SC House committee sued for rule change during congressional redistricting debate
South Carolina lawmakers allegedly violated the state’s open records law by passing new rules for redistricting debates with little public notice, according to a lawsuit filed in state court Tuesday.
The League of Women Voters of South Carolina, the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina and leaders of the organization sued the House Rules Committee, state Rep. Micah Caskey and House Speaker Murrell Smith over a hastily held meeting Monday evening.
Specifically, the organizations objected to the process used to limit floor debate after two legislative days when Democratic lawmakers slowed movement on the congressional redistricting bill.
Representatives from local chapters of the League of Women Voters and the ACLU both spoke against redrawing congressional maps earlier this month. The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan organization promoting informed and active participation in government and the ACLU defends and advocates for civil rights.
If a judge determines the House rules were improperly passed, the legality of every action taken Tuesday, including a potential vote, could be in question. The House plans to send the redistricting bill to the Senate as soon as Wednesday. State Rep. Davey Hiott said last week he wants both chambers to pass a new congressional map by May 26, the first day of early in-person voting.
Lawmakers passed a resolution Monday restricting debate on a proposal to redraw South Carolina’s congressional maps. The resolution passed through a House Rules committee first, but notice of the meeting was posted less than ten minutes before it took place, according to court filings.
Jay Bender, a retired media law professor and FOIA litigator, said not giving legally required notice keeps the public from overseeing government processes.
“Giving seven to 10 minutes notice of an important legislative committee meeting is designed not to allow the public to attend,” Bender said. “That’s contrary to the law and contrary to the concept of representative democracy.”
Meetings typically require a 24-hour notice to the public, according to the suit. The agenda announcing the meeting also did not indicate a vote would be taken. The lawsuit says the committee’s agenda did not state the meeting was taking place under emergency circumstances.
“Any urgency was manufactured by Republicans in the House who became frustrated by members whose debate and proposed amendments to H. 5683 slowed Republicans’ attempts to steamroll the passage of the bill,” the lawsuit reads.
The League of Women Voters and ACLU are asking a judge to rule that any actions taken during the Rules Committee on Monday be thrown out, including the adoption of the rules resolution. The lawsuit also asks the circuit court judge to prevent the House from enforcing the adopted rules in redistricting debates.
The plaintiffs asked that the judge rule the committee violated state law by failing to provide 24 hours notice for the meeting and that the lawmakers didn’t comply with FOIA law. They also asked a judge to require the Rules Committee, Smith and Caskey post all meetings with 24-hours notice absent a lawful emergency.
After the House adopted the rules limiting debate, the chamber could move faster through amendments filed by lawmakers and potentially get to a vote Tuesday. It included eliminating hundreds of filed amendments and placing a 3-minute time limit for remarks on each amendment.
Caskey said Monday evening after the Rules Committee met that “there is a deliberate effort to try and delay and obstruct the process through the introduction of over 600 amendments” on the part of Democrats, leading to the need for the rules.
Caskey called the lawsuit “frivolous” in a text to The State.
“It’s unfortunate for ACLU and League of Women Voters donors that their money is being wasted on a lawsuit that so plainly doesn’t understand the legislative process or the Constitution,” Caskey wrote.
Smith declined to comment on the litigation through a spokesperson.
On the House floor Tuesday, Caskey defended the use of the rules package.
Because the House is a special session, rules that typically limit the time of debate, such as giving members 20 minutes to speak on each amendment, were not in place. Instead, lawmakers could speak endlessly about their amendments while on the floor Friday and Monday.
Caskey said members had to choose between “unrestricted obstruction” or put in place rules to get to a final vote. The House approved a path for the latter Monday.
“The resolution this body adopted ensured that every member had an opportunity to bring forward an amendment of their choosing, either by selecting one that had already been placed on the desk, or by filing an entirely new one,” Caskey said.
Caskey argued any of the remaining 600 amendments could have been combined. Lawmakers only had three minutes to present their proposals.
Also under traditional cloture rules, debate on the bill would have been limited to two hours after amendments were disposed of. Instead, each member had 10 minutes to speak. Just having each Democrat speak would have been more than 5 hours of debate.
“I understand the temptations of politics, but to those who are willing to be intellectually honest, you know that the suggestion that this resolution prevented debate is empty,” Caskey said. ”It preserved debate, it preserved amendment opportunities, and it also gave the House a path to a decision.”
Before the full House voted on the rules for the special session Monday evening, state Rep. John King questioned whether the Rules Committee meeting where the resolution was adopted followed Freedom of Information Act requirements. Smith dismissed the concern.
“This is not a committee for the public, and so it’s not required,” Smith said Monday. “Internal workings of the House is not subject to the FOIA.”
Bender said the House Rules Committee should have been open to the public and required proper notice.
“The law is very clear in my mind that this committee meeting was not an emergency and could not be held without ample notice and an opportunity, and in fact the news media had to be specifically informed of the meeting, unless it was an emergency,” Bender said. “And I dispute that this is an emergency. Your failure to plan and anticipate does not constitute an emergency.”
State Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg, in a Facebook Live Monday night after the rules change, said members had worked on the amendments, which included trying to keep Richland County from being split into three congressional districts and addressing concerns of Charleston being put in a district with Myrtle Beach.
Bamberg also pointed out that the Rules Committee meeting took place while the House was on the floor debating the bill.
In order to present the rules limiting debate were presented to the full body, state Rep. Kambrell Garvin, D-Richland, was interrupted when presenting an amendment.
“Whenever you burn a member in this chamber, you are burning 42,000 other people in this state because we are their voice,” Bamberg said.
Rules adopted for redistricting debates Monday evening include:
- Each lawmaker is allowed to only sponsor one amendment
- A proponent of each amendment is allowed to only speak for three minutes to explain the proposed change. Opponents are allowed to also speak for up to three minutes against the amendment
- After amendments, lawmakers have 10 minutes to speak on the redraw bill
- Debate is barred on the perfunctory third reading of the redistricting bill
- If the Senate returns the map bill with its own changes, only the House Majority and Minority leaders can propose one amendment each. Lawmakers can debate each amendment for one hour.
- Lawmakers can not ask to adjourn within five hours of a failed motion to call it a day
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with Burnette Shutt & McDaniel.
Judge Daniel Coble will oversee a motion for an emergency hearing in Richland County court at 9 a.m. Wednesday, according to the court docket.
This is a developing story and will be updated
This story was originally published May 19, 2026 at 7:44 PM with the headline "SC House committee sued for rule change during congressional redistricting debate."
