geoff: The U.S. Supreme court
today struck down
republican-drawn congressional
districts in Alabama that civil
rights activists say
discriminated against black
voters.
The ruling was a surprising
departure from court opinions
over the past decade narrowing
the scope of the voting rights
act.
Chief justice John Roberts wrote
the majority opinion and was
joined by the three liberal
justices as well as conservative
justice Brett Kavanaugh.
To help us understand the
significance of all this, I'm
joined by newshour's supreme
court analyst Marcia Coyle --
and redistricting expert, David
Wasserman of the cook political
report with Amy Walter.
Welcome to you both.
Marsha, we will start with you.
The chief justice wrote there
were legitimate concerns the
voting rights act may
impermissibly elevated race and
the allocation of political
power within the states but
added our opinion today does not
diminish or disregard these
concerns.
It simply holds a faithful
application of art precedents
and fair reading of the record
do not bear them out here.
What is the court saying with
this ruling?
>> I think the chief justice is
saying the majority is aware
that whenever you deal with
racial classifications, whether
it is in redistricting or other
contacts, there is that concern
that race may dominate, and so
he is reassuring everyone there
really is a totality of
circumstances, test for section
2, and the court's precedents
have imposed limitations that
protect against race actually
dominating into redistricting,
and that is been the case for
some 40 years.
Section 2 claims are extremely
hard to win and federal courts
and they have not been awaiting.
He is saying -- winning.
He is saying there are
safeguards here.
Geoff: This ruling was seen as a
surprise given the conservative
makeup of this court and the
ways in which the court as we
mentioned in previous rulings
has hollowed out the voting
rights act.
Naacp legal defense fund and an
attorney argued the case before
the court and in a statement
today, the organization says
this decision is a clear message
to lawmakers that their
responsibility as not changed.
They must ensure voters of color
are not denied an opportunity to
participate in the electoral
process.
What are your takeaways from
this ruling?
>> I am somewhat surprised, I
cannot say I am shocked because
the initial decision to strike
down Alabama's congressional map
was handed down by two trump
appointees on the panel.
At once, this is an application
of longtime precision --
precedent, but it is a seachange
politically because Alabama as
only had one black since 2002,
and it was only in the last
decade black politicians begin
to question this kind of
configuration of districts.
Now we are likely to see
additional more proportional
maps and acted Louisiana as
well.
There will be cases that play
out in Georgia, potentially
South Carolina, Texas that could
net Democrats and additional 2
to 4 seats in the house and that
can put them in closer
contention for control given how
narrow the Republicans margin is
today.
Geoff: We have a map that shows
the number of states where there
are congressional districts that
are being dedicated, and this
decision is going to force many
of these estates, force every
state to think about how they
redraw congressional lines and
areas that have a significant
black population.
>> Not just black voters but
hispanic voters in some cases as
well.
Keep in mind Republicans thought
they had a bit of an insurance
policy heading into 2024 in the
house, because they captured
control of the North Carolina
supreme court, which is clear
the path for the Republican
legislature to re-gerrymander
the state's boundaries.
This ruling offset to that and
could actually impact
Republicans' thinking in north
Carolina and make them more
risk-averse to the threat of a
voting rights act lawsuit.
That but it forces them to draw
a less ambitious plan.
At the same time, New York
Democrats believe the judiciary
in that state has turned in
their favor, and some of them
are pushing to redraw the
state's political boundaries
that are advantageous to
Democrats.
We could see a net benefit in
redistricting for Democrats
prior to the 2024 election, and
that is different from what we
thought would be the case a
couple of months ago.
Geoff: Looking at this ruling,
what should we see as the
significance if it all of chief
justice John Roberts and Brett
Kavanaugh siding with the
liberals?
>> I was not surprised the chief
justice ended up in the majority
or that he wrote it, because he
has been out front on all of the
court's major race related
decisions, not just
redistricting contacts.
Justice Kavanaugh hedged a bit
in that decision last year, so
we were not really sure where he
would come out, but I think the
chief justice is -- justice's
ability to put together
majorities and closely contested
cases does seem to hinge more
and more on whether justice
Kavanaugh will join him in
taking a more restrained opinion
than the other conservatives in
the majority or just to join
with the court's three liberal
justices.
It is sort of a plan perhaps
from the future that justice
Kavanaugh becomes the median
justice and the key to whether
Roberts can get what he wants
when faced with five
conservatives who may not want
to go along with him.
My thanks to you both.
>> Thanks.
>> You are welcome.
♪♪