South Carolina minority commission discriminates against minorities with racial quota: lawsuit says

A law regarding South Carolina’s minority commission is allegedly discriminating against minorities in order to meet a specific racial quota, according to a federal lawsuit, as two minority women believe they have a disadvantage to be chosen as members because of their race.

A statewide minority commission created with the purpose of aiding minorities in South Carolina is allegedly discriminating against people of the "wrong" color by requiring a majority of its members to be African-American, according to a new lawsuit. Two minority women, who are "of color" but not African-American, are suing the South Carolina governor over a law that they allege discriminates against them over serving on the state’s minority commission.

Last month, the Pacific Legal Foundation brought a lawsuit on behalf of Sandy Chiong, who is of Chinese, Cuban, and Spanish descent, and “is ready, willing, and able to serve as a member of the South Carolina Commission for Minority Affairs and would be eligible to serve on the Commission were her race not a factor,” according to the filing.

The purpose of the commission, which was created in 1993, is “to study the causes and effects of the socio-economic deprivation of minorities in the State and to implement programs necessary to address inequities confronting minorities in the State,” according to state statute.

"Wrong" minority?

The commission consists of nine members that serve four-year terms, are appointed by the governor, and must be from each of the state’s seven congressional districts and two at-large persons. “A majority of the members of the commission must be African American,” according to the state law.

“This means that at least five of the nine Commission slots are prohibited from going to Americans of any other racial background—whether white, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, multiracial, or other. The statute offers no justification whatsoever for this categorical race-based restriction,” argues the lawsuit brought by Pacific Legal Foundation.

Chiong is seeking “to be appointed to the Commission for the current or future opening for an at-large seat, or for the current opening for the seat for the 7th Congressional district,” according to the lawsuit.

“The Commission has three vacant seats and two expired terms to fill—including the state’s 7th Congressional District, where Sandy [Chiong] lives. Based on the board’s current makeup, African Americans must fill at least two of these five positions to maintain the required majority,” according to the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Native Americans need not apply

Also, Chief Michelle Mitchum of South Carolina’s Pine Hill Tribe joined the lawsuit late last month because she had sought to apply for the commission in 2020 but “was informed that the seat must go to a member of ‘the Asian community,’” according to the lawsuit. She had previously served on the commission’s Native American Advisory Committee.

There is “nothing in the law divvying up individual races besides African-American,” Caleb Trotter, a Pacific Legal Foundation attorney working on the case, told Just the News on Friday. He explained that the “seat ultimately went to an African-American who’s currently on the commission.”

Mitchum is seeking "to be appointed to the Commission for the current or future opening for an at-large seat, or for the seat for the 2nd Congressional district when it opens in 2027," according to the lawsuit.

“The mandate for majority African American representation has divided the agency and weakened its ability to serve all South Carolinians,” Mitchum said in a statement on Tuesday. “In the 21st century, it’s unacceptable that we need to ask the courts to end discrimination and racism. Change is overdue.”

The federal lawsuit argues that the state law requiring a racial quota for the commission violates the 14 Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Citizenship Clause. The state law “requires the Governor to consider and make decisions on the basis of the race of potential Commission members when making appointments to the Commission,” according to the lawsuit.

“Governmental classifications on the basis of race violate the Equal Protection Clause unless they are narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest,” an exception that the lawsuit argues does not apply to this law.

“The Citizenship Clause guarantees all the rights of citizenship to every citizen of the United States, including all the rights of citizenship of the state wherein he or she resides,” the lawsuit adds. “The right to serve on state boards and commissions is a right of citizenship,” however, the state law “requires the Governor to deny to some South Carolina citizens a right of citizenship while extending that right to others.”

The lawsuit requests that the U.S. District Court for the South Carolina Columbia Division declare the racial requirement of the state law regarding the commission to be unconstitutional and prevent its enforcement.

“South Carolina cannot deny individuals the opportunity to serve on public boards due to their race. Racial quotas are unjust, unconstitutional, and un-American,” Trotter said in a statement last month. “Given that the Commission was established to serve all minority groups, it is especially egregious to allocate opportunities to some minorities but not others.” 

The South Carolina governor’s office and the commission didn’t respond to requests for comment by publishing time. Trotter told Just the News that “this is the first case on this law,” according to his knowledge.

He added that the Pacific Legal Foundation has about 10 other cases challenging race-based statutes across the country, many of which are about two or three decades old. Some of these laws appeared to be given “little thought,” and were “not really notable” when they were passed, Trotter said.