Attorney General Steve Marshall praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Thursday upholding South Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan against a constitutional challenge. Last year, a federal court held that the South Carolina Legislature racially gerrymandered the district lines on its 2021 congressional map.
In 2023, Alabama faced a legal battle over its own reapportionment plan, which resulted in a federally-appointed special master redrawing district racial compositions, now in play for the 2024 elections.
In support of South Carolina, Marshall filed a brief with the Supreme Court, noting that all parties agreed South Carolina’s Republican-majority Legislature had a partisan goal and partisan data with which to pursue it. The brief argued that the district court clearly erred by presuming the Legislature acted in bad faith to draw district lines based on race, not party.
The Supreme Court agreed with this argument in its decision.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that redistricting is difficult and is exclusively the responsibility of the States,” said Attorney General Marshall.
“Federal courts should not assume that Republican legislators are up to no good when they adopt a redistricting plan that does not give away political power to Democrats. Doing so invites partisans—in the words of today’s decision—’to seek to transform federal courts into weapons of political warfare that will deliver victories that eluded them in the political arena.’
“The Supreme Court’s decision should help cut down on such baseless and divisive accusations.”
Marshall’s brief specifically argued that the federal court clearly erred by presuming the legislature acted in bad faith to draw districting lines based on race, not party.
Attorneys general of fifteen States joined Marshall’s brief in support of South Carolina.
Austen Shipley is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on X @Shipley Austen
Don’t miss out! Subscribe today to have Alabama’s leading headlines delivered to your inbox.