 10-3 to...10-3. Quote from Wikipedia:

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of Harris, voting 5–3 to affirm the judgment of the district court. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, issued an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part, arguing that District 12 was constitutional. Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the case, which was argued before he was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

[Tekken_Guy]

So will the map survive or not?

[Roll Roons]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1711454918144348457

How long would it take for SCOTUS to make a decision?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1711454918144348457

How long would it take for SCOTUS to make a decision?

LETS GO!!!

[politicallefty]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1711454918144348457

How long would it take for SCOTUS to make a decision?

The article says that the state wants a decision by January. Obviously, SCOTUS can make a decision whenever it wants. Beyond that, definitely by the end of June, as is customary for cases heard through the normal process.

[ProgressiveModerate]

So is this case based on the 14th Amendment Equal Protection rather than VRA? This case is probably somewhat of a tossup in front of SCOTUS; we saw a majority to uphold Milligan but 14th Amendment Redistricting cases tend to be a bit more abstract which a Conservative learning Court may not like, plus in SC it's harder to draw 2 black districts (hence why VRA doesn't apply).