红杏视频

COLUMBIA 鈥� Nonpartisan civil rights organizations argued before the South Carolina Supreme Court today that the state constitution forbids partisan gerrymandering, or the rigging of electoral maps to protect a political party鈥檚 advantage in elections. Republican state lawmakers have repeatedly stated that they gerrymandered South Carolina鈥檚 First Congressional District map to 鈥減ull the First red鈥� and meet a specific goal for Republican vote share in the district. In the lawsuit League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander, the League and its legal team argue that these bald-faced admissions fly in the face of the South Carolina Constitution. "South Carolinians have the right not just to vote, but to cast a vote that genuinely reflects the interests of their community," said Nancy Williams, President of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina. "The existing map was drawn not to give voice to voters but to protect politicians. The League of Women Voters of South Carolina is proud to fight for equality of political power for all South Carolina voters, and we hope the court will issue an order that allows us to have a true voice in how we are governed." 鈥淪outh Carolina鈥檚 constitution protects voters from having their voices manipulated for partisan gain,鈥� said Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the 红杏视频 Voting Rights Project. 鈥淟egislators鈥� admission that they drew the State鈥檚 congressional map to entrench one political party in power is not just undemocratic 鈥� it鈥檚 against the law. Today, we鈥檝e asked the Court to restore the State Constitution鈥檚 promise of free and fair elections where every South Carolinian鈥檚 vote counts the same.鈥� 鈥淰oters should be appalled. Our state鈥檚 leading politicians believe that redistricting serves primarily to serve their own interests rather than the interests of the voters themselves,鈥� said Allen Chaney, Legal Director of the 红杏视频 of South Carolina. 鈥淭hey argued today in court that our State Constitution provides no check on that antidemocratic result. This is hopefully something that the Supreme Court will not embrace.鈥� The legal team filed the lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina on July 29, 2024. With today鈥檚 oral arguments, attorneys are asking the state鈥檚 highest court to bring the Congressional district map into compliance with the state constitution. The South Carolina Constitution, Article 1, Section 5, states: 鈥淎ll elections shall be free and open, and every inhabitant of this State possessing the qualifications provided for in this Constitution shall have an equal right to elect officers and be elected to fill public office.鈥� In other states with 鈥渇ree and open鈥� or 鈥渇ree and equal鈥� election clauses in their constitutions, courts have found that partisan gerrymandering claims were justiciable at the state level, including in Pennsylvania (LWV of PA v. Commonwealth), New Mexico (Grisham v. Van Soelen), and Kentucky (Graham v. Adams). This case is separate from the racial gerrymandering case previously filed in South Carolina, Alexander v. SC NAACP, which argued that mapmakers were illegally using the race of voters as a proxy for partisan advantage in District 1. That case ended with a 6-3 loss before the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2024. LWV-SC v. Alexander is built partly on statements that the state鈥檚 highest officials made in the course of the previous case. Attorney John Gore, who represented the South Carolina lawmakers responsible for drawing the map, said the following in his opening arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court: 鈥淭he panel acknowledged that the General Assembly pursued a political goal of increasing District 1鈥檚 Republican vote share. It achieved that goal by moving Republicans into the district and Democrats out of the district.鈥� The Princeton Gerrymandering Project gives South Carolina鈥檚 Congressional district map an F for partisan fairness and an F for competitiveness. Another nonpartisan site, PlanScore, notes that South Carolina鈥檚 House redistricting plan was more skewed than 98% of enacted plans nationwide. The result? Congressional District 1, a district traditionally anchored in Charleston that was once considered competitive, now skews so heavily Republican that elections are effectively decided in the Republican primary. Nationwide studies have shown that this pattern of partisan gerrymandering, widely practiced by both parties in states where they hold power, produces less responsive representatives who pursue more extreme social policies. More information and filings from the case are available on the 红杏视频 of South Carolina website. Video of today鈥檚 oral arguments will be archived on the S.C. Judicial Branch website. For more information about partisan gerrymandering, see the attached glossary of terms, statistics, and studies.

Virginia permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the governor restores their rights. This lawsuit鈥攂rought by the 红杏视频 of Virginia and co-counsel partners鈥攁rgues that the policy violates the Readmissions Act of 1870, which bars Virginia from denying the vote based on convictions that didn鈥檛 exist at common law in 1870. The state tried to dismiss the case by invoking sovereign immunity, but the courts rejected that argument. Now, the case moves forward with the potential to restore voting rights to thousands of Virginians.

ATLANTA 鈥� In a critical victory for Georgia voters, the Georgia Supreme Court today upheld a lower court鈥檚 decision permanently blocking a rule that would have required hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation 鈥� a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement. The Georgia State Conference of the NAACP and the Georgia Coalition for the People鈥檚 Agenda, represented by the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Georgia, Lawyers鈥� Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the law firm Morgan Lewis, intervened in the case last fall to protect the integrity of Georgia elections. The ruling confirms that the State Election Board exceeded its legal authority by attempting to rewrite election procedures just weeks before a major election 鈥� without legislative approval and in direct contradiction of Georgia law. "This rule would have opened the door to confusion, delays, and potential voter disenfranchisement,鈥� said Gerald A. Griggs, president of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP. 鈥淕eorgians deserve to have their votes counted -- not for their election officials to make last-minute changes and undermine the will of voters. The Court's ruling is a clear message that voter suppression has no place in our elections.鈥� 鈥淭his is a resounding affirmation of voters鈥� rights,鈥� said Theresa Lee, senior staff attorney at the 红杏视频 Voting Rights Project. 鈥淭he court recognized what we鈥檝e argued all along 鈥� that this rule was unlawful and entirely unnecessary. Today鈥檚 decision safeguards not just the letter of Georgia election law, but the democratic principle that every vote must be counted accurately and without interference.鈥� 鈥淭he court鈥檚 decision to block the hand counting requirement is a crucial win for voting rights, especially for voters in marginalized communities,鈥� said Helen Butler, executive director, Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda. 鈥淚n under-resourced precincts, where long lines already discourage participation, the rule would have created chaos at the polls and risked silencing thousands of voices. Today's ruling on hand counting protects access, accuracy, and dignity in our elections. However, while we are pleased about the win, we are disappointed in the court鈥檚 ruling on standing in its opinion today. We will continue our work to support Georgia's voters and their fundamental right to vote.鈥� 鈥淲e are encouraged that the Court stopped the State Election Board's attempt to rewrite the election code on the eve of the 2024 election and are glad that the harmful Hand Count Rule cannot go into effect. Yet we are disappointed in the Court's decision that our clients did not have standing to bring this claim. The 红杏视频 of Georgia and our clients will continue to fight in the halls of power for the right of every Georgia voter to cast their ballot and have it counted,鈥� said Caitlin May, voting rights staff attorney at the 红杏视频 of Georgia. 鈥淭he Court鈥檚 decision today to block the State Election Board鈥檚 ill-conceived Hand Count rule was a victory for Georgia鈥檚 voters and goes a long way in helping to ensure that the State Election Board does not overstep its authority in future rule-making that could disenfranchise eligible voters,鈥� said Julie Houk, Managing Counsel for Election Protection at the Lawyers鈥� Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 鈥淭he Lawyers鈥� Committee and our clients will continue our work to ensure that Georgia鈥檚 Black voters and other voters of color, as well as all eligible Georgia voters, are able to cast their ballots, that they will be counted, and that their fundamental right to vote is not undermined by unauthorized actions taken by members of the State Election Board in the future.鈥� The case, Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia, challenged a series of last-minute rules passed by the Georgia State Election Board, including one that would have required the hand counting of ballots before securing them for tabulation 鈥� a burdensome and error-prone process with no grounding in Georgia鈥檚 election code. The ruling allows elections in Georgia to proceed under long-established, secure procedures, reinforcing voter confidence and administrative stability ahead of future elections. A copy of the ruling can be found here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/06/EVA-Decision.pdf

In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the 8th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, the court left open the question whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 through an alternative civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. 搂 1983. In this case, a divided panel on the 8th Circuit has held that plaintiffs may not use Section 1983, either. If the holding stands, Section 2 of the VRA will be functionally out of reach for voters across the 8th Circuit in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. On behalf of the NAACP Arkansas State Conference and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the 红杏视频 and 红杏视频 of Arkansas has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' request that the full Eighth Circuit rehear and correct this decision.