The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — a case dealing with gerrymandering in that southern state.
While neighboring North Carolina is a swing state that President Joe Biden lost by only about 1 percent in 2020, South Carolina is much more of a red state. But South Carolina has its Democrat-friendly areas, and Democrats have been arguing that gerrymandering of the state's U.S. House districts gives Republicans an unfair advantage — including Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina).
The New Republic's Grace Segers, in a report published on October 12, explains, "Given Republicans' slim majority in the House of Representatives, any congressional seat that is up for grabs becomes a potential pickup for Democrats in their quest to retake the House. If the Supreme Court rules that the districts in question should be redrawn, the ramifications will echo far beyond South Carolina."
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?
At issue in Alexander v. South Carolina, according to Segers, is whether South Carolina's 1st Congressional District "was redrawn with primarily racial or partisan considerations in mind."
Mace's future in Congress, Segers reports, "may depend on the Supreme Court's decision" in Alexander. Michael B. Moore, a Democratic running for the U.S. House in that district, could, according to Segers, be the one who benefits if the High Court agrees with the NAACP's arguments in the case.
"Court precedent dictates that racial gerrymandering is illegal," Segers observes, "but redrawing a district to benefit a particular party is permissible…. In January, after a case was brought by the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP and a Black voter, three federal judges found that the gerrymander amounted to 'bleaching' the district and racially discriminated against Black voters."
Read The New Republic's full report at this link.
