Republican leader Shane Massey publicly rejected Donald Trump's demands to redraw South Carolina's congressional map during a recent address. This move highlights the challenges GOP leaders face in opposing Trump while maintaining party support.
How does a Republican leader say no to Donald Trump? How do they criticize the US president’s policies without facing a social media riot, or losing their career?
Laying out his case, Massey made clear on Tuesday that he was addressing three audiences: his colleagues in chamber, Republican voters in his state, and the president himself. Democrats – whom he described as “crazy” and “hateful” – were not the intended audience.
And in this rancorous political era, dominated by tribal divisions and binary rhetoric, he tried to craft a nuanced position while senior GOP figures, including Henry McMaster, the South Carolina governor, push to redistrict.
Trump frequently demonizes anyone, especially conservatives, who dare oppose his agenda. Massey made that difficult, by trying to show that he remained firmly aligned with most of the president’s political goals. Just not this one.
double quotation markI had never had the privilege of speaking with the president of the United States until last week. And it really was – it was a privilege. I enjoyed the conversation. It was a very good conversation. He gave me more time in a phone call than I could have expected…
The president told me, he said: “Look, I hope you can help us out.” He said: “But I understand you got to do what you’re comfortable with, you got to do what you think is right.”
He said: “But these people” – talking about the Democrats in Washington – he said:“These people are crazy.” “Yes, sir, I agree with you.” He told me: “These people hate me.”
And I think, Mr President, that’s obvious. There’s no question about that. There is a lot of hatred in Washington. There’s a lot of hatred in the world. And he’s certainly the recipient of a lot of that. There’s no question there.
Q&A
What did Shane Massey say about Trump's redistricting demands?
Shane Massey rejected Trump's demands to redraw South Carolina's congressional map during a 45-minute address.
How are Republican leaders responding to Trump’s influence?
Republican leaders are attempting to navigate criticism of Trump's policies while balancing party loyalty and voter expectations.
What impact did the Supreme Court ruling have on redistricting?
The Supreme Court ruling effectively gutted a major section of the Voting Rights Act, prompting the GOP to scramble for redistricting strategies.
Who are the key figures in the South Carolina redistricting debate?
Key figures include Shane Massey, the Republican majority leader, and Henry McMaster, the South Carolina governor, who are both involved in the redistricting discussions.
See every story in News — including breaking news and analysis.
Six of South Carolina’s seven US congressional districts are held by Republicans. The new map under consideration would dismantle the one district currently held by a Democrat: long-serving representative and party heavyweight James Clyburn.
Massey made clear he wanted Republicans to win the race for US Congress in November’s midterm elections. He touted the power of his party at the state level to advance conservative goals, insisting he agreed with Trump’s concerns and had no qualms about “ticking off” Democrats. “That doesn’t bother me,” Massey said. “I do that every day standing right here.”
But then Massey pivoted into a plain-language analysis of what he sees as practical issues with the proposed last-minute redistricting drive in South Carolina: not an ideological problem, but a legal and technical one.
‘Most people … think we’re freaking crazy’
Massey argued that South Carolina was as gerrymandered – by party, not by race – as possible, without creating a vulnerability for Republicans. He carefully framed his argument not to preserve the district of a Black, Democratic congressman, but to preserve the electability of fellow Republicans in districts that would have to absorb Democratic voters.
He also tore into the details of the proposal and how it sundered “communities of interest”: a term that Black voters have often used in legal arguments against redistricting. Here, Massey turns it on its side to apply it to ruby-red counties, along South Carolina’s coast and elsewhere. By doing so, he highlighted a partisan interest in preserving the local relationships in parts of South Carolina that people in Washington couldn’t identify on an unmarked map, relationships that remain invisible even on a marked map.
Those who drafted the redistricting proposal failed to consider the concerns of “South Carolina and South Carolinians”, Massey suggested. “When they were drawing this map, they didn’t consider those things,” he said.
“They”, in this case, is a faceless other – allowing Massey to avoid laying blame on the president, or on his party’s representatives, by framing the problem as “Washington”, both as an idea and a target.
Even as he was conciliatory toward Trump, cheering the prospect of Republicans retaining the House, Massey expressed contempt for the political product Washington sends back to South Carolina. The broad voting public is increasingly fed up with politics, regardless of party.
“What I am concerned about is how will this be received by people in the middle,” he said of the redistricting drive. “Look, everybody – I think we get lost on this sometimes – everybody in South Carolina is not a rabid partisan like I am. Everybody in South Carolina is not a rabid partisan like we are. Most people in South Carolina think we’re freaking crazy.”
He was less than positive, at times, about his own party’s recent record in US Congress, where it currently has majorities in both the House of Representatives and Senate.
double quotation markI would hope that the home team can retain the majority. And I would also hope that if the home team retains the majority, that they’ll actually do something productive with it. Over the last year and a half, I suspect if we look back at what they’ve done with the majority, I don’t know that anybody in here could name more than one piece of legislation they’ve passed.
And no matter how big and beautiful it was, there’s a whole lot more that they’ve left on the table. And that, to me, is disappointing – to have a majority that doesn’t do anything with it.
The map under consideration is against Republican interests, Massey suggested, even if the party’s leaders in Washington do not know that themselves – calling into question whether it would ultimately leave the party with more, or less, congressional representatives from South Carolina.
‘It is up to us’
A backlash is likely to energize Black voters, which may cost Republicans some seats, he said.
double quotation markTrying to go to 7-0 I think is extremely risky from a political standpoint. I think at best you’re going to get 6-1 and you may even go 5-2. I’ve told the press a number of times, I think if you get cute with this, you could end up in a 5-2 scenario. I don’t want to go 5-2.
I don’t want [Democratic House minority leader] Hakeem Jeffries as the speaker of the House. I think the best chance that South Carolina has to prevent that from happening is with our current maps.
“If the Democrats do win control of the United States House of Representatives, it will not be because of South Carolina,” he said. The unspoken implication: if Democrats win, it will be because of actions taken in Washington DC.
Peppered through the address were references to South Carolina’s independence from Washington, as Massey expressed stark fears about relinquishing it.
double quotation markI 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 …
I absolutely understand what the president’s concern is here. I understand what the president’s issue is here. I don’t disagree with that. But there are other concerns that we have to consider. Those concerns have not been considered at all with the proposal that we have. Those concerns affect South Carolina and South Carolinians. And it is up to us to consider those things.
If we don’t consider those concerns of South Carolina, there is no one left. We are the last line. I have too much southern blood in me to surrender.
John C Calhoun was an avidly pro-slavery South Carolina senator in antebellum America who argued passionately that states had a right to ignore federal laws they believed were unconstitutional.
Massey reached up to Calhoun’s portrait as he laid out his opposition to a proposal designed to rid South Carolina of its only Black congressman, in an audacious flourish that would have been immediately recognized by his peers.
It is not a reference a Black senator, or a Democrat, is likely to make. It is a reference offered to an audience of white southern conservatives. Massey framed his opposition as upholding the southern tradition of states rights: exactly how white southern conservatives framed their opposition to the civil rights movement.
“I don’t want to be a participant in further eroding federalism, in further diminishing the essential role of states,” he argued. “The states are not mere political subdivisions of the federal government. The states are not here to take orders and direction – the states are sovereign, independent creatures.”
‘Everybody knows it’
Massey addressed the pressure he faced to bow to Trump’s demands, which would have been high on the mind of a Republican lawmaker who saw what happened just last week to Republicans who refused redistricting in Indiana, five of whom lost primary elections to Trump-endorsed candidates.
“There are likely consequences for me, personally, taking the position that I am right now,” he acknowledged. “I’m comfortable with that. I may not like it, but I’m comfortable with it.”
“Too many people in power want to do whatever it takes to stay in power,” said Massey. “I believe the legitimate use of power in this case is to make people safer.”
South Carolina’s senate Republican majority leader pointed to other portraits, as well: James Byrnes, a congressman and US supreme court justice, and Floyd Spence, a congressman who served for 14 terms and chaired the armed services committee.
At the heart of his case was one simple argument – that Washington DC should be listening to South Carolina, not the other way around.
double quotation markWe’ve been able to punch above our weight regardless of the administration, regardless of who the president is, regardless of who occupies the White House. South Carolina has been able to deliver not just for South Carolina, but for the country and the world.
We have had that influence. Doing this will absolutely diminish that influence. It just will. And everybody knows it. Everybody in here, everybody who’s familiar with the process, we understand what’s going to happen here …
Y’all, regardless of who the president is, regardless of who’s in charge, there has to be somebody in South Carolina who can make a phone call and somebody at the White House will answer it. If we don’t have that, South Carolinians are the ones that are going to suffer because of it.
The consequences of this defiance remain to be seen.
