COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina House Republican leaders have agreed to adjust the boundaries of the controversial and contested state House map lawmakers adopted in December and will use in the 2022 election cycle, according to new court filings.
The map changes come as the result of a settlement reached in a federal lawsuit brought last October on behalf of the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP that alleged the map intentionally discriminated against Black voters and diluted their voting power.
The suit challenged 29 of the 124 recently adopted state House districts, as well as the redrawn 1st, 2nd and 5th congressional districts. Republicans have denied any racial motivations factored into their map designs.
According to a Thursday court filing, the parties last month agreed to change the district lines in three parts of the state House map — Richland/Kershaw, Orangeburg and Dillon/Horry counties. The changes will affect the boundaries of roughly a dozen districts in those areas and make material changes to a handful of districts, said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Somil Trivedi, one of many attorneys representing the South Carolina NAACP.
"All the parties came to the table and sort of put their preferences on the table and we found a way to address the areas of most concern from each side," he said. "It was a good faith process of negotiation. We really appreciate the government coming to the table and sharing our concerns and addressing them in a way that we feel really good about it."
The South Carolina NAACP entered a binding agreement with House Republicans Thursday to drop their lawsuit challenging the map's constitutionality in exchange for changes to the map.
Under the agreement, House Republicans will amend an existing bill, H. 1024, to include the redrawn map and the Senate will pass the amended bill and deliver it to Gov. Henry McMaster for his signature by May 12, the last day of the legislative session. McMaster then will have until May 17 to sign and enact the bill.
If McMaster signs the bill into law, the redrawn House map would go into effect in 2024.
The ACLU, which provided legal counsel to the South Carolina NAACP as part of the suit, announced the agreement Thursday, calling it a "victory for voting rights" that would adjust district lines in some of the most historically significant areas of the state for Black voters.
"Today marks a historical occasion: our political leadership has listened to our grievances and is working to create a more equitable political landscape," South Carolina NAACP President Brenda Murphy said in a statement. "We have successfully petitioned our government for increased political access, and now Black communities in Richland/Kershaw, Orangeburg, and Dillon/Horry will have a greater chance of electing their preferred candidates."
The agreed upon changes were not intended to have a partisan political outcome and are unlikely to flip seats in favor of Democrats, Trivedi said.
"This was not a political gerrymandering case," he explained. "It was a racial gerrymandering case, so our aim was to reverse what we saw as the dilution of Black voting power for Black people to elect the candidate of their choice. It doesn't matter which party."
Attorney Mark Moore, who is representing the South Carolina House in the lawsuit, called the settlement agreement "reasonable for voters" and said it should instill confidence in the electoral process.
"Certainty in our voting process is one of the greatest virtues we have in South Carolina — and trust in that process is of crucial importance to our people," Moore said. "With this settlement, we will end costly litigation with a decision that is reasonable for voters and allows voters to have confidence in the electoral process."
Neither the governor's office nor House or Senate leadership immediately responded to requests for comment on the agreement.
The groups are poised to go to trial May 16 if the agreement ends up falling through due to a lack of legislative action.
The parties also are slated for trial on the contested U.S. congressional map this fall.
Any trial on the maps would be heard by a three-judge panel of Margaret Seymour, Toby Heytens and Richard Gergel.
Michelle Childs had been the presiding judge in the case until last month when she withdrew, citing a possible scheduling conflict. Childs, a federal appeals court nominee who had been under consideration to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, asked April 5 that the case be reassigned because the trial dates might conflict with her confirmation hearing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
_____
