|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by WILL FOLKS
***
In a stunning rebuke of U.S. president Donald Trump, the GOP-controlled South Carolina Senate refused to consider changing the Palmetto State’s congressional boundaries – rejecting a procedural resolution that would have let them take up the controversial issue ahead of the 2026 partisan primary elections.
Approval of the procedural resolution would have been a critical first step in the state adopting new congressional districts championed by the White House – which is hoping to pad its razor-thin majority in the U.S. House by adding GOP seats in ostensibly “red” states.
Led by S.C. Senate majority leader Shane Massey, though, a bloc of centrist Republicans voted with Democrats to reject an amendment allowing them to debate the issue after the legislature adjourns this Thursday.
The final vote on the adjournment amendment was 29–17. A majority of senators supported the resolution, but the Senate came up just shy of the two-thirds majority necessary for passage. In addition to Massey, GOP senators Sean Bennett, Chip Campsen, Tom Davis and Greg Hembree all voted against it.
***
***
Last week, the S.C. House amended its adjournment resolution to permit discussion of “bills and joint resolutions affecting redistricting for the seven seats of the U.S. House of Representatives… and any other related matters including, but not limited to, the 2026 election calendar.”
Trump has been aggressively pushing GOP-controlled states to redraw their political maps ahead of the next decennial census – when states typically reconfigure their congressional borders based on the latest population data. Multiple states have responded to his call – but not South Carolina. In fact, GOP leaders – and Palmetto State governor Henry McMaster – have stonewalled Trump for months on this issue.
On the eve of the vote, Trump urged the Senate to be “bold and courageous” in adopting the resolution and making sure redistricting was part of their post-adjournment agenda.
They declined… meaning it’s now up to McMaster to call a special session of the legislature if Trump’s redistricting proposal is to have a shot at passage.
***
“The General Assembly still has two full days in which to finish its important work, including giving full consideration – as sought by the people – to the important question of redistricting,” McMaster said. “I urge the General Assembly to finish its work according to the U.S. and South Carolina constitutions and the best interests of the people.”
The governor stopped short of saying he would call lawmakers back to Columbia after they adjourned, however.
Sources close to McMaster say he is hoping to leverage his authority to call a special session to secure a key concession from Trump – namely a presidential endorsement of his hand-picked successor, lieutenant governor Pamela Evette.
McMaster is in a strong negotiating position, too, as Tuesday’s defeat of the procedural vote means he is the only one who can compel lawmakers to return to Columbia, S.C. – although he has no say in the issues they would address upon their return.
On the issue of redistricting, Massey made numerous points as to why he voted against Trump – arguing first and foremost that the map proposed by the White House would at best preserve the Palmetto State’s current 6–1 Republican edge (and perhaps even lead to a 5–2 split of the state’s congressional delegation).
***
***
Trump backers insist their map would lead to a 7–0 Republican sweep of the state’s congressional delegation – but recent polling data disputes that contention.
Massey also noted something we’ve been pointing out for weeks – that the S.C. Election Commission (SCVotes) has already mailed more than 8,000 absentee ballots based on the current district lines (and received hundreds of these ballots back).
“We have active duty military who are serving around the world who have already submitted their ballots,” Massey said. “The effect of this is to discard those ballots.”
Massey also argued that the proposed boundaries would erode the Palmetto State’s historical influence in Washington, D.C.
“This map diminishes that influence,” he said.
***
***
In addition to these practical considerations, Massey waxed philosophical during his remarks opposing Trump’s map.
“This is a perfect example of how elected officials have lost their way,” he said. ““Too many people in power just want to do whatever it takes to stay in power. They’ll do whatever it takes to keep it, but I ask to what end? What do you do with it when you’ve attained it?”
Massey also invoked states’ rights – namely the rightful authority of South Carolina’s elected representatives to draw maps, not politicians in Washington, D.C.
“I cannot in good conscience surrender this authority that has been preserved to, for and by the states and merely take orders from those who are not in South Carolina,” he said. “I cannot in good conscience surrender that authority. I have too much southern blood in me to surrender.”
Massey later added “I’ve got too much resistance in my heritage.”
Trump supporters were livid at the vote, branding Massey, Bennett, Campsen, Davis and Hembree as turncoats and traitors.
“The SC Senate’s RINOs blocked the will of We The People and President Trump!” congressman Ralph Norman, the original advocate for redistricting, said after the vote. “Let me be clear: NONE of them should be in public office after the next election and as governor, I’ll make sure of it!!”
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
7 comments
Bottom line. Shane and the other RINOS need to go.
The SC House is full charlatans and pedophiles. The senate is the last line of defense.
Thank you SC Senate for standing for states rights.
It is refreshing and gratifying to know that we have five Republican senators who actually weighed the facts and the situation and voted for the good of all South Carolinians and did not just rubber stamp a plan sent down by the puppet-master from Washington. They are to be commended for their independence and their courage.
For now…Daddy Trump is not happy with the kids.
Although Clyburn’s gerrymandered district does need to be fixed, this was the right thing to do under the circumstances. It can be properly handled by the time of the 2028 election. Measure twice, cut once. But as a slight aside, there was a time when it was advantageous having at least one powerful elected official in each party at the same time to maintain a continuous “seat at the table” in Washington when the presidency or the majority of Congress would inevitably switch from one party to the other. We had the ultimate posture in that regard back when we had Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings as the most senior members (or top 3) of their respective parties in the Senate. To a slightly lesser degree, we have that in the House with Joe Wilson and Jim Clyburn. Unfortunately, the era of a center-left national Democrat Party evaporated about 18 years ago and now they are controlled by marxists who will drop a proverbial knife in Clyburn’s back any time it suits them.
Congaree cat fish Top Fan, while I often respect your measured comments, I must reproach the wanton use of the term “marxist.”
Not even in present-day Vietnam will you find people who think Karl Marx “Das Kapital” has any relevance to today’s global economy with its vastly different workforce and alignments from the mid 19th Century.
Marxist is a useful term for U.S. Republicans to attack U.S. Democrats, who are as money-worshippers and as xenophobic as the Republicans, only more hypocritical about it.
I give the example of the closing scene of the movie “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner!” and paraphrase to “Look Who’s NOT Invited to Sit Down for Dinner!” Spoiler alert: it’s the African American maid who cooked the large dinner on short notice and stands behind the table pouring the drinks for the white liberals and the African American rising middle class.
SubZero, in the age of A.I. you really should think a little more before you come after people with these knee-jerk reactions. First of all, modern marxism is not solely an economic theory/position, it is also cultural and legal in scope. But just to give you a tiny, tiny taste of how you are wrong, here is a list of just nation-state entities that recognize and incorporate marxist tenants in their official government law and policy [ for the sake of brevity – something you should learn more about – I’m excluding international political bodies, unions, major academic institutions and individual politicians.] Here is the response from a mainstream A.I.:
“Nations with constitutional or statutory incorporation of Marxist economic and social policies are primarily the current self-declared communist (Marxist-Leninist) states. These are one-party states led by communist parties that explicitly reference Marxism-Leninism (or variants) in their constitutions or founding documents, committing to socialist construction, collective ownership of key means of production, class struggle, and the leading role of the working class/party. There are also states that identify themselves as “democratic socialist” rather than explicitly marxist, but whose official state policy is strongly or clearly rooted in marxist ideology.
1. China (People’s Republic of China): The Constitution’s preamble states that the country is guided by Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. The Communist Party of China (CPC) holds the leading role; the system incorporates socialist planned elements alongside market reforms, public ownership of land/resources, and stated goals of common prosperity.
2. Cuba (Republic of Cuba): The 2019 Constitution declares Cuba a socialist state of law and social justice, with the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC, Marxist-Leninist) as the superior leading force of society and the state. It enshrines socialist ownership, planned economy elements, and anti-imperialist policies rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology.
3. Vietnam (Socialist Republic of Vietnam): The Constitution identifies the Communist Party of Vietnam as the leading force, guided by Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought. It commits to a socialist-oriented market economy, public. ownership of key sectors, and proletarian dictatorship principles.
4. Laos (Lao People’s Democratic Republic): The Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) leads under Marxism-Leninism and Kaysone Phomvihane Thought. The Constitution establishes a people’s democratic state advancing toward socialism with collective ownership and planned development.
5. North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea): The Constitution and Workers’ Party of Korea ideology derive from Marxism-Leninism (though Juche/self-reliance is now emphasized as the primary guiding thought). It maintains state ownership of production, a command economy, and socialist principles.”
That was too easy. Exercise a bit of self reflection before you just go spouting off nonsense.