U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Blockbuster 2024 Election Ruling


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

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a lower federal court’s decision regarding a newly drawn congressional map in a significant state for the upcoming 2024 election.

The court voted 6-3 to reject an appeals court ruling that had claimed South Carolina’s congressional map was racially gerrymandered, as reported by the Washington Times.

The ruling supported the map that had been challenged by voter Taiwan Scott and the South Carolina NAACP, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and allied groups.

Republican state lawmakers had asked the high court to review a decision from a three-judge district court panel, which had instructed South Carolina to revise its 2022 congressional district map. Following a nine-day trial, a federal court had ruled that South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District had been drawn to weaken Black votes.

However, that ruling was temporarily suspended pending further legal action.


The Supreme Court stated that the ruling lacked evidence, highlighting that the Black voting age population in the district remained around 17% despite an increase in the Republican voter majority, as reported by the Times.

The justices concluded that partisan gerrymandering does not violate the Constitution as long as race is not the primary factor when drawing district lines.

“None of the facts on which the District Court relied to infer a racial motive is sufficient to support an inference that can overcome the presumption of legislative good faith,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the majority. All of the court’s GOP-nominated justices agreed.

The three Democratic appointees dissented, arguing that because the district court’s analysis was thorough and the three-judge panel unanimously found that race was a motive in redrawing District 1, the lines should have to be redrawn.


“The proper response to this case is not to throw up novel roadblocks enabling South Carolina to continue dividing citizens along racial lines. It is to respect the plausible — no, the more than plausible — findings of the District Court that the state engaged in race-based districting.  And to tell the state that it must redraw District 1, this time without targeting African American citizens,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan, who was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the dissent.

The district is represented by Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican.

In April, a federal appeals court with the 3rd Circuit sided with Republicans in a lawsuit targeting mail-in ballots in the crucial state of Pennsylvania. The three-judge panel overturned the order of a federal district court and ruled in favor of the Republican National Committee (RNC) regarding signature verification for mail-in voting.

According to NPR, the case revolved around whether mail-in ballots that were mailed on time but either had an incorrect date or no date at all under the voter’s signature should be counted.


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

The Materiality Provision prohibits denial of the right to vote because of an “error or omission” on paperwork “related to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting,” if the mistake is “not material in determining whether [an] individual is qualified” to vote.

The RNC responded by arguing 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 other, more specific requirements for casting a ballot, The Daily Wire reported.

Test your skills with this Quiz!