What A Day - The Voting Rights Act Is Again Under Attack

Episode Date: August 6, 2025

The Voting Rights Act turns 60 today. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement, with the goal of ensuring that Black Americans could actually exercise their constitutional right to vote. But the landmark legislation — or at least what’s left of it — is facing new challenges. Roughly a decade ago, the Supreme Court gutted one of its key provisions. And late last week, the justices signaled they could be ready to strike a second major blow to the law. It all comes amid an increasingly ugly redistricting fight that’s pitting red states against blue states ahead of next year’s midterms. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, joins us to talk about the latest threats to the Voting Rights Act, and why decades later we’re still talking about decades after its passage.And in headlines: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly weighing a full occupation of Gaza, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a task force on the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, and Rwanda became the third African nation to agree to take in U.S. deportees.Show Notes:Check out Rick's blog – https://electionlawblog.org/Call Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

It's Wednesday, August 6th. I'm Jane Koston, and this is What Today, the show enjoying another episode of A Republican Town Hall goes horribly wrong. Here's Nebraska Republican Representative Mike Flood finding out just how his constituents feel about President Donald Trump's big, beautiful law, gutting Medicaid. And more than anything, I truly believe this bill protects Medicaid for the future. You're doing great, sweetie. On today's show, Trump signs an executive order establishing a task force on the 28 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. And Rwanda becomes the third African nation to agree to take in U.S. deportees. But let's start by talking about the Voting Rights Act, which turned 60 today.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed at the peak. of the civil rights movement. It was aimed at ensuring that the constitutional right to vote could actually be enjoyed by actual black Americans. Before its passage, millions of them were subject to bullshit voting tests that kept them out of the voting booth and out of political power. And when I say bullshit voting tests, I mean like literacy tests, moral character tests, or the so-called grandfather clause, which helped ensure that no one whose grandfather couldn't vote, say, because they were slaves, would be able to do so themselves. The Voting Rights Act ended that, but now it's at risk, or at least what's left of it.

About a decade ago, the Supreme Court gutted one key pillar of the Voting Rights Act. And now it's facing a second major challenge, which ties back to our new favorite word, redistricting. We've been talking a lot about redistricting on the show lately. As of our recording time, Tuesday night Eastern, Texas Democrats are still in Illinois and New York to prevent Republicans from pushing through new congressional maps. that would help Trump in next year's midterms. That's despite threats from Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott to have them arrested, and Trump saying that the FBI, quote,

may have to help round them up. But now, redistricting fever has hit California, Missouri, Maryland, and Indiana, as red and blue states alike contemplate redrawing congressional maps to make sure their party stays winning. But back to the Voting Rights Act. On Friday, the Supreme Court asked for briefs from opposing parties in the Louisiana case centered on the creation of a second congressional district that would likely be majority black.

This is a long-running debate, but the TLDR is that the new district is a result of a lawsuit, but then that district is being challenged by, quote, non-African American voters for violating the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Basically, a map created to ensure that black voters have electoral power in a state where roughly a third of all residents are black is being challenged by non-black. voters who are arguing the map is racist. I know. It's a lot. So to explain this case, the Voting Rights Act, and why some of your favorite legal experts are very anxious right now, I spoke to Rick Hassan. He's an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Rick, welcome to what a day. Great to be with you. So on this anniversary, since many people have the memories of goldfish, can you remind us why the Voting Rights Act was so significant in 1965 and what it was able to achieve. Something I've been thinking about is, you know, my grandfather, African-American, born in Mississippi in 1920, he would be subject to grandfather clauses that would make him uneligible to vote because his grandfather couldn't. That ends with the Voting Rights Act. But can you tell us a little bit more about the legislation?

Well, let's talk about Mississippi. In Mississippi before the Voting Rights Act, the rate of African-American voter registration was 6.7%. I mean, that is abysmally low by any standard and it was the lowest in the country. And after the Voting Rights Act, within four years, that number was over 50 percent and kept growing. And so the Voting Rights Act in 1965 required federal registrars to be allowed to come in and register voters, federal examiners to make sure that voting was being conducted right. And one of the most important things that did, it said,

if you're a state with a history of race discrimination in voting, you've got to get federal approval, before you make changes in your voting rules, you don't make things worse off. So that was a really good start in 1965. Now, despite its landmark status, the Voting Rights Act has taken a lot of hits in the past decade or so, since the Supreme Court struck down something called the preclearance process. What was that case, and how has that changed voting laws around the country? So that preclearance is exactly what I mentioned about getting federal approval of voting changes. The idea is if you're in a state like Texas and you want to read,

district. You have to draw new districts for your voters. You had to go to the Department of Justice or to a federal court and show that the change wouldn't make minority voters worse off. And so this stopped the most egregious, bad things from happening. And the court repeatedly upheld this as constitutional, even though it was a big infringement on state sovereignty. So in 2013, the very conservative Roberts court came up with a ruling that said that even though it used to to be constitutional. It's no longer constitutional. And the reason it was no long constitutional court said is because the states that were picked for coverage under this preclearance provision were picked based on data that went back to the 1960s and 70s. That's too old. You need to show

a current problem in order to justify this law, to which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent said, yeah, that's like putting away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet. That is, you know, if you don't know how much you're getting protected by this until you actually lose it. And now we know it made a difference. Now it appears that one of the remaining protections for voters, Section 2, will again be challenged in court. Before we get to the latest, can you remind me what Section 2 is and how it's supposed to apply in redistricting cases? So back in 1965, when Section 2 of Voter Rights Act was included, there was a Section 2, but it basically just restated the 15th Amendment. the amendment that came after the Civil War that said that you can't have race discrimination

in voting. Didn't guarantee anyone the right to vote but said, if you're going to hold an election, you can't discriminate on the basis of race. Well, that provision wasn't well enforced by the Supreme Court. The Voting Rights Act started us on the road of helping, but it wasn't enough. And in 1980, the Supreme Court said, yeah, you know, we're not going to make things better under the Voter Rights Act. We're just going to make sure they don't get worse in those states with this history of discriminatory. nation. So Congress responded to a 1980 case called City of Mobile, again, Alabama versus Bolden, and said, we're going to say that the Voting Rights Act is going to protect minority voters and ensure that they have the same opportunity as other voters to participate in the

political process and to elect representatives of their choice. That's kind of murky language, but in a 1986 case called Jingles v. Thornburg, the Supreme Court said, here's how it applies to redistricting. If you've got racially polarized voting, whites voting for one set of candidates and minority voters voting for another, and the minority group is large enough, you could draw a district in which they'd have a fair chance to elect their candidate of choice, you've got to give that chance to the minority voters. And so that is what Section 2 has required. The Supreme Court has enforced it since 1986. It reaffirmed it most recently a couple of years ago, and another case out of Alabama called Milligan.

So, as you mentioned, Section 2 has been argued before the Supreme Court before, but this latest case involves a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map. The court first heard arguments in March, but then punted a decision to next term. Briefly, if you can, what is this case about? Because as far as I can tell, it's about maps and people saying that doing something good for black people is secretly racist. Well, that's probably a good shorthand of the legal case. is quite complex. So basically, Louisiana has six congressional districts. In the past, one of those

six was drawn to give black voters a chance to elect their candidate of choice. There was a lawsuit after the latest round of redistricting that said, you've got to draw two because there are many black voters who are not being represented in that one district. And you can draw another one, and whites and blacks still prefer different candidates. And so Louisiana kicking and screaming drew a second district. And then that drew another lawsuit. And that lawsuit claimed that drawing that second district was unconstitutional. How could it be unconstitutional? Because the Supreme Court has said since the 1990s that when you take race into account too much, when you make it the predominant factor in drawing districts and you don't have a compelling reason to do so, then that

violates the Equal Protection Clause. And so what we thought the case was about, when it was argued back in Marsh was what was the predominant factor that Louisiana was relying on when it drew that second district? Was it race? In which case, you'd have to have a compelling reason to draw these lines, or was it really about politics? So we thought it was going to be just another one of these racial gerrymandering cases. But the Supreme Court last Friday, after five o'clock in the beginning of August, I mean, if you really want to hide something, that's the time to do it. They issued this very opaque order where they said, here's what we want to hear in re-arguments of this case next year. Assuming that, these are not the court's words, but my words, assuming that race was

what predominated in drawing that second district, is doing that to comply with Section 2, the Voting Rights Act now unconstitutional. In other words, race conscious districting itself violates the Constitution, which would mean that Section 2 is either partially or totally unconstitutional. They never mentioned Section 2. They never say the word Voting Rights Act, but they obliquely point to some pages in one of the briefs that argue, you can't

use the Voting Rights Act to justify taking race into account in drawing districts in this way. So, a statute that is supposed to protect the rights of minority voters is being argued before the Supreme Court because the plaintiffs say that

doing so, protecting the rights of minority voters, violates the equal protection clause and is racist. Yes, I think I hear in your voice a sense of irony, and it's one that I share. Okay. So you described that this move last Friday, you know, at the, when you want to release bad news time, that move, you said it was, quote, deeply disturbing. Why does it have you worried?

Well, you know, the court that decided Shelby County versus Holder, the case that killed off one of the two big pillars of the Voting Rights Act, was that. less conservative and less radical than the current court. In that last Alabama case that I mentioned from a couple of years ago called Allen v. Milligan, where the Supreme Court said that Alabama had to draw another black congressional district. It was a five to four decision. And Justice Kavanaugh, who was one of the two conservatives who sided with the three liberals on the court in upholding the decision to require the drawing of this majority minority District in Alabama, Jessica Kavanaugh said, you know, this isn't the case, but I'd love to hear

some arguments about whether time's up for Section 2 as well. And so he's probably decided, now it's the time to hear those arguments, just before we get into midterm elections. I think that there's a fair chance, we don't know, but there's a fair chance if the court strikes down Section 2 or more likely could kill Section 2 by 1,000 cuts. They've already started to do that. But they could make it effectively inoperable without actually saying we're overruling Section 2 and try and avoid the wrath of the voters. I think, and I said it in my slate piece, we could see a new civil rights movement emerge out of this. If the Supreme Court knocks down both major pillars of the Voting Rights Act, really what is the court, but somewhat at

war with American democracy itself? We can't expect the Supreme Court's going to save us. The Supreme Court has almost never been the leader on voting rights. It's going to have to come from the people. And it may mean constitutional amendments. It may mean, you know, a new civil rights movement. But I think things are going to have to come to a head because the current situation where the Supreme Court is siding against the voter is simply unsustainable for a democracy. Rick, thank you so much for your time. It's been a pleasure talking to you. I wish we could have talked about something a little more uplifting. Me too.

That was my conversation with Rick Hassan, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. We'll get to more than is in a moment. But if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review and up a podcast, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. What a day is brought to you 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. Data brokers make a profit off your data. Your data is a commodity. Anyone on the web can buy your private details. That can lead to identity theft, fishing attempts, and harassment. But now you can protect your privacy with Delete Me. As someone with a very active online presence, privacy is really important to me. I've fortunately have never been available.

victim of identity theft, but I do know people who have been, and I think Delete Me can help. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for DeleteMe. 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 join deleteme.com slash WOD, Code Wad. Here's what else we're following today. Headalines.

The United States is fully prepared to welcome the world to Los Angeles for the 28 summer Olympic Games. Very exciting day of my life when we got nominated and we ultimately got it. And I didn't think I'd be here for the games in this capacity, but it worked out that way. So I'm very happy about that. Speak for yourself. At some point, after President Trump gallivanted on the roof of the White House Tuesday, he came down to sign an executive order establishing an official task force on the 28th Summer Olympics. The games will be held in Los Angeles, the first Olympics to be hosted by the U.S. since the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Trump said the task force would make sure the games are safe and successful. During the signing Tuesday, Trump also praised Gene Sykes, the chair of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee Board of Directors for the committee's move to effectively bar transgender women from competing in women's sports. But for some reason, that accomplishment or accomplishment

didn't receive the hurrahs Trump was hoping for. Aw. It's amazing that way I don't hear any applause for that when everyone feels. It's a 97. Don't worry about it. That's a 973.

It's not 80-20. It's 97-3. but nobody wants to clap. It's crazy. The United States will not let men steal trophies from women at the 2028 Olympics. Go fuck yourself. According to the White House, the task force will work with federal, state, and local partners to manage security, transportation, and entry-exit processes for the games. Trump will, of course, chair the task force. And Vice President J.D. Vance will be vice chair. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is weighing plans to fully occupy the Gaza Strip,

according to reports from multiple news outlets. We're taping this at 8 p.m. Eastern. This is a very fluid story, so things may have changed by the time you're hearing this. But on Tuesday, Netanyahu met with top security and defense officials to talk about the war. A statement issued by the prime minister's office said the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff presented him with, quote, options for proceeding with the campaign in Gaza. The statement continued, quote, the IDF is prepared to carry out any decision made by the security cabinet. During his press conference on the Olympics Tuesday, President Trump sidestepped a question about whether he'd support a full occupation of Gaza.

He said he wasn't aware of the, quote, suggestion, and insisted he was focused on getting aid into the territory. So that's what I'm focused on. As far as the rest of it, I really can't say that's going to be pretty much up to Israel. If Netanyahu does order the full occupation of Gaza, it would be a massive escalation in the war at a time when Israel's government is facing mounting domestic pressure to reach a ceasefire with Hamas and return the remaining 20 hostages who are believed to still be alive. It's also facing international fury over a growing starvation crisis in Gaza. Israel already controls around three quarters of the territory.

It's unclear where Gaza's two million people would go, since Israel has also mostly sealed its borders. Rwanda has become the third African country to accept U.S. deportees as part of the Trump administration's plan to send people, really, wherever the hell it wants, no matter where they're originally from. A spokesperson for the Rwandan government said the country would accept up to 250 people, and all the details are still being worked out. She said Rwanda would have, quote, the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement. South Sudan and Espatani have also agreed to accept U.S. deportees. Already, a combined 13 men who the U.S. described as dangerous criminals in the country illegally have been deported. Neither country has given any details about its agreements with the Trump administration, which is suspicious. The State Department said the U.S. quote,

works with Rwanda on a range of mutual priorities, but it did not directly comment on details of the deportation deal. This is somewhat familiar territory for Rwanda. Three years ago, it struck a deal with the United Kingdom to accept asylum seekers, and got a ton of backlash for it. The current U.K. Prime Minister, Kier Starmor, spiked his predecessor's plan when his Labor Party took over the government last year. A federal judge in Boston blocked the Trump administration

from reallocating billions of dollars meant to help communities protect themselves against natural disasters. The judge granted a preliminary injunction Tuesday sought by 20 Democrat-led states as their lawsuit continues. Those states include the usual suspects. You guessed it. California, New York, and Massachusetts.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency initially announced it was ending the $4 billion program in April, but it later said in a court filing that it was just evaluating it. Hmm. The state's lawsuit says any attempt to redirect the funding would run afoul of the Constitution because it was already allocated by Congress. But what else is new? In his ruling, the judge said he was not convinced Congress had given FEMA any discretion to redirect the funds. And that's the news.

One more thing. Let's talk about the Jeffrey Epstein case, because a lot has happened over the past few days. Last week, Galane Maxwell, Epstein's partner and co-conspirators, was moved from a Florida prison to a minimum security facility in Texas, where her new neighbors include disgraced Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes and Real Housewives of Salt Lake City glass thrower and convicted fraudster Jen Shaw. The move came after Maxwell, who is pursuing an appeal for case, met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, aka Trump's personal attorney until his recent promotion for nine hours over two days in July to talk about, well, we don't know. The Justice Department is reportedly debating whether to release the transcript of their

conversation. But in another episode of a continuing series, I'm calling, why is he being so fucking weird about this? President Trump said Tuesday that whatever Blanche asked, he's sure it's fine, as long as he focused on the most important question. That whatever he asked would be totally appropriate, and it's not an uncommon thing to do that. And I think he probably wants to make sure that, you know, people that should not be involved or aren't involved or not hurt by something that would be very, very unfortunate, very unfair to a lot of people. People who should not be involved. Hmm.

Also on Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice to release documents related to Epstein. And they sent subpoenas to 10 individuals, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former FBI directors Robert Mueller, and James Comey, to compel them to testify about what they knew about Epstein and the case against him. But one person who didn't get a subpoena was Trump's former Treasury Secretary, Alex Acosta, which is weird. See, back when Acosta was a Florida prosecutor in 2008, he's the one who signed off on a deal with Epstein that let him serve minimal jail time and ended an investigation into his

alleged sex trafficking. Epstein could have gotten a life sentence for the crimes he was accused of, But instead, he got 13 months in a work-release program, had to pay fines, and register as a sex offender. I think it's worth mentioning that Acosta is now a member of the Board of Directors for Newsmax, a television network for people who think Fox News is too woke. And on Friday, Newsmax host Greg Kelly sure had a fascinating take on Galane Maxwell, a woman who the DOJ says sexually abused dozens of women and girls herself and with Epstein. But that doesn't mean that Galane Maxwell is guilty. and there was a hell of a lot of evidence out there

that she's innocent and a hell of a lot of evidence that they railroaded her part of a deep state media hysterical plot. No, there isn't evidence of that. There is tons of evidence, particularly from her victims, that Maxwell was a sexual abuser

who groomed girls as young as 14 to perform sex acts with Epstein and herself. And based on this clip and others, there's also evidence that Greg Kelly is prone to acting like an asshole. Anyway, despite Trump's most desperate dreams, this case isn't going away. Before we go, as a listener of this Crooked Media podcast, we wanted you to be the first to know that CrookedCon just announced its first ever CrookedCon in Washington, D.C.

CrookedCon is the first annual or once-in-a-lifetime chance to join America's smartest organizers and least-annoying politicians to strategize, debate, and commiserate about where we go from here. Hopefully up! On Friday, November 7th, Cricket will be joined by some of the most influential names in politics for a full day of conversations, workshops, and live pods as we all figure out how to build the big pro-democracy movement we need to defeat rising authoritarianism before it's too late. If you like this podcast, you're definitely going to love CrookedCon. And while we can't say officially, I'd say there is a strong chance.

will be there. So get those tickets while you can. Head to crookedcon.com for tickets, lineup announcements, and more. That's C-R-O-O-K-E-D-C-O-N.com. And we have a discount code that you can use to buy your November 7th ticket early. It's freedom and content. One word, all caps. Discount tickets are limited, so act fast. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review. Don't take a morning stroll on the roof of your house and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading and not just about how the president of the United States, a 79-year-old man, spent his morning shouting at reporters from the

roof of the White House, like me, but today is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at crooked.com slash subscribe. I'm Jane Kostin. Check on the seniors in your life. Make sure they're not taking a walk on the roof, even if they're Donald Trump. What Today is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily Four. Our producer is Michelle Alloy. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra.

Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Gina Pollock, and Laura Newcomb. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adrian Hill. We had help with the headlines from the Associated Press. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.