Brian McClure
May 12, 2026
Policy & Research
Editor’s note: The Senate voted the resolution sine die.. Meaning that the proposed maps are on hold for now.
OVERVIEW OF SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE BILLS
I moved to Charleston, South Carolina in 2022. One thing I was particularly interested in was seeing what it was like to have voting congressional representation. Silly me.
South Carolina lawmakers are rushing to consider two bills that would reshape the state’s congressional elections ahead of the 2026 cycle. The proposals could significantly reduce Black voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice, dilute their voting power, and effectively mute their representation.
South Carolina House Bill 5683 (H.5683) would redraw South Carolina’s congressional district boundaries, including Congressional District 6, the state’s only majority-Black opportunity district. South Carolina House Bill 5684 (H.5684) would establish a modified election schedule for congressional races in 2026, including new dates for candidate filing, special primaries, and certification processes for U.S. House elections.
Today, South Carolina lawmakers are considering both measures together, and lawmakers appear poised to combine the congressional redistricting proposal and the modified 2026 election schedule into a single legislative package.
None of this is normal. Typically, congressional redistricting happens once every ten years only after the Census. This mid-cycle redraw is intentionally designed to further institutionalize Republican rule. It does so at the expense of Black South Carolinians.
The push comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 29, 2026 ruling weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Since 1965, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been one of the country’s main legal tools for challenging voting maps that weaken the political power of Black voters and other communities of color. The process of weakening the political power of a racial group through redistricting is called voter dilution. Voter dilution occurs when voting maps are drawn in ways that weaken the political power of communities of color. This often happens by splitting communities across multiple districts or concentrating them into a single district so their votes carry less influence in elections.
If approved, the bills before the SC Legislature would likely turn South Carolina's current 6-1 Republican congressional delegation into a 7-0 Republican delegation. The proposal would do this by dismantling Congressional District 6, the state's only Democratic and majority-Black opportunity district (currently represented by Rep. Jim Clyburn). See Figure 1.
South Carolina’s current congressional maps distribute roughly 1.29 million Black residents across seven congressional districts. Over 336,000 of those residents or 26 percent of the state’s Black population, live in District 6. By comparison, District 6 is about half the population of DC and it’s Black population (depending on which data set you look at) is slightly more than DC’s entire Black population.
FIGURE 1 Demographic composition of South Carolina’s current congressional districts
Notably, the new map proposed by the legislature was proposed by someone who does not even live in the state! The map was drawn by Adam Kincaid, a Virginia-based national Republican redistricting strategist. Kincaid is the executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, the GOP's national redistricting operation. He is the central figure behind aggressive Republican gerrymanders in states including Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida.
In writing the proposed SC maps (see Figure 2), Kincaid posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the proposal would “flip SC-06 from a safe Democrat seat to a Republican district without endangering any of the districts already held by Republicans.” His own partisan analysis projects District 6 shifting from roughly D+13 to R+5. Frustratingly, Kincaid spoke before the SC Senate Judiciary about the maps but conveniently left before members of the committee could ask questions.
FIGURE 2 Estimated political shifts under the proposed South Carolina congressional map
In practice, that means the district would shift from one where Democrats were expected to win by approximately 13 percentage points to one where a Republican candidate would instead be favored to win by roughly 5 percentage points. Such a shift could place Rep. Jim Clyburn’s seat at significant risk and substantially alter Black voters’ ability to elect their preferred candidate in the district.
Poor Governance
Lawmakers are asking South Carolinians to accept a sweeping redraw of our voting maps with limited public input, rushed timelines, and little transparency about the analysis behind it. Even the State’s Election Commissioner expressed concerns today about the rushed timeline, unforeseen costs, and the strain these changes would put on poll workers and other election day volunteers.
There’s a lot wrong with what the legislature is doing today. But three things stick out to us here at ourvillage:
First and foremost, these bills would likely weaken Black voting power by dismantling the state’s only majority Black opportunity district,
Second, the proposals raise concerns about fiscal responsibility, legislative process, and good governance, and
Third, the proposed maps would split apart longstanding communities of interest.
Local governments could be forced to absorb millions in election costs
The proposed election changes would likely cost at least $2.4 million statewide. Much of that burden would fall on small counties that have already passed their budgets and scheduled elections. Counties would be forced to redesign precincts, update voter registration systems, reprint ballots, retrain poll workers, and potentially postpone or reschedule elections.
The proposal risks diluting Black voting power
South Carolina has a long history of racial violence and political oppression. Historically, SC lawmakers have fought tirelessly to weaken voting rights and representation for Black residents. Today’s vote is yet another chapter in that long history. The current proposal appears designed to weaken the electoral influence of Black voters by breaking apart communities and dispersing Black voting populations across multiple districts.
What is especially concerning is the lack of any publicly released independent voter dilution analysis. That issue matters because population equality alone does not answer whether Black voters will still have a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
If lawmakers are going to redraw congressional districts outside the normal redistricting cycle, the public deserves transparent and independent analysis showing whether Black voting power is being weakened. So far, that has not happened.
Communities of interest are being split apart
Redistricting is not just about partisan numbers on a spreadsheet. Maps determine which communities are grouped together and who gets representation for shared concerns like flooding, housing, schools, transportation, coastal resilience, and economic development.
One of the clearest definitions of a "community of interest" comes from a racial equity impact assessment on redistricting, describing it as "a neighborhood, community, or group of people who have common policy concerns and would benefit from staying together in a single district." The report also notes that race, shared history, language, culture, and community goals can all define a community of interest.
The proposed South Carolina map appears to fracture many of those existing communities for political purposes. For voters in places like Charleston and the Lowcountry, that could mean losing cohesive representation for regional priorities in favor of maps designed primarily around partisan outcomes. As proposed, the Bills redraw the maps to give Myrtle Beach and Charleston the same representation!
South Carolinians deserve better.
Redistricting should not happen behind closed doors. It should not be rushed weeks before filing deadlines and elections. And it should not be driven by national political operatives with no meaningful ties to South Carolina communities. South Carolinians deserve transparency, independent analysis, and a process that protects communities rather than partisan power.