Advertisement

Supreme Court Drops Key Ruling

Advertisement

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.


In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower federal court’s ruling regarding a newly drawn congressional map in South Carolina for the upcoming 2024 election.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to reject an appeals court ruling that stated the state’s congressional map was racially gerrymandered.

This decision upheld the map that was challenged by voter Taiwan Scott and the South Carolina NAACP, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and allied groups.

Republican state lawmakers had sought the Supreme Court’s review after a three-judge district court panel ordered South Carolina to redraw its 2022 congressional district map.

A federal court had previously ruled that South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District had been drawn to diminish black votes, but this ruling was put on hold pending further litigation.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court disagreed with this ruling, stating that there was insufficient evidence to support a racial motive and that partisan gerrymandering does not violate the Constitution as long as race is not the primary factor when drawing district lines.

The ruling was supported by all of the court’s GOP-nominated justices, while the three Democratic appointees dissented.

They argued that the district lines should be redrawn based on the district court’s analysis, which found that race was a motive in redrawing District 1.

In another legal decision, a federal appeals court in the 3rd Circuit sided with Republicans in a lawsuit concerning mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania.

The three-judge panel overturned a federal district court order and ruled in favor of the Republican National Committee (RNC) regarding signature verification for mail-in voting.

The case hinged on whether mail-in ballots with an incorrect or missing date under the voter’s signature should be counted.

Advertisement

Democrats argued that the Materiality Provision outlined in Section (a)(2)(B) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied in this scenario, asserting that the ballots should be counted.

However, the RNC contended that enforcement of the date requirement for a ballot does not impinge on the right to vote because the Materiality Provision only prohibits immaterial requirements affecting the qualification and registration of a voter, not specific requirements for casting a ballot.

The RNC hailed the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling as a victory for election integrity and voter confidence in Pennsylvania.

Advertisement
Advertisement