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

South Carolina

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 state view: events recorded for South Carolina, then national events that apply here. See the national timeline.

Congressional districts in South Carolina

Choose a district to see the events tagged to it. A number after the district is how many events name it.

Kind of event
Decade

In 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

2008

  1. Mar 21, 2008 County Maps and lines Settled

    Court enters consent decree on Georgetown County school board elections

    On March 14, 2008, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Georgetown County School District (D.S.C.) alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, on the ground that the at-large methods of electing the board diluted African American voting strength. The court entered a consent decree on March 21, 2008.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2004

  1. Nov 29, 2004 County Maps and lines Decided by a court

    Supreme Court denies review of ruling that Charleston County at-large council elections violated Section 2

    The Justice Department alleged in its complaint (D.S.C., listed as filed in 2001) that the at-large method of electing members of the Charleston County council violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. After trial the district court found the method violated Section 2, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed in a decision reported at 365 F.3d 341 (2004). The Department's page says certiorari was denied on November 29, 2004.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2003

  1. Sep 16, 2003 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in North (Orangeburg County): Annexations

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated September 16, 2003, to North (Orangeburg County). The list describes the change as "Annexations." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2002

  1. Dec 9, 2002 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Clinton (Laurens County): Annexations designation to Ward 1

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated December 9, 2002, to Clinton (Laurens County). The list describes the change as "Annexations designation to Ward 1." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Sep 3, 2002 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Union County School District (Union County): 2002 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated September 3, 2002, to Union County School District (Union County). The list describes the change as "2002 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Jun 27, 2002 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Sumter County: 2001 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 27, 2002, to Sumter County. The list describes the change as "2001 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2001

  1. Nov 2, 2001 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Greer (Greenville and Spartanburg Counties): 2001 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated November 2, 2001, to Greer (Greenville and Spartanburg Counties). The list describes the change as "2001 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Greenville County, Spartanburg County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Oct 12, 2001 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the City of Charleston's 2001 council plan

    In a letter of October 12, 2001, the Justice Department stated that, on behalf of the Attorney General, it must object to the City of Charleston's 2001 redistricting plan. The letter says the plan would reduce the number of majority-minority council districts from six to five, and it questions combining existing District 2 with District 4 given projected growth on Daniel Island, in the Berkeley County portion of the city.

    Counties: Charleston County, Berkeley County

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1998

  1. May 20, 1998 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Horry County's 1997 council redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's letter, listed as dated May 20, 1998 (the letter text references April 9, 1998), states that, on behalf of the Attorney General, the writer must object to the 1997 redistricting plan for the Horry County council, and that the plan continues to be legally unenforceable until the objection is withdrawn or a judgment is obtained from the District of Columbia court.

    Related: Federal court finds two Horry County council districts violated Shaw v. Reno principles

    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

1996

  1. Mar 5, 1996 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Gaffney Board of Public Works (Cherokee County): Readoption of the at-large method of election

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated March 5, 1996, to Gaffney Board of Public Works (Cherokee County). The list describes the change as "Readoption of the at-large method of election." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1995

  1. Nov 20, 1995 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Spartanburg County School District (Spartanburg County)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated November 20, 1995, to Spartanburg County School District (Spartanburg County). The list describes the change as "Section 19.67 of the 1995-96 State Government Appropriations Act which defunded the school district." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Feb 6, 1995 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Bennettsville (Marlboro County): 1994 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 6, 1995, to Bennettsville (Marlboro County). The list describes the change as "1994 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1994

  1. Oct 17, 1994 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in North Charleston (Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester Counties): Eight annexations

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated October 17, 1994, to North Charleston (Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester Counties). The list describes the change as "Eight annexations." The list adds the note "Withdrawn 8-20-96." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Berkeley County, Charleston County, Dorchester County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Jul 22, 1994 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Florence and Williamsburg Counties: Proposed county boundary change

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 22, 1994, to Florence and Williamsburg Counties. The list describes the change as "Proposed county boundary change." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Florence County, Williamsburg County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Jul 22, 1994 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Hemingway (Williamsburg County): Five residential annexations and a special annexation referendum

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 22, 1994, to Hemingway (Williamsburg County). The list describes the change as "Five residential annexations and a special annexation referendum." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. 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

1993

  1. Jul 6, 1993 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Johnston (Edgefield County): Redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 6, 1993, to Johnston (Edgefield County). The list describes the change as "Redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Feb 8, 1993 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Lee County: 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 8, 1993, to Lee County. The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Feb 8, 1993 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Lee County School District (Lee County): 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 8, 1993, to Lee County School District (Lee County). The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. Jan 5, 1993 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Marion County: 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated January 5, 1993, to Marion County. The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  5. Jan 5, 1993 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Marion County School District (Marion County): 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated January 5, 1993, to Marion County School District (Marion County). The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1992

  1. Nov 9, 1992 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Norway (Orangeburg County): Districting plan for the town council

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated November 9, 1992, to Norway (Orangeburg County). The list describes the change as "Districting plan for the town council." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Aug 28, 1992 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Dorchester County: 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated August 28, 1992, to Dorchester County. The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Jul 21, 1992 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Orangeburg County: 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 21, 1992, to Orangeburg County. The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. Jun 5, 1992 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Johnston (Edgefield County): 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 5, 1992, to Johnston (Edgefield County). The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  5. Jan 17, 1992 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Rock Hill (York County): 1991 redistricting plan for city council districts

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated January 17, 1992, to Rock Hill (York County). The list describes the change as "1991 redistricting plan for city council districts." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1990

  1. Aug 10, 1990 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in York (York County): Districting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated August 10, 1990, to York (York County). The list describes the change as "Districting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. May 3, 1990 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in North Charleston (Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester Counties): Districting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated May 3, 1990, to North Charleston (Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester Counties). The list describes the change as "Districting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Charleston County, Berkeley County, Dorchester County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Apr 23, 1990 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Anderson County School District

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated April 23, 1990, to Anderson County School District. The list describes the change as "Act R193 (1989)--method of election (three single-member districts and two multi-member districts) and districting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. Feb 2, 1990 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Bennettsville (Marlboro County)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 2, 1990, to Bennettsville (Marlboro County). The list describes the change as "Election schedule for implementing the change in method of electing the city council from at large to single-member districts." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1989

  1. Jun 13, 1989 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Lancaster (Lancaster County)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 13, 1989, to Lancaster (Lancaster County). The list describes the change as "Election method changes: increase in size of council from seven to nine members with six elected from single-member districts and three, including the mayor, elected at large, by plurality vote and staggered terms (Ordinance No. 88-40)." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1988

  1. Jul 18, 1988 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in School District No. 4 (Dorchester County): Districting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 18, 1988, to School District No. 4 (Dorchester County). The list describes the change as "Act No. R296 (1987)--districting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Jun 28, 1988 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Rock Hill (York County): Nineteen annexations

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 28, 1988, to Rock Hill (York County). The list describes the change as "Nineteen annexations." The list adds the note "Withdrawn 10-18-89 upon change in method of election." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1987

  1. May 22, 1987 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Edgefield County School District (Edgefield County): Districting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated May 22, 1987, to Edgefield County School District (Edgefield County). The list describes the change as "Districting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1986

  1. Dec 1, 1986 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Dorchester County School District No. 4 (Dorchester County): Appointed interim executive committee for the consolidated district

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated December 1, 1986, to Dorchester County School District No. 4 (Dorchester County). The list describes the change as "Act No. 536 (R632) (1986)--appointed interim executive committee for the consolidated district." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Oct 14, 1986 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Consolidated School District of Aiken County (Aiken and Saluda Counties)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated October 14, 1986, to Consolidated School District of Aiken County (Aiken and Saluda Counties). The list describes the change as "Implementation schedule for the election of school board members from nine single-member districts." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Aiken County, Saluda County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Oct 10, 1986 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Summerville (Dorchester County): Post-1980 annexations

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated October 10, 1986, to Summerville (Dorchester County). The list describes the change as "Post-1980 annexations; staggered terms." The list adds the note "Withdrawn 10-17-88--upon change in method of election." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. Apr 10, 1986 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Sumter (Sumter County): Increase from four to six councilmembers

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated April 10, 1986, to Sumter (Sumter County). The list describes the change as "Increase from four to six councilmembers; method of election; districting plan and annexations." The list adds the note "Objection to annexations Withdrawn 10-17-86 upon change in method of election." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1985

  1. Oct 21, 1985 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to 45 of 57 annexations to the City of Sumter

    In a letter of October 21, 1985, the Justice Department addressed 57 annexations to the City of Sumter, completed August 23, 1985. It interposed no objection to 12 of them but, as to the remaining 45, notes that "even though black citizens constitute almost 40 percent of the city's population, and although there have been several minority candidacies, no black has been elected to the city council in recent times," in the context of Sumter's at-large system with a majority vote requirement and staggered terms. It says the annexations "have decreased the city's minority population by approximately 4.98 percent" and that "what appears to be a pattern of annexation which seems calculated to take in only whites while excluding predominantly black areas has not been satisfactorily explained." It concludes "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the 45 annexations listed above."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Sep 3, 1985 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Orangeburg County council districts

    The Justice Department's letter, listed in its index as dated September 3, 1985, concerns the reapportionment of Orangeburg County council districts under County Resolution 84-2-3 (1985). The letter states that the submitted plan "failed to give any meaningful recognition to the significant increase in the county's minority population" over the decade, and that, on behalf of the Attorney General, the writer must object to it.

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  3. Jul 16, 1985 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to 52 annexations to the City of Spartanburg

    In a letter of July 16, 1985, the Justice Department addressed 105 annexations to the City of Spartanburg, completed May 17, 1985. It interposed no objection to 46 of them, found no determination necessary for others, and did not consider one that was not submitted, but as to 52 it states that "even though blacks constitute over 40 percent of the city's population, and although there have been many minority candidacies, only one black ever has been elected to the city council," which "appears in substantial part to be the result of a general pattern of racially polarized voting occurring in the context of Spartanburg's at-large election system with its staggered terms and majority vote requirement," and that the annexations "seem to exacerbate the difficulty that minorities have participating equally in the electoral process." It concludes "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the 52 annexations listed above."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1982

  1. Aug 30, 1982 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Williamsburg County council and school board districts

    In a letter listed as dated August 30, 1982, the Justice Department addressed the redistricting of county council and school board districts in Williamsburg County, completed June 29, 1982. It found "a noticeable dilution or fragmentation of the minority vote," noting that under the existing plan four of seven districts had black majorities and that under the proposed plan the black electorate "likely will have a realistic opportunity" for success in only three of seven districts "even though they represent over 62 percent of the county's population," and that the districts were "strangely irregular-shaped." It concludes "I must on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to the redistricting plan for county council and school board districts, pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Aug 16, 1982 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Marion County council districts; objection later withdrawn

    In a letter of August 16, 1982, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R345 (1982), redistricting the councilmanic districts of Marion County, received June 16, 1982. It states "Under these circumstances, I am unable to conclude ... Accordingly, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the submitted redistricting." After the county asked for reconsideration, a later letter in the same file, citing the comments of the black councilmembers who supported the plan and the view that racial bloc voting did not exist to the extent the Department thought likely, found "the concerns which led to the objection sufficiently allayed to warrant a change of that determination" and stated "the objection is withdrawn."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Aug 2, 1982 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Columbia council districts for lack of information; objection withdrawn December 17, 1982

    In a letter of August 2, 1982, the Justice Department addressed the redistricting of the City of Columbia, Richland County, with supplemental information received June 3, 1982. It says it had asked on May 10, 1982 for information, including on the alternate plans the council considered, that it considered necessary, that the city had declined to forward it, and that "we have not been presented with information sufficient to enable us to conclude that the plan meets the statutory standards." The plan was objected to, with the letter noting the Attorney General would reconsider on receipt of the missing information. In a letter of December 17, 1982, after reviewing new information, the Department wrote that "the objection interposed to the districting of councilmanic districts is hereby withdrawn."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 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

1976

  1. Jul 30, 1976 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the Bamberg County Council redistricting plan

    In a letter of July 30, 1976, the Justice Department addressed Act R626, redistricting the Bamberg County Council, completed May 31, 1976. It notes the plan "provides a black population majority in four of the seven councilmanic districts (Districts 3, 4, 5 and 6) but a black majority in voting age population in only two districts (Districts 5 and 6)," so that, "against the background of racial bloc voting that appears to exist in this county, ... while blacks comprise at least half of the voting age population and more than half of the county's total population, they will have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in only two out of seven councilmanic districts." It concludes "I must on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to Act R626 as it applies to the redistricting of the Bamberg County Council."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1975

  1. Feb 18, 1975 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to three of four redistricting plans for the City of Charleston

    In a letter of February 18, 1975, the Justice Department addressed four plans for redistricting the City of Charleston, received December 19, 1974. It states "we are unable to conclude that the implementation of either plan #1, plan #2 or plan #3 will not have a racially discriminatory effect since, under recent judicial decisions, we believe that the at-large feature of all three of these plans has the potential of unnecessarily diluting the black voting strength in the City of Charleston." It notes the city was approximately 44% black and that plan #1 would give black voters the opportunity to elect 2 of 12 council members, and concludes "I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to plans #1, #2 and #3." It did not object to plan #4, which provided for 12 single-member districts, five with substantial black majorities, and said it would reconsider its September 1974 annexation objection once a single-member plan was approved by the court in pending litigation.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1974

  1. Sep 20, 1974 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to seven of 25 annexations to the City of Charleston

    In a letter of September 20, 1974 to Charleston's corporation counsel, the Justice Department addressed 25 annexations to the City of Charleston, submitted July 22, 1974. It interposed no objection to 18 of them, including unpopulated areas, but found the remaining seven "of major importance," citing City of Richmond v. United States and City of Petersburg v. United States on annexations where a city elects at large. The letter says the net addition of 3,456 white people "appears to have had a substantial impact on voting in Charleston when viewed in combination with the close city elections in 1971 and with the readily apparent pattern of racial bloc voting," and states: "we cannot conclude that the major annexations taken together have not had a dilutive effect on voting in Charleston. Accordingly, I must on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to the submitted annexation numbers 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 18 and 25." It adds the Attorney General would reconsider if the city elected its councilmen from single-member districts.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. May 6, 1974 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to two annexations to McClellanville

    In a letter of May 6, 1974, the Justice Department addressed two annexations to the Town of McClellanville, submitted under Section 5 and completed March 7, 1974. It says the information "clearly shows that the Town of McClellanville serves as a voting district for the purposes of town elections," that there is "an area of concentrated black population immediately contiguous to the town," not included in the submission, and that residents of that area reported town officials had made clear that a request for annexation would be rejected because it would alter the racial composition of the town. The letter states: "I must, on behalf of the Attorney General ... interpose an objection to the expansion of the McClellanville boundaries, and the accordant enlargement of the town voting district, through implementation of the submitted annexations."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. 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.