Redistricting In South Carolina After The 2020 Census

Redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Status of redistricting maps
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
Congressional and state legislative maps
Redistricting apps and software
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering

Redistricting is the process of enacting new congressional and state legislative district boundaries. Upon completion of the 2020 census, South Carolina will draft and enact new district maps. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in South Carolina.

South Carolina's seven United States representatives and 170 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in South Carolina is also provided.

Summary[edit]

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

• November 16, 2021: The House Judiciary Committee voted 21-2 to approve a House district proposal.
• November 8, 2021 The House Judiciary Committee released a House district proposal.
• November 4, 2021: The Senate Redistricting Committee released a Senate map proposal.
• October 16, 2021: The South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee released a series of Senate map proposals.
• October 12, 2021: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP filed a lawsuit in federal court against the South Carolina Legislature asking the court to set a deadline for legislators to return to session.
• September 24, 2021: South Carolina Senate President Harvey Peeler (R) canceled a special senate session originally scheduled to begin October 12, 2021.
• September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• September 8, 2021: The South Carolina House Redistricting Ad Hoc Committee began its round of 10 public hearings meant to solicit citizen feedback on reapportionment of the South Carolina General Assembly.
• August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Apportionment and release of census data[edit]

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.^[1]

Apportionment following the 2020 census[edit]

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. South Carolina was apportioned seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.^[2]

See the table below for additional details.

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau[edit]

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021.^[3][4][5][6] The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.^[7][8]

Drafting process[edit]

In South Carolina, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the state legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor.^[9]

South Carolina's legislative redistricting committees adopted redistricting guidelines in 2011. These guidelines recommend that all congressional and state legislative districts be contiguous and "attempt to preserve communities of interest and cores of incumbents' existing districts." Further, the guidelines suggest that districts should "adhere to county, municipal, and voting precinct boundary lines." These guidelines may modified by the legislature at its discretion.^[9]

Timeline[edit]

The following public hearing schedule was posted on the South Carolina Senate website.^[10][11]

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process[edit]

Listed below are the members of the South Carolina Senate Redistricting Subcommittee and House Redistricting Ad Hoc Committee in the 2020 cycle:^[12] The House committee began public hearings on September 9, 2021, in Myrtle Beach. For more information on these hearings, visit the committee website.

South Carolina Senate Redistricting Subcommittee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Member type	Partisan affiliation
Sen. Ronnie Sabb	Legislator	Democratic
Sen. Dick Harpootlian	Legislator	Democratic
Sen. Margie Bright Matthews	Legislator	Democratic
Sen. Luke Rankin	Legislator	Republican
Sen. George Campsen	Legislator	Republican
Sen. Scott Talley	Legislator	Republican
Sen. Tom Young	Legislator	Republican

South Carolina House Redistricting Ad Hoc Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Member type	Partisan affiliation
Rep. Beth E. Bernstein	Legislator	Democratic
Rep. Patricia Henegan	Legislator	Democratic
Rep. Justin Bamberg	Legislator	Democratic
Rep. Neal Collins	Legislator	Republican
Rep. Jason Elliott	Legislator	Republican
Rep. Jay Jordan	Legislator	Republican
Rep. Brandon Newton	Legislator	Republican
Rep. Weston Newton	Legislator	Republican

Pre-drafting developments[edit]

On September 24, 2021, South Carolina Senate President Harvey Peeler (R) canceled a special senate session originally scheduled to begin October 12, 2021. The Senate had planned to address COVID spending and redistricting during the special session, but the Senate redistricting committee asked for more time, saying it would not be able to draft district maps until later in the month.^[13]

On September 8, 2021, the South Carolina House Redistricting Ad Hoc Committee began its round of 10 public hearings meant to solicit citizen feedback on reapportionment of the South Carolina General Assembly.^[14] Click here to see the full schedule of hearings.

Drafts and proposals[edit]

Legislative maps[edit]

The South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee released a series of publically submitted Senate map proposals on October 16, 2021.^[15] The committee met on October 21, 2021, to go over the submissions and speak with members of the public.^[16]

On November 4, 2021, the Senate Redistricting Committee released a Senate map proposal and held a public hearing on November 6, 2021. Members of both chambers said they planned to hold special sessions in early December to consider state legislative and Congressional maps.^[17] On November 8, 2021, the House Judiciary Committee released a House district proposal. On November 16, 2021, the committee voted 21-2 to approve a modified version of the November 8 proposal, sending it to the full House for a vote.^[18]

Click on the links below to view each map: Plans drafted by the public

• All publicly submitted proposals

Plans drafted by the legislature

• 2021 House working draft
• 2021 Senate Plans - Staff Plan

Congressional maps[edit]

The South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee is accepting public submissions until November 1, 2021.^[19] Click the links below to see publically submitted congressional maps.

• LWVSC - Congressional Submission 1
• Michael Roberts - Congressional Submission 1
• NAACP - Congressional Submission 1
• NAACP - Congressional Submission 2

Enactment[edit]

Enacted congressional district maps[edit]

South Carolina is drawing congressional district maps following the 2020 census. New congressional district maps have not yet been enacted.

Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

South Carolina is drawing state legislative district maps following the 2020 census. New state legislative district maps have not yet been enacted.

Court challenges[edit]

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

ACLU and NAACP lawsuit[edit]

On October 12, 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP filed a lawsuit in federal court against the South Carolina Legislature asking the court to set a deadline for legislators to return to session. South Carolina Senate President Harvey Peeler (R) canceled a special senate session originally scheduled to begin October 12, 2021 and indicated that lawmakers may not reconvene until December or January to address redistricting.

The ACLU and NAACP said the delay would prevent any potential lawsuits from being resolved before the new districts take effect. Leah Aden, deputy director of litigation at the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said “In every redistricting cycle for the last 50 years — since Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act — voters and others have been compelled to go to court to fix the legislature’s maps.” “The state’s refusal to tell the public when it will reconvene to take up its obligation to redraw the lines and make it difficult, if not impossible, to resolve any court challenge before the consequential 2022 primaries is unacceptable,” Aden said.^[20]

Background[edit]

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting[edit]

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.^[21][22]

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."^[24][25][26]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."^[26]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting[edit]

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."^[26]

State-based requirements[edit]

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.^[26][27]
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[26][27]
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[26][27]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.^[26][27]

Methods[edit]

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[28]

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering[edit]

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.^[29][30]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Recent court decisions[edit]

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Gill v. Whitford (2018)[edit]

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.^[34]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)[edit]

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.^[35][36][37]

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)[edit]

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.^{[38][39][40][41]}

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)[edit]

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearanceA jurisdiction subject to preclearance needed to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before changing election laws or district maps. from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.^[42][43][44]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)[edit]

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.^{[45][46][47][48]}

Trifectas and redistricting[edit]

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves will play a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections will have veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature will direct the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

2010 redistricting cycle[edit]

Redistricting in South Carolina after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010[edit]

Following the 2010 United States Census, South Carolina gained a congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held the governorship and both chambers of the South Carolina State Legislature. A redistricting plan was adopted by the legislature on July 26, 2011. The governor signed it into law on August 1, 2011. On November 11, 2011, a group of Democratic voters challenged the new congressional and state legislative district maps in federal court, alleging that the new maps constituted "unlawful racial gerrymandering and a violation the Voting Rights Act." The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina rejected the challenge on March 9, 2012. The case, filed as Backus v. South Carolina, was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision on October 1, 2012.^[9][49]

On August 29, 2013, in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the plaintiffs attempted to revive the case. The trial court rejected the attempt on March 10, 2014, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed that decision on October 6, 2014.^[9][49]

State legislative redistricting, 2010[edit]

On June 22, 2011, the state legislature approved a state legislative redistricting, plan which was signed into law on June 28, 2011. On November 11, 2011, a group of Democratic voters challenged the new congressional and state legislative district maps in federal court, alleging that the new maps constituted "unlawful racial gerrymandering and a violation the Voting Rights Act." The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina rejected the challenge on March 9, 2012. The case, filed as Backus v. South Carolina, was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision on October 1, 2012.^[9][49]

On August 29, 2013, in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the plaintiffs attempted to revive the case. The trial court rejected the attempt on March 10, 2014, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed that decision on October 6, 2014.^[9][49]

See also[edit]

• Redistricting in South Carolina after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in South Carolina
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts

External links[edit]

• Search Google News for this topic
• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Redistricting after the 2020 census State-by-state Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Overviews Congressional apportionment after the 2020 census • Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census • Partisan composition of redistricting committees, 2020 cycle • Redistricting lawsuits in the 2020 redistricting cycle • State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census • State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census • State redistricting deadlines after the 2020 census • Redistricting apps and software available for the 2020 cycle

	v • e State of South Carolina Columbia (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy