The nation’s highest court just dealt Democrats a major blow in a ruling handed down on Wednesday that stops an effort in its tracks by the far-left to rig the outcome of elections in the party’s favor in a red state.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday that a lower court “clearly erred” in its evaluation of South Carolina’s congressional district map. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court declared that the circumstantial evidence presented fell “far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process.”

The case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, challenged the congressional map drawn by the Republican-controlled South Carolina legislature after the 2020 Census. The NAACP and a District 1 voter alleged that the map was a racial gerrymander intended to dilute the voting power of Black residents. The district is represented by Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican.

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling firmly rejected the claim, highlighting that the challengers failed to distinguish between race and politics—a crucial distinction due to the high correlation between race and party affiliation in South Carolina. “We start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” the Court stated.


Special Offer for Trump supporters: GET YOUR FREE DONALD COMMEMORATIVE $100 GOLD BAR NOW!

The decision carries significant political implications, especially for District 1, a contentious area. Mace, who won the district by nearly 14 points in 2022 following the redistricting, praised the Supreme Court’s ruling as a validation of the legislature’s efforts to strengthen the Republican tilt in her district. The majority high court opinion emphasized that the challengers’ evidence, including expert reports and statistical analyses, was deeply flawed.

The Court noted that the experts failed to consider traditional districting principles such as geographical constraints and core retention—important factors in legitimate redistricting efforts. “The report of Dr. Kosuke Imai made no effort to disentangle race from politics,” the opinion stated. Additionally, reports from other experts were criticized for utilizing inferior methods and data, further undermining the Democrats’ case.

The Supreme Court also chastised the lower court for not adequately considering the legislature’s partisan objectives, which were openly articulated during the redistricting process. The legislature had sought to bolster Republican dominance in District 1 while adhering to traditional districting principles, a strategic move deemed politically rather than racially motivated. “The legislature’s priority was clear: to create a stronger Republican tilt in District 1,” the Court noted. “This political objective can explain the district’s design without resorting to racial considerations.”

Justice Alito wrote, “The Challengers provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander, and their circumstantial evidence is very weak.” He further explained, “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.”


Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.