Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, a case which will determine whether South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District needs to be redrawn due to alleged racial gerrymandering. 

In defending the map, South Carolina’s central argument was that the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature relied on partisanship — not race — when redrawing the state’s congressional map after the 2020 census. The South Carolina NAACP, meanwhile, pointed to expert testimony to allege the Legislature was using “race as a proxy to predict partisan behavior” when it moved over 193,000 people in and out of the 1st Congressional District.

Here are some resources about the case and today's oral argument.

• The lawsuit, which was brought by the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and Taiwan Scott — a Black voter in the 1st Congressional District who has said his community lacks a voice — originally challenged the state’s past congressional and legislative maps for being malapportioned. Catch up on previous developments in the case here. 

  • Curious what needed to happen for the case to get to the Supreme Court? Read our Explainer detailing what it takes for the nation’s highest court to hear election and redistricting cases.

• Fourteen amicus briefs — or “friend of the court” briefs in which individuals or organizations that are not parties in a case, but have an interest in the case's outcome — were submitted ahead of today’s oral argument. The briefs are a powerful way for outside groups and individuals to speak directly to the justices on the Court. 

  • The briefs came from historians, politicians, the U.S. Department of Justice and others. Read more about the briefs here.

• In an exclusive op-ed for Democracy Docket, Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — one of the plaintiffs in the case — wrote about the burden the 1st Congressional District has on the Black population of Charleston County and the need for a fair congressional map in South Carolina. 

• Democracy Docket covered today’s oral argument live on Twitter and Threads with a play-by-play of all of the notable highlights. For a more in-depth breakdown of oral argument, read senior case coordinator Rachel Selzer’s key takeaways here. 

Here are some recent updates.

• In a blow to Georgia voters, a federal judge declined to block provisions of the state’s 2021 voter suppression law — Senate Bill 202 — that dramatically reduced drop boxes, shortened the deadline for voters to request absentee ballots and more. The five provisions remain in place as litigation continues.

• Black voters and civil rights groups urged the Supreme Court to allow a hearing on the creation of a new congressional map in Louisiana to occur, writing that a delay risks "the fundamental voting rights of...thousands of Black voters in Louisiana."

• Nonprofit groups and voters moved to defend Michigan's voter-approved election amendments from a legal attack. Eleven Republican state lawmakers filed a lawsuit to try to nullify the amendments using the discredited independent state legislature theory.

• Unabashed election denier Kari Lake officially announced her run for U.S. Senate in Arizona. Simultaneously, Lake is still in court trying to overturn her loss in the state’s 2022 gubernatorial election.

• The Republican National Committee, North Carolina Republican Party and other Republicans voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit seeking to allow more partisan poll observers at voting locations. The case is over.