South Carolina was involved in one major challenge to its congressional and state legislative maps adopted after the 2010 census. A federal trial court declined to invalidate the maps despite the plaintiff’s claims of racial gerrymandering and Voting Rights Act (VRA) violations. Interestingly, the trial court’s decision came shortly before the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County, which drastically changed how racial considerations are viewed by courts under Section 5 of the VRA.
Backus v. South Carolina, No. 3:11-cv-3120 (D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2012), aff’d, No. 11-1404 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2012) (mem.)
Registered voters in South Carolina challenged the General Assembly’s state and congressional redistricting plans in federal court. They argued that the maps as drawn in the 2010 cycle denied African-American voters equal protection under the law, violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs argued that the new plans unnecessarily packed African-American voters into specific districts.
The three-judge federal district court rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge, stating that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the General Assembly acted with a discriminatory purpose. In addition, the plaintiffs failed to prove a discriminatory effect. The plaintiffs appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. The court summarily affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The plaintiffs moved the trial court for relief from the dismissal due to the holding in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96, 570 U.S. 529 (June 25, 2013). Once again, the plaintiffs were denied by the three-judge federal district court, Order Denying Motion for Relief, (Mar. 10, 2014), and the U.S. Supreme Court. No. 13-1461 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014) (appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction) (mem.).
2010 Redistricting Case Summaries, NCSL (Petter Watson)
Note: The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder eliminated the requirement for South Carolina (and other covered states) to preclear redistricting maps and other election changes with the Dept. of Justice before implementing them. The Backus plaintiffs, after the trial court decided in favor of South Carolina, implored the court to reconsider explaining:
The State admitted to using race, [to draw districts] but maintained that this extensive use of race was justified and required by Section 5. This Court accepted that argument as the basis for its Order and Judgment. Shelby County holds that Section 5 can no longer justify imposition of that extraordinary remedy. Since this Court’s decision turned on the understanding that the legislature’s racial decision-making was necessary in order to comply with Section 5, it should be set aside and reexamined in light of Shelby County.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief in light of the Shelby Co. v. Holder (Aug 29 2013)
Plaintiff’s Motion in Lieu of the Shelby County Decision
Federal District Court’s Opinion and Order Denying the Motion
