(WSPA) – The South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled partisan gerrymanders do not violate the state constitution.

In a lengthy opinion posted Wednesday, the court denied a request by the League of Women Voters of South Carolina to strike down a 2022 congressional redistricting plan for being an “extreme partisan gerrymander,” and declared partisan gerrymanders do not violate the state constitution.

In challenging the maps, the League of Women Voters said the redistricting plan violated voters the equal right to elect officers, intentionally diluted the influence of democratic voters across the state and suppressed certain voters from representation based on their political views.

“The whole intention of redistricting is to protect the right of voters, to be accurately represented by their representatives in our democracy, representative democracy. Right now, we believe that’s not happening,” said Lynn Teague, vice president of issues and action for League of Women Voters of South Carolina during oral arguments over the case.

The court disagreed.

“[T]he General Assembly’s authority to legislate is plenary: the South Carolina Constitution grants power to the legislature to ‘enact any act it desires to pass, if such legislation is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution of this state, or the Constitution of the United States,'” wrote Justice George James Jr. in the ruling.

James’ ruling repeatedly references a 2019 case, Rucho V Common Cause, in which the federal Supreme Court ruled that while partisan gerrymanders are not compatible with principals of representative democracy, they are not reviewable by federal courts.

“The Rucho Court explained it has identified political question cases in the past as those that lack “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving [them],” and that, therefore, the question before the Court was whether there was an ‘appropriate role for the Federal Judiciary’ in remedying the problem of partisan gerrymandering—whether such claims are claims of legal right, resolvable according to legal principles, or political questions that must find their resolution elsewhere,” James wrote.

Using the standard set the Rucho case, the court ruled the legislature’s partisan gerrymander did not violate the state’s Free Speech Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Free and Open Elections Clause or a constitutional article which states congressional redistricting plans should not “needlessly split” counties to “serve base partisan goals.”

In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Kittredge seemed to warn the consequences of the Rucho case will continue to be seen across the country unless the federal supreme court opts to intervene.

“As a result, we are seeing—and will continue to see—state legislatures race to further minimize and perhaps erase the representation of the state’s minority political party in Congress. These results may, indeed, be in line with each respective state’s constitution and laws, but they collectively have the effect of diminishing our constitutional republic as a whole. This is a troubling prospect for those who adhere to our nation’s founding principle that the People are
sovereign. We can expect the current trend to continue unless the United States Supreme Court steps back into the fray,” he wrote.

The South Carolina Senate Republican Caucus hailed the decision as a victory.

“When Republicans drew new maps just a few years ago, we worked hard to ensure that South
Carolina’s districts reflected the politics of South Carolina’s voters,” said Senate Majority Leader
Shane Massey in a statement. “If the ACLU and the League of Women Voters aren’t happy with the results at the ballot box, maybe they should ditch their far-left positions, like gender-transitions for children, and get in step with South Carolina values.”

In a statement to 7NEWS, Teague said the decision runs counter to the principals of representative democracy.

“The League of Women Voters of South Carolina undertook this partisan gerrymandering case at the South Carolina Supreme Court because gerrymandering districts for the benefit of a political party damages our most fundamental right as citizens, the right to vote. In ruling that the issue cannot be resolved by the courts, the Supreme Court has left voters largely defenseless against manipulated election outcomes. That is contrary to the most basic principles of representative democracy.”

The ACLU of South Carolina also decried the court’s decision, and the ramifications it could cause.

“This ruling sends the alarming message that partisan advantage may prevail over any sense of fair representation when it comes to drawing new district lines,” said Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “By allowing those interests to outweigh the voices of South Carolina’s voters, the Court has further weakened a basic principle of our democracy. Our work continues, both in the courts and alongside the people of South Carolina, until every community can be heard at the ballot box.”