What A Day - SCOTUS Clears The Way for Gerrymandering

Episode Date: April 30, 2026

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down a 2024 Louisiana district map that created a second majority-Black voting district for use in future elections. In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the Voting Rights Act did not authorize states the ability to create majority-minority voting districts. The ruling didn't overturn Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, but in the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that it had done so in all but deed. Leah Litman, host of Crooked Media's legal podcast Strict Scrutiny, joins the show to tell us what this means for the future of Black voters, redistricting, the midterms, and America.And in headlines, the House Armed Services Committee grills Secretary of War Pete Hegseth over his handling of the war with Iran, Jerome Powell isn’t backing down in his feud with Trump, and a Japanese airport tries out baggage handling humanoid robots.Show Notes: Check out Strict Scrutiny – https://tinyurl.com/7dfbhmc5 Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

It's Thursday, April 30th. I'm Jane Koston, and this is what a day. The show watching Arizona Republican Representative Abraham Hamaday gives Secretary of War Pete Hankseth a remarkably bad idea. I would love for President Trump's truth social post to be leaf-litted all over Iran, to be honest with you. I think that would encourage them to actually take to the streets. I have to assume he doesn't mean the A Whole Civilization Will Die Tonight Post. On today's show, Heg Seth gets grilled over how poorly his war with Iran is going. And Jerome Powell stands up to the Trump administration. Again.

Well, let's start with the Supreme Court of the United States, which is rarely a good sign. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down a 2024 Louisiana map that created a second-majority black voting district. The map was drawn after black voters challenged the state's existing districts, which only included one majority black voting district, despite the fact that black-war Louisianaans make up one-third of the state. But in a six to three decision, the court found that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not give states the ability to create voting districts specifically based on race, in effect, turning past understanding of Section 2 on its head. So it comes as no surprise that President Donald Trump was locked in on the historic ruling when asked about it in the Oval Office on Wednesday. Locked in.

Mr. President, in light of today's Supreme Court ruling on the voting rights act, do you want Republican states in the South to look at redrawing congressional districts before the midterms? I don't know you have to tell me. When did the ruling come out? I've been with the astronauts. I've been with contractors because we're trying to get the ballroom built ahead of schedule. It's right on schedule.

It's ahead of schedule now. I want to keep it that way. And I was also with commissioning some people, but one of, you know, know David Warrington's son. You know David. Everybody knows David. He's got this incredible son, so he was just sworn in. So we had other things. Tell me about the, what happened.

David Warrington is White House counsel, FYI, because I'm sure you were wondering. So Wednesday's ruling did not outright overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But Justice Elena Kagan argued that it had done so in all but deed. Quote, under the court's new view of Section 2, a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens voting power. I am not an attorney, but I am a voter, and the grandchild of a black woman born in the rural South before the Voting Rights Act,

when black voters were required to take literacy tests or oral examinations before being permitted to register. So I want to know, what does this mean for future black voters, for Asian, Hispanic, and other minority voters, for redistricting, for America, no pressure. To find out, I spoke to Leah Lippman. She's a professor at the University of Michigan and co-host of Crooked Media strict scrutiny. Leah, welcome back to Wadda.

Thanks for having me. The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the Voting Rights Act. But it's claiming the VRA is still in place and that everything's fine. There's a major discrepancy in reading the opinions between what Sam Alito says and what Elena Kagan says. Can you explain the court's decision? Sure. So just on that, who are you going to believe? Samolito, your lion eyes. I'd choose, you know, obviously my lying eyes. So the court basically

today dismantled what remains of the Voting Rights Act, nullifying the Voting Rights Act's protections against racial discrimination in districting. It made it all but impossible to establish a violation of the Voting Rights Act, at least in a world where there is racially polarized voting, which of course is our world. Can you tell us a little bit, like, Like, where does the Voting Rights Act come from? What is it supposed to do? And who is it intended to protect? The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 in the wake of Bloody Sunday.

You know, the march, the demonstration in Selma, when voting rights protesters and demonstrators were meant with vicious violence from segregationists in the South. And the act, as initially passed, had two key components. One was the preclearance process, which required certain states. with especially egregious histories of racial discrimination in voting to get the federal government's permission before changing their voting laws or policies. And the other was Section 2, which is the nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting. Congress has repeatedly reauthorized and expanded the Voting Rights Act, including most recently in 2006, with broad bipartisan support. And on Section 2 specifically, the ban on discrimination and voting, Congress

amended and expanded the Voting Rights Act to prohibit not just intentional discrimination, but also laws or policies that have the effect of disadvantaging voters based on their race. So the Voting Rights Act was supposed to and did for a time turn the country into a multiracial democracy. It was designed to ensure states did not create laws or policies that locked voters of color out of power. So something that gets me about the majority opinion in this case. Is that Samuel Alito essentially argues like, no, no, no, no, no, this isn't about race. This is about politics.

This is, you know, it just so happens that most white people in Louisiana want to vote for Republicans and most black people in Louisiana want to vote for Democrats. Now, how that could have anything to do with racial discrimination is left to the imagination. But is that something that we're seeing more of where the. argument is being made that this is not about racial discrimination, but some sort of political sorting. We are increasingly seeing that argument, in part because the Supreme Court has embraced and indulged that argument. Basically, what the Supreme Court has said is so long as state legislatures come forward and say, oh, we drew these districts in order to secure partisan advantage,

in order to advantage the Republican Party, then who cares? If the district, have the effect of locking black voters out of power. Basically, they are excusing racial gerrymandering in a world where there is racially polarized voting. So long as race correlates with party, Justice Alito and the other Republican appointees have said it's totally fine, complies with the Voting Rights Act, if you write a set of rules that dilute the voting power of racial minorities. And they've reached this anti-democratic result on the basis. of their previous anti-democratic decision, which said federal courts can't do anything to fix those partisan gerrymanders where legislatures are drawing districts in order to advantage one political party and

disadvantage the other. So the Supreme Court has really exacerbated and accelerated the partisan gerrymandering wars and has basically allowed partisan gerrymandering to cannibalize the protections against racial discrimination in voting. We're going to talk more about gerrymandering in just a second, but I'm reminded of how before the Voting Rights Act, you had states across the South where technically black voters could vote if their grandfathers could vote or if they could pass a test like answering how many windows are in the governor's mansion. Tests that technically a white person could also fail, but just so happened to be made so that typically African Americans were pushed out of the government. ballot box. It's interesting to see that correlation now where it's not technically about race, but it's about race, and we know it is. But to discuss redistricting, there are redistricting efforts going on across the country, Washington, Florida, California, you name it. And in the

hours after this decision came down, we saw Tennessee Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn asked state lawmakers to redraw Tennessee's map and add another Republican seat in the house, which would take away the only blue house seat in the state. So moving forward, How will this ruling affect these redistricting fights that are in limbo right now? So in the short term, it's not entirely clear how many they will affect because it would require states to draw new districts potentially that are supposed to go into effect before the 2026 midterms. And in a lot of places, you know, candidates have declared their candidacy. And so they might be partially underway in a way that doesn't allow the state to write a new set of rules right now. But going forward, it's extremely likely that this decision will allow states to engage in additional rounds of redistricting and draw a new set of maps that erases the districts where minority voters, where voters of color actually had political opportunities, where they had the political power to select representatives.

The precise estimate, as far as how many districts this might affect, a little unclear. the lawyer for the Trump administration, which of course was arguing in support of eviscerating the Voting Rights Act, suggested maybe this could eliminate voting rights act protections for like 15 or so districts in Congress. A professor at Harvard Law School estimated no, the number is actually closer to 70. And that doesn't even count the number of state and local political offices that were protected by the Voting Rights Act. So, you know, on the slightly longer horizon, you know, this decision is going to have sweeping and substantial effects as far as what our multiracial democracy looks like, whether it is a multiracial democracy and who gets to have political power. I mean, I want to be blunt. Who does this impact most? It allows white Republican voters to essentially write a set of rules that lock themselves in power. And it allows them to lock out of power black voters, Hispanic voters, other voters of color, and disadvantaged.

the Democratic Party because basically what the opinion says is, oh, racial minorities, you can have your voting rights, you can have your voting rights districts as long as you vote Republican. Like that is the upshot of this decision. Leah, as always, thank you so much for joining me. And no thanks to Sam Alito. Never thanks to Samuel Alito. That was my conversation with Leah Lippman, professor at the University of Michigan and co-host of Crooked Media's strict scrutiny.

There's still more news to come, and mercifully, Clarence Thomas isn't involved. If you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. What a Day is brought to by Delete Me. Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. It's easier than ever to find personal information about people online. Having your address, phone number, and family members' names hanging out on the internet can have actual consequences in the real world and makes everyone vulnerable.

With Delete Me, you can protect your personal privacy or the privacy of your business from doxing attacks before sensitive information can be exploited. I'm very online, and privacy matters a lot to me. I want to keep myself and my family safe from doxing and identity theft. That's why Delete Me is so important. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan

where you go to join DeleteMe.com slash Wad and use promo code Wad at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to join deleteme.com slash Wad and enter code Wad at checkout. That's JoinDleetMe.com slash Wad, code Wad. This podcast is brought to you by WISE,

the app for international people using money around the globe. When it comes to sending money abroad, many providers claim to offer free fees and competitive rates. But don't be fooled. This can be code for inflated exchange rates. With the Wise account, you can send, spend, and receive money in over 40 currencies, without

ever having to worry about hidden fees. Sending pounds across the pond, most transfers arrive in 20 seconds or less. Spending Reales in Rio? The Wise travel card gives you the mid-market rate on every purchase. No costly markups on your bill. Getting paid in dollars for your side gig, avoid hidden fees, and get the real exchange rate every time. With 24-7 access to live support, your international transactions with Wise are quick, transparent,

and safe. Plus, Wise runs over 7 million daily checks to catch and prevent fraud. 15 million people already trust Wise to manage the money internationally. Be smart. Get Wise. My husband and I use Wise when we travel, and it couldn't be easier. Download the Wise app today or visit Wise.com. Terms and conditions apply. Here's what else we're following today.

Joining me as Crooked's news editor, Greg Walters, to talk about the big stories. Hey, Greg. Hello, Jane. Greg, the war in Iran is not going great. We've gone from the goal of regime change when the war began to Trump saying on Wednesday that Iran has to say, quote, we give up. Also on Wednesday, Secretary of War slash little boy, Pete Hicks has spent the morning yelling at members of the House Armed Services Committee as they asked him basic questions. Do you know how much it will cost Americans in terms of their increased cost in gas and food over the next? next year because of the Iran war?

I would simply ask you what the cost is of an Iranian nuclear bomb. I'm going to give you that. I would simply ask you what the, you're playing gotcha questions about domestic things. I'm not, you're asking, you're saying it's a gotcha question to ask what it's going to be in terms of the increased. Why won't you answer what it costs to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? How many more months, just order of magnitude, do you think that you're going to need to be able to conclude operations successfully?

And how many more billions of dollars do you think you're going to ask this body for. As you know, and as the president has stated, you would never tell your adversary. Sir, I recognize that is the line that you always, but give me an order of decimated their military and you control their trade. How much is Iran profited from your administration lifting the sanctions on Iran when you started this war? I can tell you, Iran is financially devastated right now.

Okay, well, they've learned about $14 billion. Operation Economic Fury. they're at a point where between the blockade and what we're done to them militarily. Remember, they don't have a Navy, they can't contest the blockade. Okay. Between what we've done to the military and financially,

they're at a place, they have very few options. How many Chinese missiles can they buy for $14 billion? Does that sound like winning? They're not. We're insuring and they're not buying Chinese missiles. Okay. Jane, that appearance went about as well as this war has been going.

The Pentagon is now saying, that this conflict has cost $25 billion so far, which is the entire annual budget of NASA for this year, or more than the entire annual economic output of Jamaica. And don't get me started on what we could do with that money if we spent it on child care, health care, the homeless, hospitals. Like, we're now about nine weeks into Trump's four to six week war, and oil prices keep rising while the vital street of Hormuz shipping lane remains shut. And there's even a new joke about this on Wall Street, Jane.

Oh, yeah. I love a good finance joke as long as it doesn't involve math. I would love to hear it. Okay, so you've heard of Taco, right? Sure. It stands for Trump always chickens out, which means investors can bet that Trump won't follow through on his dumbest ideas, which is unnerving but for different reasons. Well, they've got a new one. Nacho. Not a chance hormoos opens. See, Greg, that's funny because earlier this month, a Fox News host tried to start a new pro-exam. Trump Mexican-themed food acronym, also nacho, but it stands for never avoids confronting hard obstacles. Looks like that didn't take. You know, at this rate, Jane, we're going to be sitting here in 2028 trying to think of acronyms for guacamole and chila keyles to describe all the dumb stuff

Trump wants to do. It's like an entire menu, each with like an idiotic Trump policy. Speaking of spicy and idiotic news, Jerome Powell is not backing down in his feud with Trump. Today, Powell said he's going to stay on at the Federal Reserve as governor, wants his tenure as chair ends in the middle of May. You know, my concern is really about the series of legal attacks on the Fed, which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors. But these legal actions by the administration are unprecedented in our 113-year history, and there are ongoing threats of additional such actions. I worry that these attacks are battering the institution. 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. I plan to keep a low profile as a governor.

It seems like the more pressure Trump puts on Powell, the more he piles on the flimsy investigations and brazen lawsuits and keeps yelling. about how Powell is too late, the harder Powell is digging in, which makes sense to me because that's what I would do. Right. I wasn't used to thinking of the Federal Reserve as like a bastion of anti-authoritarian resistance, but here we are. Federal Reserve. Fight the power.

It's worth remembering what's at stake here. Trump wants to jam down interest rates in order to juice near-term economic growth and stock prices. And one reason you don't do that is because it could, unleash inflation. Powell kept rates steady today, and Trump hates that because it's responsible and boring. Yeah, Trump would rather be like, fuck it, let's ball with really low interest rates, as long as I benefit personally. Exactly. I mean, this is the Hold My Beer presidency, or the like, let me into the cockpit to show you how to fly this thing presidency. And then the

next thing you know, the passengers and crew were all stuck to the ceiling while we hit Mach 2, headed straight for the Grand Teton's. Actually, I'm glad you brought up planes, even though that metaphor scares me, because we need to talk about the robots at Japanese airports. Japan Airlines testing humanoid robots at an airport in Tokyo starting next month. The bots are designed to move baggage and cargo. These robots can operate for a few hours before needing a recharge. Humans will still handle the critical safety jobs, but these humanoids will do the heavy lifting,

at least when it comes to your checked item. For those who can't see the video on YouTube, we've got people-shaped robots putting bags into planes, and I have questions. Yeah, I can't decide if this is Star Wars or the Jetsons. Like, am I nervous about this or amused? Yeah, like, there's a thin line to me between C-3PO and the Terminator.

I don't like it. As you know, I do not like human-eyed robots because they will probably turn against us, But you'll never turn against me, Greg. Not until I'm programmed to, Jane. Comforting. And that's the news. Before we go, check out the new episode of Runaway Country,

where Alex Wagner digs into what eroding press freedom actually looks like in the U.S. And why it matters when the people in power start treating journalists like the enemy. The episode features Clayton Wymer's of Reporters Without Borders and more voices breaking it all down. Tune into Runaway Country Now and listen wherever you get your podcast. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, enjoy Elon Musk's incredibly uncomfortable time in the witness box in his trial against OpenAI and tell your friends to listen.

And if you're underwriting, and not just about how the trial pits Musk against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman in a battle between two remarkably unlikable people with too much money, like me. What a day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at cricket.com slash subscribe. I'm Jane Koston. And just to give you a taste of how truly weird this trial is, on Tuesday, when Musk was first asked who Chauvin Zillis was,

Musk identified her as his chief of staff. On Wednesday, Musk clarified. She is also his partner and mother of four of his 14 children. Normal. What a day is a production of Crooked Media. Our show is produced by Caitlin Plummer, Emily 4, Erica Morrison, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Haley Jones, Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Joseph Dutra, Johanna Case, and Desmond Taylor.

Our music is by Kyle Murdoch and Jordan Cantor. We had helped today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.