In this edition, we’ll explore local news and state news from this past week.

Local News

Liberty Hill honors the legacy of one of its key figures.

Academic Magnet High School’s campus sits on the historical grounds of Liberty Hill. Established in 1871 by formerly enslaved African-Americans, Liberty Hill is the oldest community in North Charleston. This past Wednesday, in the presence of the some of our raptors, the community, and the mayor of North Charleston, a historical marker was erected on Liberty Hill to commemorate Louis Joseph.

Louis “Louie” Joseph was a Syrian immigrant who arrived in North Charleston in the early 1900s. He worked in downtown Charleston and eventually gathered enough wealth to build affordable housing on his property in Liberty Hill. Overtime, the community popped up around various Charleston landmarks including the paper mill and naval base.

The plot of land where Louis Joseph built many affordable housing units came to be known colloquially as “Louie Tenement.” This Wednesday, it was honored with its own historical marker this past Wednesday. The marker was made possible by the Liberty Hill Historical and Genealogical Society, and it now stands less than two miles away from Academic, honoring a person who helped to sow the seeds that would sprout into a larger community.

State News

SC Supreme Court makes a ruling on redistricting.

The ongoing debate surrounding redistricting has continued across the country, and South Carolina’s highest court ruled this week on where the state stands on this hot topic issue.

For context, redistricting is a process where state legislators redraw the Congressional district maps. Redistricting is done every ten years after census data is collected. South Carolina currently has seven Congressional districts, with the Charleston area resting in District 01 and District 07.

Earlier this summer, President Donald Trump (R) began encouraging governors in Republican-held states to begin the process of redrawing congressional maps in order to pick up seats during the upcoming 2026 mid-term elections. This began with Texas, but the battle for redistricting has since spread to 28 other states including South Carolina. The redistricting argument comes from Republicans intending to redraw Congressional district maps to pick up seats, while Democratic legislators are opposed to this based on the argument that these proposed district maps are part of a larger attempt to create partisan gerrymandering and grant Republicans an unfair advantage in the 2026 midterms.

In South Carolina, the League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit against the State of South Carolina in opposition to redistricting efforts. The League filed a petition against the congressional map which passed in 2022, arguing that the maps outlined in 2022 Act No. 118 (S.865) are an example of “an extreme partisan gerrymander.” The League of Women Voters argued that the district lines drawn do the following:

• Denies voters their “equal right to elect officers” in violation of Article I section 5 of the South Carolina State Constitution.
• Intentionally dilutes the electoral power and influence of voters of a minority political party which is a violation of Article I Section 3 of the SC Constitution.
• Intentionally stifles the electoral influence of voters based on their prior voting history and viewpoints, in violation of Article I Section 2.
• Violates Article VII sections 9 and 13 which state that districts should be created with the idea of keeping counties whole.

The League requested the Court rule that partisan gerrymandering be deemed unconstitutional, strike down the plan, prohibit future elections under the Congressional maps, and order the South Carolina House of Representatives to draw new, non-gerrymandered district lines. The Court held the claim filed by the League presented a nonjusticiable political question and dismissed the League’s claim with prejudice. What this means is that the League’s case is over, and cannot be brought back up again in the SC Supreme Court.

Reactions to the ruling came from multiple different political groups. State Republicans in the House and Senate celebrated the ruling, with SC Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey (R-Edgefield) stating, “[Republicans] worked hard to ensure that South Carolina’s districts reflected the politics of South Carolina’s voters. If the ACLU and League of Women Voters aren’t happy with the results at the ballot box, maybe they should ditch their far-left positions, like gender-transitions for children, and get in step with South Carolina values.”

While Republicans applauded the ruling, reactions from the League of Women Voters as well as the America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed sentiments regarding their concern for the future of democracy within the state. In a statement on their website, the League of Women condemned the court for their ruling, arguing that the ruling allows for partisan gerrymandering and condemning the court for undermining democratic principles.

Senate Bill 323 and the future of abortion in South Carolina

South Carolina’s abortion policy currently stands as a ban after six-weeks which passed in 2023. The 6-week ban allows for abortion with some exceptions, and requires an ultra-sound to be conducted prior to the procedure.

The proposal outlined in Senate Bill 323 would create an almost total ban with very few exceptions. The proposal has been praised by Republicans in the State Legislature but widely planned by civil rights groups such as the ACLU branch in South Carolina.

The proposal reads:

Section 3, Article 6 (A):

(1) No person shall knowingly: administer to, prescribe for, deliver to, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent to cause an abortion; or

(2) use or employ any instrument, device, means, or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing an abortion.

Section 3, Article 6 (C):

(1) It is unlawful to knowingly or intentionally aid, abet, or conspire with another person to violate the provisions contained in this section.

(2) The prohibition against aiding and abetting a violation of this section includes, but is not limited to, knowingly and intentionally:

• (a) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion;
• (b) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion;

Section 3, Article 6 (G):

A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for not more than thirty years if the unborn child dies as a result of the violation or for not more than twenty-five years if the unborn child is born alive despite the violation.

(Source attached here).

The bill has been met with outrage from civil rights groups who argue that the bill is unconstitutional and an unprecedented attack on women’s reproductive rights. They argue the bill could increase complications for pregnant women who could experience delays finding clinics who are willing to administer reproductive care due to fears of prosecution. The provisions within the bill restricting access to information regarding abortion have been criticized as examples of government surveillance and overreach. The bill has also been criticized by Democratic politicians as a violation of the constitution, and a step backwards in regards to the personal rights and autonomy of women in South Carolina.

A public hearing on the bill is set to be held at the Gressette Building in Columbia on October 1st.

SC Attorney General justifies Charlie Kirk firings

Following the death of conservative media personality Charlie Kirk, many educational institutions and businesses are finding themselves in a tricky position when it comes to posts employees have made about his death.

Charlie Kirk was a prominent conservative personality who was shot while speaking at Utah Valley University on Wednesday, September 13. He was pronounced dead at 31 the same day. His legacy is muddled by his controversial views, with critics stating that these views promoted hate on a large scale platform. In the days following his death, the proliferation of social media posts regarding his life and words have increased, with conservatives decrying him as as martyr, while others condemned his rhetoric.

A teacher at a Greenville County high school was removed from the district due to a social media post where he allegedly stated “Thoughts and prayers to his children, but IMHO (in my honest opinion) America became greater today. There, I said it.”

The firing of this teacher falls in line with the subsequent removal of two Greenville County EMS employees, as well as the removal of two Clemson employees, and the termination of one. The greater debate at large centers on the extent to which free speech, the First Amendment, and the separation between work and home life dictates the grounds for which an employee can be removed.

South Carolina Attorney General and governor candidate Alan Wilson (R) wrote in his letter to the president of Clemson University that the First Amendment does not shield employees from firings and cited multiple court rulings. He described the posts as “‘vile, repulsive, and even incendiary” and argued that some of these posts be seen as even “threatening.”

 

 

 

 

Wilson argued that the grounds on which Clemson chose to remove and fire three employees stood, and that his office would not view the firings as a prosecutable offense. Although Wilson provided justification behind Clemson’s firings, they were not without criticism.

Opinions published by staff from the Clemson College of Arts and Humanities criticized the firings, deeming them government oversight and a breach of the first amendment. Some have argued that the firings came from external political pressure, and demonstrate that even comments about death are protected under the Supreme Court ruling in Rankin v. McPherson.

The ongoing debate goes beyond teacher and university firings with the announcement that the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!  indefinitely demonstrates the power political pressure has on free speech.