老澳门开奖结果

WASHINGTON 鈥� This morning, oral arguments concluded in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the U.S. Supreme Court case that will determine the fate of South Carolina鈥檚 congressional map. Shortly after the map was enacted, plaintiffs challenged it as a racial gerrymander designed with a discriminatory purpose under the 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. was filed on behalf of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and Taiwan Scott, a Hilton Head resident and member of the Gullah-Geechee community. They are represented by the (LDF), 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina, and Arnold & Porter.

In January, after an eight-day trial, a unanimous three-judge panel ordered South Carolina to redraw its 2022 enacted congressional map after finding that the South Carolina General Assembly targeted Black voters by removing more than 30,000 Black Charlestonians out of Congressional District 1 based on their race and to diminish their voting power.

Today, LDF Senior Counsel Leah Aden argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of Black South Carolina voters, explaining why the Court should affirm the panel鈥檚 finding of 鈥渟tark racial gerrymandering.鈥�

鈥淭hey [legislators] were consistently looking at race because they had an expectation that race was a predictor of how political parties would perform,鈥� said Aden.

鈥淚n light of the total record, it reflects that there was a racial target, it reflects that there was a significant sorting of Black people, it reflects unrebutted expert evidence of race rather than party explaining the assignment of voters, it reflects a disregard of traditional redistricting principles 鈥� and all of that evidence in total is more than plausible, in the record, for using race as a means to harm individual plaintiffs,鈥� Aden added.

Following oral arguments, plaintiffs held a press conference where they highlighted what鈥檚 at stake in this critical voting rights case.

Brenda Murphy, president of NAACP South Carolina State Conference and plaintiff: 鈥淏lack voters in South Carolina deserve to fully and fairly participate in a democratic process where we are represented and our communities are accounted for. It is crucial that every voter is fairly represented in our democracy, and we hope the Court rules in favor of this fundamental truth.鈥�

Taiwan Scott, plaintiff: 鈥淔or too long, our state鈥檚 electoral process has silenced us and severely weakened the ability of our communities to be fully and fairly represented and accounted for. South Carolina鈥檚 congressional map is the latest instance in our state鈥檚 long, painful history of racial discrimination that must be remedied.鈥�

Leah Aden, LDF鈥檚 senior counsel: 鈥淲e are confident that after a full review of the record, the Supreme Court will agree with the panel鈥檚 ruling because the law and facts are on plaintiffs鈥� side. South Carolina鈥檚 Congressional District 1, anchored in Charleston County, is a blatant example of racially discriminatory redistricting. We will not back down from the fight for the constitutional rights and dignity of Black South Carolinian voters.鈥�

Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Voting Rights Project: 鈥淭oday鈥檚 argument confirmed what we鈥檝e long known: South Carolina鈥檚 Legislature brazenly moved Black voters out of Congressional District 1 for the sake of partisan advantage. This was a textbook racial gerrymander, as the lower court found, and we are confident the Supreme Court will agree.鈥�

Allen Chaney, 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina legal director: 鈥淲in or lose, it cannot be overlooked that today the South Carolina legislature argued, yet again, that its conscious goal was to cheat South Carolina voters out of a fair and representative congressional map. Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.鈥�

John A. Freedman, Arnold & Porter鈥檚 senior pro bono counsel: 鈥淎s today鈥檚 argument confirmed, the rights of Charlestonians and all South Carolinians to have their congressional districts drawn in a legal, fair, and non-discriminatory manner were unquestionably violated in this case. We are proud to stand with our co-counsel and clients to vindicate these important principles.鈥�

This case is part of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.