Musk, Cook to join U.S. delegation on China trip

The South Carolina Senate on Tuesday rejected an effort to redraw the state’s congressional districts weeks before the primaries, despite pressure from President Donald Trump and support from House Republicans.

Senators voted 29-17 against adding redistricting to a resolution governing what lawmakers can do after the regular session ends Thursday. The motion needed a two-thirds majority. Five Republicans joined all 12 Democrats in voting no.

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, an Edgefield Republican, said changing the map now would delay congressional primaries, discard absentee ballots already cast, including some from military voters overseas, and create confusion that could reduce turnout. He also said South Carolina lawmakers should not follow a map drafted outside the state.

Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat, also opposed using “a map someone else gave us,” saying it would be unfair to voters and candidates.

Trump had called Republican senators, joined a GOP caucus meeting by phone, and urged action on social media.

The push followed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down Louisiana’s congressional map as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Massey said that ruling did not apply to South Carolina’s map, which he said had been upheld by the U.S. and state supreme courts. “We don’t have a racial gerrymander. We have a partisan gerrymander. We were trying to maximize Republican seats,” he said.

In the House, the Judiciary Committee voted 15-9 along party lines Tuesday to advance legislation that would adopt a new map and delay congressional primaries to Aug. 18. The map, first circulated by House Republicans last week, was written by Adam Kincaid of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. According to the trust, it would favor Republicans in all seven districts, including the 6th District held by U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn.

Election officials said the timeline would be difficult. Early voting begins in 14 days, 8,250 absentee ballots have been mailed, and 354 had already been returned, according to the state Election Commission. Elections Director Conway Belangia said any disruption could require staff to “work probably 24 hours a day.”

A Senate do-over vote was possible, but Massey said that was highly unlikely.

South Carolina’s Republican Party said Tuesday it plans to file a federal lawsuit next month challenging the state’s open primary system and seeking the ability to limit who can vote in Republican primaries.

Party Chairman Drew McKissick said the lawsuit would argue South Carolina’s system violates the party’s First Amendment right to decide who it associates with. He said the goal is to prevent voters who are not registered Republicans from voting in GOP primaries.

“This is the only alternative that we have left,” McKissick said after two bills to close primaries stalled early in the legislative session.

The proposals split House Republicans, faced long odds in the Senate, and would have been vetoed by the governor if they had passed.

At a Statehouse news conference, McKissick said the party has not decided whether to limit participation only to registered Republicans. The state party has backed legislation that would allow unaffiliated voters to participate, while automatically registering voters with a party after they cast a ballot in that party’s primary.

Attorney General Alan Wilson and U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, both Republican candidates for governor, joined McKissick in support of closing primaries. Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, and Sen. Josh Kimbrell have also publicly supported the idea.

Opponents told lawmakers earlier this year that closed primaries could block independents from voting and further reduce already low primary turnout. They also said any system requiring voters to register with a party in advance could create confusion.

South Carolina Republicans have challenged the system before. A federal judge dismissed a 2010 lawsuit brought by the Greenville County Republican Party in 2013, ruling the county party could not bring the case without deciding the underlying constitutional question.

McKissick pointed to court rulings recognizing parties’ First Amendment associational rights. He said a similar lawsuit in Texas is ongoing.