Decision comes as blow to voting rights advocates and civil rights groups
Map removes thousands of Black voters from a district
Supreme Court approves controversial South Carolina congressional map
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court sided with South Carolina Republicans on Thursday, approving a congressional map that had been challenged for removing thousands of Black voters from a district. The court's conservative justices ruled 6-3 that civil rights groups had not sufficiently demonstrated that legislators were focused on race in drawing the contested Charleston-area district. While the Supreme Court was considering the case, the lower court that had invalidated the map said it could be used for this year's elections. The decision comes as a blow to voting rights advocates and civil rights groups who have argued that such maps dilute Black voting power. The ruling also highlights the ongoing debate over race and partisan considerations in redistricting, with Republicans arguing that the focus should be on partisan advantage, while Democrats emphasize the need to protect minority representation. The
The Supreme Court upheld a pro-Republican South Carolina congressional map challenged by civil rights groups.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that there was not enough evidence to show race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process.
Accuracy
]The Supreme Court upheld a pro-Republican South Carolina congressional map challenged by civil rights groups.[
South Carolina Republicans argued that the first congressional district map was designed for partisan advantage.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as the authors only report details that support their position and omit information that would contradict it. For example, they mention that a federal court had already ruled that South Carolina could use the contested map in this year's election but fail to mention that this decision was made due to state election deadlines approaching. Additionally, the authors quote Justice Alito stating 'The circumstantial evidence falls far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process,' but they do not provide any context or counterargument from those who disagree with this statement. Furthermore, there is a lack of disclosure of sources in the article.
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.
An alternative map can perform the critical task of distinguishing between racial and political motivations when race and partisanship are closely entwined.
Fallacies
(85%)
The authors commit an appeal to authority fallacy by quoting Steve Vladeck and Elena Kagan without providing their own analysis or reasoning. They also use inflammatory rhetoric by referring to the maps as 'bleaching' and a 'razor-thin majority' in the US House of Representatives, which is not relevant to the fallacy analysis.
]The dispute between the Democratic and Republican appointees in this case is a technical one, but one with massive legal consequences.[/
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Carolina to keep using a congressional map that was deemed an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by a lower court.
,The three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Columbia, S.C., ruled that the state’s First Congressional District violated the Constitution by making race the predominant factor and ‘bleaching of African American voters out of Charleston County portion of Congressional District No. 1.’.
,South Carolina’s First Congressional District had elected a Republican every year since 1980, except for 2018.
,The contested district, anchored in Charleston, had a close race in 2020 with less than one percentage point separating the candidates.
Accuracy
South Carolina’s First Congressional District had elected a Republican every year since 1980, except for 2018. After a close race in 2020, Republican lawmakers redrew the district to create a stronger Republican tilt.
The three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Columbia, S.C., ruled that the state’s First Congressional District violated the Constitution by making race the predominant factor and ‘bleaching of African American voters out of Charleston County portion of Congressional District No. 1.’
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The article by Adam Liptak contains some instances of inflammatory rhetoric and an appeal to authority, but no formal or dichotomous fallacies are present. The author uses the term 'bleaching of African American voters' to describe the actions taken by Republican lawmakers in redrawing a voting district, which could be considered inflammatory language. Additionally, the author quotes a lower court ruling that South Carolina's First Congressional District violated the Constitution by making race the predominant factor in its redistricting. This quote can be seen as an appeal to authority as it establishes credibility for the argument made in the article.
]The panel wrote, 'With the primary election procedures rapidly approaching, the appeal before the Supreme Court still pending and no remedial plan in place,'[/] [
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a challenge to an electoral map in South Carolina that moved 30,000 Black residents out of a congressional district.
South Carolina Republicans argued that the first congressional district map was designed for partisan advantage, a practice deemed not reviewable by federal courts in 2019 unlike map-drawing mainly motivated by race.
The new map increased the district’s share of white voters while reducing its share of Black voters, which the lower court referred to as ‘bleaching.’
Accuracy
South Carolina Republicans argued that the first congressional district map was designed for partisan advantage,
The new map increased the district’s share of white voters while reducing its share of Black voters, which the lower court referred to as ‘bleaching.’
Deception
(70%)
The article reports on a Supreme Court decision in favor of South Carolina Republicans regarding a voting map challenge. The author does not make any editorializing or pontification statements, and there is no emotional manipulation or sensationalism present. However, the article does engage in selective reporting by only mentioning the fact that the lower court ruled against the Republican-drawn map due to racial discrimination and that this decision could impact Democratic chances of winning control of the House. The author fails to mention that there was evidence presented in court showing how the map disproportionately affected Black voters, such as splitting up Black neighborhoods and reducing their influence. This omission is a lie by omission. Additionally, while the article mentions that the Supreme Court ruling reversed a lower court decision, it does not mention that this ruling could potentially allow for racial gerrymandering in other states. The author also uses the term 'bleaching' to describe how Black voters were moved out of one district and into another, which is a loaded term with negative connotations. This use of language can be seen as an attempt to manipulate the reader's emotions.
With the district’s previous boundaries in place, Republican Nancy Mace only narrowly defeated an incumbent Democrat in 2020 - by just over 1 percentage point, or 5,400 votes. With the redistricting, Mace won re-election in 2022 by 14 percentage points.
The lower court on March 28 decided that the disputed map can be used in this year’s congressional elections, a ruling that could undercut Democratic chances of winning control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting the Supreme Court's decision and Justice Alito's reasoning. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by referring to the map as a 'stark racial gerrymander' and 'bleaching'. However, these are not fallacies as they are descriptive of the situation.
]The lower court on March 28, because of the length of time it took the Supreme Court to act, decided that the disputed map can be used in this year’s congressional elections[.
A federal three-judge panel in January 2023 ruled that the map unlawfully sorted voters by race and deliberately split up Black neighborhoods in Charleston County in a ‘stark racial gerrymander.[', 'The boundaries of legislative districts across the country are redrawn to reflect population changes measured by the census conducted by the U.S. government every decade. In most states, redistricting is done by the party in power.[',
Following the 2020 census, South Carolina Republicans pushed a congressional map that kicked out more than 30,000 Black people from the state’s 1st Congressional District.
A three-judge panel in January 2023 evaluated evidence and witnesses and said the South Carolina map is an illegal racial gerrymander that pushed Black people out for predominantly racial reasons.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court sided with South Carolina Republicans in a racial gerrymandering case.
South Carolina Republicans pushed a congressional map that kicked out more than 30,000 Black people from the state’s 1st Congressional District.
Following the 2020 census, South Carolina Republicans redrew the boundaries of one of their districts to increase its Republican tilt and remove thousands of Black voters.
The Supreme Court ruled against a challenge to an electoral map in South Carolina that moved 30,000 Black residents out of a congressional district.
Deception
(50%)
The article contains editorializing and selective reporting. The author states 'The Supreme Court sided with South Carolina Republicans in a racial gerrymandering case that’s the Republican-majority court’s latest ruling curbing voting rights.' This is an opinionated statement that implies the Supreme Court's decision is detrimental to voting rights, but it does not provide any evidence or facts to support this claim. Additionally, the author selectively reports on certain aspects of the case, such as the number of Black people affected and Rep. Nancy Mace's wider margin of victory in 2022 with the new map in place. These details are used to support the author's opinion that Republicans did not want to chance another close one and manipulates readers into believing that this is a clear-cut case of racial gerrymandering.
The Supreme Court sided with South Carolina Republicans in a racial gerrymandering case that’s the Republican-majority court’s latest ruling curbing voting rights.
Republicans apparently didn’t want to chance another close one, and Mace won by a wider margin in 2022 with the new map in place.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(80%)
The author expresses a clear bias against the Supreme Court's Republican-majority and their ruling in favor of South Carolina Republicans in a racial gerrymandering case. The author also implies that the court is curbing voting rights and stacking the deck against challengers.
As expected, Alito’s ruling Thursday sided with Republicans, reversing the trial court in part and sending the case back for further proceedings.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the dissent that the majority ‘stacks the deck’ against the challengers.
Republicans apparently didn’t want to chance another close one, and Mace won by a wider margin in 2022 with the new map in place.
The Supreme Court sided with South Carolina Republicans in a racial gerrymandering case that's the Republican-majority court's latest ruling curbing voting rights.
Republicans had the goal of increasing the Republican tilt in the district and were able to prove this was their sole intent.
Approximately 30,000 Black voters were moved out of the district and placed into the district held by Democratic Rep. James Clyburn.
Accuracy
,The Supreme Court ruled that Republicans in South Carolina did not unlawfully consider race when drawing a congressional district in a way that removed thousands of Black voters.
,The court's ruling will make it easier for maps to be drawn that disfavor Black voters as long as map makers can show they are focusing on politics not race.
,Republicans had the goal of increasing the Republican tilt in the district and were able to prove this was their sole intent.
,South Carolina’s First Congressional District had elected a Republican every year since 1980, except for 2018. After a close race in 2020, Republican lawmakers redrew the district to create a stronger Republican tilt.
,The three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Columbia, S.C., ruled that South Carolina’s First Congressional District violated the Constitution by making race the predominant factor and ‘bleaching of African American voters out of Charleston County portion of Congressional District No. 1’.
,South Carolina Republicans argued that the first congressional district map was designed for partisan advantage, a practice deemed not reviewable by federal courts in 2019 unlike map-drawing mainly motivated by race.
,The new map increased the district’s share of white voters while reducing its share of Black voters, which the lower court referred to as ‘bleaching.’
Deception
(70%)
The article does not directly quote the author making any deceptive statements or employing emotional manipulation or sensationalism. However, the author does present selective reporting by focusing on the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Republicans and downplaying the dissenting opinion. The article also implies that Democrats are attempting to secure a more favorable map for electoral gain without providing any evidence to support this claim.
The court sided with Republican state officials who said their sole goal was to increase the Republican tilt in the district.
