# Instant Reaction: Supreme Court Curbs Use of Race in Drawing Voting Districts

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 29 Apr 2026, 11 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7f534b8c-9e91-429a-b102-ae3c00090c6d/ff2e76e0-fe6d-4033-a0c2-b43b00f439e1/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

The US Supreme Court limited the use of the Voting Rights Act to create predominantly Black or Hispanic election districts in a major constitutional ruling that buttresses Republican efforts to keep control of the House in this year’s midterms and beyond. Voting 6-3 along ideological lines, the justices rejected a Louisiana congressional map that was drawn with a second majority-Black district after a lower court found an earlier map to be discriminatory. The Supreme Court ruling undercuts what had been the most significant remaining part of the Voting Rights Act, a law passed in 1965 to address rampant discrimination against Black voters. The justices had already significantly weakened the law twice since 2013. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
[0:09] Speaker 2: This is a breaking news outdate from Bloomberg. Instant reaction
[0:14] Speaker 2: and analysis from our three thousand journalists and analysts around
[0:18] Speaker 2: the world.
[0:19] Speaker 3: Supreme Court ruling today herbs the use of race and
[0:22] Speaker 3: drawing voting districts. Let's get some perspective on what all
[0:27] Speaker 3: this means. June Grosso is our legal analyst at Bloomberg. Here,
[0:30] Speaker 3: do you talk to us about just the background of
[0:32] Speaker 3: this case and then maybe what we may know about
[0:35] Speaker 3: this ruling here?
[0:36] Speaker 4: So, I mean, the Voting Rights Act has been under
[0:39] Speaker 4: fire for, you know, such such a long time, and
[0:43] Speaker 4: the Roberts Court has been very receptive to sort of
[0:48] Speaker 4: destroying I'll use the word destroying the Voting Rights Act.
[0:51] Speaker 4: In twenty eighteen, I believe it was they took one
[0:57] Speaker 4: part of the Act, which required pre clear certain states
[1:01] Speaker 4: that had a history considered to have a history of
[1:03] Speaker 4: racism Texas, etca. Certain states in the South would have
[1:06] Speaker 4: to get preclearance before they redistricted, before their plans were approved.
[1:11] Speaker 4: They took away that and now this is really the
[1:13] Speaker 4: other significant part of the Voting Rights Act, the remaining
[1:18] Speaker 4: part of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in
[1:21] Speaker 4: nineteen sixty five to address discrimination against black votes.
[1:25] Speaker 2: And I'll just read a line from what.
[1:27] Speaker 4: The dissenting opinion of Justice Elena Keig and the three
[1:30] Speaker 4: Liberals are in Descent said, under the Court's new view
[1:34] Speaker 4: of Section two of the Voting Rights Act, a state can,
[1:37] Speaker 4: without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens voting power. Of course,
[1:43] Speaker 4: the majority does not announce today's holding that way, but
[1:46] Speaker 4: it's understated, even antiseptic. So I mean, this is really consequential,
[1:52] Speaker 4: and it's consequential for I think the Republicans, you know,
[1:56] Speaker 4: holding the House. If some of this, if some of
[1:59] Speaker 4: these states can district before the mid terms, I mean,
[2:03] Speaker 4: I don't know if that would be possible as far
[2:05] Speaker 4: as timing, but it really, it really is consequential for
[2:11] Speaker 4: voting rights.
[2:12] Speaker 2: And the Court has, you.
[2:13] Speaker 4: Know, systematically the years you hear them say, well, you know,
[2:16] Speaker 4: we're so far away from the time of the Voting
[2:19] Speaker 4: Rights Act, and there isn't I mean, I think Justice
[2:21] Speaker 4: Roberts was the one who said in Shelby County, you know,
[2:23] Speaker 4: we don't have that kind of discrimination anymore. So we
[2:27] Speaker 4: don't and how long can we keep doing this? How
[2:29] Speaker 4: long can we keep having these rules that prioritize, you know,
[2:33] Speaker 4: race in voting districts. So it's I think it's it's
[2:37] Speaker 4: a stunning decision. Although the Court has been heading in
[2:40] Speaker 4: this way for a long time. I think a lot
[2:42] Speaker 4: of people hope that they wouldn't get to it at
[2:44] Speaker 4: this point.
[2:45] Speaker 2: But so, you know, it's really consequential. It's consequential.
[2:50] Speaker 1: And you go back to the Voting Rights Act that
[2:52] Speaker 1: you mentioned and how this is kind of part of
[2:54] Speaker 1: the dismantling of it.
[2:56] Speaker 4: What is left of the Voting Rights Act right now?
[2:58] Speaker 4: You know, I don't think there's much left of it.
[3:00] Speaker 4: I have to get an expert to because the two
[3:03] Speaker 4: big the two biggest sections were the section that was
[3:07] Speaker 4: eliminated or you know, gut it in in the Shelby
[3:12] Speaker 4: County case, and then this section. So I don't think
[3:15] Speaker 4: there's much left of the Voting Rights Act.
[3:17] Speaker 3: How are districts drawn up in the first place?
[3:20] Speaker 2: I mean, that's my question. That is a great question.
[3:22] Speaker 4: Well, jerry mandering have you seen have you seen that
[3:25] Speaker 4: some of the like even if you look in Louisiana.
[3:28] Speaker 4: In order to get to keep the House speaker in
[3:31] Speaker 4: a Republican district.
[3:32] Speaker 2: You know, they have these odd shapes that you.
[3:34] Speaker 4: Would never imagine, you know, different kinds of weird shape,
[3:38] Speaker 4: so they can get in people that they want.
[3:40] Speaker 2: It's it's it's political at this point. It's you know,
[3:44] Speaker 2: and you.
[3:44] Speaker 4: Know, the Democratic states do it as well. The Republican
[3:47] Speaker 4: states do it as well. And it's you know, it's just.
[3:50] Speaker 3: The my old district in New Jersey, which we since
[3:53] Speaker 3: moved from. I finally saw it on a drawn somewhere
[3:57] Speaker 3: and it was unbelievably.
[3:58] Speaker 2: It's just a bunch of squiggly lines everywhere.
[4:01] Speaker 3: They figure that out because having lived there, like, that's
[4:03] Speaker 3: not how I think of my area, this town.
[4:06] Speaker 2: You know, No, it's been Kerry paig test. I mean,
[4:09] Speaker 2: they have people who do this for a living.
[4:11] Speaker 4: You know, they have also they have all kinds of
[4:13] Speaker 4: you know, electronic ways of doing it. But if you
[4:15] Speaker 4: look at this, I mean, the one in Louisiana looks.
[4:17] Speaker 2: Like a sliver up the coast.
[4:19] Speaker 4: I mean, it's but all the states, and you know,
[4:23] Speaker 4: there's the only thing that has happened is but only
[4:25] Speaker 4: in Democratic states.
[4:27] Speaker 2: They've had.
[4:29] Speaker 4: Maps drawn by commissions, So in that way you get
[4:33] Speaker 4: a fair map because it's drawn by a commission with
[4:35] Speaker 4: maybe equal representatives.
[4:37] Speaker 2: But only democratic states have.
[4:39] Speaker 4: Done that, and that's put them in a bad position,
[4:41] Speaker 4: which is why you have some states like California redistricting
[4:46] Speaker 4: in a different way, not using the commission. So the
[4:49] Speaker 4: way to do it is to, you know, have a commission.
[4:52] Speaker 4: But when when you let Republicans or Democrats do it,
[4:55] Speaker 4: they're going to do it to their own advantage. And
[4:57] Speaker 4: it's it's so easy for them to raw maps and
[5:01] Speaker 4: just eliminate certain you know, minority populations.
[5:05] Speaker 2: It's it's a mess. It's a mess. Really, it's just
[5:08] Speaker 2: a mess. So let me ask a really dumb question.
[5:10] Speaker 1: When the Supreme Court rules makes a ruling like this,
[5:14] Speaker 1: people jump int action right away, right, I mean this
[5:16] Speaker 1: has immediate consequences.
[5:18] Speaker 2: Well yeah, well I think what will happen.
[5:20] Speaker 4: Is, yes, states will start looking at this and deciding
[5:22] Speaker 4: what to do.
[5:23] Speaker 2: And Louisiana certainly is going to jump into action.
[5:26] Speaker 4: Yeah, because what they're going to do is, you know
[5:28] Speaker 4: the politics of it. They're going to start looking at
[5:31] Speaker 4: their maps and seeing what they can do and how
[5:34] Speaker 4: they can use their power as legislators to redraw the maps.
[5:38] Speaker 4: I mean, I just think this is opening up a
[5:40] Speaker 4: can of worms that you know, the implications are just
[5:45] Speaker 4: are just crazy. I think as far as what's going
[5:48] Speaker 4: to happen next, because you know, you see that what's
[5:51] Speaker 4: happening Florida is trying to redraw its maps without.
[5:54] Speaker 2: Even this decision. So you know, we've come.
[5:58] Speaker 4: To the point where are we going to have democratic
[6:00] Speaker 4: states with all democratic districts and Republicans states with all
[6:03] Speaker 4: Republican districts.
[6:04] Speaker 2: It's just it's sort of mind boggling. I'm still stunned
[6:08] Speaker 2: by this.
[6:09] Speaker 1: Does this change any of what California voter has just
[6:12] Speaker 1: decided or what Virginia voters decided.
[6:15] Speaker 4: No, I don't think this has anything to do with that,
[6:17] Speaker 4: because that was a separate I think that California, in
[6:21] Speaker 4: the California Texas passed the Supreme Court. I think California
[6:24] Speaker 4: may have passed the Supreme Court as well. They're saying
[6:26] Speaker 4: that wasn't based on race, that was based on politics,
[6:29] Speaker 4: and it's okay to jerrymander based on politics. So think
[6:32] Speaker 4: about that. Think of it's okay to jerrymander based on politics.
[6:36] Speaker 4: So you know, Republicans and Democrats are fine, or they're
[6:39] Speaker 4: allowed to go in and jerrymander based on politics. Before
[6:43] Speaker 4: this decision, it was just you couldn't jerrymander based on race,
[6:46] Speaker 4: And now you can jerrymander basically based on race, no
[6:49] Speaker 4: matter what the Supreme Court said in its majority opinion.
[6:52] Speaker 3: What's left for the Supreme Court this session here? I
[6:56] Speaker 3: mean this is a one.
[6:57] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[6:58] Speaker 4: The big case, the case that we're away for at
[7:00] Speaker 4: Ploomberg is the case of the attempted firing by President
[7:05] Speaker 4: Trump of Lisa Cook, the Fed Fed Reserve governor. And
[7:10] Speaker 4: the thing is that every week that it's opinion day,
[7:13] Speaker 4: we expect that case to come out because it was
[7:15] Speaker 4: argued so long ago and because it seemed like the
[7:18] Speaker 4: Justices were on board with not.
[7:21] Speaker 2: Allowing her to be fired.
[7:23] Speaker 4: But it's taking so long that you start to wonder
[7:26] Speaker 4: what's happening. Is it because they were writing a lot
[7:28] Speaker 4: of concurrences and descents, you know, White's Is it because
[7:32] Speaker 4: they're having a hard time distinguishing, as they want to
[7:35] Speaker 4: the FED chair from other other board members that he's fired.
[7:40] Speaker 4: So is that what's taking them long? Are they just
[7:44] Speaker 4: holding it?
[7:45] Speaker 2: That's what I think.
[7:45] Speaker 3: I think they're just good programmers and they're holding their
[7:48] Speaker 3: juiciest one for you.
[7:49] Speaker 2: They they don't, They say they don't, but I don't.
[7:51] Speaker 4: I really don't believe that, because it's it's no coincidence
[7:54] Speaker 4: that all these controversial cases come down the last day
[7:57] Speaker 4: of the term.
[7:58] Speaker 2: So when it is the last the term, well it's
[8:01] Speaker 2: a movable date. Okay. It used to be the very
[8:05] Speaker 2: end of June, huh, and then they would go on vacation.
[8:08] Speaker 4: But it's now we've had a couple of times where
[8:11] Speaker 4: it went into July because they couldn't get their stuff
[8:14] Speaker 4: finished and they had so many late breaking.
[8:18] Speaker 2: Opinions.
[8:18] Speaker 4: There used to be I mean, there's a story about
[8:20] Speaker 4: a justice that used to have his car waiting outside
[8:24] Speaker 4: the court the last day so they could drive him
[8:26] Speaker 4: to you know, his vacations. But then they all disappear
[8:28] Speaker 4: and go to different, you know, different locations for the summer.
[8:32] Speaker 2: I want to bring in.
[8:33] Speaker 3: Michael McKee covers all the economics and international aspects of
[8:36] Speaker 3: our reporting for a Bloomberg Boy. We just had a
[8:40] Speaker 3: Supreme Court ruling which has obviously political ramifications for this country,
[8:46] Speaker 3: maybe economics as well. What's your initial take of the
[8:48] Speaker 3: Supreme Court ruling here?
[8:50] Speaker 5: Well, the ruling sets the stage for states to redraw
[8:53] Speaker 5: congressional districts.
[8:54] Speaker 2: But the question is do they have time to do that?
[8:57] Speaker 5: In some states where they have a number of black
[8:59] Speaker 5: men or districts, it's already too late because filing deadlines
[9:03] Speaker 5: for primaries have already passed. The issue is how many
[9:07] Speaker 5: states could still do it. One expects that Louisiana would try,
[9:12] Speaker 5: But the question, the secondary question is then how far
[9:16] Speaker 5: do they get with this, because if you draw the districts,
[9:19] Speaker 5: you know somebody is going to complain to the courts
[9:22] Speaker 5: about it goes back into the court system to question
[9:26] Speaker 5: whether the new maps are discriminatory in one way or another.
[9:30] Speaker 5: It does have a long term foundational impact, however, and
[9:33] Speaker 5: that it dilutes minority voting power in the sense that
[9:37] Speaker 5: you can't create a district that is basically guaranteed to
[9:41] Speaker 5: elect a minority, and that would be a question of
[9:45] Speaker 5: disenfranchisement for a lot of people. And the kind of
[9:49] Speaker 5: deal that many states made that they would never admit
[9:52] Speaker 5: is that we'll give you your own minority district and
[9:56] Speaker 5: then we will be able to use the rest of
[9:59] Speaker 5: the state for our own white majority districts. And most
[10:02] Speaker 5: states Republican districts. So at this point there could be
[10:07] Speaker 5: a shift in the balance of power in some states
[10:09] Speaker 5: once they can get around to actually changing their congressional districts.
[10:13] Speaker 1: Boy, this gets messy really quickly. Effect of this kind
[10:18] Speaker 1: of decision. Was this a surprise the way that Supreme
[10:21] Speaker 1: Court ruled, No, it's.
[10:22] Speaker 2: Not at all.
[10:23] Speaker 5: In fact that legal and political analysts had been expecting
[10:26] Speaker 5: this for quite some time. The Court has not liked
[10:30] Speaker 5: the Voting Rights Act for many years. Chief Justice Roberts
[10:33] Speaker 5: has said that while it was useful at one time,
[10:36] Speaker 5: it cannot be permanent law because many of the states
[10:41] Speaker 5: and many of the aspects of the Voting Rights Act
[10:44] Speaker 5: have been you'd say, cured, taken care of. People can vote,
[10:48] Speaker 5: poll taxes are gone, that sort of thing. So they've
[10:52] Speaker 5: been gutting it one section at a time. This is
[10:54] Speaker 5: Section two and now it is gone. So the Voting
[10:57] Speaker 5: Rights Act itself is not worth much anymore. But that
[11:03] Speaker 5: was expected, and that's why you have a lot of lawyers,
[11:06] Speaker 5: especially on the Democratic side, waiting to pounce on any
[11:09] Speaker 5: new districts redrawn to see if they can make the
[11:13] Speaker 5: case that they discriminate in one way or another and
[11:16] Speaker 5: aren't fair

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.