Transcript of A Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Voting Rights New

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. [MUSIC] On Wednesday, the Supreme Court dealt what may be a final blow to the landmark Voting Rights Act in a ruling that will supercharge the already partisan battle to control the country's election maps. Today, Adam Liptak on the legal logic of the ruling and Nik Korenides on how the decision will reshape American democracy. It's Thursday, 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 was 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.

Hmm.

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 the 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.

00:03:30

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 6 congressional districts, and not long ago, the state redrew its maps so that Black voters were the majority in 2 districts rather than just 1. Louisiana is about a third Black, so if you just do the math, 2 sounds about right.

Mm-hmm.

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 the 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.

Mm-hmm.

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. 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. 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. And that account of history suggests 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.

Mm-hmm. 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 precedence in this area, that we need only update the framework.

Mm-hmm.

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.

Hmm.

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. 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.

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. We'll be right back. Nick, welcome back to The Daily.

Ah, 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 gonna 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 legislatures 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.

00:13:25

And just explain that. Why do they have a short window?

00:13:28

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, it could be 1 to 2 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 there is a handful of other states that are in a, a similar position, at least within the primary calendar. 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.

Mm-hmm.

And those looking just at the calendar include South Carolina, Missouri, and Tennessee. Now it's unclear whether there's the political will or desire to 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 in 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 a multi-syllable word there, where 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 a very aggressive gerrymander. It would eliminate 4 of the 8 Democratic districts currently in the state.

Half. Wow.

Yeah, 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.

And 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 4 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. But it, it's certainly not the multi-seat cushion, you know, in the double digits that President Trump and his advisors 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 a 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, 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. 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.

Mm-hmm.

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 it's in the realm of possibility. And today Governor Pritzker indicated that he might entertain this.

And he simply said, "We have options." [Speaker:LATIF] 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 in it. And as somebody who has studied voting rights and gerrymandering as long as you have, what is it gonna mean for Black political power in this country to be diluted in that way?

00:23:34

I mean, I think we can look at what's already been done, right? Like, just 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, 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 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 could be, but there's a flip side to this, and that's the blue states. So there's 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 an outsized impact in the presidential nominating process. They're a core bloc in the Democratic base when it comes to general elections. So their voice can't be erased as long as there is 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.

[Speaker:JASON KOSIO] Exactly. We're in a hyper-partisan, hyper-polarized, give-no-inch era. And everything is about gaining an advantage 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 is a desire and a goal of pure partisan power. So it's hard to see this decision and what it's going to do to American politics outside of that context.

Nick, thank you very much.

Thanks for having me.

We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today.

This war of choice is a political and economic disaster at every level. The president has got himself and America stuck in a quagmire of another war in the Middle East.

In his first appearance before Congress since the start of the war against Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assailed those in Congress who have questioned the Trump administration's strategy. The way you stain the troops when you tell them 2 months in, 2 months in, Congressman, you should know better. Shame on you. Calling this a quagmire 2 months in, handing propaganda to our 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 $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. Time to be determined.

On Wednesday, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, said he 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 the Fed against legal attacks from the president. One of those attacks has been a criminal investigation investigation into the Fed's renovation of its headquarters, an investigation that the Trump administration suspended last week. But Powell said that the investigation left him no choice but to stay on the board until it was fully and transparently resolved.

I worry that these attacks are battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that really matters to the public, which is the ability conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors.

Today's episode was produced by Alex Stern and Jessica Chung. It was edited by Devin Taylor, Rob Zipko, and Liz O'Balen, with help from Michael Benoit. Contains music by Rohini Misto, Dan Powell, and Marian Lozano. Our theme music is is by Wonderly. This episode was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Bovaro. See you tomorrow.