Skip to page content
Power & PoliticsUnited States edition
Sections
Only your five-digit ZIP code is sent. We never ask for your address.
Independent · nonpartisan
Voting history · South Carolina's 5th Congressional District

South Carolina's 5th Congressional District

A dated list of changes to how Americans vote: district maps, polling places and drop boxes, voting laws and rules, and courts and election officials. Each entry says who did what and when, shows what became of it, and links to the page it rests on. Attempts that failed are listed as failed. Entries that rest on a news report name the outlet.

This is the district view: events tagged to this congressional district, then events that apply across South Carolina, then national events. An event is tagged to a district only when its source names that congressional district. See all of South Carolina.

Kind of event
Decade

In South Carolina's 5th Congressional District

No events have been tagged to South Carolina's 5th Congressional District yet. District events are added over time. The state and national events below also apply here.

Across South Carolina

2026

  1. May 26, 2026 State Maps and lines Failed

    South Carolina Senate fails to advance a mid-decade congressional map

    NPR reported that on May 26, 2026 the state Senate did not advance a redistricting bill urged by President Trump that would have made all seven congressional districts lean Republican. A procedural vote to end debate failed when 12 Republicans joined 12 Democrats to block the 26 votes needed. Early voting for the June 9 primary had begun that day. The Senate Journal for May 26, 2026 records that on H. 5683 a motion under Rule 15B to close debate failed 20 to 24 at 1:28 p.m., and that the Senate then adopted a motion to continue the bill, 26 to 18.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

2022

  1. January 2022 State Maps and lines Enacted

    South Carolina adopts a new congressional map after the 2020 census

    The Supreme Court's opinion states that the legislature voted to adopt the enacted plan and the Governor signed it into law in January 2022. The opinion says the plan raised District 1's projected Republican vote share by 1.36% to 54.39% and its black voting-age population from 16.56% to 16.72%.

    Congressional districts named: SC-1, SC-6

    Related: Three-judge court holds South Carolina's Congressional District 1 an unconstitutional racial classification · Supreme Court decides Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1997

  1. Apr 1, 1997 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's 1997 state Senate plan

    In a letter of April 1, 1997, the Justice Department stated that, on behalf of the Attorney General, it must object to the 1997 redistricting plan for the South Carolina Senate, and also objected on the ground that the plan represented a clear violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Senate asked for reconsideration; in a letter of May 14, 1997 the Department stated it no longer based the objection on Section 2 but declined to withdraw it as to proposed District 37.

    Related: Federal court addresses South Carolina's 1995 state Senate plan in Smith v. Beasley

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1994

  1. May 2, 1994 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's 1994 state House plan

    In a letter of May 2, 1994, the Justice Department addressed the 1994 redistricting plan for the 124-member South Carolina House of Representatives. The letter states that the plan "continues to be legally unenforceable" until the objection is withdrawn or a judgment is obtained from the District of Columbia court. The letter notes that the existing House plan had been adopted by the federal district court in May 1992.

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1981

  1. Nov 18, 1981 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's 1981 House reapportionment, Act R249

    In a letter listed in its index as dated November 18, 1981, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R249 (1981), the reapportionment of the South Carolina House of Representatives, received September 19, 1981. The plan had 124 single-member districts, "the overwhelming majority of which are unobjectionable," but the letter found noticeable dilution or fragmentation of the minority vote in districts in Florence, Richland, Lee, Allendale-Bamberg-Barnwell and Jasper-Beaufort counties, and states "I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to Act No. R249 pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965." A later letter, on the state's request for reconsideration, withdrew the objection only as to the Allendale, Bamberg and Barnwell counties area and declined to withdraw it as to the other parts of the plan.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1974

  1. Feb 14, 1974 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's House reapportionment act

    In a letter of February 14, 1974, the Justice Department addressed the Act to Reapportion the House of Representatives, approved by the Governor on October 26, 1973. It states "On behalf of the Attorney General I must, therefore, interpose an objection to the implementation of this Act," and that the objection "is based upon two aspects of this plan - the submergence of significant concentrations of Negro voters into large majority-white multi-member districts and the magnification of this dilution of Negro voting strength by the numbered post and majority vote requirement." It adds that "the legal effect of the objection of the Attorney General is to render unenforceable this reapportionment plan."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1973

  1. Jul 20, 1973 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's Senate plan in Act No. 1205 after a court-ordered reconsideration

    In a letter of July 20, 1973, the Justice Department addressed Act No. 1205, which reapportioned the South Carolina Senate and was submitted May 9, 1972. On June 30, 1972 it had said no objection would be interposed because it was "constrained to defer" to a three-judge court's May 23, 1972 decision; a federal court in Harper v. Richardson later remanded the matter, and on July 19, 1973 ordered the Attorney General to consider the plan without regard to that decision. The letter states "I am unable to conclude that Act No. 1205 does not have the effect of abridging voting rights on account of race. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the implementation of the election procedure set forth in that statute." The Department's index notes that the objection was ruled untimely in Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (1977).

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1972

  1. Mar 6, 1972 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's Senate redistricting plans under Act No. 932

    In a letter of March 6, 1972, the Justice Department addressed the redistricting plans for the South Carolina Senate under Act No. 932 (Plan A and Plan B), submitted by the Attorney General of South Carolina and received on November 22, 1971. It states "we are unable to conclude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act, that either proposed Plan A or Plan B will not have the effect of abridging the right of black citizens of South Carolina to vote on account of race or color," and that "I must on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to changes submitted by these reapportionment plans." The letter cites Whitcomb v. Chavis on the potential effect of multi-member districts.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

Nationwide

2026

  1. Sep 10, 2026 National Maps and lines Proposed

    Census Bureau proposes residence criteria for the 2030 census that would exclude some noncitizens from the apportionment count

    On September 10, 2026 the Census Bureau, an agency of the Department of Commerce, published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (91 FR 57524, Docket No. 260903-0005, RIN 0607-AA75) that would add two new parts to the Code of Federal Regulations: residence criteria for the decennial census, and standards and restrictions for demographic questions on the census questionnaire. On residence, the notice states that "the Census Bureau proposes to include lawful permanent residents within the apportionment base, while excluding from the apportionment base illegal aliens and aliens whose legal status is less durable and indefinite in length than lawful permanent resident status," and says it is considering using administrative records to determine legal status. The comment period, first set to end October 13, 2026, was extended to November 2, 2026 by a notice published October 5, 2026. Al Jazeera and CNBC reported on the proposal, and CNBC reported that opponents expect litigation.

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

2021

  1. Aug 12, 2021 National Maps and lines Settled

    Census Bureau releases 2020 redistricting data for states

    On August 12, 2021, the Census Bureau released the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, which it described as delivering data for states to begin redistricting. On September 16, 2021, it released the same data in an easier-to-use format on data.census.gov and delivered a toolkit to states.

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  2. Apr 26, 2021 National Maps and lines Settled

    Census Bureau announces 2020 Census apportionment results

    On April 26, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that the 2020 Census resident population of the United States on April 1, 2020 was 331,449,281, and that Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo delivered the population counts used for apportionment of the U.S. House to the President.

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1967

  1. Dec 14, 1967 National Maps and lines Enacted

    Congress requires single-member congressional districts (Public Law 90-196)

    Public Law 90-196, approved December 14, 1967, provides that in each state entitled to more than one Representative "there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled," with "no district to elect more than one Representative."

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

How this timeline is built

Every entry rests on at least one source that was opened and read, and that source states the date and the fact. Courts, legislatures, election offices, the Justice Department, the Census Bureau, the Federal Register and Congress.gov come first. A news report is used only when no official page states the fact, and it is labeled with the outlet's name. Encyclopedias are not used as sources. History starts in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. County names come from the Census Bureau's 2024 Gazetteer. Congressional district numbers are those in use for the 2026 election; an event is tagged to a district only when its source names that congressional district.

When a later event changes an earlier one, such as a law later struck down, both entries are listed and point to each other. This page does not predict outcomes or say which party a change helps. U.S. House maps for 2026 · Back to the 2026 voting center.