S1: Welcome in San Diego. It's Jade Hindman. On today's show , we're talking about the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Louisiana district map and its impact on elections with UC Berkeley law professor and author Chiara Bridges. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. It is striking how often in America and in American history , access to political power expands and then quickly contracts , and how lessons from the past seem to go ignored. Which leads us to now , just 44 years after section two of the Voting Rights Act was amended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The Supreme Court , in a recent decision a six three decision , voted to weaken federal enforcement of it. It's a case called Louisiana v coal. And the question is , what did history already tell us about easing the federal enforcement of voting rights ? And what does that mean today ? Well , Kiara Bridges is a professor of law at UC Berkeley who works and examines race , law and inequality. She's also authored numerous books , including her latest title , Expecting Inequality How the Maternal Health Crisis Affects Even the Wealthiest Black Americans. Professor bridges , welcome back to Midday Edition.
S2: Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure to be here , although under terrible circumstances.
S1: Yes , indeed. And I want to go back and correct the title of your book. It's expecting inequity , not inequality. So. But. Yeah. Yeah , here we are. Um , it could be under better circumstances , but help sort this out for me , because central to Louisiana vehicle was a redistricting map. What issues around that were being argued ? Well.
S2: Louisiana had , in light of the 2020 census , created a map that contained only one majority black district. And there were challenges to that map because the challengers said that , well , this would be a violation of section two of the Voting Rights Act. If Louisiana , which is a state that has a black population of about a third , only had one congressional district in which black voters were a majority. So Louisiana issued a another map that contained two black majority districts. And that map was challenged as a racial gerrymander. Um , essentially , a group of white voters or organizations representing white voters said that that second , um , map , that second , uh , drawing of the the six congressional districts in Louisiana was a violation of their constitutional rights because Louisiana was mindful of race in creating the the second congressional map. And so , after some back and forth between the Fifth Circuit and the district court , it ended up in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court. Um , just last week , uh , used that that battle over that second congressional map to gut the Voting Rights Act and to essentially neuter any the remaining power that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 retained.
S1:
S2: Again , Louisiana the population of the state is 33% black. Um , and so a congressional map in which there were one out of six districts that in which black people were a majority would , under the black voters , would be underrepresented. Right ? They would. Their political power would not be equivalent to their numerical power in the state. And so that second map that was challenged and which was struck down in Louisiana versus Calais , that map would have done a better job of ensuring that black people in Louisiana were able to be represented in the halls of power in DC.
S1: And the dissenting opinion on this. It was a sharp rebuke.
S2: I think that she pulled no punches. She told it like it is. And so what Kagan makes clear in the dissent is that the majority has it doesn't say that it is reversing any precedent. It doesn't say that it is a ruling unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act instead of majority couches or describes this opinion as sort of just like a refurbishing of the Voting Rights Act. So we're just going to bring it up to date. But that refurbishing , as I've already said a couple of times , there are no components of the Voting Rights Act that have any power right now to challenge and to limit and to restrict all of these efforts by many , many , many states in the South , primarily that are working really , really hard to silence black political voices. And so what Kagan says , she says , what goes unsaid in the majority opinion , which is that this opinion is extreme. The majority's opinion is radical. Um , it guts the Voting Rights Act. Um , the the Voting Rights Act is effectively nullified , and it is a gross departure from the precedents that came before.
S1: And and the majority opinion pretty much points to. You know , they feel there should be race neutral policies for drawing these maps. Um , and also that that partisan using partisan maps. That's perfectly legit. Um , talk to me a bit about that. Is is it possible to be race and neutral and partisan in , in America ? Right.
S2: I mean , so the court actually doesn't say and I've read the majority opinion a couple of times now. Um , and the majority opinion doesn't actually say that it doesn't require race neutrality when it comes to drawing these congressional districts. Instead , the court says we cannot have congressional districts in which race appears to be the only factor in constructing the various districts. Essentially , the court is requiring legislatures , and they will be happy to do so to couch any racial intent behind partisan interests. And so if a if Louisiana can say that it eliminated this , you know , black majority district because it was interested in protecting Republican candidates , Republican incumbents and making sure that , you know , Republican candidates would be able to secure the majority of the votes in a district , then that's okay. If they also had race in mind. Okay , that's fine. But as long as there is some desire around protecting Republican candidates or in the , you know , in the inverse of protecting Democratic candidates , then that's okay. But the court says what's problematic is when you are conscious of race , particularly to protect black voting power. And so that's precisely what Louisiana did when it constructed the second congressional , you know , districting map. It was conscious of race because it didn't want to run a file Of of the section two of the Voting Rights Act , and the court said that that is illegitimate. And so just to like put a finer point on it , if you're conscious of race in order to protect black voting power or the or the voting power of of racial minorities in a state or in a district , well , that's that's problematic. That is illegal. But if you're conscious of race and can manage to gussy it up as being interested and partisan , you know , partisanship , well , that's that's perfectly permissible under the law.
S1: So to right now we see a number of states rushing to redraw their their maps. How do you think this decision will impact midterms and the 2028 elections ? Just , you know , in our not so distant future ? Yeah.
S2: You know , a lot of my , you know , my academic colleagues who who are , you know , into the number crunching of it all , they've come up , you know , with different numbers. Um , Nicholas Stephanopoulos at Harvard , um , says that , you know , 70 seats , you know , hang in the battle and the balance. You know , other academics give , give different numbers. You know , some say 30. Some say it's in the dozens. Um , that being said , it's impactful. And I think only time will tell how it will , you know , shape the midterm elections and you know which candidates will no longer have their seats. Um , like you already mentioned , um , states are chomping at the bit. You know , Florida is active right now. They got activated. Um , and they're actively working on redrawing their maps so as to diminish black voting power as much as they possibly can in that state. Um , so this is a very impactful decision. It's a very radical decision. Um , in any description of it as anything less than that is inaccurate.
S1:
S2: So we're talking about everything from , you know , school boards to to city councils. Um , you know , the municipality level , like all , all of all of these areas of , of , you know , where you cast a vote for anything , um , will be impacted by Louisiana versus Calais. And , you know , as someone who works on black maternal health , um , a lot of these solutions are at the local level. Um , you know , of course , the federal government could could do something grand like pass the Omnibus Act. You know , I'm not holding my breath for that. But at the local level , you know , localities can fund doula care , they can fund midwives , they can support community based organizations. There are a lot of things that that government can do at the local level to address the problems that are salient to the community , like black maternal health , like policing. Um , like the quality of the schools. But what Louisiana versus Calais does is , is diminish the power of these communities to actually get a majority to elect folks into the to the halls of power. And so the issues that affect them will go unrecognized in the political sphere , or rather , they will go and acted upon in the political sphere. And so that's just it's just bad , not just for DC , but it's bad just for local government as well.
S1: You've written extensively and studied and researched about how systems can reproduce inequality.
S2: Um , is an example of like the steady refusal to name race and the persistence of racism and the present. And what that is going to do is allow for legislatures to Silence. People of color. Silence. Minorities. And so , all of the voting. You know , Florida right now , the map that it may generate and , you know , may , um , get put into to administration. Um , that map will say nothing about race. It will say it will. It will have nothing. It will on its face. It will say nothing about this map. The intent of this map is to diminish black voting. This is to dilute black votes. Right. It will never say that. But that will be its effect. And that affects will. As I mentioned just now , it will impact the ability of people to cast votes after they have been released from jail and prison. Right. It will it will impact the funding of Medicaid in the state. It will impact what what books get taught or cannot get taught anymore in K-12 schools and in higher education in the state. So again , these will be race neutral maps , but they will have the effect of reiterating racial inequality in the state and in the nation more generally.
S1: What does history tell us about this moment in time ? Because it does it. Hey ! It rhymes. Correct. You know.
S2: Right. So when you look at those cases , this majority dives deep , deep , deep into the history books in order to to come up with , um , a regression interpretation of the Constitution , a very , you know , conservative interpretation of the Constitution that just , you know , happens to align with the Republican Party's platform. But it's really odd that in Louisiana versus Clay , that history doesn't really make an appearance at all in the majority opinion. The court doesn't mention why the 15th amendment was passed in the first instance. It's , you know , one of the reconstruction amendments after the Civil War. It doesn't mention the bloodshed of the civil rights movement that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Um , you know , Justice Kagan has to do that work in her dissent , where she reminds the public , you know , anyone who's reading this opinion , as well as the majority , that the point of of the 15th amendment , as well as the Voting Rights Act , was to ensure that black people could cast a meaningful vote and to ensure that there would be black representatives and senators in the in the halls of power. And so it is a it is a focused determination to ignore history that allows the majority to to come to the decision that it reaches in Louisiana versus clay. And I'll also mention it's a opinion that denies that racism persists in meaningful ways in the present. It's part of this , and it's very odd to say it in a country in which we have a Trump administration , which intentionally and obviously trades on on racist discourses. We have a Supreme Court that is leaning on this old colorblind canard that the battle days of racism have passed , and that we are in this colorblind future where we can ignore race without deleterious consequences.
S1: Well , and perhaps we'll have to look at history to find a solution to this as well. I've been speaking with Kiara Bridges , professor of law at UC Berkeley. Her work examines race , law , and inequality. Her latest book is called Expecting Inequality How maternal , how the maternal health crisis affects even the wealthiest black Americans. Professor bridges , thank you so much for your insight.
S2: And thank you for having me.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
