The Supreme Court upheld a pro-Republican South Carolina congressional map Thursday, rejecting the argument raised by civil rights groups that lawmakers impermissibly used race as a proxy to bolster the GOP’s chances.

But the high court also said that the civil rights groups that challenged the maps could continue to pursue one part of their claim, a move that will likely delay the battle over the districts for months.

With state election deadlines approaching, a federal court in March had already ruled that South Carolina could use the contested map in this year’s election.

The decision was 6-3 along conservative-liberal lines.

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    176
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Gerrymandering is despicable, as are the conservative Justices that allow it. Look at this ridiculous map.

    It designates one Democratic district and six Republican districts.

    Current voter registration is 44.98% Democrat, and 44.62% Republican.

    This is exactly how Republicans maintain their control in the House.

    • wjrii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Even with the demotivation caused by gerrymandering, the 2020 only election broke about 5:4 in favor of Republicans. In the 2022 midterms, it was 2:1, but only 3:2 when you take out the two districts where the Republican was unopposed.

      A huge part of America’s problem right now comes from worshipping “Constitutional Democracy v2.0” when many other countries are running version 4 or 5.

      First Past the Post, no ranked choice voting, an imbalanced legislature, an Electoral College based on the numbers from that legislature, and contemplating no constitutional role for parties, all that has ossified the political culture. You get parties locking in temporary gains and pushing advantages to the hilt because after all there’s no parties in MUH CONSTITUTION. Even if we assume the remaining 9% of voters in SC are all embarrassed republicans, that’s still 5:4, like the presidential numbers tend to break. In what fucking world should that result in a 6:1 ratio in the house delegation?

      I get that maybe you have to consider letting some people be a bit overrepresented to get them to buy-in, that’s at the heart of many federal systems, but the degree and the manner in the US has become full-on toxic.

        • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Well… if the area is ~45% dems and they are represented with 1 district out of 7, then they have ~14% representation.

          3/5 of 45% would be ~27% representation, but currently they have just over 3/10

            • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I didnt whoosh at all, im showing how the dems representation is HALF that of the 3/5 compromise for this given area

              • wjrii@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                For the non-Americans in the thread, it’s worth pointing out that the 3/5 compromise didn’t give slaves representation at 3/5 the normal level, it gave the slaveowners overrepresentation in congress based on counting every 5 slaves as 3 additional people for apportioning the House of Representatives by population. The southern states wanted full “representation”, while the northern states wanted zero, but the latter would have been better – allowing that abolition was not on the table – because it would have diluted southern influence in the lower house of Congress.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The crux of this issue (and the Supreme Court identified this while more liberal leaning) is that it’s really fucking hard to measure gerrymandering-ness this is a pretty rational question to ask (though we should be bopping obviously gerrymandered districts down in the meantime). There’s no obvious natural way to divide a state into districts and while we do have measures we can use to highlight voter disenfranchisement I think it’s arguable that the closest we can get to a natural district map isn’t really optimized for enfranchisement either. We tend to want districts to compose entire regions (i.e. the Philadelphia metro area) even though those regions introduce disenfranchisement due to previous redlining and other racist policies.

      This problem is pretty hard to solve in an unimpeachable manner.

      • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The crux of this issue (and the Supreme Court identified this while more liberal leaning) is that it’s really fucking hard to measure gerrymandering-ness

        Yup, for anyone who hasn’t heard it, I’d highly recommend people listen to FiveThirtyEight’s Gerrymandering Project. While this isn’t to say that gerrymandering isn’t a problem, it’s not as simple as many people make it out to be. Especially with the high level of self-sorting which has been going on, packing lots of Democratic votes in a single district tends to happen, even without trying.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s true, but no matter the outcome, the total district representation should not deviate far from the state party distribution, as it does in this case.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Current voter registration is 44.98% Democrat, and 44.62% Republican.

      I’m not sure where they’re getting that information. SC does not have registration by party at all. It’s literally not information that the state collects.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The website states they get their voter registration data from L2 Data.

        Palmetto State voters don’t register by party, but L2 has you covered. Our party identification modeling in South Carolina is built from both primary ballot selections and academic modeling which has gone through extensive testing. As an early presidential primary state, voters in this state get a lot of attention.

        Know who they are by utilizing the detailed demographic and issue data in L2’s enhanced file. L2 data is trusted by campaigns, consultants and political organizations throughout South Carolina, and we’ve built a reputation in the state as having the most up-to-date and cleanest file available.

        https://l2-data.com/states/