Montgomery, AL – Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall expressed strong approval of the United States Supreme Court’s decision today, which upheld South Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan against a constitutional challenge. This ruling overturns a previous federal court decision that found the South Carolina legislature had racially gerrymandered the district lines in its 2021 congressional map.
Attorney General Marshall had actively supported South Carolina in this legal battle by filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court. The brief from Alabama highlighted that South Carolina’s Republican-majority legislature had pursued its redistricting with a partisan goal and utilized partisan data. It argued that the district court had erred in presuming the legislature acted in bad faith by drawing district lines based on race rather than party affiliation. The Supreme Court’s ruling today aligned with this argument.
“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.”
In support of South Carolina, attorneys general from fifteen other states joined Attorney General Marshall’s brief. The collective effort underscored a broader concern among several states regarding the federal judiciary’s role in state-led redistricting efforts.
The Supreme Court’s decision is seen by supporters as a reinforcement of state sovereignty in electoral matters, a principle often emphasized in the context of redistricting. Critics, however, may argue that this ruling could potentially overlook instances where racial considerations in redistricting need to be scrutinized to ensure fair representation.
The decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing national debate over the balance between state authority and federal oversight in the redistricting process, a debate that often reflects deeper partisan divides in the United States.
