Case: South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Alexander

3:21-cv-03302 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina

Filed Date: Oct. 12, 2021

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is about citizens of South Carolina challenging the constitutionality of election district apportionment, redistricting, and gerrymandering in their state. On October 12, 2021, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a private plaintiff, represented by the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The defendants in the case were South Carolina's Governor, state legislators, and the members of t…

This case is about citizens of South Carolina challenging the constitutionality of election district apportionment, redistricting, and gerrymandering in their state. On October 12, 2021, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a private plaintiff, represented by the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The defendants in the case were South Carolina's Governor, state legislators, and the members of the South Carolina State Election Commission. The complaint alleged that the state's then-current congressional and legislative redistricting maps and the state's handling of their redistricting process violated the Constitution. First, the plaintiffs alleged that population shifts had caused the state's congressional and legislative redistricting plans to become malapportioned in violation of the one person, one vote constitutional principle under Article I, Section 2 and the 14th Amendment, which would  infringe on the plaintiffs' 1st and 14th Amendment rights to participate equally in the political process. Second, the plaintiffs asserted that the legislature’s decision to delay the commencement of their redistricting process until early 2022 was violating the plaintiffs' Freedom of Association because the uncertainty over new district boundaries would hurt candidates' ability to effectively run for office and restrict voters’ ability to choose candidates. They also asserted the state's shortened time period for redistricting effectively would preclude sufficient time for public input or judicial review sufficiently in advance of the elections. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that South Carolina's current congressional and legislative plans were unconstitutional; an injunction preventing the defendants from using the old plans in any future elections; an order establishing a schedule by which the State—or the court if they fail—must enact new, lawful congressional and legislative redistricting plans; and an order staying the primary candidate filing and qualification deadlines pending the implementation of lawful new districts.

The case was assigned to District Judge J. Michelle Childs, but the plaintiffs requested a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284 on October 15, 2021, which the court granted on December 9. The court noted that numerous three-judge courts have adjudicated challenges to district lines and been affirmed by the Supreme Court. 2021 WL 5853172. On December 16, the Chief Judge for the Fourth Circuit appointed Circuit Judge Toby J. Heytens and District Judge Richard M. Gergel to preside with Judge Childs. The defendants moved to disqualify Judge Gergel on January 6, and he declined to recuse himself on January 10. 2022 WL 2374229. The defendants moved for reconsideration of his recusal on January 18, which he denied on January 19. 2022 WL 2374225. On April 5, 2022, Judge Childs withdrew from the case after being nominated for the D.C. Circuit. District Judge Margaret B. Seymour was assigned to replace Judge Childs on the three-judge panel, but she announced her retirement from the bench a short while later. On July 21, 2022, District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis was assigned to the case. 

On November 4, 2021, the House defendants moved the court to stay the case because they argued it was not ripe because new lines had yet to be drawn but would be drawn before the preliminary filing deadlines for the 2022 election cycle. They urged the court to stay the case against them until the legislature actually fails to reapportion in a timely manner. The Senate defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the case on November 9, 2021. Their arguments were similar to the House defendants’, but they requested a dismissal due to lack of ripeness rather than merely a stay. Also on November 9, the Governor moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs’ freedom of association claims did not survive the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause. 

The court granted the motion to stay and denied the Senate defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 12, 2021, but it declined to rule on the Governor’s motion, noting in a footnote that the motion went to the merits of the claim rather than jurisdiction. Supporting its decision to stay the case, the court noted that the threat that the Legislature won’t complete redistricting before January was too speculative. It also noted that, if redistricting still had not been completed before the Legislature’s Regular Session (beginning  January 11), the threat of vote dilution would be more imminent. In that light, the proceedings were stayed until January 18, 2021. 572 F.Supp.3d 215.

On December 10, 2021, the Governor signed a new state legislature district map into law.

On December 23, 2021, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add two claims challenging the redistricted maps as unconstitutional. Their first new claim argued the map was a racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Second, they contended the new districts were drawn with a racially discriminatory intent against Black voters in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. The plaintiffs added a new request for relief, asking that the court declare the new districts unconstitutional, impose a temporary and permanent injunction barring the defendants from using the plan in any future elections, and order new redistricting plans in the event the defendants failed to adopt new plans by February 15, 2022.

The House defendants and the Governor filed separate motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on January 6, 2022, with the Governor filing a motion for summary judgment on February 1, arguing that he had legislative immunity from suit for signing a bill into law, and that the general authority of a state’s chief executive is  insufficient to make a governor a defendant in a case challenging the constitutionality of a law.

The plaintiffs moved to compel the House Defendants to disclose documents and testimony on February 2, 2022, after the defendants issued a blanket objection to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests by asserting “legislative privilege.” The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part on February 10, 2022, holding that legislative privilege is qualified and depends on the balance of interests. Given the importance of drawing fair election districts, which will exist for a decade, the court granted a large quantity of discovery to the plaintiffs, including depositions of all legislators, staff, and consultants involved in the creation of the maps, and numerous categories of documents related to their creation. 584 F.Supp.3d 152. Many of the motions over the rest of the following year of litigation concern the defendants claiming privilege and moving to quash discovery requests with the plaintiffs in turn filing motions to compel discovery, with the court balancing the respective interests in its rulings. 

Also on February 10, the court gave leave to the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, 2022 WL 408427, which they filed that same day. At that point, the plaintiffs removed the Governor as a defendant, mooting his previous motions. Prior to February 10, the South Carolina Legislature passed redistricted maps for the state’s U.S. Congressional districts, and the second amended complaint adds two counts challenging those maps as  racial gerrymanders and alleging they were drawn with discriminatory intent.

The House defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on February 14, 2022, arguing that, because the individual plaintiff was not challenging the house district map and the NAACP didn’t identify any members who lived in the challenged districts, the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their complaint against the House defendants. They also argued that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead racial gerrymandering. They also moved to stay the order compelling discovery until the jurisdictional issue was resolved. 

On the same day, February 14, the court denied the House defendants’ motions, holding that the NAACP plausibly alleged it has 13,000 members who reside in every county of South Carolina, which is enough to show it has standing in the pleading stage. 2022 WL 453533.

On February 15, 2022, in a hearing before Judge Gergel, the plaintiffs and House defendants requested a two week stay to allow for settlement negotiations, which was granted in the hearing. 

While settlement negotiations occurred, the Election defendants filed their answer and a motion to dismiss on February 24, 2022, arguing that the plaintiffs fail to plausibly claim the new map results in adverse effects on an identifiable group and was enacted because of that effect, not merely in spite of it.

On April 13, 2022, the court ordered the NAACP to provide the House defendants with the names and addresses of members who reside in each challenged House district. The disclosure was subject to an “attorneys’ eyes only” protective order.

The plaintiffs and House defendants reached a settlement agreement prior to April 22, 2022, but the court denied their motions for approval of the settlement on April 25, holding that the House defendants alone did not have the requisite authority to settle the claims. 2022 WL 2375812.

On May 5, 2022, the plaintiffs and House defendants reached an effective settlement agreement in which the parties agreed that the House defendants would take steps to enact agreed upon districting maps. The agreement contemplates that the State Senate and Governor will complete the legislative process to enact the maps, but doesn’t bind them to do so. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed to drop counts one and two from their complaint, with the ability to reallege the claims if the maps were not enacted.

The plaintiffs amended their complaint a third time on May 6, 2022 to remove counts one and two as agreed in the settlement. They maintained their challenge to the congressional district maps as racial gerrymandering and intentional discrimination.  

In response, the Senate and House defendants filed separate motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on May 20, 2022. They challenged the plaintiffs’ standing to challenge the district maps and asserted that they had not alleged enough facts to plausibly support their claims. The court denied these motions on June 28, 2022, holding that the private plaintiff had standing to challenge the district he lived in and the NAACP had associational standing because it had members in the challenged districts. The court further held that discriminatory intent and improper use of race in drawing district lines can be proved by circumstantial evidence, and the plaintiffs alleged sufficient circumstantial evidence to survive a motion to dismiss. 2022 WL 2334410.

On August 16, 2022, the Senate and House defendants moved to strike plaintiffs’ supplemental disclosures as improper and to exclude some of their witnesses as untimely, arguing that the timing of the filings violated Federal Rule 26. The court denied the motion to strike on September 2, 2022, choosing instead to extend the discovery deadline to allow the defendants to respond and conduct their own discovery for the new disclosures. 2022 WL 4009058.

The Senate and House defendants moved for summary judgment on August 19, arguing that their maps were drawn as a partisan gerrymander to disenfranchise democratic party voters rather than based on race. 

On September 2, 2022 the plaintiffs and defendants filed a substantial number of motions in limine to exclude expert testimony and exclude certain evidence or arguments. In two opinions filed on September 15, the court denied all of the motions because the purpose of evidentiary gatekeeping is to keep unreliable evidence from the jury. Since the forthcoming trial was to be a bench trial, the judges found “there is less need for the gatekeeper to keep the gate when the gatekeeper is keeping the gate only for herself or himself.” 2022 WL 4276713. 

The court also denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion on September 15, 2022. It held that, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, issues of material fact remained as to whether the defendants engaged in intentional discrimination against Black South Carolinians or used race as a proxy for partisan goals. 2022 WL 4295187.

On October 6, 2022, the three-judge panel held a bench trial. The trial lasted until October 14, with closing arguments held on November 29, 2022. The panel issued a ruling on January 6, 2023, declaring that District 1 was a racial gerrymander and constituted intentional discrimination against the plaintiffs. The court held that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden for Districts 2 and 5. The order enjoined elections in District 1 until further order of the court and gave the South Carolina General Assembly until March 31, 2023 to present the court with a remedial map for consideration. 649 F.Supp.3d 177.

The panel based its District 1 ruling primarily on the fact that the district’s constituency changed significantly while its black voter population remained constant, which required the removal of 30,000 black residents. The standard for finding a racial gerrymander is whether race “predominated” in the drawing of a district’s boundaries (which is also the standard for discriminatory intent in reapportioning districts). The panel found that race predominated in the drawing of District 1, relying on testimony from the redistricting map’s designer as well as statistical modeling provided by expert witnesses. The map’s designer was directed to keep two of the district’s counties whole, which forced him to substantially redraw the boundaries to achieve the plan’s overall political gerrymandering goals. The court based its inference of racial predominance on the upheaval in the district’s population with the percentage of black voters remaining constant, the makeup of specific communities that were split, and models showing that the state’s ostensible partisanship goals could have been achieved without “exiling” black voters from the district. 649 F.Supp.3d 177.

The panel’s determination that District 2 was not a racial gerrymander rested on the fact that its disputed features were consistent with its shape before the present redistricting plan and the intent was consistent with incumbent protection—a permissible redistricting concern. For District 5, the panel determined that the change in black voters from the previous plan to the present plan was too small to carry an inference of racial gerrymandering. 649 F.Supp.3d 177.

On January 27, 2023, the defendants notified the court that they were appealing its ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court—which exercises direct appellate review over decisions of District Courts sitting in three-judge panels—and they moved to stay the order pending the Court’s review. On February 4, 2023, the court denied the defendants’ motion because they did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. The court did, however, extend the South Carolina legislature’s deadline to submit a new district map until 30 days after the Supreme Court resolved defendants’ appeal. 

On February 17, 2023, the defendants submitted their appeal to the Supreme Court. They argued that the District Court panel failed to apply the presumption of good faith, that it erred in disregarding the alternative-map requirement, used race impermissibly in its decision, misconstrued the predominance standard, and clearly erred in finding racial predominance in South Carolina’s mapmaking. The State of Alabama and the National Republican Redistricting Trust filed amicus briefs on March 29, 2023. 

The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on May 15, 2023, and the case proceeded into the merits briefing stage. 143 S.Ct. 2456. On July 14, 2023, a number of parties submitted amicus briefs, including the United States (in support of neither party); Judicial Watch, Inc.; the governor of South Carolina; all six of South Carolina’s Republican congresspeople in the House of Representatives; the State of Alabama; the National Republican Redistricting Trust; and the Fair Lines America Foundation. Another tranche of amicus briefs were filed on August 18, 2023. The amici included: the Constitutional Accountability Center, political science professors, historians, the Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina, Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos and Jowei Chen, and Congressman James Clyburn. The Court granted the Solicitor General of the United States leave to participate in oral arguments on September 26, 2023, and oral arguments were held on October 11, 2023. 

As of November 15, 2023, the case was ongoing.

Summary Authors

Terry Howard (1/3/2023)

Terry Howard (11/15/2023)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60656841/parties/south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp-the-v-alexander/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Aden, Leah C (South Carolina)

Audain, Raymond (South Carolina)

Barnes, Anna Kathryn (South Carolina)

Bryant, Christopher James (South Carolina)

Attorney for Defendant

Barber, Hamilton Bohanon (South Carolina)

Expert/Monitor/Master
Judge(s)

Lewis, Mary Geiger (South Carolina)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

22-00807

Docket

Alexander v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 27, 2023

Feb. 27, 2023

Docket
1

3:21-cv-03302

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Three Judge Panel Requested

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

Complaint
63

3:21-cv-03302

Order and Opinion

South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McMaster

Nov. 12, 2021

Nov. 12, 2021

Order/Opinion
70

3:21-cv-03302

Order and Opinion

South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McMaster

Dec. 9, 2021

Dec. 9, 2021

Order/Opinion
153

3:21-cv-03302

Order and Opinion

South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McMaster

Feb. 10, 2022

Feb. 10, 2022

Order/Opinion
161

3:21-cv-03302

Order and Opinion

Feb. 14, 2022

Feb. 14, 2022

Order/Opinion
236

3:21-cv-03302

Order

April 25, 2022

April 25, 2022

Order/Opinion
260

3:21-cv-03302

Status Update Regarding Settlement by Legislation

May 5, 2022

May 5, 2022

Pleading / Motion / Brief
266-1

3:21-cv-03302

Settlement Agreement and Release

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

Settlement Agreement
267

3:21-cv-03302

Third Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60656841/south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp-the-v-alexander/

Last updated Dec. 1, 2023, 9:55 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0420-10118586.), filed by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Service due by 1/10/2022(asni, ) (Main Document 1 replaced on 10/22/2021) (asni, ). Modified to replace document to correct scrivener's error on 10/22/2021 (asni, ). (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

Clearinghouse
2

Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The.(asni, ) (Main Document 2 replaced on 10/13/2021) (asni, ). (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
4

Summons Issued as to Henry D McMaster. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
5

Summons Issued as to Harvey Peeler. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
6

Summons Issued as to Luke A Rankin. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
7

Summons Issued as to James H Lucas. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
8

Summons Issued as to Chris Murphy. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
9

Summons Issued as to Wallace H Jordan. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
10

Summons Issued as to Howard Knapp. (asni, ) (Main Document 10 replaced on 10/22/2021) (asni, ). Modified to replace document to correct scrivener's error on 10/22/2021 (asni, ). (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
11

Summons Issued as to John Wells. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
12

Summons Issued as to JoAnne Day. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
13

Summons Issued as to Clifford J Elder. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
14

Summons Issued as to Linda McCall. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
15

Summons Issued as to Scott Moseley. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

RECAP
16

NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew Addison Mathias on behalf of Wallace H Jordan, James H Lucas, Chris Murphy (Mathias, Andrew) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

Oct. 13, 2021

Oct. 13, 2021

RECAP
17

MOTION Request for a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 10/29/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/15/2021)

1 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service

View on RECAP

Oct. 15, 2021

Oct. 15, 2021

RECAP
18

RESPONSE in Opposition re 17 MOTION Request for a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) Response filed by Wallace H Jordan, James H Lucas, Chris Murphy.Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/26/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Murphy Letter dated 10/8/2021, # 2 Exhibit Murphy Letter dated 9/3/2021, # 3 Exhibit NAACP Email dated 10/8/2021)(Wilkins, William) (Entered: 10/19/2021)

1 Exhibit Murphy Letter dated 10/8/2021

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit Murphy Letter dated 9/3/2021

View on RECAP

3 Exhibit NAACP Email dated 10/8/2021

View on RECAP

Oct. 19, 2021

Oct. 19, 2021

RECAP
19

NOTICE of Appearance by Robert E Tyson, Jr on behalf of Harvey Peeler, Luke A Rankin (Tyson, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2021)

Oct. 20, 2021

Oct. 20, 2021

RECAP
20

NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Ashley Limehouse, Jr on behalf of Henry D McMaster (Limehouse, Thomas) (Entered: 10/20/2021)

Oct. 20, 2021

Oct. 20, 2021

RECAP
21

Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Henry D McMaster.(Limehouse, Thomas) (Entered: 10/20/2021)

Oct. 20, 2021

Oct. 20, 2021

RECAP
22

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by John M. Gore ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-10137675) by Harvey Peeler, Luke A Rankin. Response to Motion due by 11/3/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A - Application/Affidavit for Pro Hac Vice - Gore, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B - Certificate of Good Standing)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.(Tyson, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2021)

1 Exhibit Ex. A - Application/Affidavit for Pro Hac Vice - Gore

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit Ex. B - Certificate of Good Standing

View on RECAP

Oct. 20, 2021

Oct. 20, 2021

RECAP
23

TEXT ORDER granting 22 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/21/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/21/2021)

Oct. 21, 2021

Oct. 21, 2021

PACER
24

REPLY to Response to Motion re 17 MOTION Request for a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) Response filed by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service)(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/21/2021)

Oct. 21, 2021

Oct. 21, 2021

RECAP
25

ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Henry D McMaster served on 10/19/2021, answer due 11/9/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Signed McMaster Acceptance of Service, # 2 Letter accompanying signed acceptance of service)(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/22/2021)

Oct. 22, 2021

Oct. 22, 2021

RECAP
26

ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Wallace H Jordan served on 10/19/2021, answer due 11/9/2021; James H Lucas served on 10/19/2021, answer due 11/9/2021; Chris Murphy served on 10/19/2021, answer due 11/9/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Signed Lucas, Murphy, and Jordan Acceptance of Service)(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/22/2021)

Oct. 22, 2021

Oct. 22, 2021

RECAP
27

ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Harvey Peeler served on 10/20/2021, answer due 11/10/2021; Luke A Rankin served on 10/20/2021, answer due 11/10/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Signed Peeler and Rankin Acceptance of Service)(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/22/2021)

Oct. 22, 2021

Oct. 22, 2021

RECAP
28

Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Wallace H Jordan, James H Lucas, Chris Murphy.(Mathias, Andrew) (Entered: 10/22/2021)

Oct. 22, 2021

Oct. 22, 2021

RECAP
29

MOTION to Correct Scrivener's Error by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 11/5/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Corrected Summons)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/22/2021)

Oct. 22, 2021

Oct. 22, 2021

RECAP
30

TEXT ORDER granting 29 Motion to Correct Scrivener's Error. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/22/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/22/2021)

Oct. 22, 2021

Oct. 22, 2021

PACER
31

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Patricia Yan ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-10145665) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 11/9/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Patricia Yan Application and Affidavit)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

RECAP
32

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Samantha Osaki ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-10145821) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 11/9/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Samantha Osaki Application and Affidavit)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

RECAP
33

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sarah Gryll ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-10145959) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 11/9/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Gryll PHV Application and Affidavit, # 2 Gryll Additional Bars and Associated Counsel, # 3 Gryll Certificate of Good Standing)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

RECAP
34

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by John Cusick ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-10146512) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 11/9/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Cusick PHV Application and Affidavit, # 2 Cusick Certificate of Good Standing)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

RECAP
35

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Leah Aden ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-10146553) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 11/9/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Aden PHV Application and Affidavit, # 2 Aden Certificate of Good Standing)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

RECAP
36

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Raymond Audain ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-10146571) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 11/9/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Audain PHV Application and Affidavit, # 2 Audain Certificate of Good Service)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

RECAP
37

TEXT ORDER granting 31 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/26/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

PACER
38

TEXT ORDER granting 32 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/26/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

PACER
39

TEXT ORDER granting 33 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/26/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

PACER
40

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Stuart Naifeh ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-10146644) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 11/9/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Naifeh PHV Application and Affidavit, # 2 Naifeh Certificate of Good Standing)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

RECAP
41

TEXT ORDER granting 34 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/26/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

PACER
42

TEXT ORDER granting 35 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/26/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

PACER
43

TEXT ORDER granting 36 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/26/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

PACER
44

TEXT ORDER granting 40 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/26/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/26/2021)

Oct. 26, 2021

Oct. 26, 2021

PACER
45

RESPONSE in Opposition re 17 MOTION Request for a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) Response and Memo in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Three Judge Court Response filed by Harvey Peeler, Luke A Rankin.Reply to Response to Motion due by 11/4/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Tyson, Robert) (Entered: 10/28/2021)

Oct. 28, 2021

Oct. 28, 2021

RECAP
46

Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Harvey Peeler, Luke A Rankin.(Tyson, Robert) (Entered: 10/28/2021)

Oct. 28, 2021

Oct. 28, 2021

RECAP
47

RESPONSE in Opposition re 17 MOTION Request for a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) Response filed by Henry D McMaster.Reply to Response to Motion due by 11/4/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Lambert, William) (Entered: 10/28/2021)

Oct. 28, 2021

Oct. 28, 2021

RECAP
48

Corporate Disclosure Statement by South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The identifying Corporate Parent NAACP for South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The.. (Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 11/02/2021)

Nov. 2, 2021

Nov. 2, 2021

RECAP
49

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Somil B. Trivedi ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number ASCDC-10162489) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 11/16/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Trivedi Notarized Application and COGS)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 11/02/2021)

Nov. 2, 2021

Nov. 2, 2021

RECAP
50

TEXT ORDER granting 49 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/2/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 11/02/2021)

Nov. 2, 2021

Nov. 2, 2021

PACER
51

MOTION to Stay and Memorandum in Support by Wallace H Jordan, James H Lucas, Chris Murphy. Response to Motion due by 11/18/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.(Wilkins, William) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

RECAP
52

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Stephen J. Kenny ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number ASCDC-10169893) by Harvey Peeler, Luke A Rankin. Response to Motion due by 11/18/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A - Application Affidavit for PHV Admission - Kenny, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B - Certificate of Good Standing - Kenny)No proposed order.(Tyson, Robert) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

RECAP
53

TEXT ORDER: Before the court is House Defendants' Motion to Stay the present litigation. (ECF No. 51.) House Defendants allege Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to South Carolina's current legislative districts is not yet ripe for judicial review. Local Civ. Rule 7.06 (D.S.C.) ordinarily permits opposing parties fourteen (14) days to file a memorandum or response to a motion. This case implicates time-sensitive and weighty issues of federal constitutional law. In the interest of achieving a timely resolution of this matter, the court ORDERS the parties to file any memoranda or responses in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay (ECF No. 51) by November 9, 2021. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/4/2021. (asni, ) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
54

REPLY to Response to Motion re 17 MOTION Request for a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) Combined Reply to Governor's and Senate Defendants' responses Response filed by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. (Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

RECAP
55

TEXT ORDER granting 52 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/5/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

Nov. 5, 2021

Nov. 5, 2021

PACER
56

LETTER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER James H Lucas answer due 11/30/2021; Chris Murphy answer due 11/30/2021; Wallace H Jordan answer due 11/30/2021. (Mathias, Andrew) (Entered: 11/09/2021)

Nov. 9, 2021

Nov. 9, 2021

RECAP
57

MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative, MOTION to Stay the Case by Harvey Peeler, Luke A Rankin. Response to Motion due by 11/23/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.(Tyson, Robert). Added MOTION to Stay on 11/10/2021 (asni, ). (Entered: 11/09/2021)

Nov. 9, 2021

Nov. 9, 2021

RECAP
58

RESPONSE to Motion re 51 MOTION to Stay and Memorandum in Support Response filed by Harvey Peeler, Luke A Rankin.Reply to Response to Motion due by 11/16/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Tyson, Robert) (Entered: 11/09/2021)

Nov. 9, 2021

Nov. 9, 2021

RECAP
59

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 11/23/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Taiwan Scott Declaration, # 2 Exhibit South Carolina NAACP Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Bryant Attorney Declaration)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 11/09/2021)

Nov. 9, 2021

Nov. 9, 2021

RECAP
60

RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 MOTION to Stay and Memorandum in Support Response filed by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The.Reply to Response to Motion due by 11/16/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 11/09/2021)

Nov. 9, 2021

Nov. 9, 2021

RECAP
61

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ( Response to Motion due by 11/23/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. ) by Henry D McMaster. No proposed order.(Limehouse, Thomas) (Entered: 11/09/2021)

Nov. 9, 2021

Nov. 9, 2021

RECAP
62

RESPONSE to Motion re 51 MOTION to Stay and Memorandum in Support Response filed by Henry D McMaster.Reply to Response to Motion due by 11/16/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Limehouse, Thomas) (Entered: 11/09/2021)

Nov. 9, 2021

Nov. 9, 2021

RECAP
63

ORDER AND OPINION granting in part 51 Motion to Stay by House Defendants'; denying 57 Motion to Dismiss by Senate Defendants'; and Staying the case until January 18, 2022. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/12/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 11/12/2021)

Nov. 12, 2021

Nov. 12, 2021

Clearinghouse
64

NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Reid Burchstead on behalf of JoAnne Day, Clifford J Elder, Howard Knapp, Linda McCall, Scott Moseley, John Wells (Burchstead, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2021)

Nov. 15, 2021

Nov. 15, 2021

RECAP
65

NOTICE of Appearance by Mary Elizabeth Crum on behalf of JoAnne Day, Clifford J Elder, Howard Knapp, Linda McCall, Scott Moseley, John Wells (Crum, Mary) (Entered: 11/15/2021)

Nov. 15, 2021

Nov. 15, 2021

RECAP
66

NOTICE of Appearance by Jane W Trinkley on behalf of JoAnne Day, Clifford J Elder, Howard Knapp, Linda McCall, Scott Moseley, John Wells (Trinkley, Jane) (Entered: 11/17/2021)

Nov. 17, 2021

Nov. 17, 2021

RECAP
67

ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by JoAnne Day, Clifford J Elder, Howard Knapp, Linda McCall, Scott Moseley, John Wells.(Burchstead, Michael) (Entered: 11/29/2021)

Nov. 29, 2021

Nov. 29, 2021

RECAP
68

Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by JoAnne Day, Clifford J Elder, Howard Knapp, Linda McCall, Scott Moseley, John Wells.(Burchstead, Michael) (Entered: 11/29/2021)

Nov. 29, 2021

Nov. 29, 2021

RECAP
69

TEXT ORDER: The court previously stayed the proceedings in this case until January 18, 2021, to give the South Carolina Legislature time to draw up districting plans ahead of upcoming election deadlines. (ECF No. 63.) At this time, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 59) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 61) remains pending before the court. In order to facilitate the timely and judicious resolution of these issues once the stay is lifted, the court now orders the parties to file any responses in opposition to the pending motions by Friday, December 17, 2021. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/6/2021. (asni, ) (Entered: 12/06/2021)

Dec. 6, 2021

Dec. 6, 2021

PACER
70

ORDER granting [ECF No. 17] Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting a Three-Judge Panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2248(a). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/9/2021.(aabd, ) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

Dec. 9, 2021

Dec. 9, 2021

Clearinghouse
71

NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Wells Nicholson on behalf of JoAnne Day (Nicholson, Thomas) (Entered: 12/10/2021)

Dec. 10, 2021

Dec. 10, 2021

RECAP
72

NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Wells Nicholson on behalf of Clifford J Elder, Howard Knapp, Linda McCall, Scott Moseley, John Wells (Nicholson, Thomas) (Entered: 12/10/2021)

Dec. 10, 2021

Dec. 10, 2021

RECAP
73

Letter from Plaintiffs Regarding Forthcoming Amended Complaint and Pending Deadlines. (Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 12/15/2021)

Dec. 15, 2021

Dec. 15, 2021

RECAP
74

TEXT ORDER: The court has been informed that Plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint by December 23, 2021, as a result of legislation signed by Governor McMaster on December 10, 2021, creating new maps for the South Carolina House and Senate districts. (ECF No. 73.) Plaintiffs assert that all Defendants have consented to an amended complaint. (Id.) The court's December 6, 2021 order required that responses to Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 59) and Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 61) be due on December 17, 2021. The court hereby postpones the filing of any such responses as they will become moot upon the filing of an amended complaint. Therefore, any new motions regarding the amended complaint shall be filed by December 28, 2021, and any subsequent responses shall be due by January 5, 2021. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/16/2021. (asni, ) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

Dec. 16, 2021

Dec. 16, 2021

PACER
76

ORDER Designating Three Judge Panel. Honorable Toby J. Heytens, United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, and the Honorable Richard M. Gergel, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina added. Signed by Honorable Roger L. Gregory on 12/14/2021. (asni, ) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

Dec. 16, 2021

Dec. 16, 2021

RECAP
77

Joint MOTION for Hearing Regarding Scheduling by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 1/4/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 12/17/2021)

Dec. 17, 2021

Dec. 17, 2021

RECAP
79

MOTION for Extension of Time by Wallace H Jordan, James H Lucas, Chris Murphy, Luke A Rankin. Response to Motion due by 1/4/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.(Mathias, Andrew) (Entered: 12/21/2021)

Dec. 21, 2021

Dec. 21, 2021

RECAP
80

TEXT ORDER: The parties jointly request a hearing regarding scheduling in response to the court's text order (ECF No. 74) setting deadlines for filing certain pretrial motions after Plaintiffs file their amended complaint. (ECF No. 77.) Defendants Wallace H. Jordan, James H. Lucas, Chris Murphy and Luke A. Rankin additionally filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No.79), asking the court to set the deadline for responsive motions fourteen (14) days after the Amended Complaint is filed. (ECF No. 79.) The parties' concerns are duly noted, and Defendants' motion 79 is hereby GRANTED. Therefore, in accordance with Plaintiffs' earlier representation that the amended complaint will be filed "no later than December 23, 2021" (ECF No. 73 at 1), any responsive motions must be filed by January 6, 2022. The parties' joint motion 77 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/22/2021.(asni, ) (Entered: 12/22/2021)

Dec. 22, 2021

Dec. 22, 2021

PACER
81

TEXT ORDER: The court sets an informational session and status conference for the case for Wednesday, December 22 at 4:00 pm EST. The court hereby requests the parties each designate an attorney to serve as the official spokesperson for today's informational session, although we welcome all parties to attend the conference call. House Counsel Mr. Mark Moore shall arrange a call-in number and provide all counsel and the court with call-in instructions by 1:30 PM today. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/9/2021 (asni, ) (Entered: 12/22/2021)

Dec. 22, 2021

Dec. 22, 2021

PACER
82

NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 12/22/2021 04:00 PM before Honorable J Michelle Childs, Honorable Toby J Heytens, Honorable Richard M Gergel. This hearing will be conducted by telephone. Call-in instructions to follow. (asni, ) (Entered: 12/22/2021)

Dec. 22, 2021

Dec. 22, 2021

PACER
83

Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Honorable J Michelle Childs, Honorable Toby J Heytens, Honorable Richard M Gergel : Status Conference held on 12/22/2021. Court Reporter Kathleen Richardson. (kbos) (Entered: 12/22/2021)

Dec. 22, 2021

Dec. 22, 2021

PACER
84

AMENDED COMPLAINT for injunctive and declaratory relief against JoAnne Day, Clifford J Elder, Wallace H Jordan, Howard Knapp, James H Lucas, Linda McCall, Henry D McMaster, Scott Moseley, Chris Murphy, Luke A Rankin, John Wells, Thomas C. Alexander, filed by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Service due by 3/23/2022 (Bryant, Christopher) (Main Document 84 replaced on 1/4/2022) (asni, ). Modified to replace document to include missing paragraphs 150 and 156 on 1/4/2022 (asni, ). (Entered: 12/23/2021)

Dec. 23, 2021

Dec. 23, 2021

RECAP
85

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings. Telephonic Status Conference held on December 22, 2021, before Judges J. Michelle Childs, Toby Heytens, and Richard Gergel. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathleen Richardson, RMR, CRR, Telephone number/E-mail Kathleen_Richardson@scd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 7 calendar days from the filing of the transcript to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction.. Redaction Request due 1/18/2022. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/28/2022. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/28/2022. (kari, ) (Entered: 12/28/2021)

Dec. 28, 2021

Dec. 28, 2021

PACER
86

TEXT ORDER: This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant Henry D. McMaster's ("Governor McMaster") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 61.) In his Motion, Governor McMaster primarily argued that the court should dismiss the Complaint because Plaintiffs lacked standing without an injury-in-fact and their claims were not ripe. (See id. at 2-3.) After Governor McMaster signed legislation on December 10, 2021, creating new maps for the South Carolina House and Senate District, he and his co-Defendants consented to Plaintiffs filing an Amended Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 73, 74.) Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)( "A party may amend its pleading [] with the opposing party's written consent.... "). Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on December 23, 2021. (See ECF No. 83.) Because Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is now the controlling pleading in the case, the court DENIES AS MOOT Governor McMaster's Motion to Dismiss 61 . See, e.g., Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir.2001) ("The general rule... is that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect."); Creamer v. Town of Williamston, No. 8:12-cv-00501-GRA-JDA, 2012 WL 2913265, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 2012) ("A timely filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. As a result, motions directed at the superseded pleading generally are to be denied as moot." (internal and external citations omitted)). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/4/2022.(asni, ) (Entered: 01/04/2022)

Jan. 4, 2022

Jan. 4, 2022

PACER
87

TEXT ORDER: This matter is before the court pursuant to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction asking this court to "set a deadline of December 15, 2021, for the Legislative Defendants and the Governor to pass state House and U.S. Congressional maps into law," and if Defendants miss this deadline, to set "a schedule for trial that will resolve this case in sufficient time before any candidate declaration period begins," along with a "status conference immediately after the December 15, 2021 deadline to discuss any further appropriate remedies." (Id. at 1-2.) On December 10, 2021, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law legislation creating new maps for the South Carolina House and Senate Districts. (See ECF Nos. 73, 74.) Moreover, the court held a status conference where all parties consented to Plaintiffs filing an Amended Complaint addressing the new maps. (See ECF No 85.) Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on December 23, 2021. (See ECF No. 84.) Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is now the controlling pleading in the case, and the relief sought therein relates to the constitutionality of the newly passed district maps, as opposed to any Legislative delay in their passage. As the court concluded in its recent text order addressing Defendant Governor's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 61), "motions directed at the superseded pleading generally are to be denied as moot." (ECF No. 86). Therefore, the court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 59 . Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/6/2022.(asni, ) (Entered: 01/06/2022)

Jan. 6, 2022

Jan. 6, 2022

PACER
88

ANSWER to 84 Amended Complaint,, by JoAnne Day, Clifford J Elder, Howard Knapp, Linda McCall, Scott Moseley, John Wells.(Burchstead, Michael) (Entered: 01/06/2022)

Jan. 6, 2022

Jan. 6, 2022

RECAP
89

ANSWER to 84 Amended Complaint, by Thomas C. Alexander, Luke A Rankin.(Tyson, Robert) Modified to include filer on 1/6/2022 (asni, ). (Entered: 01/06/2022)

Jan. 6, 2022

Jan. 6, 2022

PACER
90

MOTION to Disqualify Judge Richard M. Gergel by Wallace H Jordan, James H Lucas, Chris Murphy. Response to Motion due by 1/20/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Transcript of Status Conference, # 2 Exhibit B - Backus Disqualification Order, # 3 Exhibit C - Sanders Memorandum in Support of Disqualification, # 4 Exhibit D - Sanders Disqualification Order, # 5 Exhibit E - Dong Disqualification Order, # 6 Exhibit F - Colleton County Amended Complaint, # 7 Exhibit G - Gov. Hodges' Response in Colleton County, # 8 Exhibit H - Gov. Hodges' Trial Brief in Colleton County)No proposed order.(Mathias, Andrew) (Entered: 01/06/2022)

Jan. 6, 2022

Jan. 6, 2022

PACER
91

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ( Response to Motion due by 1/20/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. ) by Wallace H Jordan, James H Lucas, Chris Murphy. No proposed order.(Mathias, Andrew) (Entered: 01/06/2022)

Jan. 6, 2022

Jan. 6, 2022

PACER
92

House Defendants' ANSWER to 84 Amended Complaint,, by Wallace H Jordan, James H Lucas, Chris Murphy.(Mathias, Andrew) (Entered: 01/06/2022)

Jan. 6, 2022

Jan. 6, 2022

PACER
93

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Antonio L. Ingram II ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number ASCDC-10267700) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 1/20/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ingram PHV application and affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Ingram Certificate of Good Standing)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 01/06/2022)

Jan. 6, 2022

Jan. 6, 2022

PACER
94

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ( Response to Motion due by 1/20/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. ) by Henry D McMaster. No proposed order.(Limehouse, Thomas) (Entered: 01/06/2022)

Jan. 6, 2022

Jan. 6, 2022

PACER
95

TEXT ORDER granting 93 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/7/2022.(asni, ) (Entered: 01/07/2022)

Jan. 7, 2022

Jan. 7, 2022

PACER
96

ORDER: The Movants motion for recusal under § 455(a) and (b)(1) and (b)(2), (Dkt. No. 90), is DENIED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 1/10/22.(ltap, ) (Entered: 01/10/2022)

Jan. 10, 2022

Jan. 10, 2022

RECAP
97

SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 1/24/2022, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 2/1/2022, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 2/1/2022, Discovery due by 2/17/2022, Motion in Limine due by 2/22/2022, Motions due by 2/18/2022, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 2/18/2022, Pretrial Conference due by 2/25/2022, Bench Trial 2/28/2022 - 3/8/2022, Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law due by 3/14/2022. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/12/2022. (asni, ) (Entered: 01/12/2022)

Jan. 12, 2022

Jan. 12, 2022

RECAP
98

NOTICE of Hearing: Bench Trial set for 2/28/2022 - 3/4/2022 and 3/7/2022 - 3/8/2022 09:30 AM in Columbia #1, Matthew J. Perry Court House, 901 Richland St, Columbia before Honorable J Michelle Childs. CLERK'S NOTE: If any party intends to use the courtroom's electronic system to display exhibits or videos, please contact Karen Boston (Courtroom Deputy) at 803-253-3477 to set up a date and time to test the equipment. Only attorneys are allowed to bring cell phones into the courthouse. The phones must be off while in the courtroom but may be used in the lobby. All persons entering the courthouse must have picture identification.(asni, ) (Entered: 01/14/2022)

Jan. 14, 2022

Jan. 14, 2022

PACER
99

ANSWER to 84 Amended Complaint,, by Henry D McMaster.(Lambert, William) (Entered: 01/17/2022)

Jan. 17, 2022

Jan. 17, 2022

PACER
100

NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Antonio Parente on behalf of Wallace H Jordan, James H Lucas, Chris Murphy (Parente, Michael) (Entered: 01/18/2022)

Jan. 18, 2022

Jan. 18, 2022

PACER
101

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Adriel Cepeda Derieux ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number ASCDC-10285409) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 2/1/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cepeda Derieux Application, Affidavit, and COGS)No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 01/18/2022)

1

View on RECAP

Jan. 18, 2022

Jan. 18, 2022

RECAP
102

MOTION for Reconsideration re 96 Order on Motion to Disqualify Judge Richard M. Gergel, MOTION for Recusal ( Response to Motion due by 2/1/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. ) by Wallace H Jordan, James H Lucas, Chris Murphy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Defendants, # 2 Exhibit B - Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants, # 3 Exhibit C - January 6, 2022 Draft Joint Rule 26(f) Report, # 4 Exhibit D - Backus Motion to Recuse, # 5 Exhibit E - Backus Disqualification Order, # 6 Exhibit F - Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures, # 7 Exhibit G - House Defendants' Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures, # 8 Exhibit H - Affidavit of James H. Lucas, # 9 Exhibit I - Affidavit of Charles F. Reid)No proposed order.(Mathias, Andrew) (Entered: 01/18/2022)

1

View on RECAP

2

View on RECAP

3

View on RECAP

4

View on RECAP

5

View on RECAP

6

View on RECAP

7

View on RECAP

8

View on RECAP

9

View on RECAP

Jan. 18, 2022

Jan. 18, 2022

RECAP
103

MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motions to Dismiss (Unopposed) by Taiwan Scott, South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The. Response to Motion due by 2/1/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.(Bryant, Christopher) (Entered: 01/18/2022)

Jan. 18, 2022

Jan. 18, 2022

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: South Carolina

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 12, 2021

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black South Carolinian voter.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Attorney Organizations:

NAACP Legal Defense Fund

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of South Carolina (Columbia, Richland), State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Freedom of speech/association

Equal Protection

Special Case Type(s):

Three-Judge Court

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

None yet

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Voluntary Dismissal

Content of Injunction:

Redistricting

Issues

Voting:

Voting

Redistricting/district composition

Vote dilution

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black