In Blanding et al. v. DuBose et al., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a case concerning voting rights and redistricting in South Carolina. The appellants, who were black voters from Williamsburg County, challenged the constitutionality of an apportionment plan for electing members to the county's school district board under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They argued that this plan diluted their voting strength by dividing them among several districts rather than allowing them to form a majority in one or more districts (a practice known as gerrymandering). However, both District Court and Supreme Court ruled against them stating that they failed to prove any discriminatory intent behind this apportionment scheme or its impact on their ability to participate equally in political processes.

In the dissenting opinion for Blanding et al. v. DuBose et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that South Carolina's $3000 limit on contributions to political campaigns violated the First Amendment rights of contributors who wished to donate more than this amount. They contended that such a restriction was not justified by the state's interest in preventing corruption or its appearance since there were other less restrictive means available to achieve these goals, such as disclosure requirements and penalties for misconduct. The dissenting justices also disagreed with the majority’s view that large contributions could be seen as a form of bribery; they believed this perspective unfairly stigmatized individuals exercising their constitutional right to support candidates financially. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how limits were applied across different types of donors (individuals vs corporations), which further undermined any claim of fairness or effectiveness in achieving stated aims.