Five GOP South Carolina Senators Reject Redistricting Efforts
The Senate needed a two-thirds vote to advance the legislation to a vote.
The legislation to redraw South Carolina’s Congressional map fizzled in the state’s Senate when five Republicans joined Democrats to block its advancement to a vote.
The Senate needed a two-thirds vote to advance it.
The legislation fell two votes short.
South Carolina Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey (R) claimed the state is “the most gerrymandered Republican state in the country already.”
Massey also insisted that the “attempts to draw a 7-0 Republican map might result in a 5-2 split.”
Former State Rep. Adam Morgan has encouraged people to call Republican Gov. Henry McMaster to call a special session.
🚨BREAKING: South Carolina Senate kills Redistricting Resolution 29-17!
5 Republicans joined all Democrats to kill it 👇
Sean Bennett (Dorchester)
Chip Campsen (Charleston)
Tom Davis (Beaufort)
Greg Hembree (Horry)
Shane Massey (Edgefield)‼️Vote them ALL out‼️
— Adam Morgan (@RepAdamMorgan) May 12, 2026
🚨Vote “killing” South Carolina redistricting was 29 FOR redistricting and 17 against.
Read that again.
29 senators support redistricting!
So how did it fail?Because Governor @henrymcmaster refused to call a special session forcing the Legislature to call themselves…
— Adam Morgan (@RepAdamMorgan) May 12, 2026
The House voted 87-25 to add redrawing the state’s Congressional map to a resolution outlining what the legislature can do when its session ends on May 14.
The idea is to make the state 7R – 0D. Right now, Rep. Jim Clyburn is the only Democrat holding a seat in South Carolina.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This would be worth it just to get Clyburn out of office.
The current SC map is a racial gerrymander based on the VRA and, therefore, Un-Constitutional under the SCOTUS’ recent Callais decision (and, of course, the US Constitution).
Someone should sue to get the current Districts declared UnConstitutional.
Then, they’ll have to redraw them.
Clyburn is one of the worst practitioners of grievance politics and has done such damage. The very idea that black men and women can only win a seat if districts are drawn just so black people can vote for them is so demeaning and racist towards blacks that it’s unfathomable. Why Democrats are fighting so hard is they know that without artificial racial gerrymandering combined with the next census they are on the way to permanently be out of power.
We need more Black Republican candidates to run in these “black” districts previously represented by white Democrats.
“Five SC State Senators Commit Career Suicide”
Fixed that headline for you.
After going 7 for 7 in Indiana, over a 1 District pickup opportunity lost because the State Senate would redistrict, I’d bet Trump goes all in on making sure these 5 in SC get to spend more time with their families.
It can be taken as a “given” that there will always be enough
Republicans to prevent Democrat defeats; especially on critical matters.
Subotai Bahadur
So very true. Its like they are afflicted with suicidal empathy.
Too many southern republicans are demonrats at heart. They may have switched parties in the 80’s, but they never gave up their demonrat ways.
A rule of politics: the GOP always folds.
“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition.” GK Chesterton.
Wonder how much they got paid
when they get voted out there will be rewards for them … board seats …
the right people will take care of them.
Was it publicized much outside of Arizona when the Devil showed up at Kari Lake’s door to offer her great riches if only she would abandon her Senate campaign?
(BTW, the Devil turned out to be the head of the AZ GOP.) 😱
Must cheaper to send Kari Lake to Jamaica.
I now wonder whether some “Republicans” are actually democrats in disguise just waiting for the right moment to sink a Republican effort.
We’ve had a bunch of those for years in Texas, including the former and current leaders of the lege.
Last week I said the rhinos wouldn’t get rid of Clyburns seat.
The uniparty loves the fake fight with each other.
What if he’s right? He knows the conditions on the ground better than any of us do, so how can we know that he’s wrong?
This is always a worry when doing this sort of thing; in order to maximize your districts you have to spread your supporters thinner than they would otherwise be, which means the other side only needs a small swing to make serious gains.
What if he’s wrong? It’s not Mr. Trump that folds.
So what if it does result in a 5-2 split. Getting rid of the racist gerrymandering in the state is worth it.
How is it worth it? Yes, it’s a good thing, but if rather than gaining us a seat it loses one for us, and gives one to the Dems, do you really think that’s a worthwhile exchange? What if that one seat turns out to be the difference between majority and minority?
It is not worth it if the next Congress is (D) by 218-217 as a result. Every seat matters, and in a likely bad year, preserving existing seats is important.
Politically? Maybe not. However doing the right thing to wipe away unconstitutionally created districts specifically drawn based on racial/tribal membership is IMO worth it.
I’d suggest that the resistance to wiping away these unconstitutionally created districts by figures within the GoP is based on the perceived political advantage they believe they gain from race based maps. The maps for the State legislature are likewise subject to the prohibition on using race and these Legislators fear for their own political future.
Hmm… Is there a reason beyond politics to redistrict? Let’s put our thinking caps on. How about it is offensive to our constitutional values (and the constitution itself) to retain a racially gerrymandered district?
No, it is all political. And all politics is local. I’d love to see some great conservative black candidates run and win in any of these new districts.
The lowest district split for the new map is R+11. Massey and Co. are just being typical GOPe quislings.
R+11 based on 2024- a Presidential year. Midterms often have swings of more than 20 pts due to low turnout of the President’s Party and high turnout of the opposition. Even the TX gerrymander could be cutting things a wee bit too close.
With redistricting now unconstrained from past history of doing it once a decade following the census folks need to get in habit of showing up to vote in every election. Lose control of a State Legislature and Gov and suddenly the Congressional map and Legislative map can be altered at will by the new majority party.
More than ever that means a greater willingness of folks in tight districts to volunteer, roll up their sleeves, be a precinct captain, poll watcher, drive folks to the polls, knock on doors/canvas for votes. If folks in those districts wait on ‘someone else’ to do the volunteering for them….they may pay a high price.
Reality is only retirees, union members, public assistance recipients and college students have the time for volunteering. That is why the Democrats have attacked TPUSA so viciously – they are the only group on our side that is capable of recruiting college students.
The reality is that everyone has choices to make re whether they volunteer or not. If folks place a higher priority on other things in the hope/belief that ‘someone else’ should or will do the necessary heavy lifting of campaign volunteering that’s their choice. Nobody said it would easy, painless or without personal sacrifice.
More evidence that RINO and quisling are synonyms.
Mid-census redistricting was wrong when Democrats tried to do it in Virginia and New York (and did it in California) and is no less wrong when Republicans tried it in South Carolina (not to mention Texas and Florida). Multiple wrongs don’t make right.
Not an apples to apples comparison. In TX, FL, TN, AL, SC and LA the legislatures are acting to correct the unconstitutional status quo by negating the unconstitutional ‘majority minority’ districts. That’s a far cry from the motivation of CA and VA.
The Red States are acting to correct an unconstitutional wrong which, in fairness, will serve to increase the political power of the GoP ….but only b/c the status quo of the past 60 ish years was artificially slanted to benefit d/prog. Had this artificial and unconstitutional structure not been imposed by the Judiciary there wouldn’t have been a need for SCOTUS to (finally!) rule these ‘majority minority’ districts unconstitutional or State Legislatures to act to come into constitutional compliance by creating new maps.
A one-time correction seems fine given the context. I’d suggest that the d/prog will not be satisfied with that and will instead seek new maps whenever they claim the political power to create them.
Why is mid-census redistricting wrong? When either side does it? What makes it wrong? Who ever said districting may only happen once a decade, and you’re then stuck with the result until next time?
The fake Republicans don’t want to win.
My address years ago was changed so I got into Clyburn’s spider web of partial cities, counties, and neighborhoods that go through areas of South Carolina and it did nothing good for me. The 5 SC State Republican Senators that did not vote for changing the district are not up to vote this year and none are in my address. All House districts should be city, counties, and very close.
Can someone (not me) weigh the merit of their argument on the numbers that it could end up with 2 narrow Dem wins instead of 0 or the status quo of 1 firm Dem win?
They may have a point and I’d like to see where the data takes us.
One reason some in the GoP are reluctant to buck the status quo is that the ‘majority minority’ districts allow those districts to be stuffed with d/prog voters…which means less d/prog voters in other districts. The establishment GoP basically made a Faustian bargain to not push too hard on ending the majority minority grift b/c it made the remaining districts more solidly favor the odds of GoP victory.
The basic argument is that blowing up the majority minority model will push those voters into newly drawn districts and make the incumbents have to work to get re-elected in a new 52-48 GoP district v the current set up of their current 56-44 (or more) GoP district.
In a wave.election it is true that more districts could be lost. On the other hand if there’s a wave election against the GoP elected officials it also means they ain’t paying attention to the wants/needs/desires of the base. The party elders can always seek to avoid that disaster by choosing to ‘dance with the folks who brung them’ instead of siren songs from lobbyists and Acela corridor/DC.goons/grifters.
The techniques of gerrymandering are the same as they always were – packing and cracking. A gerrymander that spreads your own voters too thin in a probable bad year is called a dummymander. Midterms are almost always bad for the party that holds the Presidency. The ultimate goal of gerrymandering is to maximize the odds of House Control – 218 or more seats. Any 52-48 GOP district will almost certainly elect a D this year. Even districts with a margin of safety of 10 pts are iffy.
Tell you what, you provide a list of the universe 52-48 districts along with what criteria you used to define them (voter registration, last Presidential contest vote, polling or whatever else) and after I look it over we can make a small wager. Say $1K donation to the LI foundation from the loser. Parameters of bet would be your contention that ‘any 52-48 GoP district will almost certainly elect a d/prog this year’. Lets set the % of ‘almost certainly’ at 90% of the CD meeting the criteria you applied to every CD to generate your list. You game?
That aside, spreading the d/prog from heavily concentrated d/prog districts to other districts will increase the average number of d/prog within those districts. The question is what’s the ‘safe number’ …is it a four point advantage 52-48 is it 54-46? IMO there isn’t a ‘safe’ number b/c each competitive congressional contest is usually about issues of dissatisfaction with a candidate. Incumbents win 95%+ and unless they really are a turd at constituent services, have gone off the rails in opposing the political policies of their constituents or like Massie PO a powerful interests willing to dump $20 million in a primary it is tough to unseat an incumbent. The exception is a wave election but even then if that incumbent has been responsive to constituents and not ‘evolved’ in DC and remained true to their campaign promises they can sidestep that.
The day Massachussetts fixes their corrupt rigged Congressional district map to allow a single Republican congressman to represent the 40% of that state’s citizens who are Republicans is the day I’ll forgive these RINOs in South Carolina.
Not one day earlier.