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.

But the high court also said that the civil rights groups that challenged the maps could continue to pursue one part of their claim, a move that will likely delay the battle over the districts for months.

With state election deadlines approaching, a federal court in March had already ruled that South Carolina could use the contested map in this year’s election.

The decision was 6-3 along conservative-liberal lines.

  • cygnus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Some votes are worth 5/5, and others are worth 3/5.

    • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Well… if the area is ~45% dems and they are represented with 1 district out of 7, then they have ~14% representation.

      3/5 of 45% would be ~27% representation, but currently they have just over 3/10

        • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I didnt whoosh at all, im showing how the dems representation is HALF that of the 3/5 compromise for this given area

          • wjrii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 month ago

            For the non-Americans in the thread, it’s worth pointing out that the 3/5 compromise didn’t give slaves representation at 3/5 the normal level, it gave the slaveowners overrepresentation in congress based on counting every 5 slaves as 3 additional people for apportioning the House of Representatives by population. The southern states wanted full “representation”, while the northern states wanted zero, but the latter would have been better – allowing that abolition was not on the table – because it would have diluted southern influence in the lower house of Congress.