ACLU-SC continues to push for transparency in redistricting process after judge’s order

COLUMBIA – On the afternoon of May 20, a Richland County judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order in a case challenging a lack of government transparency during a push to redraw Congressional maps. Plaintiffs in the case are considering their legal avenues and have not given up.

A judge’s denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order is not appealable. However, the ACLU of South Carolina is weighing its legal options along with fellow plaintiffs at the League of Women Voters of South Carolina and attorneys at Burnette Shutt & McDaniel.

“We are disappointed in today's result but are not deterred,” said Allen Chaney, Legal Director of the ACLU of South Carolina. “The vital pro-democratic protections of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act apply with special force to the General Assembly, and we will press forward with litigation to ensure that the people of South Carolina are provided with a fair notice of important legislative hearings.”

“Let’s review what just happened: South Carolina lawmakers hid a meeting to change the rules of debate to rush redistricting to rig our election map for partisan gain. When confronted in court, they argued they are not bound by government transparency laws,” said Jace Woodrum, Executive Director of the ACLU of South Carolina. “No matter what happens next, South Carolina voters will remember the way some of our politicians tried to hide their work while attacking representative democracy this week.”

The case number is 2026CP4003393. Related case fillings and updates are on the Richland County public index.

The case involves a meeting of the House Rules Committee on May 18 at 7:15 p.m. to adopt new rules about debate, specifically limiting lawmakers’ ability to offer amendments to a bill. The meeting took place during a House floor debate about redrawing the state’s Congressional district maps.

The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (SC FOIA) requires agendas for committee meetings to be published at least 24 hours in advance. But the meeting agenda was posted to the Statehouse website at 7:07 p.m., just eight minutes before the meeting was to start. Journalists covering the debate on the House floor did not arrive at the committee meeting until after it had started.

On May 19, the ACLU of South Carolina and League of Women Voters of South Carolina filed a complaint against the Rules Committee and other defendants for their violation of SC FOIA’s 24-hour public notification requirement. The plaintiffs are represented in this matter by the law firm Burnette Shutt & McDaniel.

In arguments and filings in Richland County Court on May 20, the defendants’ lawyers argued that “exigent circumstances,” or some sort of emergency, authorized lawmakers to skip notifying the public about their meeting to change debate rules. But no exigent circumstances or emergencies have been shown to exist. Members of the legislature are currently rushing to redraw Congressional maps by a self-imposed deadline of May 26, moving as many as one-third of South Carolinians into new districts without new census data or the usual public deliberation process.

Lawmakers even argued that they are not bound by laws passed by their own predecessors, including SC FOIA. In a memorandum filed with the court after Wednesday’s hearing, they argued: "[T]he General Assembly is not bound by the statutes enacted by a prior General Assembly ... As such, a statute such as FOIA passed by a prior General Assembly cannot ‘restrict the plenary powers' of the current legislature."

South Carolinians will rally against the redistricting effort on Thursday, May 21, starting at noon on the south grounds of the Statehouse (1100 Gervais Street, Columbia, SC 29201). For more information, visit aclusc.org/may21.