Jurisdictional statement - About Redistricting - Loyola Law School

34
issues that matter in their daily lives. Because
black voters are a minority in our state, they
must, at some point, work together with white
voters to elect representatives that both white
and black voters agree will represent their
interests. . . . I believe South Carolina is
demonstrating an ability to look beyond skin
color in our politics. Until some of our political
leaders catch up with the people, this Court must
step in and fix this unconscionable racial
gerrymander.
App. at 40a.
Even as white voters move back into urban areas,
black voters move into the suburbs, and residents
from other states or overseas move into a rapidly
growing South Carolina, the state legislature divisively
and cynically used race to pack black voters
unnecessarily into districts, over and above any level
the VRA might require, to undermine existing interracial
political coalitions and to separate and resegregate
voters by race in election districts. Despite
the importance of the issues – and despite concluding
that race had been a factor in the legislature’s
action – the three-judge court compressed the trial
into two days, refused to permit depositions of legislators
regarding the role of race (or other factors) in
the redistricting process, excluded as hearsay or as
privileged the testimony of plaintiffs’ legislative witnesses
regarding racially-explosive statements other
legislators made about the process, 8
refused to con-
8
The court below held that legislators had essentially an
absolute federal common law privilege, prohibiting any compulsory
testimony and discovery from legislators or their agents
about the legislative process and motive. Order, ECF No. 103,
Feb. 8, 2012. Such testimony is often critical to determining