Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.
The Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to South Carolina's congressional district map, focusing on allegations of racial gerrymandering and vote dilution. The Court found that the challengers failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an alternative map, to demonstrate that race predominated over traditional districting principles. Consequently, the Court reversed and remanded the lower court's decision.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.
The Court held that the District Court's finding of racial predominance in the design of District 1 was clearly erroneous.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Equal Protection is relevant to Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
The case primarily involves a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause regarding racial gerrymandering.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The three-judge District Court held that the State drew District 1 with a 17% BVAP target in mind in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
-
Why Voting Rights is relevant to Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
The case involves allegations of racial gerrymandering and vote dilution, which are central to voting rights protections.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Challengers challenged the plan, alleging that it resulted in racial gerrymanders in certain districts and in the dilution of the electoral power of the State's black voters.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
The Court discusses the procedural requirements for proving racial gerrymandering, including the need for an alternative map.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The District Court also critically erred by failing to draw an adverse inference against the Challengers for not providing an adequate alternative map.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP that support the summary and concepts above.
The District Court's finding that race predominated in the design of District 1 in the Enacted Plan was clearly erroneous.
The Challengers provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander, and their circumstantial evidence is very weak.
A plaintiff's failure to submit an alternative map should be interpreted by courts as an implicit concession.
