A Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Voting Rights

From New York Times, I'm Michael. Barbaro. This is The Daily. [music]. >> [music]. >> On Wednesday, the Supreme Court dealt. what may be a final blow to the landmark. [music]. Voting Rights Act in a ruling that will. supercharge [music] the already partisan. battle to control the country's election. maps. Today, Adam Liptak on the legal logic.

[music] of the ruling and Nick. Corasaniti on how the decision will. reshape American democracy. >> [music]. [music]. >> It's Thursday, >> [music]. >> April 30th. Adam, this. was a very big ruling on a very big. piece of our history. Yeah, the Supreme.

Court did further and in a sense final. damage to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Probably the greatest legislative. achievement of the Civil Rights. Movement. Which was meant to protect minority. voting power. So, it's meant to stop Southern. officials. from using all kinds of methods from. violence to poll taxes. to literacy tests. to grandfather clauses. to keep individual black voters from the.

voting booth. But, it also meant to. ensure that minority voters as a group. had the collective power or at least the. opportunity to elect candidates of their. choice. Right. At the time, President. Johnson called it a triumph for freedom. That's right and it worked. Voter. registration and voter turnout numbers. in Southern states. went from single digits for minority. voters. to sometimes achieving levels higher.

than those of white voters. >> Mhm. But, this gave rise to an attack from. the right and from Republicans because, you know, frankly, protecting minority. voters often meant protecting Democratic. voters because there's a. high degree of correlation between the. two. So, tell us how that pressure from the. right brings us to yesterday's ruling. So, in response to challenges from.

conservatives, the Supreme Court on. Wednesday issued the third. in a trilogy of decisions. that have collectively hollowed out and. rendered the Voting Rights Act. toothless. The first one in 2013. cut the heart out of the Voting Rights. Act, which had required jurisdictions. with a history of discrimination to get. federal approval before they changed. voting practices. The second one in 2021.

made it all but impossible to sue under. the Voting Rights Act for so-called vote. denial claims. Claims that election administrators had. made it harder to vote by say. instituting voter ID. And then this third and last decision on. Wednesday took aim at the remaining. piece of the Voting Rights Act. Which. tried to protect minority voting power. when it would be diluted so that. minority voters. could not have the opportunity to elect. candidates of their choice.

>> [music]. >> Just remind us of the specifics of the. case that was decided on Wednesday, this. third in this trilogy, and what. specifically was at issue in it? So, the question in the case was whether. Louisiana could have two majority. minority voting districts. Louisiana has. six congressional districts. And not long ago, the state redrew its. maps. So, that black voters were the majority.

in two districts rather than just one. Louisiana is about a third black. So, if. you just do the math, two sounds about. right. Mhm. But, the court said that. taking account of race in that way was. unlawful. Creating a second. congressional district in which black. voters were the majority, the court. found, was unlawful. That's right. So, in the past, the Voting Rights Act would. have protected these districts because. the understanding of Voting Rights Act.

for decades and decades. was that it was meant not only to make. sure that an individual voter would have. the right to vote, but that this. community of voters, that minority. voters as a collective. would have the opportunity to elect. their candidates of choice. >> Mhm. But, on Wednesday, by a 6-3 vote, the court's Republican appointees in the. majority, the Democratic appointees in. dissent the court installed a new test.

One that made it very hard to take race. into account in drawing voting. districts. And what was that new test? So, the court says the Voting Rights Act. only kicks in. if lawmakers had intended to. discriminate against minority voters. Whatever the effect of, whatever the. results of the map are. Only intentional racial discrimination, which is very hard to prove. what was in the lawmakers' heads counts.

So, what the court does on Wednesday is. it lays out a new legal criteria. for when it is not okay to eliminate a, for example, black majority. congressional district. Which the VRA in. the past was seen as protecting. And. that new criteria is that the people. eliminating the district would have to. stand up on a stage somewhere pretty. much and say, "We're getting rid of this. district in order to hurt black voters.".

They'd have to be explicit in their. desire to discriminate. And unless they. do that then such a district with a. black majority can be wiped off the map. That's right. So, a lawmaker could say, and maybe. truthfully say, that hey, "I don't mean. to discriminate against black people. I. mean to discriminate against Democrats. and I'm allowed to do that.". >> Partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme. Court said in another case. is not subject to review in the federal.

courts. Mhm. And what this means as a. practical matter. is that districts drawn to ensure that. minority voters have the power to elect. the candidates they want are now in. peril across the country. Adam, what is the rationale from the. conservative justices who issued this. ruling. for doing so? Because it feels related. to a larger body of Supreme Court. rulings that we've talked to you about. over the last several years from the.

Roberts Court, including of course the. affirmative action ruling, that have. challenged government intervention. when it comes to race. So, as a general matter, quite right, Michael. Uh this court, the conservative majority. on this court. is uniformly hostile to government. decision-making that takes account of. race. It says the Constitution is. colorblind. And you shouldn't be sorting people. based on their race.

And then more specifically in the. context of the Voting Rights Act. the majority says that things have. changed. The Voting Rights Act had a. role to play back then. But, no longer. And Justice Alito says as much in his. majority opinion. He says, "At the time of the Act's. passage, the nation had faced nearly a. century of entrenched racial. discrimination in voting.". An insidious and pervasive evil. Which had been perpetuated in certain. parts of our country through unremitting.

and ingenious defiance of the. Constitution. But, the Voting Rights Act led to great. strides in the ensuing decades. Voting tests were abolished. Disparities. in voting registration and turnout due. to race were erased. And African Americans attained political. office in record numbers. >> Mhm. And that account of history. suggested to him that this law has done. its job. But, the job having been done, we no longer need it. Famously, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in.

2013 responding to this same kind of. argument. said. that may be so. but you don't throw away your umbrella. just because you're not getting wet. And her suggestion was. that it was because the Voting Rights. Act was still in place. that these gains could be sustained. Mhm. And that perhaps without it they might. begin to erode. Correct. Adam, in skimming some of the majority's.

opinion, I skim, you actually read. Alito seemed to take some pains to. suggest that this ruling is narrow and. that it is not striking down the Voting. Rights Act. Which colleagues of ours. have always said was a possibility. in this case. What do you make of that. insistence by the conservative majority. that this was in the end a smallish. ruling? Well, Justice Alito says.

that they're not abandoning their. precedents in this area. That we need only update the framework. Mhm. So, that it reflects important. historical developments. Justice Elena Kagan in dissent on behalf. of herself. and the two other Democratic appointees, Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. has a completely different view. She wrote that the Voting Rights Act. was, quote, "born of the literal blood. of Union soldiers and civil rights.

marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this nation closer to. fulfilling the ideals of democracy and. racial equality. And it has been repeatedly. and overwhelmingly. reauthorized by the people's. representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no. longer needed, not the members of this. court. I dissent then from this latest chapter. in the majority's now completed.

demolition of the Voting Rights Act.". Mhm. So, you have these two competing. viewpoints. Maybe each of them is. overstating things to a point. But as between the two of them, I would. think that Justice Kagan. has the better of the argument. >> Because? Uh the history in this area is. these three decisions now. The first two. were quite consequential, and the second. one in particular basically shut down a. way to try to challenge restrictions on.

voting by minority voters. >> Mhm. So, it stands to reason. that this latest installment in the. court's. deconstruction of the Voting Rights Act. will have a considerable impact. in the short-term in the election we're. about to face, and certainly in years to. come. >> [music].

[music]. >> Adam, thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. After the break, my colleague Nick Corasaniti on what the. impact of this ruling will look like on. American politics. >> [music]. >> We'll be right back. Nick, welcome back to The Daily. Uh.

thanks for having me. We now quite clearly understand from. Adam Liptak that because of the Supreme. Court ruling, the Voting Rights Act's. protection of minority election. districts across the country has been. deeply weakened. And you've spent years reporting on the. question of voting rights and. gerrymandering. And you've been anticipating this ruling. because we are in the middle of a fierce. nationwide redistricting battle already.

So, when the rubber of this ruling meets the. road, in your estimation, what are going. to be the practical implications of it. starting right now in this election. year? I think one thing that's clear is. that this is starting a new chapter in. what has become a a national. redistricting arms race. You know, the. guardrails that were once there that. kept legislators in check are now even. fewer. And so, when we pivot to what that might. look like to the midterms, the picture's.

a little muddy, but we can break it down. by a few states. The first would be. Louisiana. They're most directly impacted by this. decision, and their map was struck down. >> Right. But that doesn't mean immediately. that there will be one or two new. Republican districts. It's up to the. legislature and the governor there to. begin that process. And they have a very. short window. And just explain that, why. do they have a short window? So, early voting in Louisiana is.

scheduled to happen this weekend. And. that's a critical moment because what. that means is voters are casting ballots. now for candidates in the existing. districts. So, it would be a high bar to. clear to toss out those votes, redraw. the districts, restart the process when. voters have already started to. participate in the upcoming primary. election. Because you'd effectively be. tossing out legally cast votes.

Got it. So, in Louisiana, the Republican-controlled legislature, which of course draws the political. maps, is seeing this ruling as a. rationale to move very quickly before. this year's congressional midterms to. make the state more Republican-friendly. for congressional races. Exactly. It could be one to two. districts to to wipe out all Democrats. there. But we just don't know until they. take that formal step. Got it. So,

that's Louisiana. Yes. And [music] there is a handful of other. states that are in a similar position, at least within the primary calendar. >> [music]. >> And they're mostly found in the South, and they had these districts that were. at least somewhat protected by the. provision in the Voting Rights Act that. the Supreme Court ruled on today. [music] Mhm. And those, looking just at. the calendar, include South Carolina, Missouri, and [music] Tennessee.

Now, it's unclear whether there's the. political will or desire to [music] do. it immediately in those states. But let's look at Tennessee to start. There, Republicans have been loud today, including Senator Marsha Blackburn, who's also running for governor, in. calling for the state to dismantle its. remaining Democratic district ahead of. the midterm elections. Right. I saw her.

on social media. She's basically saying, "Let's finish the job of turning. Tennessee 100%. red Republican. There will only be a. structure in place for Republicans to. win. House seats here.". Exactly. Now, they would be in a pretty. tight sprint, but with some dramatic. action in the state legislature and. support of the current governor, they. would be able to redraw their maps ahead. of the midterms. And describe the seat.

that would be wiped out if Senator. Blackburn got her way in Tennessee. So, this district in the southwestern. part of the state is the lone Democratic. district in Tennessee. It encompasses. Memphis and is a majority-minority. district with roughly 60% of a black. voting-age population and a major black. population city like Memphis in there. So, if Republicans were to take a. ruthless gerrymander to that city,

they'd be splitting apart these black. voters into a number of other Republican. districts. Got it. A pretty big. undertaking. Yeah, and there's also the. cartographical challenge to use the. multi-syllable word there, where. >> [laughter]. >> when a district is in the corner of a. state, it's a lot harder to carve up. than if it were in the middle and you. could split it apart like a piece of. pie. So, there are both calendar. challenges, geographical challenges, and.

time challenges in Tennessee. Right. >> But Republicans also have a very. immediate use of this ruling when it. comes to new maps in the midterms, and. that's in Florida. Now, earlier this week, Governor Ron. DeSantis introduced a new map, and it's. in a very aggressive gerrymander. It. would eliminate four of the eight. Democratic districts currently in the. state. Half, wow. Yeah, it it's a it's a. significant redrawing of the state's. political divisions. Now, in justifying.

drawing new maps, Governor DeSantis had. pointed to this looming decision before. the court as a reason that the state. needed to redraw its maps ahead of the. midterms. Mhm. He anticipated that the. ruling would go essentially Republicans'. way. Exactly. And so, today, Republicans. in the state legislature passed these. new maps. >> Wow. And while it's likely that they. will see a legal challenge from. Democrats, they now have a new decision.

from the Supreme Court to point to in. their legal battle to ensure that these. four new Republican-leaning districts. are indeed in place for the midterms. Right. And if anyone in Florida was. inclined to try to legally challenge. these new maps based on the Voting. Rights Act, they are probably feeling. pretty discouraged based on the Supreme. Court ruling. The message basically is. that so long as no one is explicitly.

saying these new maps are intended to. discriminate against minorities, this gerrymandering will be perfectly. legal. Exactly right, at least on the federal. level. So, when we put this all. together, what do we expect new maps. in a place like Florida, in Louisiana, perhaps in a couple of other places, I. know we can't be certain that will. happen. What is it likely to mean for. the overall math of which party will.

have structural advantages from. gerrymandering in this midterm cycle, if. it's possible to say? There will be a. slight, but established Republican tilt. to the maps heading into November. And. that's in part due to the decision. today, and it's also in part due to just. the now nearly year-long attempt to draw. new maps in states across the country. Mhm. But it it's certainly not the.

multi-seat cushion, you know, in the. double digits that President Trump and. his advisers had envisioned when they. started this fight in Texas last year. Right. It's not enough to counter what. maybe polling suggests at the moment are. some serious political challenges for. Republicans, whether it's the war in. Iran, rising gas prices, and the. president's general unpopularity. Yes, exactly.

At the beginning of our conversation, Nick, you said that this ruling is. likely to further the already intense. arms race over gerrymandering by both. parties. And I recall that our colleague. Nate Cohn said that if the Supreme Court. ended up more or less gutting the Voting. Rights Act, which. it seems they have started to really do. in this ruling, that it over time could. eliminate something like a dozen House. seats from Democratic control and ensure.

that they're in Republican hands. So, taking Nate at face value, he's a smart. guy, let's talk about how we expect Democrats. to respond to this because Democrats. have become very aggressive and pretty. nimble at countering Republican. gerrymandering in places like California. and now Virginia. And I'm seeing that. there are already calls for Democrats to. take this moment, seize it, and turn. some of their.

states entirely blue. What do you. expect? So, for the immediate, for the 2026. midterms, Democrats have have played. their hand. They've redrawn in Virginia. and in California, and they got a boost. by courts in Utah. Mhm. But I think the. clearest political outcome of today's. decision is that these redistricting. wars that started in the middle of the. decade, you know, which is very rare, are going to spiral into 2028, and. they're going to expand.

Already, Democrats in New York and. Colorado have begun to explore the. process of redrawing their maps ahead of. 2028. And today, Governor Hochul. indicated, "I'm going to continue on. that." Mhm. Other states, like Illinois. and Maryland, Democrats have complete control over the. map-drawing process. They've already. drawn pretty aggressive gerrymanders, but given today's ruling and the. aggressively hyper-partisan nature of. these battles over maps, they could go.

even further. Maryland Democrats could try again to. eliminate the final Republican seat in. that state. And Democrats in Illinois could. effectively split apart or spread across. Chicago voters and eliminate every. Republican in that state. Now, that. would be a pretty wacky-looking map with. a lot of spaghetti strings, but. [laughter] it's in the realm of. possibility. And today, Governor. Pritzker indicated that he might. entertain this. And he simply said, "We. have options.". So, what this is most likely to unleash.

over time is a very brazen form of. gerrymandering in which, if you happen. to not be in the political majority in. your state, you are likely to. find your political power. totally neutered. Yeah, we could see a place where. everyone rushes to the extreme. But. Nick, just to return to the Voting. Rights Act as we finish this.

conversation, the law that was weakened. by the Supreme Court with Wednesday's. ruling, one thing we know, as we are. speculating about lots of things we. don't quite know, is that almost for. sure this ruling will result in fewer. congressional districts having a. majority of black voters than that. And. as somebody who's studied voting rights. and gerrymandering as long as you have, what is it going to mean for black. political power in this country to be.

diluted in that way? I mean, I think we can look at what's. already been done, right? Like just. [clears throat] look at this past year. and the national redistricting wars. There have been numerous black members. of Congress who have seen their seats. drawn away in Texas and in Missouri and. in North Carolina. And so, seeing how that's already. happened when the guardrails were on, you could see how quickly this could. spiral when they've been taken off.

>> [snorts]. >> Right, we've spent most of this. conversation talking about how this. could impact Congress. But today's ruling could impact state. legislative lines and county lines. This. ruling also creates an opportunity for. state lawmakers to redraw their own. districts or local city and municipal. districts to try and gain a partisan. edge, right? It's still about power, but. in doing so, they would be decimating. some of these black-majority districts. And those local races are important.

because it it creates a pipeline of. lower elected officials, lower black. elected officials getting an opportunity. to eventually climb the political ladder. and eventually end up in Congress. Right, so there will, in general, be. less black. leadership in government. Well, there there could be, but there's. a flip side to this, and that's. [clears throat] the blue states. So, there is a possibility that these. Democratic states create new districts,

new Democratic districts that are. represented by black members of. Congress. And it's also, I think, critical to. remember that the black voting power. within the Democratic Party is still. really strong. They hold a outsize. impact in the presidential nominating. process. They're a core block in the. Democratic base when it comes to general. elections. So, their voice can't be. erased as long as there's a two-party. system. So, at the end of the day, race.

and partisanship are just inextricably. linked when it comes to how. everyone will respond to this. ruling. Exactly. >> [music]. >> We're in a hyper-partisan, hyper-polarized, >> [music]. >> give-no-inch era. And everything is about gaining an. advantage [music]. so that your party can hold on to power. So, the national redistricting wars, the.

battles over voting rights, what's been underpinning all of that. >> [music]. >> is a desire and a goal of pure partisan. power. So, it's hard to see this decision. >> [music]. >> and what it's going to do to American. politics outside of that context. >> [music]. >> Nick, thank you very much. Thanks for having me.

>> [music]. >> We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. [music]. This war of choice is a political and. economic disaster at every level. >> [music]. >> The president has got himself and. America stuck in the quagmire of another. war in the Middle [music] East. In his. first appearance before Congress since. the start of the war against Iran,

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assailed. those in Congress [music]. who have questioned the Trump. administration's strategy. The way you. stain the [music] troops. when you tell them 2 months in, 2 months. in, Congress. And you should know. better. Shame [music] on you. Calling this a quagmire 2 months in, handing propaganda to our [music]. enemies, shame on you for that. statement. During the hearing, an aide to Hegseth. acknowledged for the first time the full.

financial cost of the war, putting it at [music] $25 billion. And After my term as chair ends on May. 15, I will continue to serve as a. governor for a period of time. to be determined. On Wednesday, [music]. the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, said he [music] would. remain on the Central Bank's board even. after his time as its leader ends, a departure from tradition that he said. was necessary to protect [music].

the Fed against legal attacks from the. president. One of those [music] attacks has been a. criminal investigation into the Fed's. renovation of its headquarters, >> [music]. >> an investigation that the Trump. administration suspended last week. But Powell said that [music] the. investigation left him no choice but to. stay on the board until it was fully. [music] and transparently resolved. I. worry that these attacks are battering. the institution and putting at risk the.

thing that [music] really matters to the. public, which is the ability to conduct. monetary policy without taking into. consideration political factors. Today's episode [music] was produced by. Alex Stern and Jessica Chung. It was edited by Devon Taylor, Rob. Zipko, [music] and Liz O'Brien with help. from Michael Benoist. Contains [music] music by Rowan Nicks, Dan Powell, and Marion Lozano. Our theme. music is by Wonderly.

This episode was engineered by Alyssa. Moxley. >> [music]. >> That's [music] it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.