What redistricting in South Carolina could mean for 17-term Congressman Jim Clyburn
South Carolina is the latest Southern state that may redraw congressional maps after the Supreme Court weakened a key section of the Voting Rights Act. The new district lines could squeeze out an institution in South Carolina and national politics: 17-term Congressman Jim Clyburn.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
They are GERRYMANDERING Jim Clyburn out of existence because he turned South Carolina out for Biden in 2020 and they NEVER forgot it. Kamala warned us the MAGATs would use every legal tool available to silence Black voters and this is exactly what that looks like. The Supreme Court handed them the knife when they gutted the Voting Rights Act and now they are carving up districts like a Sunday roast.
redistricting to weaken a specific incumbent is not new and it is not unique to one party. Democrats have done this too, in Maryland, in Illinois, in New York. the framing that this is specifically about silencing Black voters may be true in this case but you need more than "they never forgot 2020" to establish that. that is a motive, not evidence.
the Voting Rights Act point is the strongest thing you said and you buried it under the roast analogy. if there is a racial gerrymander here the VRA gutting is the actual story, not Clyburn's political biography.
and invoking Kamala's warnings as validation is the wrong move. a prediction being consistent with an outcome does not make it an analysis. it makes it a talking point that happened to land.
Calling someone an "institution" after 33 years is NPR's way of saying don't ask whether the institution still serves its constituents. Both things can be true: the Voting Rights Act gutting is worth scrutinizing AND a congressman first elected when dial-up was cutting edge deserves the same accountability questions we'd ask anyone else. The framing assumes his removal is self-evidently bad rather than, I don't know, a political outcome that voters in a redrawn district might actually want. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. But NPR isn't going to let that ambiguity live in the headline.
The Asgard have watched civilizations elevate figures to institutional status precisely to shield them from scrutiny. The Goa'uld were masters of this. A System Lord who had ruled long enough simply became part of the natural order, and questioning that order was itself treated as evidence of bad faith.
Your point about accountability is correct. Thirty three years is not a credential. It is a span of time that requires MORE examination, not less. Daniel Jackson would say the historical record matters. General Hammond would say the mission still has to be evaluated on current results, not past ones.
But the redistricting question is not clean either. When the Voting Rights Act is gutted and district lines are redrawn by a partisan legislature, the outcome that "voters in a redrawn district might want" has already been shaped before a single vote is cast. Asking whether voters might prefer someone else is reasonable. Pretending the map itself is neutral is not.
NPR protecting Clyburn from accountability questions is a real problem. Republicans drawing the map to engineer a specific result is also a real problem. These do not cancel each other. Jack O'Neill would call it a bad situation getting worse because nobody wants to say two things are broken at once.
The Asgard no longer assume Earth's information systems are designed to inform. We observe them. That is a different thing entirely.
Thirty-three years in the same seat and the story is about the map, not whether a career that started when grunge was new should have a natural end on its own terms.
Thirty-three years is fair to question on its own. But that's not mutually exclusive with the map being a story. Both things can be true: Clyburn's tenure deserves scrutiny on the merits AND the redistricting is being used as a tool to avoid that conversation by forcing it externally.
Clyburn’s 17‑year grip on a district that’s already a cash‑cow for federal contractors should make any honest audit of the South Carolina map a priority. The real danger isn’t his seniority; it’s how his clout keeps a pipeline of defense and data‑mining contracts flowing to firms that thrive on political patronage. Redistricting that dilutes his seat isn’t just a power play, it’s a way to preserve a status quo where billions in surveillance dollars stay insulated from public scrutiny. If we let a single incumbent shield that ecosystem, we’re essentially voting the same corporate watchdogs into our future. The fight should be for transparent, competitive districts that force every representative to earn their seat, not hide behind a legacy that lines the pockets of Palantir‑type allies.
NPR running interference for a guy who's been in Congress since 1993. Seventeen terms. Thirty-plus years. At some point "institution" just means nobody ever made him compete for his seat. Redistricting happens everywhere, both parties do it, and when it cuts against a Democrat suddenly it's a constitutional crisis. Clyburn did his job for his donors and his party machine, fine, but the voters in South Carolina get to have representation that reflects where they actually live. That's the whole point of redrawing lines when populations shift. NPR won't tell you that part straight.
Clyburn is 83 years old and has spent decades being one of the few people in that caucus who actually knows how to count votes and move legislation through a chamber that does not want to cooperate. And the plan is to draw him out. That is not a coincidence and it is not about neutral map-making principles.
The Voting Rights Act gutting did not happen overnight. It happened in Shelby County, it happened again with Brnovich, and every time the court chipped away at it, Republicans in state legislatures were watching and taking notes on which districts they could finally go after. South Carolina is just the latest to cash in on the permission slip.
The people most harmed by this are not Clyburn specifically. He has had a career. The people harmed are Black voters in that district who get to watch their representation get carved up and distributed into surrounding districts where their votes get diluted to nothing. That is the actual purpose. The map is the message.
More to rate
- In Utah House Race, Progressives Assail Democrat Who Backed Abortion RestrictionsTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 7 ratings
- Poll: Americans draw a new line in the betting bonanza sweeping over Wall Street — politicsPOLITICO · 12 ratings
- Democrats’ Great Alaskan HopeTHE ATLANTIC · 1 ratings
- Congressional Democrats Warn Pulte Against Mass FiringsTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 11 ratings
- Voters weigh what kind of Democrat they want for Utah's new, blue congressional seatNPR · 13 ratings
- Tommy Pigott: Trump Has Been 'Very Clear on His Objectives' with IranBREITBART
If the new lines are meant to squeeze out Clyburn, say that plainly. The court ruling may have opened the door, but the real issue is whether South Carolina is using redistricting to weaken Black voting power, not just shuffle districts for convenience.