SCOTUS Just Handed Republicans a Map Rewrite

Grant: Welcome to Power Check. I'm Grant. Maya: And I'm Maya. Okay, so the Supreme Court dropped a ruling six weeks ago that state legislators are already sprinting to use, and I don't think most people have fully clocked what happened. Grant: April twenty ninth, Louisiana versus Callais, six to three; Justice Alito writes the majority, Maya: Hmm. Grant: Justice Kagan writes the dissent, and her line is the one that's been rattling around in my head. Maya: Section two, all but a dead letter. Grant: That's the dissent; and she's not wrong Maya: Wow. Grant: about the practical effect. The Voting Rights Act's main tool just got gutted. Maya: And Florida's legislator had already voted to redraw its map by the time the ruling was public. That's how fast this moved. Grant: DeSantis signed it May fourth; Tennessee signed a new map eight days after Maya: Yeah. Grant: Callais dropped. The map scramble is very much on. Maya: So today, we're pulling this apart layer by layer. The legal mechanics. What this actually means. Actually does to the Voting Rights Act. Grant: And how it connects to Rucho v. Common Cause from 2019, which already closed one door on federal courts. Maya: Right. Two rulings, two different doors, and we'll get into whether that framing even holds. Grant: I have some thoughts on that. Maya: I know you do. We also catalog where the redrawing is actually happening. Florida, Tennessee, what PBS analysis puts at 14 Republican-leaning seats nationally now in play. own play. Grant: And we close with our check or no check segment. Is redistricting oversight working? Short answer, you're not going to love it. Maya: Or maybe you will, depending on who you're rooting for. The cold open starts now. Grant: Yeah, so April twenty ninth, the Supreme Court drops Louisiana versus Callais, six three, Justice Alito writing, and before the ink is dry, the Florida House and Senate both vote to approve a new congressional map. Same day, Speaker 3: Wow. Grant: same hour. Maya: That's not a coincidence. DeSantis had called the special session before the ruling even landed. They were ready. Grant: Oh, they were warmed up. Maya: Dryly. Grant: Pre-loaded and the map they passed. has to put four Democratic incumbents directly in the crosshairs. Maya: Four? Grant: Four. Ballotpedia reported that HB 1-D passed 83-28 in the House, 21-17 in the Senate. Maya: Hmm. Grant: The whole thing done in a single afternoon. Maya: Okay, okay, okay. So let's talk about what the court actually did, because Democracy Docket called it an onslaught, and that word fits. The ruling itself came down 6-3, written by Alito, striking Louisiana's second majority black district. as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Grant: Right. And the majority's logic is the twist. Louisiana drew that district specifically to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Alito said the VRA didn't require it, so using race to draw it was unconstitutional. You followed the law, and that's the problem. Maya: Complying with the law is now the violation. Grant: That's roughly where we are. Maya: And Kagan doesn't mince words in the dissent: she calls Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, and I'm quoting directly, "all but a dead letter. Grant: SCOTUSblog flagged that line immediately. She wrote, "The consequences are likely to be far reaching and grave: sixty-one years of civil rights law and the dissent is saying it's functionally gone. Maya: Without striking it down. Grant: Without formally striking it down, Section Two still exists on paper. Maya: Hmm! Grant: I know—the math doesn't work, and everyone knows it. Maya: And Florida is just the first domino. NBC News reported states across the South – Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia – all making moves on redistricting before November. The ruling dropped a green light, and people sprinted. Grant: Which raises the question nobody in that courthouse seems to want to answer: If you can't use race to protect minority voters, and you can't challenge partisan maps either, what legal tool is actually left? So let's back up 30 seconds. Before Callais, how does Section 2 actually work? Because I think people hear Voting Rights Act and assume it's some kind of magic shield. Maya: Right, like it just prevents bad things. Grant: Yeah, the reality is more mechanical than that. Since 1986, any redistricting challenge under Section 2 ran through a three-part test from a case called Thornburg v. Gingles. Minority group has to be large enough and compact enough to form a majority in a single district, they vote cohesively, and the white majority votes as a block to usually beat their preferred candidate. Maya: So you're proving that the map is diluting actual votes, not just that it looks bad on paper. Grant: Exactly. And critically, you did not have to prove anyone intent. Intended to discriminate, discriminatory effect was enough; that mattered enormously in practice. Maya: Okay, so what did Alito do to that? Grant: He rewrote it. Speaker 4: I'm Grant: Three changes: one, plaintiff's sample maps have to satisfy all of a state's political goals, not just show a minority district is drawable; two, evidence of racial voting patterns has to rule out partisan explanations; and three, this is the one that really moves the goal posts: On the totality of circumstances you now need strong evidence of present day intentional discrimination. Maya: Wait, hold on; he put intent back in? Grant: Through the back door? The Brennan Center's analysis called it a rewrite that makes the claim practically impossible to prove. Maya: Wow. Grant: Historical discrimination? Alito says that gets much less weight now. Maya: So the entire history that was the point of the VRA is suddenly less relevant? Grant: Per the majority, basically. And the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's position is that this guts Section 2 in practice without formally striking it down. Down! The statute still exists on paper. Maya: Plot twist: the law is still there, it just doesn't do anything. Grant: The math on winning one of these cases just got a lot harder, and everybody knows it. Democracy Docket reported the ruling immediately triggered redistricting pushes in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Georgia. Maya: All at once. Grant: All at once. So you've got Section 2 effectively narrowed. But here's what the next question has to be: Was Section 2 even the last line of defense, or had another door already closed before Callais ever landed? ended. So, Rucho is where this story actually starts. Twenty nineteen, Roberts writes for a five four majority, partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions, federal courts out, done. Maya: Like, completely out? Grant: Completely out. Roberts acknowledged gerrymandering may be incompatible with democratic principles and then said courts still can't touch it. Not their problem. Maya: That is a sentence. Grant: It really is. And the key word there. were there "justiciability." Rucho wasn't about intent, wasn't about impact; it was purely about whether federal courts have the authority to even hear the case. They said no. Maya: Okay, so that's door one closed. States can gerrymander for partisan gain, and federal courts won't intervene. But plaintiffs still had a second door: Section Two racial discrimination claims, which is exactly where Callais just slammed through. Lambed things shut. Grant: Right; and I want to push back slightly on calling it a 'clean one two sequence,' because the mechanisms are different. Rucho is a jurisdiction call, courts out entirely; Callais is about the standard of proof-it raises the bar so high that almost nobody clears it. Maya: Hmm. Walk me through why that distinction matters going forward. Grant: Because it means there's technically still a door, Maya: Yeah. Grant: you can still file a Section Two claim. Lame. The question is whether it's a real opening or just theater, and with the intent requirement sliding back in through totality of circumstances, practically speaking, Maya: Theater. Grant: that's where the math lands, yeah. Maya: Democracy Docket flagged the combined effect pretty bluntly: Grant: Mm-hmm. Maya: "States can draw maps for pure partisan gain (Rucho greenlit that), and unless plaintiffs prove racial intent, minority voter protections won't stop them. Stop them!" Callais narrowed that—two different locks on the same door. Grant: And what makes it structurally significant not just politically is timing. Brookings noted that before Callais the Democratic mid-term outlook had actually been improving. Now that calculus shifts. Maya: And States didn't wait around to find out. Grant: No. Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, redistricting pushes launched almost immediately, according to Democracy Docket. Docket. Maya: So the legal architecture is done; the question now is what it looks like on the ground—actual governors, actual maps, actual seats. Grant: Which is exactly where we're going—named states, real numbers, starting right now. Short pause. Maya: Short pause. So let's zoom in on the actual map scramble. Florida first. DeSantis signed his new map on May fourth, posted "Signed, sealed, and delivered" on social media. Very subtle. Grant: Dryly. Real understated guy. Maya: The Hill reported that map aims to take Florida's GOP delegation from twenty seats to twenty four, dropping Democrats from eight Speaker 5: to seven. Maya: From eight down to four. Castor and Tampa, district gone. Darren Soto in Central Florida, district gone. Moskowitz and Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, five Democratic-leaning districts compressed into three. Grant: Now, before we call that a clean four-seat pickup, the math has friction. Some of those redrawn districts aren't safe Republican turf. A veteran Florida GOP operative told NBC. See, this is going to put Republican members at risk-and they're right. Maya: So it could backfire. Grant: It could; but even a two seat net gain changes the House math significantly. Maya: Then Tennessee. Governor Bill Lee signed a new map May seventh, eight days after the Callais ruling. That's the speed we're talking about. Grant: Eight days. Maya: NBC reported the map carves Steve Cohen's Memphis-based seat, the state's only Democratic-held. Held district into three pieces, spreading those voters across rural Republican districts stretching hundreds of miles east-Tennessee goes from eight one Republican to a potential nine zero sweep. Grant: And this is where the valuation lens actually matters: Tennessee was already eight one. You're converting one seat; Florida has more upside, or more risk, depending on how you model it. Not all redraws are created equal. Maya: PBS analysis found mid-decade redistricting has put 14 more House seats in play for Republicans and six more that could favor Democrats, and that's not even counting pending moves in Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Grant: The Purcell principle is the practical chokehold here. Federal courts resist changing election rules close to an election, which means the Callais era redraws may be shielded from injunctions. simply by being done quickly enough. Maya: So speed is actually the legal strategy. Grant: Basically, get it done before the court clock runs out. The best defense against the judicial block is a signed map and a filing deadline that's already passed. Maya: Which raises the uncomfortable question, if courts can't touch it before November and Congress has zero incentive to respond, what mechanism actually catches this? That's exactly what we need to look at. Grant: So if no federal mechanism stops this before November, what actually can? Maya: Right. Congress is the obvious first answer. Theoretically, they could pass race-neutral redistricting standards. Grant: They won't. Republicans control the chamber, and Callais just handed them the map-drawing advantage. You don't legislate away your own weapon. Maya: Yeah, yeah, that tracks. So then it falls to state courts. Grant: Maybe, but only in states that have independent redistricting commissions. or strong fair elections language in their state constitution. Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida—none of them have that. Maya: So the states where the redrawing is actually happening are exactly the states without those guardrails. Grant: Funny how that works. Maya: Incredible. Grant: And here's the counter-move Democrats made. California voters approved Proposition 50, Newsom's plan, which could net Democrats up to five seats. Virginia tried a similar play, but their Supreme Court blocked it on procedural grounds. Maya: Okay, so walk me through that. California actually passed this? Grant: 64% voted yes. New maps through 2030. Then they go back to the Independent Commission. Maya: So both parties are now drawing partisan maps, and CFR analysts are flagging that the whole dynamic just accelerates polarization regardless of who's holding the pen. Grant: Which is the deeper problem. The court's ruling didn't just help Republicans in the South, it dissolved the norm that kept independent commissions politically defensible. California's response proves that. Maya: So the oversight vacuum isn't just about stopping Republican gerrymanders. It's about the collapse. Grant: of the principal. Maya: Exactly. And Congress can't fill that vacuum. It has no incentive. State courts can only intervene where the constitutional language already exists. The places being redrawn right now, that language isn't there. Grant: So the check is the absence of a check. Maya: That's about where I land, yeah, which sets up a pretty uncomfortable verdict heading into our final segment. Grant: And both of us have to answer whether the oversight mechanisms are are actually working, and I'm not sure either of us is going to like what we have to say. Maya: The math on that one is not great. All right-check or no check, let's call it. Speaker 3: Yeah, I've been dragging this part. Maya: I'll go first-no check." The structural case is pretty clear at this point. Rucho took federal courts out of partisan gerrymandering entirely; Callais raised the Section Two bar high enough that racial challenges are functionally a dead end. Congress won't move-both corrective mechanisms are either shut off or too slow for November. November. Grant: I hear you, but I won't go full no check. I'd say partial check, and barely. Maya: What's holding you there? Speaker 4: Hmm. Grant: Tennessee, actually. The NAACP filed suit the day the map was signed. A three-judge state court panel is now actively hearing the case. Maya: Right, but both sides are citing Purcell in opposite directions. Tennessee is arguing the map can't be blocked this close to the election. While the NAACP is arguing it shouldn't have been implemented in the first place Grant: And NBC News flagged something that makes this worse: the Callais majority didn't even mention Purcell when it greenlit the redistricting wave. Justice Jackson had to call that out in dissent. Maya: So the court invented a rule about election eve interference then quietly set it aside for these cases right Grant: Consistency, very on brand. Maya: Yeah; look, Purcell as a friction point, I'll give you that, it's real friction; but Balls and Strikes legal coverage made the point that Republican states have figured out how to time these signings precisely to weaponize Purcell as a shield rather than a constraint. Grant: Which is what Georgia did in twenty twenty two: Kemp waited, challenges got stayed past the election, that's the playbook now. Maya: So when I say no check, I don't mean there's zero resistance- I mean no check that lands before November. Grant: That's probably right. Okay, so the state to actually watch? Maya: Tennessee. The three-judge panel is the only live case with a real timeline question still open. If that court blocks the map, you get a concrete test of whether state courts can outrun Purcell. If it doesn't, Grant: Then the playbook wins and we know exactly what 2028 looks like. Maya: you either see it coming or you don't. And right now. The map says we're seeing it. All right-that's our episode. If one thing stuck with me today, it's that Florida had already voted to redraw its map the same day Callais dropped. Same day, same hour. Grant: That timing is not a coincidence, and Kagan's line, Section two rendered all but a dead letter, that's going to be quoted in voting rights cases for a long time. Maya: The through line here is structural: Rucho closed one door, Callais closed another. The oversight mechanisms we assumed were in place, they were thinner than advertised. Grant: Tennessee is the one to watch now. That NAACP case is live, and the Purcell clock is ticking. Maya: Watch the calendar. Grant: Literally. Maya: If PowerCheck helped you see how this actually works, not the headlines, the mechanics, share this one. One person who'd care. Grant: Follow us wherever you listen. Drop a review if you want to help others find the show. And that's the rundown. Maya: Thanks for being here. We'll see you next week.