A lower federal court’s decision of a newly created congressional map in a crucial state before the 2024 election was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Washington Times, the court decided this week to overturn an appeals court decision that claimed South Carolina’s congressional district was racially gerrymandered by a margin of 6-3.
According to the site, the South Carolina NAACP, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and affiliated organisations, and voter Taiwan Scott challenged the map, and the verdict upheld it.
The high court was asked to review a decision made by a three-judge lower court panel that mandated South Carolina redrew its congressional district boundaries for 2022 by Republican state legislators. Following a nine-day trial, a federal judge declared that the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina was created in order to reduce the number of Black votes.
That decision was, however, postponed until after more legal action. Despite an increase in the Republican voter majority, the high court said that the ruling was unsupported by facts, pointing out that the percentage of Black voters in the district remained approximately 17%, as reported by the Times.
The judges came to the conclusion that as long as race is not the main determining factor when creating district lines, partisan gerrymandering does not violate the Constitution.
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.
A 3rd Circuit federal appeals court sided with Republicans in April over a lawsuit that targeted mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, a vital state. Regarding signature verification for mail-in voting, the Republican National Committee (RNC) won the case when a three-judge panel reversed a federal district court’s decision.
The issue concerned whether timely-mailed ballots with an erroneous date or no date at all under the voter’s signature should be counted, according to NPR.
Democrats argued that the votes need to be counted because the Materiality Provision found in Section (a)(2)(B) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies in this particular situation.
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.