CASE SUMMARY
On October 12, 2021, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and an African-American South Carolinian voter filed a federal lawsuit against South Carolina's Governor, the members of the South Carolina State Election Commission, and various state legislative leaders, challenging the state's current congressional and legislative redistricting maps and the state's handling of their redistricting process thus far as violating the U.S. Constitution. First, the plaintiffs allege that due to population shifts throughout the last decade, the state's current congressional and legislative redistricting plans have now become malapportioned in violation of the one person, one vote constitutional principle under Article I, Section 2 and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that continued use of these districts will negatively impact the plaintiffs' 1st and 14th Amendment rights to participate equally in the political process. Next, the plaintiffs assert that the Legislature's decision to delay the commencement of their redistricting process until early 2022 harms the plaintiffs' Freedom of Association as protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments because the "unduly prolonged uncertainty" about new district boundaries will impede candidates' ability to effective run for office in addition to restricting the ability of voters to assess candidate positions and qualifications, advocate for their preferred candidates, and associate with like-minded voters. They also assert the State's shortened time period for redistricting effectively precludes sufficient time for public input, judicial review, or for the enactment of maps that comply with federal law sufficiently in advance of the elections. The plaintiffs are seeking a judicial declaration that South Carolina's current congressional and legislative plans are unconstitutional, an injunction barring the defendants from implementing or utilizing the old plans in any future elections, an order establishing a schedule by which the State, and if they fail, the court, must enact new, lawful congressional and legislative redistricting plans, and an order staying the primary candidate filing and qualification deadlines pending the implementation of lawful new districts.
On November 12, 2021, the court issued an opinion and order granting in part the House Defendants' motion to stay the case. Finding that the plaintiffs' claims were not yet ripe because it remained speculative as to whether the redistricting process would be completed prior to the January 2022 regular session, the court stayed the case until January 18, 2022, in order to give the Legislature an opportunity to enact new redistricting maps. The state enacted a state House and state Senate redistricting plan on December 10, 2021.
On December 23, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two claims challenging the enacted state House plan as unconstitutional. First, plaintiffs assert that the state House plan is a racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because race was the predominant factor in the creation of numerous state House districts, and this predominant use of race was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Second, they assert the challenged districts were drawn with a racially discriminatory intent against Black voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments. The plaintiffs are asking that in addition to their originally requested relief, the court issue a judicial declaration that the challenged state House districts are unconstitutional, a temporary and permanent injunction barring the defendants from using the plan in any future elections, and for the court to order new redistricting plans in the event the defendants fail to adopt new, lawful plans by February 15, 2022.
On February 10, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding two more claims against the state's enacted congressional plan. First, they allege Congressional Districts 1, 2 and 5 are racial gerrymanders in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because race was the predominant consideration in their creation. Second, they allege the congressional redistricting plan was enacted with an intent to discriminate against Black voters in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments.
On May 5, 2022, the parties signed a settlement agreement to resolve the plaintiffs' state House districts claims. The agreement stipulates that in exchange for the plaintiffs' amending of their complaint to drop the state House claims, the state legislature will pass the agreed upon settlement map by May 12, 2022, which will not take effect until the 2024 elections. The settlement does not impact or relate to the plaintiffs' congressional districts challenges, which remain pending.
CASE LIBRARY
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division - No. 3:21-cv-3302 [formerly S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. McMaster]
- Complaint - 10/12/21
- Plaintiffs' Answers to Local Rule 26.01 Interrogatories - 10/12/21
- Motion and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Request for a Three-Judge Panel - 10/15/21
- Response and Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Three-Judge Panel - 10/19/21
- Governor McMaster's Responses to Local Rule 26.01 Interrogatories - 10/20/21
- Reply in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Request for a Three-Judge Panel - 10/21/21
- Response and Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Three-Judge Court - 10/28/21
- Senate Defendants Harvey Peeler and Luke A. Rankin's Answers to Local Rule 26.01 Interrogatories - 10/28/21
- Governor McMaster's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for a Three-Judge Panel - 10/28/21
- Motion to Stay and Memorandum in Support - 11/4/21
- Reply in Opposition to House Defendants' and Governor's Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for a Three-Judge Panel - 11/4/21
- Letter Extending Time to Respond - 11/9/21
- Senate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Case - 11/9/21
- Senate Defendants' Response to House Defendants' Motion to Stay - 11/9/21
- Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction - 11/9/21
- Response in Opposition to House Defendants' Motion to Stay - 11/9/21
- Governor McMaster's Motion to Dismiss - 11/9/21
- Governor McMaster's Response to Motion to Stay - 11/9/21
- Order and Opinion - 11/12/21
- Answer - 11/29/21
- State Election Commission Defendants' Local Rule 26.01 Interrogatory Answers - 11/29/21
- Order - 12/9/21
- Letter from Plaintiffs Regarding Forthcoming Amended Complaint and Pending Deadlines - 12/15/21
- Order Designating Three-Judge Court - 12/16/21
- Joint Motion for an Emergency Hearing Regarding Scheduling - 12/17/21
- House and Senate Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time - 12/21/21
- First Amended Complaint - 12/23/21
- Answer to First Amended Complaint - 1/6/22
- Senate Defendants' Answer to First Amended Complaint - 1/6/22
- Motion to Disqualify the Honorable Richard M. Gergel by Defendants James H. Lucas, Chris Murphy, and Wallace H. Jordan - 1/6/22
- Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by House Defendants - 1/6/22
- Answer to Amended Complaint by House Defendants - 1/6/22
- Governor McMaster's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - 1/6/22
- Order - 1/10/22
- Scheduling Order - 1/12/22
- Governor McMaster's Answer to Amended Complaint - 1/17/22
- Motion for Reconsideration and Renewed Motion to Disqualify the Honorable Richard M. Gergel - 1/18/22
- Order - 1/19/22
- Joint Rule 26(f) Report - 1/20/22
- Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Extension of Time and Notice of Intent to File a Second Amended Complaint - 1/26/22
- Joint Stipulation as to Authenticity of Documents - 2/1/22
- Expert Disclosure by Defendants James H. Lucas, Chris Murphy, and Wallace H. Jordan - 2/1/22
- Governor McMaster's Motion for Summary Judgment - 2/1/22
- Joint Stipulation - 2/2/22
- Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Information Requested From House Defendants - 2/2/22
- Joint Motion for Entry of Confidentiality Order - 2/3/22
- Consent Confidentiality Order - 2/3/22
- Plaintiffs' Response to House Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - 2/3/22
- Plaintiffs' Response to Governor McMaster's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - 2/3/22
- Consent Motion to Amend Scheduling Order - 2/4/22
- Governor McMaster's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss - 2/4/22
- First Amended Scheduling Order - 2/4/22
- Senate Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Information Requested From House Defendants - 2/4/22
- Response to Motion to Compel by Defendants James H. Lucas, Chris Murphy, and Wallace H. Jordan - 2/4/22
- Plaintiffs' Reply in Response to House and Senate Defendants' Responses in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Information From House Defendants - 2/7/22
- Order Appointing Technical Advisor - 2/8/22
- Plaintiffs' Response to Governor McMaster's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - 2/8/22
- House Defendants' Initial Privilege Log - 2/9/22
- Governor McMaster's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment - 2/10/22
- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure by Defendants James H. Lucas, Chris Murphy, and Wallace H. Jordan - 2/10/22
- Expert Disclosure by Plaintiffs - 2/10/22
- House Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint - 2/10/22
- Order and Opinion Granting Motion to Amend - 2/10/22
- Order and Opinion - 2/10/22
- Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief - 2/10/22
- Plaintiffs' Objections to House Defendants' Privilege Log - 2/11/22
- Motion to Compel Discovery by Defendants James H. Lucas, Chris Murphy, and Wallace H. Jordan - 2/13/22
- House Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and All Predecessor Complaints With Respect to the Challenged House Districts and Memorandum in Support - 2/14/22
- House Defendants' Motion to Immediately Stay Court Order on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel - 2/14/22
- Order and Opinion - 2/14/22
- Letter to Court from Plaintiffs, State House Defendants, and State Senate Defendants - 2/15/22
- Joint Request to Extend Negotiation Until March 4, 2022 and to Appoint U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker as Mediator - 2/18/22
- Joint Report Regarding Congressional Plan Litigation - 2/19/22
- Mediation Order - 2/23/22
- Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint - 2/24/22
- Senate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts Three and Four of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint - 2/24/22
- Senate Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint - 2/24/22
- Second Amended Scheduling Order - 2/25/22
- Answer to Second Amended Complaint by House Defendants James H. Lucas, et al. - 2/28/22
- Parties' Joint Supplemental Rule 26(f) Report - 2/28/22
- Joint Status Report - 3/7/22
- Second Amended Scheduling Order (House Plan) - 3/8/22
- Joint Status Report With Respect to the House Defendants' Motion to Compel - 3/17/22
- Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to House Defendants' Motion to Compel - 3/21/22
- Joint Status Report With Respect to the House Defendants' Subpoenas to the ACLU and NAACP LDF - 3/21/22
- Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the February 10, 2022 Order and for In Camera Review - 3/23/22
- Joint Stipulation - 3/23/22
- Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Senate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts Three and Four of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint - 3/24/22
- Reply in Further Support of House Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery - 3/25/22
- House Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce February 10, 2022 Order and for an In Camera Review of Privilege Log Materials - 3/28/22
- Senate Defendants' Consent Motion for an Extension to File a Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - 3/29/22
- Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time - 3/29/22
- Joint Consent Motion for an Extension of Expert Deadlines for Expert Disclosures - 4/4/22
- Reply in Support of Senate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts Three and Four of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint - 4/5/22
- Third Amended Scheduling Order - 4/5/22
- House Defendants' Letter to the Court - 4/8/22
- Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing in Response to House Defendants' Amended Privilege Log - 4/11/22
- Order Designating Replacement Judge - 4/12/22
- Order - 4/13/22
- Expert Disclosure by Plaintiffs (Congressional Map) - 4/14/22
- Letter from House Defendants Regarding Amended Privilege Log - 4/15/22
- Consent Motion for Attorneys'-Eyes-Only Protective Order - 4/15/22
- Letter from Plaintiffs Regarding In Camera Review - 4/15/22
- Attorneys' Eyes Only Order - 4/18/22
- Senate Defendants' Expert Disclosure (Congressional Plan) - 4/19/22
- Letter Brief of House Defendants Concerning the Court's Authority to Enter a Consent Decree - 4/22/22
- Letter from Plaintiffs Regarding the Court's Authority to Enforce Settlement by Consent Decree - 4/22/22
- Joint Notice of Revised Proposed Agreement to Resolve Plaintiff's Claims Regarding Challenged State House Districts - 4/26/22
- House Defendants' Letter to the Court Regarding Consent to Proposed Settlement - 4/26/22
- Election Defendants' Notice of Consent - 4/26/22
- Order - 4/26/22
- Order - 4/27/22
- Joint Consent Motion for an Extension of Deadline for Rebuttal Expert Disclosures - 4/29/22
- Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding Ongoing Noncompliance With the Court's Discovery Orders - 4/29/22
- Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Defendants James H. Lucas, et al. - 4/29/22
- Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production and for Further Relief - 4/29/22
- House Defendants' Letter to the Court - 5/2/22
- Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production by Defendants James H. Lucas, et al. - 5/2/22
- Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding "Ongoing Noncompliance With the Court's Discovery Orders" - 5/2/22
- Plaintiffs' Opposition to House Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents - 5/2/22
- Notice to Panel Regarding House Defendants' Supplemental Discovery Responses - 5/3/22
- Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel Production by Defendants James H. Lucas, et al. - 5/3/22
- Signed Settlement Agreement With Respect to State House Claims - 5/5/22
- Senate Defendants' and House Defendants' Rebuttal Expert Disclosure (Congressional Plan) - 5/5/22
- Expert Rebuttal Disclosures by Plaintiffs (Congressional Map) - 5/5/22
- Plaintiff SC NAACP's Status Update - 5/5/22
- Amended Conference and Scheduling Order - 5/5/22
- Election Defendants' Answers to Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures - 5/5/22
- House Defendants' Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures - 5/5/22
- Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures - 5/5/22
- Plaintiff SC NAACP's Letter to the Court Regarding Settlement - 5/6/22
- Stipulation Regarding Amendment of Second Amended Complaint - 5/6/22
- Third Amended Complaint - 5/6/22
- Election Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint - 5/18/22
- Joint Stipulation - 5/18/22
- Senate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint - 5/20/22
- House Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint - 5/20/22
- Plaintiffs' Response to Senate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint - 6/3/22
- Plaintiffs' Response to House Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint - 6/3/22
- House Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint - 6/10/22
- Reply in Support of Senate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint - 6/10/22
- Joint Motion for Entry of Attorneys' Eyes Only Order - 6/13/22
- Senate Defendants' Combined Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash - 6/15/22
- Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production - 6/15/22
- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Senate Defendants' Combined Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash - 6/17/22
- House Defendants' Response in Support of Senate Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash - 6/20/22
- Joint Stipulation Regarding Depositions on Congressional Plan - 6/21/22
- Senate Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel - 6/23/22
- Reply in Support of Senate Defendants' Combined Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash - 6/23/22
- Order and Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss - 6/28/22
- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Compel Production - 6/29/22
- Order and Opinion Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Protective Order and Order to Quash - 7/5/22
- Fourth Amended Scheduling Order - 7/21/22
- Second Joint Stipulation Regarding Depositions on Congressional Plan - 7/25/22
- Order Designating Three-Judge Panel - 7/25/22
- Joint Motion of Senate and House Defendants for Confidentiality Order Specific to Legislatively Privileged Materials - 7/26/22
- Motion for Leave to Submit Deposition Materials for In Camera Review - 8/1/22
- House Defendants' Motion for Order Confirming Confidentiality Designations of Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits - 8/1/22
- Plaintiffs' Response to House and Senate Defendants' Motion for Confidentiality Order Specific to Legislatively Privileged Materials - 8/3/22
- Joint Reply of Senate and House Defendants to Plaintiffs' Response to Motion for Confidentiality Order Specific to Legislatively Privileged Materials - 8/5/22
- Plaintiffs' Response to House Defendants' Motion for Order Confirming Confidentiality Designations of Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits - 8/9/22
- House Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion for Order Confirming Confidentiality Designations - 8/11/22