Tangle - Is the Voting Rights Act in danger?

Episode Date: October 16, 2025

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging the congressional map Louisiana adopted in 2022, the second time the court has considered the case. The challenge centers on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, which prohibits voting laws or districting practices that give members of a racial group less opportunity than others to elect candidates of their choice. During arguments, the court’s conservative justices signaled their support for narrowing or overturning Section 2. Tangle LIVE tickets are available!We’re excited to announce that our third installment of Tangle Live will be held on October 24, 2025, at the Irvine Barclay Theatre in Irvine, California. If you’re in the area (or want to make the trip), we’d love to have you join Isaac and the team for a night of spirited discussion, live Q&A, and opportunities to meet the team in person. You can read more about the event and purchase tickets here.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: How do you think the court will, or should, rule on this case? Let us know.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health, from the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body checkup that provides a clear picture of your health today and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer. The healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan. Live well for life.

Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. This Friday, I'm an angel. See the wings? Don't miss the new comedy Good Fortune, starring Seth Rogen, Aziz Ansari, and Keanu Reeves, critics rave, it's heaven sent. Don't you have a budget, guardian angel? Kind of. You were very unhelpful. Good fortune, directed by Aziz Ansari.

Not a billionaire, not a problem. You can still do something legendary by leaving a gift to charity in your will. Even 1% in your will can change the game for a cause you care about without taking away what you or your family need. It's a powerful way to make your mark. Anyone can leave a legacy. Willpower shows you how. Learn more at willpower.ca. Good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place to get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take.

I'm your host, Isaac Saul. And on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in Louisiana v. Calais that happened on Wednesday. And we're going to talk about exactly what the shape of the arguments looked like, share some views from the left and the right, and then I'm going to share my take. Before we jump in, a quick heads up and reminder that in one week, we're going to be in Southern California, the whole tangle team. We're going to be talking about what immigration gerrymandering in the 28 presidential election have in common, which is that they're the main topics of our live event in Southern California, which is just one week away. I will be moderating a spirited discussion with Camille Foster, Alex Thompson, and Anna Kasparian on the big issues and more. we would love to see you there tickets are still available we really want to sell this show out we know a lot of you wait till the last week to buy them so check out the link in our episode description or our newsletter today to get tickets to that show it's a unique opportunity to come spend

some time in real life with us and we hope to see you there all right with that out of the way I'm going to send it over to john for today's main topic and I'll be back for my take Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from using the ongoing government shutdown as grounds to layoff federal workers, suggesting that the administration had taken advantage of the lapsing government spending and government functioning to conduct layoffs. Number two, the Trump administration has reportedly given authorization to the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct covert operations in Venezuela, allowing the agency to

carry out lethal operations in the country and other operations in the Caribbean. Number three, Hamas said it had returned all of the remains of Israeli hostages that it could recover, claiming that it needs special equipment to recover the remaining bodies. Number four, journalists covering the Defense Department who refused to sign the new Pentagon access policy began vacating their offices after the deadline to formally acknowledge the new policy passed. And number five, Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth said that the United States will impose costs on Russia if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not engage with efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case that could have, very honestly, significant implications for the Voting Rights Act. At the center of it, Louisiana's congressional map, which was redrawn in 2024 and added a second majority black district. the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the congressional map of Louisiana adopted in 2022, the second time the court has considered the case. The challenge centers on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits voting laws or districting practices that give members of a racial group less opportunity than others to elect candidates of their choice. During arguments, the court's conservative justices signaled their support for narrowing

or overturning Section 2. For context, in 2022, Louisiana's legislature adopted a congressional map with one majority black district of the state's six, roughly 33 percent of Louisiana's population, is black. A group of black Louisiana voters challenged the map under Section 2 of the VRA, and a federal district court sided with them, ordering a new map with a second majority black district. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court's decision. The state legislature adopted a new map in line with the court's ruling, but a different group of voters describing themselves as non-African American sued in 2024, alleging the map violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by sorting voters based

primarily on their race. A district court sided with the Calais challengers and blocked the map from going into effect, but the Supreme Court stayed that decision, allowing the map with two majority black districts to be used in the 2024 election. The court heard arguments in its last term, but declined to issue a ruling and ordered additional arguments for this term, with a focus on whether the state's intentional creation of a second-majority minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. During the first round of arguments before the Supreme Court in March, Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguñaga said that the state would rather not be here and wanted to resolve

the dispute by keeping its 2024 map. The court's conservative justices scrutinized a ruling that struck down the 2022 map and questioned whether the new map constituted an unlawful gerrymander. liberal justices suggested that the new map addressed a clear violation of the VRA Section 2. On Wednesday, the court's conservative justices explored whether the VRA's provisions, specifically Section 2, should eventually expire. This court's cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

Jene Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, an attorney for the black voters who challenged the 2022 map argued that Section 2 remained critical for preventing electoral discrimination, saying it only offers protection in extreme circumstances like the 2022 map that would have given entrenched control to Louisiana's white voters. Asked by Justice Elena Kagan about the tangible impact of rolling back Section 2, Nelson replied, the results would be pretty catastrophic. If the court finds Section 2 unconstitutional,

states would have the option to redraw congressional and state legislative maps without considering race. Since the court typically issues major opinions in June or July, a major ruling before the end of 2025 would be uncommon. However, if the court issues its ruling on an expedited timeline, Louisiana and other states would be able to redraw its map before next year's primary elections ahead of the 26 midterms. Today, we'll share reactions to oral arguments from the left and the right,

and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. The Hulu original series Murdoch, Death in the Family, dives into secrets, deception, murder, and the fall of a powerful dynasty. Inspired by shocking actual events and drawing from the hit podcast, this series brings the drama to the screen like never before. Starring Academy Award winner Patricia Arquette and Jason Clark Watch the Hulu original series Murdoch, Death in the Family,

now streaming only on Disney Plus. At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health, from the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body checkup that provides a clear picture of your health today and may uncover early signs of conditions

like heart disease and cancer. The healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan, live well for life. Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. All right, first up, let's talk about what the left is saying. The left expects the court to overturn section two and worries that it will remove a key protection against racial gerrymandering.

Some say that the expected decision. will harm black voters across the country. Others argue Section 2 is as vital today as it was in 1965. In Vox, Ian Milhizer said, it sure looks like the Voting Rights Act is doomed. While all six Republican justices almost certainly walked into Wednesday's argument with a particular result in mind, they had wildly divergent theories of how to get there, Milheiser wrote. Just as Samuel Alito seemed to argue that maps that exclude black voters are acceptable so long as they are enacted for the purpose of benefiting the Republican Party rather than for explicitly white supremacist reasons. Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that the Voting Rights Act must sunset after an undetermined amount

of time. Justice Amy Coney-Barritt proposed imposing a limit on Congress's power to remedy discrimination, one that the court has applied in non-voting cases on election-related laws like the VRA. But even if the court's Republican majority cannot agree on a reason that they want to kill decades-old protections against racial gerrymanders, it's been obvious for a long time that they are eager to kill them, Milheiser said. The Republican justices began the process of dismantling the Voting Rights Act a dozen years ago in Shelby County v. Holder from 2013, and they've handed down at least two other decisions since then that attacked this landmark civil rights law. So, in the almost certain event

that Calleys takes another bite out of the VRA, it will be a continuation of an ongoing Republican project. In Talking Points memo, Kate Riga argued, striking down Section 2 would silence black voters. A central grievance motivating today's conservative legal movement and the Republican Party more broadly holds that any measure rectifying the country's habitual discrimination against minorities actually discriminates against the in-group, Riga wrote. This is why Black Lives Matter, a call to recognize the disproportionate violence and death Black people suffer at the hands of the state, is met with All Lives Matter. It's why DEI has become the battle cry for rolling back the perpetuation and memorialization of civil rights advancements.

That same grievance animated the right-wing justices Wednesday. Section 2 is the last weapon in the landmark civil rights legislation that the Roberts Court hasn't yet destroyed, and it has been a bulwark against largely red state legislatures, often in the states that made up the Confederacy, using crafty line drawing to ensure that white voters always have disproportionate power over black ones to elect the representatives of their choice, Riga said. It's not an exaggeration to say that the United States. States was not truly a democracy before the VRA. The Supreme Court is doing its own version of that

by threatening one of the last protections of our multicultural democracy. In the New York Times, representatives Troy Carter and Cleo Fields, Democrats from Louisiana, wrote the shadow of Jim Crow looms over the Supreme Court. For over a decade, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has been chipping away at this landmark civil rights legislation. Now the laws section two, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race, is at risk. If the court declares it unconstitutional, it is all but certain that one of our congressional districts will be dissolved, and quite possibly both districts, Carter &field said. Let's be clear. Section 2 is still necessary, especially in Louisiana. Despite what some people

may argue, there is no evidence to support the idea that our state's black voters can elect candidates of their choice without the existence of majority black districts. When black communities lose representation at both the state and federal levels, they're concerned. are often ignored and deprioritized. Black elected officials already too few in number are left to shoulder the burden of constituents outside their districts who feel they have nowhere else to turn. That's not how a representative democracy is supposed to work, Carter & Field Throat, wrote. The Voting Rights Act, including Section 2, has garnered bipartisan support. At the time, lawmakers across the political spectrum recognized that left to their own

devices. Some states would turn back to a time when certain voices did not matter and could be disregarded. That's just as true today as it was then. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right supports rolling back section two, saying the court can uphold the original intent of the Voting Rights Act. Some say the court must address the confusing standard of race-based redistricting of its own creation. Other suggestions. that the case is more about political strategy than concerns about racism. The Wall Street Journal editorial board argued,

Nobody is gutting the Voting Rights Act. Headlines following oral arguments in Louisiana v. Caius on Wednesday say that the Supreme Court is about to gut the Voting Rights Act. On the contrary, prohibiting the use of race in congressional mapmaking would return the landmark civil rights law to its original purpose, preventing discrimination, the board said. Contrary to what press reports suggest, majority minority districts are not required by Section 2.

The law merely prohibits voting practices that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race and guarantees the right of minorities to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. A lawyer for the NAACP argued that reversing jingles would be pretty catastrophic since both of Louisiana's black members of Congress represent majority minority districts. But as U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mupon noted, only 15 of Congress's roughly 60 current black members represent such districts. Black members, like white members, win seats more often by appealing to multiracial coalitions,

the board wrote. The goal of Section 2 was to prevent the likes of poll taxes, not to give partisans an excuse to use race as an excuse to gerrymander or to challenge state congressional maps in court by playing the race card. In National Review, Carrie Campbell Severino said the case offers an overdue reckoning with race-based redistricting. the court is confronting two strains of precedent that contradict each other. On the one hand, a string of voting rights decision, starting with Thornburg v. Jingles in 1986, interpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a way that compelled states to consider

race in the drawing of legislative districts, Severino wrote. But of course, the overarching rule that has emerged in the court's constitutional jurisprudence is that drawing distinctions based on race is presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny. The inclusion of the constitutional question is a sign that a critical mass of justices is ready to grapple with the conflict in its case law. Will a majority finally fix the problem the court left lingering in Milligan? On the one hand, the court's composition has not changed since that case was decided. At the same time, Justice Kavanaugh, part of the five-justice majority in Milligan, did not join Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in its entirety, Severino said. Louisiana did not create this predicament.

The court's confused jurisprudence did. now the court has the opportunity to fix it. Let's hope a majority of justices sees it. In hot air, John Sexton analyzed the arguments before the court. There's a clear partisan angle to all of this. Black voters tend to vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. The result is that Section 2 of the VRA effectively ensures Democrats have safe districts in a bunch of otherwise red states in the South, Sexton said. Just last week, Politico noted that left-leaning voting rights groups were panicking over today's oral arguments because if Section 2 gets tossed out, a bunch of safe blue districts would likely disappear. How many? Possibly as many as 19. Where is this all going to land? I don't think

it's as clear as some previous arguments. There seem to be three liberals for preserving Section 2, three conservatives for eliminating it, and perhaps three conservatives, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts, who may or may not be looking to weaken it but not end it. So I think the likely outcome here is a 6-3 decision with an outraged dissent from Justice Jackson, but I'm not sure how far that decision will go, Sexton wrote. The other question is, could it impact the 2026 midterms? The answer is maybe. It depends on when the court issues a decision. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for the left and the writer saying, which brings us

to my take. So the dynamics of this case, for me, are pull your hair out levels of frustrating. Despite both sides complicating their arguments with pedantic details, the issue at the center of this case is simple. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is not long. You can go read it yourself with a quick Google search if you want. It prohibits a political process that is not equally open to participation by members of a certain race or skin color.

The 15th Amendment, which is also at play here, is all of two sentences long. Quote, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation, end quote. In Louisiana, one third of the state is black. Based on a robust collection of data, we know these two relevant things about the state's electorate. one, black voters in the state often vote for black candidates and Democrats, and two, white voters, even Democrats, are less likely than black voters in Louisiana to vote for black candidates, even Democratic ones. So, Republicans who controlled the Louisiana state legislature, and thus it's a districting process, did something simple. In 2022, they cracked and packed areas where a lot of black Louisianaans live and created a congressional map that had one majority-minority district,

and five districts where whites are the majority. They got their desired result. Five districts elected Republican officials, all white, by the way, and one district elected a Democrat who is black. Again, none of this is complicated. Little of it is contested. Voters sued, arguing that the map self-evidently diluted the power of black voters, or to put it in the terms of Section 2,

close the political process off to a class of people based on race by diluting their vote. They won their case, which means they proved in court that the gerrymander had the effect of violating Section 2, whether the mapmakers intended to racially gerrymander or not. Intent doesn't matter, which Congress made explicit with an amendment to the Voting Rights Act in 1982. Still, up to this point, everything is simple. Republican mapmakers diluted black votes in a state where the proportion of black voters would suggest at least two congressional districts would be competitive for Democrats and majority black, The state's legislature instead produce five non-competitive Republican seats and one majority black Democratic-held seat.

The Gingles framework from a previous Supreme Court case that is used to determine a Section 2 violation has three elements. One, that the minority group in question is large and compact enough to form a majority in an additional district. Two, that the minority group is politically cohesive. And three, that the majority votes as a block in a way that usually defeats the majority. minority's preferred candidate. These three elements are increasingly hard to satisfy because black Americans are less segregated or compact now than they used to be, and because their voting preferences

are less predictable or politically cohesive than they used to be. To be clear, these are good things, and for these reasons, and contrary to rhetoric from conservative justices, section two cases are increasingly rare and increasingly unsuccessful. They're only upheld when egregious racial gerrymanders satisfy all three of the above components. And that's exactly what we have in Louisiana. The next step is where things get a little complicated. A court told the state to redraw its map, and this time Louisiana decided to create a compliant map

that still protected incumbent Republicans, like House Speaker Mike Johnson. Its solution was to draw a second majority black district into Louisiana's map. Then a group of non-African American voters sued, saying the new map violated their constitutional rights by being a racial gerrymander, a kind of racial gerrymander against the racial majority. As the liberal justices argued laboriously and convincingly, but perhaps futilely,

the remedy here had to consider race because the initial violation was based on race. Calling foul here is akin to someone following you around with a bullhorn that blasts music every time you try to speak, and when a court orders them to stop stalking you with a bullhorn that drowns out your speech, the bullhorn-wielding stalker claims that they are being silenced and their free speech rights are being violated because the court is silencing them. It is an unbelievably incredibly aggravating circular piece of litigation, but it's where we are. Admittedly, the way the law protects voters' rights does invite genuine complications. States are simultaneously being told that they cannot consider race while drawing maps,

but also that the Voting Rights Act demands they consider race while evaluating, or remedying racial gerrymandering. At the same time, when voters of a particular race overwhelmingly vote for one party over another, it can be hard to test whether a gerrymander is targeting their race, unconstitutional, or their partisanship, constitutional. This uneven framework creates problems exactly like Louisiana's. But that confusion doesn't justify throwing out Section 2, which has been remarkably effective.

As NAACP attorney, Jani Nelson, argued before the court, Section 2 enforcement has led to less racial polarization in districts and fewer cases of its kind over time, i.e. less racial gerrymandering. In other words, the statute is accomplishing the goals Congress intended it to. And although members of the court, like Justice Kavanaugh, seem to think these protections have served their purpose and should expire, the threat it protects against remains present. Indeed, we are not somehow beyond the threat of racial gerrymandering. We are omitted. The reality of gutting or even narrowing Section 2 is that Republicans, Republicans could and will gerrymander as many as a dozen Democratic held seats out of existence, several of which are held by black representatives who were elected in districts where a majority

of black voters reside, and probably before the 26 midterms. The political outcome here is only relevant because it proves that gerrymandering affects fair representation. That affects all of us, but in this case, it boxes black voters out of the system unfairly and unconstitutionally. Equally perplexing and frustrating is that the conservative justices all seem to want to weaken Section 2 in some way, but they each have very different ideas for how to do that, which made the oral arguments in this case clunky and disconnected. While the liberal wing of the court spent a lot of time inquiring about the practical implications of Section 2, Louisiana's solicitor-general Benjamin Aguinaigua spent a lot of time arguing unlikely hypotheticals

to make it seem as if the downstream effects of narrowing Section 2 would be no big deal. For example, he was pressed on the idea that weakening section two would have a catastrophic impact for black voters in Louisiana. In response, he argued that the Republican legislature would hesitate to draw a six to zero map in the wake of any such ruling because hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters have to go somewhere and Republicans would risk drawing purple districts into existence. But overreaching actually is not much of a risk for Republicans in Louisiana, aided by complex algorithms and advance. gerrymandering strategies, they will not have any trouble drawing a six-to-zero map. An elections analyst from the New York Times did it pretty easily just this week, and you can bet your house Republicans are going to try. Similarly frustrating are the mental gymnastics I'm

observing from conservatives about how this litigation is playing out. National Reviews editors, for whom I have a great deal of respect, publish an editorial headlined, end racial gerrymandering. One might expect the editors to call on Republicans to stop cracking and backing black voters into single districts across the South, but instead they demand the Supreme Court solve racial gerrymandering by ignoring the problem. The editors write, quote, Section 2 never even mentions the drawing of district lines. It asks instead whether a state's political process is leading to nomination or election are not equally open to participation by members of racial groups who have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to

participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. In reality, every state's political system today is equally open, even if the outcomes of elections are often a disappointment to voters outside of the partisan majority, end quote. Actually, an election is not equally open to voters if elected officials of one party are drawing district lines that explicitly and obviously cram voters of a particular race into a single district.

I simply don't understand how someone can claim otherwise. This is, of course, a critique that applies to gerrymandering writ large, but legally it carries the most weight when applied to racial gerrymandering, which is the issue before the court today. I'm not sure what's going to happen now. Most court watchers are confident that the court will issue a six to three decision weakening Section 2 in some way. I'm hesitant to make a prediction that runs counter to the observations of the court-obsessed pundits, but I do think a five-to-four ruling preserving Section 2 is still possible with Kavanaugh and Roberts joining the liberal wing. I genuinely just have a hard time believing that the weight of

the precedent here, which was affirmed by this court as recently as 2023, paired with the truly circular nature of Louisiana's argument, creates a decision that reverses Section 2, especially when the conservative justices are so divided about how to move forward. Whatever the outcome, it remains true that gerrymandering is a scourge on our democracy, and it's getting worse by the day. I would obviously prefer Congress to ban gerrymandering of all kinds, but that won't happen today. As a strident advocate for voting, it brings me no pleasure to say this. In a world where legislators can so easily pick their voters, even along obvious racial lines, it becomes hard to defend the value of participating in our system at all.

The Supreme Court's Pollyannish view on what will happen if they leave mapmakers to their own devices leaves me deeply uneasy about our future. And my sincere hope is that they surprise us the same way they did the last time a case like this was before them. But I have to say, I'm not optimistic. We'll be right back after this quick break. At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health, from the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body checkup

that provides a clear picture of your health today, and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer. The healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan, live well for life. Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. This Friday, I'm an angel. See the wings?

Don't miss the new comedy Good Fortune, starring Seth Rogen, Aziz Ansari, and Keanu Reeves. Critics rave. It's heaven sent. Don't you have a budget, guardian angel? Kind of. You were very unhelpful. Good Fortune, directed by Aziz Ansari.

All right, that is it for my take. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the podcast, and I'll see you guys for the suspension of the rules sometime in the next day or two. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks. On Monday, Cuban dissident Jose Daniel Ferrer left Cuba for the United States

at the request of the U.S. government. Ferrer was one of 75 opposition figures tried and imprisoned in 2003 for leading movements against Cuba's communist government. He continued his protest activity and was imprisoned again in 2021. Human rights organizations like Amnesty International have designated him as a prisoner of conscience. Earlier this month, Ferrer's family circulated a letter saying he would accept exile from his home country. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed Ferrer's arrival in the U.S. years of abuse, torture, and threats to his life in Cuba. The Associated Press has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section.

It's been approximately 60 years since the Voting Rights Act was passed. According to an analysis by the University of Michigan's Voting Rights Initiative, 466 VRA Section 2 cases have resulted in published decisions or, opinions since 1982. 73% of those cases addressed claims of vote dilution. 43% of Section 2 cases achieved successful outcomes for the plaintiff. Between the years of 2012 and 2024, 45 cases of Section 2 were brought successfully, while 71 were brought unsuccessfully.

71% of Section 2 cases had at least one black plaintiff that participated. 27% of Section 2 cases had at least one Latino plaintiff that participated, and 2% of Section 2 cases had at least one white plaintiff that participated. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day Story. Played with guilt over his decision to turn his brother Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, into authorities in 1996, David Kaczynski decided to reach out to some victims of his brother's attacks. Gary Wright had been left severely injured when a bomb placed by Ted exploded outside Wright's computer store in Salt Lake City in 1987, and he was one of the few people who,

responded to David. The two have struck up an unlikely friendship over the years, making joint appearances and communicating regularly. I think Gary has been one of the greatest blessings of my life, David said. It shows that friendship across differences and barriers is really possible. CBS News has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our works, please go to readtangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. And don't forget that next week we will be in Southern California for our Tangle Live

event, featuring our founder, Isaac Saul leading a spirited discussion with Camille Foster, Alex Thompson, and Anna Kasparian on big issues related to immigration, gerrymandering, and the 2028 presidential election. If you're able to make it, we would love to see you there and tickets are still available. There's a link that you can click in state's episode description to take you right to the ticket site. Isaac Ari and Camille will be here for the suspension of the rules podcast. and I will return on Monday.

For the rest of the crew, this is John Lull signing off. Have an absolutely fantastic weekend, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me. Isaac Sall and our executive producer is John Lull. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Hunter Casperson,

Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saw, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com. At MedCan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health, from the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment,

offers a physician-led, full-body checkup that provides a clear picture of your health today and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer. The healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan. Live well for life. Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started.

The Hulu original series Murdoch, death in the family, dives into secrets, deception, murder, and the fall of a powerful dynasty. Inspired by shocking actual events and drawing from the hit podcast, this series brings the drama to the screen like never before. Starring Academy Award winner Patricia Arquette and Jason Clark watch the Hulu original series Murdoch, Death in the Family, now streaming only on Disney Plus. Not a billionaire, not a problem. You can still do something legendary by leaving a gift to charity in your will. Even 1% in your will can change the game for a cause you care about without taking. taking away what you or your family need.

It's a powerful way to make your mark. Anyone can leave a legacy. Willpower shows you how. Learn more at willpower.ca.