October 15, 2025 • 38 mins
On this special episode of Native Land Pod, host Angela Rye is joined by attorney for the Legal Defense Fund, Janai Nelson. Ms. Nelson joins us just after leaving the Supreme Court, where she argued a case which could have radical implications for the Voting Rights Act and redistricting across the country: Louisiana v. Callais.
In 2024, Louisiana was found to be in violation of the VRA and was forced to redraw their congressional map. The original map created only one majority Black district out of six total districts, in a state where roughly 1/3rd of the population is Black. Ms. Nelson and the Legal Defense Fund argued in favor of the new map, which created two majority Black districts, in the Supreme Court back in March of 2025.
The highest court has called them back to hear arguments AGAIN, a move rarely taken, except for with the most consequential of cases (Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board, etc.). If Louisiana’s original map is allowed to stand, with only one majority Black district, it would effectively gut the Voting Rights Act, and lead to a reduction in representation for Black people across the country.
Read more: https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/louisiana-v-callais-faq/
https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-2-voting-rights-act
Watch Oral Arguments: https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/supreme-court-hears-case-on-racial-gerrymandering-voting-rights/664542
Want to ask Angela a question? Subscribe to our YouTube channel to participate in the chat.
Welcome home y’all!
—---------
We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast.
Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on YouTube.
Native Land Pod is brought to you by Reasoned Choice Media.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Native Land Pod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership
with Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Welcome Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Welcome home, y'all. I hope you're not sick of me.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
I just had a live episode yesterday, you know, trying
to break down everything that's going on with the attacks
on black women that coming from the highest office in
the land. Again, this is Native Lampod. I'm your host,
Angela Raie. Today we are having an incredible special edition
livestream conversation with someone who I just truly admire and adore.
(00:35):
As you all may know, before the Supreme Court of
the United States today there was a case Louisiana versus Kaylee,
And in this case, at issue is whether or not
a majority black district in Louisiana is now in fact unconstitutional,
talking about whether or not Section two of the Voting
Rights Amendment violates sections fourteen and fifteen of the fourteen
(01:01):
to fifteen Amendments of the Constitution. Here's what I want
us to know. We are in really, really perilous times.
And in these perilous times, the folks who are fighting
these battles most often look like me. They are black women,
and this sister is no exception. I learned some time
(01:21):
ago that she would be making the oral arguments before
the Supreme Court in Louisiana versus Kylie, And I'm gonna
save all my fanning out for when she joined us
just now. She is the President and Director Council of
the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Her name is Attorney Janay Nelson.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Hey, Angela, how are you hello?
Speaker 3 (01:44):
My dear sister. So I gotta tell y'all.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
I got a call from the comms folks at LDF
and they said, we want you to know you can't
say anything. Janae Nelson will be arguing. She will be
bringing oral arguments in the Supreme Court case in Kylie.
And I started crying. I was so happy. I was
so happy.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Because you know, it's been too.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Well.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
I hate that you had to you know, this case
had to be re argued, and we'll talk about this
in just a moment. But what I loved is I
knew there was not a better fighter, someone who had
more command of the facts or the law, someone who
I know would not only make the ancestors, probably be
protecting the interests of future generation. Someone that would tell
(02:32):
the truth about what this country is and the growth
it has to you know, undergo and certainly what is
still an issue whether we like it or not in
the state of Louisiana.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
So I was thrilled about it.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
I was like, tell me, what I could do is
not just about Native Lampi, but we welcome our here.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
But I wanted to make sure that.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Our folks know you exist, since you know, I think
you deserve a whole Barbie doll at this point. Okay,
I am serious. This is our generation's third good marshall.
Don't be surprised if one day, as long as democracy
does not crumble, that Janay Nelson will also be the
other system with locks on the bench.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Okay. So I just want to say thank you, oh, thank.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
You, Angela. I really appreciate all that loveliness. And you know,
I've been a long admirerview. We've been doing a lot
of work these pasts what is it now, ten months
of absolute chaos and war, and I just could not
ask for that a partner in the fight. So thank
you for everything that you and Native Potter are doing.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Thank you so much. This well, here's here's where I
want to start. I think I don't want to skip
straight to what happened today in orals. I did hear
your oral arguments again, Like I'm like, there's just there
was nobody better. But I want to ask you just
how you're feeling on the other side of you know,
standing before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
There's so much at play.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
We're watching the dismantling of our rights happen in our cities,
in our states, all over the country. You're standing in
the heartbeat of it all, walking into this Supreme Court
knowing that there was once upon a time some folks
came down those steps with a victory, and now it
feels like all of that is hanging in the balance,
and it has the nerve to be hanging in the balance.
(04:12):
The sixtieth anniversary year of the Voting Rights Act. Now,
this is something I know you've heard me talk about before,
and I know you talk about often, and that is
like the way of the Voting Rights Act. I think
this is important context for folks. And then I did
ask you how you were feeling, So I want to
get into that.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
But on in.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Nineteen sixty eight, when the Voting Rights Act was initially
passed HR. Sixty four, hundred that was passed in July
of sixty five. It was a three hundred and thirty
three to eighty five vote in the House. In the
Senate it was seventy seven to nineteen, so overwhelmingly bipartisan.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
In sixty eight.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
The Voting Rights Act is reauthorized in nineteen seventy, in
nineteen seventy five, in nineteen eighty two, and in two
thousand and six and up to two thousand and six.
In the House, three hundred and nine, so more people,
more Democrats and Republicans and independence voting to support the
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
I did not study, y'all.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
It was two thousand and six, three ninety to thirty three,
and in the Senate it was a unanimous vote ninety
eight to zero. Again, this was in two thousand and six.
Something has happened. We don't know what. We're not gonna
allege anything, at least now with my sister on maybe
I'll wait till she gets off. But something happened from
(05:30):
two thousand and six, I don't know. Maybe in two
thousand and eight to twenty twelve election, and in twenty thirteen,
the Supreme Court takes up the Shelby Versus Holder case,
essentially gutting sections four and five of the Voting Rights Act,
and today at issue again because this isn't the first
time Section two of the Voting Rights Act is up.
(05:51):
We're gonna get into all that, but you they first.
How do you feel on the other side of the arguments?
And what do you think the paths of victory looks like?
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Here? Oh, listen, as intense as it has been, I
am feeling so extraordinarily energized. I am feeling buoyed by
all the amazing people who came out to stay in
front of the Supreme Court, to chant, to dance, to
hold signs, to make their voices heard, and to make
(06:20):
it clear that we are not going anywhere. That this
democracy is ours. We help to build it, we will
fight for it, and we will win. We will win.
There are many paths to victory, but what's wonderful about
this particular case. The paths of victory is pretty straightforward.
It's called following precedent. It's called follow the law as
(06:42):
it is. Don't try to change it, don't try to
tweak it. It's been working well. We've made extraordinary progress.
The work of the Voting Rights Act is far from done.
But we have carried this multi racial democracy forward for
sixty years. We're celebrating, as you said, the aniversary of
the passage of the building right back in nineteen sixty
five this year, and this is no time to try
(07:05):
to turn the clock back. We're seeing, you know, more
assaults on the right to vote. We're seeing all sorts
of ways in which our democracy is being manipulated by
people who claim to be leaders of this country, by
political parties, and just by white supremacist extremists. But we're
here to say that we built this thing and we
(07:26):
are going to defend it until we possibly until we
went period. That's that.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
That's say we built this joint for freedoms. What we
say around these parts, and I will say, you know,
what I think is surprising in this case to me is,
of course that issue is Louisiana and this second majority
black district that was drawn that is now occupied by
Cleo Fields. Part of Cleo Fields district includes Baton Rouge
(07:56):
Baton Rouge, the same Baton Rouge where I believe it
was East Baton Rouge where they attempted to essentially secede
from the rest of Baton Rouge. This is the white
part trying to separate from the black part. What I
think is fascinating here is Louisiana. Louisiana's black demographic is
thirty two point eight percent. According to the twenty twenty Census,
(08:19):
Nearly one point five million people in the state of
Louisiana are black. That's higher than Alabama and Arkansas. Alabama,
the Supreme Court upheld there was an Alabama case where the
Supreme Court upheld Section two. Shreveport has a fifty seven
point eight percent black population. New Orleans fifty seven point two.
(08:40):
Baton Rouge fifty two point four. They say somewhere between
fifty two point four and fifty three point point five. Today, Janey,
you were arguing before some Supreme Court justices who were
challenging whether or not race should still be an issue.
When you're saying, clearly, there's a pattern and practice of
(09:02):
white folks failing to vote for a black person, a
black candidate, regardless of what side of the aisle there on.
There is this clear pattern, and they're arguing, like, well,
do we still need to considerate should this be a remedy?
And I was fascinated to hear that when you consider
just the demographics of the cities we just laid out,
(09:23):
they would be lacking in representation in Shreveport and Baton Rouge.
It would only be New Orleans that would have unless
they redraw it so that it encompasses all this.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
But then, what does that map look like a garden stake?
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Exactly. Listen, you laid it out. You could have been
up there with me. The facts are so clear in Louisiana.
Of all states, Louisiana is not the one to be
the vehicle for narrowing Section two. In fact, it is
the poster child for why we actually have Section two. So,
as you rightly point out, Louisiana has the highest percentage
(09:55):
of black people of any state in the country outside
of mississipp Right, So black people are about a third
of the population. And the reason that we brought our
suit initially was because even though black people were very
three percent of the population and the white electorate is
steadily declining year after year, they were in control of
(10:18):
eighty three percent of the congressional districts. They occupy fifty
eight percent of the electorate. We're control of eighty three
percent of the district. That alone should tell you something
is not right. But we know the Voting Rights Act
does not guarantee you proportional representation. You can't just go
in there with the numbers and be like, give me
another district. You have to explain that the reason we
(10:40):
don't have a district is because of race, and there's
a whole set of factors and a lot of proof
that you have to put on to establish that. And
we did that, and a federal court said, Okay, we've
heard your witnesses, we've read your evidence, we've looked at
all the arguments. You're you're going to win this claim
if you keep going at it. So why don't we
(11:01):
stop the state right now and say, you know what,
this is not looking good for you. This looks like discrimination.
You need to draw another map. They appealed that another
panel of judges, this time appellate judges in one of
the most conservative circuits in the country. The Fifth Circuit said, yeah,
we agree, this is a unanimous panel. Appealed again, another
(11:23):
unanimous panel. So at this point we've got seven federal
judges in the Fifth Circuit saying this looks like discrimination.
Because Louisiana is drawing maps, and every time they say
they want a map that doesn't have precinct splits or
that you know, respects certain communities, we said, okay, here's
(11:43):
a map that does all that, and it gives black
people a right to vote in another district. You want
this particular you know, equal population that we got a
map for that. We had a map for everything they
asked for, We had a map for that. So we
pull on seven different maps and Louisiana looked at all
seven of them and saw that we had an extra
black district in there and said, you know what actually
(12:04):
will pass. And so that's the type of discrimination that
we're talking about. It doesn't anymore happen with people saying
we don't like black people and we're trying to, you know,
cut you out of power. It's much more complicated, much
more subversive, and it requires a lot more resources and
litigation like the kind we brought to us that out.
(12:24):
So that's what we had to explain to the court today,
and we were really defending the map that we won
against a challenge from some white voters in Louisiana who
were now saying that the fair map that we got
drawn the one that elected Cleophiels in twenty twenty four.
They're saying, now that map somehow is unfair to them
(12:44):
ease and so is they go back to numbers. They're
fifty percent of the population, they still control like sixty
six percent of the congressional district, so they are still
represented super proportionately, and yet their crime foul.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Yeah, and I think that that is also another big
part of this, Like the significance of this case Louisiana
was up today, but folks are relying on how the
court rules here to determine what happens with these other maps.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
We know, just over this year they have done.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
This mid midterm redistricting processes in Texas, in Missouri and
talking about it in Indiana, and they are hoping on
a wing and a prayer that the court will eliminate
Section two because that pushes all of these maps and this,
you know, kind of this midpoint redistricting forward. The Congressional
(13:41):
Black Caucus has sixty three seats right now. One is
vacant because Governor Abbott has refused to fill Sylvester Turner's
seat after passing Maygy rest his soul.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
But they're talking about.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Upwards of thirty Congressional Black Caucus seats being in harm's
way if Section two is eliminated.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Janey, what what.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Hope can you give to people when you consider just
your experience today and what you were arguing. One thing
that I was encouraged by because I think some folks
need to hear it as much as I don't mind
talking about race and facing racism, the panel current clearly
did so. One of the things you had to say
in orals today was not all of Section two remedies
(14:24):
center race. Can you talk a little bit more about
that and what other remedies folks can rely upon? And
why so important not to just blaket say we don't well,
we don't care what state it is. Section two is
not here anymore. We don't need it. That's it's it's
just an overreach. But I want to hear your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
That's right, So you know, I think the Court has
said over time, it has expressed some discomfort in the
use of race, although it is lawful under its own
precedent that if there is a clear and specific violation
that's based on race, you can use race to fix it. Right,
That makes that makes sense. It all is quite logical.
That said, the extent that they are embracing, and we
(15:03):
embrace too, the ultimate goal where we have a political process,
an electoral process where race doesn't play a role and
who wins and who loses. We want that too, and
I think we just differ on how we get there.
And what was really at play today was, you know,
how much can you use race? And was race really
the driving factor in how this map was created? And
(15:26):
our position was this, Listen, we think the map that
elected Cleo Fields. We think the map that the state
drew is actually constitutional. There's a solid argument for why
it passes one of the toughest tests in our law,
which is strict scrutiny. But we also are saying, listen,
we don't really care what map remedies the violation. If
(15:48):
you have a map that doesn't take race into account
and you can still somehow at the end of the
day give black people an opportunity to elect candidates of
their choice and not be diluted and not the you know,
canceled out of the process, we'll take it. You know,
we don't hear how we get there. We just want
a fair map. So if the court feels more comfortable
(16:10):
with a certain type of map or the map being
drawn in the particular way. Let's do it. But let's
not use that concern to rewrite the law. Let's not
use this ridiculous suit that was brought to challenge the
map as a vehicle for in any way undermining the
crown jewel of civil rights legislation. That is the problem.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
Yeah, And in this Milligan case where the Alabama's congressional map,
that the one that allowed for Shamari Figures to now
join us, and in that case you had well, I
was at least surprised by the votes of and the
opinions and the alignment on the issue with Justice Kavanaugh,
(16:58):
Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts. I'm interested to
hear your perspective on the line of questioning they asked
today and if to you it signals anything one way
or the other about where they might far where they
see a distinction between the Milligan case and the Calais case.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Yeh.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
So I have to give a shout out to our
Milligan case because that's the case that LDF litigated as well.
One of our amazing attorneys who's one of our directors
of litigation duel. Ross argued that case Alan versus Milligan,
and it is a case that has set all sorts
of other litigation and motions since then because it really
(17:37):
made it clear what the standards are for proving when
there's racial discrimination in the districting context. So, I mean,
what the question today suggests to me is that maybe,
and just as Kavanaugh was kind of transparent about this
in his concurrence in the Calais, I'm sorry the Milligan
(17:58):
dis Milican initially and he said, well, maybe Section two
can authorize race based remedies, but maybe it can't do
it indefinitely. Maybe this can't go on into the future
with no end in sight. And so some of this
question had to do with what type of limit, time
limit should we put on Section two. My argument is,
(18:18):
we don't put a time limit on a statute. A
statute is there when you need it. When there's a violation,
you can bring a suit under the statute. If there's
no harm, no foul, there's no violation, no lawsuit, nothing,
And that just having a law on the books doesn't
harm anyone, And in fact, it helps the ultimate cause
(18:39):
of ending race discrimination voting because it tells potential violators.
You know, if I do this, I may run a
foul of the law. So let me stay on the
right side of the line. And I don't see any
harm in US keeping Section two on the books and
US using it less and less frequently it as needed.
I don't know if Justice Kavnaugh was convince by that argument.
(19:01):
I hope that he was. I think it makes a
lot of sense to me. But we'll see, you know,
we'll see if he thinks that it's necessary to say maybe,
you know, twenty five years from now, maybe two three
district encycles from now. Will have to have Congress think
about it again. But the other argument that we made,
which I think is really important, is that it's not
the Court's job to decide when a statute ends. It's
(19:22):
Congress's job. I mean, there's a separation of powers for
a reason. So if the Court is saying we think
there should be a limit, it should give Congress an
opportunity to determine what that lineit is. To base that
on a record of evidence that says, you know, what
do we need Do we need fifty more years, do
we need twenty more years? Do we need you know,
ten more we just recycled five whatever it is. We
(19:44):
can't just pull these numbers out of thin air. It
should not be just based on what I say or
what Justice Kalano thing. It should be based on evidence,
and it should be based on some considered reasoning by
people who were elected to represent us and make our laws.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Do you think that we're in this mess? Though? A little?
Speaker 1 (20:12):
And I do think it's mess because I don't think
I think the misnomer is that people think you want
to be going to argue this case.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
I think you want to be saying this is settled.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Law, and I'd rather go I'm not saying you don't arguing,
but you rather go argue something else, like what is
the evolution of this? Congress has refused to act since
Shelby versus Holder. There's not been a Voting Rights reauthorization
Act passed only under the Democratic majority. I think the
Voting Rights Advancement and Reauthorization and Advancement Act was passed
(20:47):
twice by the House and not ever considered in the Senate.
Or no, when it was considered in the Senate, it failed.
And so there's not been any bipartisan effort by Congress
to reauthorize. So it feels like the Supreme Court is like, Okay,
well they're not acting, so let me feel this vacuum,
even though that's not what their branch of the government
(21:08):
is supposed to do. I think that that is a
little scary, and I do want to know. I hope
this is not a dumb question, but I want to know,
and I want people at home to know. Why would
the Supreme Court want to rehear arguments in this case?
What do they think is so significantly different from Milligan,
which I know is a different set of issues, but
(21:29):
pretty dark gone close, like it's Alabama versus Louisiana. Louisiana
got more black people. Maybe that's the biggest difference. But
I want to know why they wanted to rehear it.
It feels I'm nervous that it's like, are y'all trying
to undo what you just did?
Speaker 3 (21:42):
The record is very clear just from a couple of
years ago.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
That is not a dumb question at all. That literally
is the million dollar question. I mean, is it is
something that made us scratch our heads when we got
that we argument order in June of this year, when
we thought, you know, our colleague who argue the case
initially did a great job. We expected that we would
get a decision, and instead they said they wanted to
hear it again. And so all we can think of
(22:06):
is that obviously there weren't enough votes to conclusively decide
the case in June, and they wanted to hear more.
I do think that this issue of whether there should
be a time when it is part of what was
animating the conversation here, But it is truly so closely
aligned with the Milligan case that it's just hard to imagine.
(22:28):
The Court typically doesn't take cases that can be easily
decided based on president They're supposed to take cases that
are novel theories of law, or where there's a circuit
split right where half the country's, you know, applying the
law one way, half the country's applying it a different way.
To the Supreme Court has to come in and tell
us what we should all be doing. There's nothing in
this case that makes this really Supreme Court worthy, or
(22:52):
certainly we argument worthy, other than a concern that they
might do something wrong. I hope that we cleared that
up today. I hope they understand that the consequences are
potentially too grave, and those are not only the practical
consequences of what may happen to elected representatives across the country,
but also the legitimacy of the Court is very much
(23:14):
on the line because their last decision was a mere
twenty eight months ago, and so to reverse course now
when nothing has happened in between those twenty eight months.
But you know, an administration change just doesn't bode well
in terms of how people may perceive of this decision.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Jane, we have a question from the audience, all Enjoy.
That's cute, all Enjoy. The question is what are the
options or next steps if Scotus rules to strike or
weaken Section two.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
I think the question really is on recourse.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
What recourse do we have if we don't have Section
four protections as much that they've changed it, Section five
and the preclearance section is virtually gone.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
What do we have left if we don't have Section two.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Yeah, it's gonna be very, very tough. We always have
the Constitution, we do have some state voting rights acts,
we have other areas of law that we can rely on.
But what it's going to do is make a districting
much more manipulated, and it means that these upcoming midterm elections,
(24:20):
I know that they are incredibly important. If you sit
here right now, they will become even more important because
it may be the very last election that we get
on fair lines. If we don't wind up electing a
Congress that's going to pass the John R. Lewis Voting
Rights Advancing Act for the Freedom to Vote Act, you
know that is that has got to be the centerpiece
(24:42):
of the elections as we head toward them, no matter
the outcome of this case. To be honest, because even
if we win, as we should and as I expect
we will because that's what the law says, there's still
a lot of work around our democracy that needs to
get done, and we do need stronger laws in order
to get there.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
We definitely do.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
There's another question about who's leading these lawsuits. And one
thing I also want to flag is in this particular case,
I started listening to the Solicitor General's arguments from Louisiana.
In this particular case, it's pointed out I believe it
was by Brett Kavanaugh saying, well, what made you switch sides?
(25:21):
And I want to actually hear your answer on what
you think the reason for the Solicitor Jenner for the
Louisiana State to switch sides on this case.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Why do you think that happened?
Speaker 2 (25:30):
Well, I think that Louisiana switch side because they saw
an opportunity to get out from under the Voting Rights
Act and having to comply with the law. They switched
sides from the standpoint of saying that the law, that
the map that they created is something that they wanted
to continue to descend. So they were always opposing what
(25:53):
we said in terms of the discrimination DAVI was. Remember
they were the original discriminator, so they were always saying, hey,
we did nothing wrong until we made it, you know,
policely clear that they had violated the law. And then
they did draw a new map and they defended that map,
and we were glad that they defended that map because
we think it is a fair map. They switch sides,
(26:15):
I think only because they saw an opportunity in this
reargument to try to push the court to do away
with any obligations. And in sad what's most disturbing, which
I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to really teeth
out in the argument, is that they actually admit in
their brief that there may you know, it may be
that we never get rid of racially pullarrivability. It may
(26:36):
be that we never end residential segregation, and so that
means that Louisiana is going to have to comply with
this law forever. Yeah, that's right, that's right. If racism
continues to plague our society and make our electoral processing
and balance and unfair, You're right, you are going to
have to continue to follow the law and make sure
that black people aren't always on the lusion side. It
(26:58):
is thick, and what you should be saying is we're
going to do everything we can to end these factors
that make our electoral process unequal and unfair and unbalanced,
as opposed to saying, you know, whining about the fact
that you might have to continue to comply with the law.
So that to me was the most damning part of
their argument and should give the court a lot of
(27:21):
pause and disturb the court that they're saying basically, this
could go on forever and we wouldn't have to do
anything about it.
Speaker 3 (27:28):
That is the part. I'm glad you got to say
it here breaking news, y'all. I want to I want
to just ask you.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
This.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Somebody is and I know that there are folks that
are watching everything that's happening throughout the country right now,
and it gets really discouraging and overwhelming. I was already
discouraged when they you know, got it bra in twenty thirteen,
and now it feels like they don't want us to
have any protections left. There's some folks sit at home
right now, Janae, who voted because you know, Grandma told
(27:59):
them to in the last selection, and they're like, what
does it do?
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Like I'm watching someone who.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Looks like they're legitimate, like deliberately trying to cause harm
to people who look like me. And now the court
where this man has been able to appoint, you know,
three justices, they're trying to cause me harm. And when
I look at my state legislature, I don't see people
who are making decisions that make life better for me.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
How what is the what is the urging.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
That you give to someone to continue to get up,
to go to the ballot box and to fight a
little longer when they're not seeing that change they so
desperately need and desire.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
Yeah, that is that is such a good question. And
I guess there are a couple of answers one is
that all of that proves the importance of elections. Right,
who is sitting in the White House matters a ton.
It matters, you know, who we wind up arguing before
when we go to the Supreme for it. It matters
what executive orders we now have to navigate and fight. Right,
(28:56):
So who winds up in the White House is actually
extraordinarily sequential, not only because of the policies that come
out of the White House, but the power that the
president can wield in other parts of government. The other
piece of this is that people think that when you
you know, mail in your ballot or you go to
the precincts and you you know, pull down that lever,
(29:20):
that you can then walk away and think that everything
is going to be all right and that the people
you put in office are just going to do right
by you. That is a very naive way to look
at politics. Uh, it doesn't. It doesn't factor in accountability,
it doesn't fact you're in the fact that democracy is
an active sport. You've got to call on your representative
and tell them exactly what you want. You have to
(29:43):
you know, be in their face, go to their town halls,
you know, write the letters, be engaged with an organization
you know, like ours or others that are doing advocacy
so that we can amplify your wishes and make sure
that elected officials are aware of the priorities of the
black community. I mean, it doesn't end with this casting
(30:03):
about I know that you know, people talk about the
right to vote and I'm one of them, how all
powerful it is, and it really really is. But it
is just the entry point, right it is. It is
one power that we all have. But it doesn't end there.
We have got to engage and we've got to hold
people to account. That you don't like what your state
legislature are doing, then or legislator is doing, then get
(30:25):
them out. But the other thing, we've got to recognize
that it's not a single person can just change everything.
And that's why getting additional districts matter. That's why making
sure that we use every bit of political power we
have is so critical because you know, one person in
a body of thirty is not really going to be
able to make a difference. But the more influence we
(30:47):
can have across you know, more districts and the more representatives,
the better we might be able to get outcomes that
really matter for our community.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
I love that.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
So I today you argued a Voting Rights Act case.
When you consider what is before us right now. If
you had the top three civil rights issues that you
think not just our community, but the country should be
paying attention to, what would they be.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
Well, Again, voting rights is definitely number one, because it is,
you know, the gateway I think to everything else. I'm
also extraordinarily concerned about the abuse of executive power. I'm
extraordinarily concerned by how the Trump administration is wielding military power,
(31:38):
using the National Guard to bombard black communities and cities,
and especially black led cities, with violent militaristic operations. I
think it's sinful, horrible, a moral and certainly deeply unconstitutional
and something that we need to I love seeing what's
(31:59):
happening in Chicago. I love seeing some of the some
of the pushback, and we need to be much more
united on that. The other concerns that I have obviously
you know, immigration and ice and the way that again
our our own government is being weaponized against everyday people
who are just trying to make a living and a
(32:20):
life in this country. And that in of itself should
be enough to give all of us pause and make
all of us, you know, turn out the discreet and protest.
But when we think about how that can easily be
turned into a way to terrorize even people who are
lawfully in this country, even people who have you know,
(32:42):
done absolutely nothing wrong, it is it is actually quite
scary and alarming. And that is another area where I
just don't see. I think enough, you know, enough enough
concern uh that, And I don't know that people understand
what you know, what that can potentially mean for all
(33:04):
of us if we let this continue to happen unchecked.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
Yeah, you know, one thing that was recently put on
my radar was the undermining of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Rules at DOT. Taking out race and gender considerations for
dbes is going to be detrimental not just to our community,
not just to white women, but to the economy. So
(33:30):
I think the other thing people don't always consider is
the clear overlap between civil rights protections and how students
are educated, what books we can read, you know, where
we can go to school or to work, or what
contracts we can qualify for. So I'm so grateful for
your work, dear sister. We always in our podcast the
(33:51):
costs to action. And I know folks at home want
to know. Okay, I might not be admitted to the
bar and certainly not to admitted to practice and argue
before this three Preme Court, but there's.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
Something they can do at home. What would you offer them?
Speaker 2 (34:04):
So everybody needs to join up with something, right, I
mean it's it's it's easy to sit at home on
our councter, have our screen right in front of us
and just scroll and feel like we're we're doing something
and we're saying connected. But unless you are part of
some sort of movement, whether it's you know, your local
you know NAACP, or your you know, whatever organization that
(34:27):
suits you, a local community organization, something that you know
resonates with you and your identity and some of the
issues that you care mostly about. We all need to
be linked up with something and with other people who
are doing something to change this moment. That is key.
The other piece is you have to be prepared to
vote and exercise their power. I mean that is serious.
(34:48):
You need to bring other people with you. You need
to make sure that people are prepared. If it takes
a passport for you to vote, get a passport, you
don't have enough money. Let's find a way to get
to you one anyway. Let's figure it out, because is
when we get hit up on these midterms, we know
that there's going to be a lot of challenges. There
may be changes to the laws of you know, what
the proper identification is or whatever. Let's get out ahead
(35:10):
of it. We know this is happening. We know that
they will do anything possible to keep us out of power.
So let's get out ahead of those things. And then
I would say, you know, find a way also to
make your protests known and visible. There are so many
ways to do that. Even if you can't physically turn
out on the streets or there aren't protests happening in
(35:33):
your neck of the woods, you can always use the
power of your purse, your pocketbook, you know, your Apple
k or whatever you use is your e commerce, think
about ways where if there are cities and states that
are not serving us well, or that are issuing policies,
or that are complicit with a rogue government, you know,
(35:55):
withdraw your fund so the extent that you can. You know,
if there are businesses that turn their back on DEI
stop it. I know we all love the convenience of
different you know entities out there that give us things
immediately next day, or you know a store that we
all love to go into. Uh huh. Now it's not
the time for convenience or luxury or comfort. Now is
(36:16):
the time for us to figure out what is it
that we are willing to sacrifice for our freedom? What
are we willing to sacrifice for, even if it's not
our own personal freedom, for the freedom of our communities,
So the freedom of our most vulnerable members and everybody
should be There should be at least five things that
you are not doing anymore that you used to do
(36:36):
because you know it's the right thing to do in
this moment. If this is still difference as usual, we're
doing it long.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
I love that, and it is so true. Janey.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Now sent everyone my good sister, who I'm very proud
of for arguing before the Supreme Court today. We are
in an era where we need to cherish and honor celebrate,
lift up and pray for our hero.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
She certainly want of mine, Jenny.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
How can folks learn more about NAACP Legal Defense Fund
and where to find.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
You wonderful Please go to NAVPLDF dot org. Follow us
on all of our social channels. We are on you know, threads,
We're on Blue Sky, of course, we're on ig We're
also on that old, ancient, terrible platform. We're still there
because that's where we still get a lot of our
information out and then you can find me on all
(37:27):
of those channels as well, so you know, please get engaged.
And we are a trusted information source. So I know
there's a lot of disiness and mal information out there.
Count us as a place in space that cares deeply
about informing black people, educating black people, and hearing from
black people. So please please connect with us.
Speaker 3 (37:48):
I love it, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
She is the President and Director General of the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund. She's also a historical argument to make
up before the Supreme Court today. And let me tell y'all,
if they are smart, JANAE. Nelson will win this case. Okay,
So shout out to you, good sister.
Speaker 3 (38:06):
We are so grateful for everything you do. Y'all.
Speaker 1 (38:08):
Please make sure you support the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
If we do not, we cannot have sisters like her
arguing before the Supreme Court when we know it is
in our best and highest interest I am also stealing
mal information for usual, I'm stealing another term from Jannae Nelson.
She's also the person that said people power is what
defines democracy. So we will continue to protect our power
(38:30):
as the people.
Speaker 3 (38:31):
And until then, y'all welcome home.
Speaker 1 (38:45):
Native Lampod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Reason Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.
Native Land Pod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership
with Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Welcome Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Welcome home, y'all. I hope you're not sick of me.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
I just had a live episode yesterday, you know, trying
to break down everything that's going on with the attacks
on black women that coming from the highest office in
the land. Again, this is Native Lampod. I'm your host,
Angela Raie. Today we are having an incredible special edition
livestream conversation with someone who I just truly admire and adore.
(00:35):
As you all may know, before the Supreme Court of
the United States today there was a case Louisiana versus Kaylee,
And in this case, at issue is whether or not
a majority black district in Louisiana is now in fact unconstitutional,
talking about whether or not Section two of the Voting
Rights Amendment violates sections fourteen and fifteen of the fourteen
(01:01):
to fifteen Amendments of the Constitution. Here's what I want
us to know. We are in really, really perilous times.
And in these perilous times, the folks who are fighting
these battles most often look like me. They are black women,
and this sister is no exception. I learned some time
(01:21):
ago that she would be making the oral arguments before
the Supreme Court in Louisiana versus Kylie, And I'm gonna
save all my fanning out for when she joined us
just now. She is the President and Director Council of
the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Her name is Attorney Janay Nelson.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Hey, Angela, how are you hello?
Speaker 3 (01:44):
My dear sister. So I gotta tell y'all.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
I got a call from the comms folks at LDF
and they said, we want you to know you can't
say anything. Janae Nelson will be arguing. She will be
bringing oral arguments in the Supreme Court case in Kylie.
And I started crying. I was so happy. I was
so happy.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Because you know, it's been too.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Well.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
I hate that you had to you know, this case
had to be re argued, and we'll talk about this
in just a moment. But what I loved is I
knew there was not a better fighter, someone who had
more command of the facts or the law, someone who
I know would not only make the ancestors, probably be
protecting the interests of future generation. Someone that would tell
(02:32):
the truth about what this country is and the growth
it has to you know, undergo and certainly what is
still an issue whether we like it or not in
the state of Louisiana.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
So I was thrilled about it.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
I was like, tell me, what I could do is
not just about Native Lampi, but we welcome our here.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
But I wanted to make sure that.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Our folks know you exist, since you know, I think
you deserve a whole Barbie doll at this point. Okay,
I am serious. This is our generation's third good marshall.
Don't be surprised if one day, as long as democracy
does not crumble, that Janay Nelson will also be the
other system with locks on the bench.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Okay. So I just want to say thank you, oh, thank.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
You, Angela. I really appreciate all that loveliness. And you know,
I've been a long admirerview. We've been doing a lot
of work these pasts what is it now, ten months
of absolute chaos and war, and I just could not
ask for that a partner in the fight. So thank
you for everything that you and Native Potter are doing.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Thank you so much. This well, here's here's where I
want to start. I think I don't want to skip
straight to what happened today in orals. I did hear
your oral arguments again, Like I'm like, there's just there
was nobody better. But I want to ask you just
how you're feeling on the other side of you know,
standing before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
There's so much at play.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
We're watching the dismantling of our rights happen in our cities,
in our states, all over the country. You're standing in
the heartbeat of it all, walking into this Supreme Court
knowing that there was once upon a time some folks
came down those steps with a victory, and now it
feels like all of that is hanging in the balance,
and it has the nerve to be hanging in the balance.
(04:12):
The sixtieth anniversary year of the Voting Rights Act. Now,
this is something I know you've heard me talk about before,
and I know you talk about often, and that is
like the way of the Voting Rights Act. I think
this is important context for folks. And then I did
ask you how you were feeling, So I want to
get into that.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
But on in.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Nineteen sixty eight, when the Voting Rights Act was initially
passed HR. Sixty four, hundred that was passed in July
of sixty five. It was a three hundred and thirty
three to eighty five vote in the House. In the
Senate it was seventy seven to nineteen, so overwhelmingly bipartisan.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
In sixty eight.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
The Voting Rights Act is reauthorized in nineteen seventy, in
nineteen seventy five, in nineteen eighty two, and in two
thousand and six and up to two thousand and six.
In the House, three hundred and nine, so more people,
more Democrats and Republicans and independence voting to support the
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
I did not study, y'all.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
It was two thousand and six, three ninety to thirty three,
and in the Senate it was a unanimous vote ninety
eight to zero. Again, this was in two thousand and six.
Something has happened. We don't know what. We're not gonna
allege anything, at least now with my sister on maybe
I'll wait till she gets off. But something happened from
(05:30):
two thousand and six, I don't know. Maybe in two
thousand and eight to twenty twelve election, and in twenty thirteen,
the Supreme Court takes up the Shelby Versus Holder case,
essentially gutting sections four and five of the Voting Rights Act,
and today at issue again because this isn't the first
time Section two of the Voting Rights Act is up.
(05:51):
We're gonna get into all that, but you they first.
How do you feel on the other side of the arguments?
And what do you think the paths of victory looks like?
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Here? Oh, listen, as intense as it has been, I
am feeling so extraordinarily energized. I am feeling buoyed by
all the amazing people who came out to stay in
front of the Supreme Court, to chant, to dance, to
hold signs, to make their voices heard, and to make
(06:20):
it clear that we are not going anywhere. That this
democracy is ours. We help to build it, we will
fight for it, and we will win. We will win.
There are many paths to victory, but what's wonderful about
this particular case. The paths of victory is pretty straightforward.
It's called following precedent. It's called follow the law as
(06:42):
it is. Don't try to change it, don't try to
tweak it. It's been working well. We've made extraordinary progress.
The work of the Voting Rights Act is far from done.
But we have carried this multi racial democracy forward for
sixty years. We're celebrating, as you said, the aniversary of
the passage of the building right back in nineteen sixty
five this year, and this is no time to try
(07:05):
to turn the clock back. We're seeing, you know, more
assaults on the right to vote. We're seeing all sorts
of ways in which our democracy is being manipulated by
people who claim to be leaders of this country, by
political parties, and just by white supremacist extremists. But we're
here to say that we built this thing and we
(07:26):
are going to defend it until we possibly until we
went period. That's that.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
That's say we built this joint for freedoms. What we
say around these parts, and I will say, you know,
what I think is surprising in this case to me is,
of course that issue is Louisiana and this second majority
black district that was drawn that is now occupied by
Cleo Fields. Part of Cleo Fields district includes Baton Rouge
(07:56):
Baton Rouge, the same Baton Rouge where I believe it
was East Baton Rouge where they attempted to essentially secede
from the rest of Baton Rouge. This is the white
part trying to separate from the black part. What I
think is fascinating here is Louisiana. Louisiana's black demographic is
thirty two point eight percent. According to the twenty twenty Census,
(08:19):
Nearly one point five million people in the state of
Louisiana are black. That's higher than Alabama and Arkansas. Alabama,
the Supreme Court upheld there was an Alabama case where the
Supreme Court upheld Section two. Shreveport has a fifty seven
point eight percent black population. New Orleans fifty seven point two.
(08:40):
Baton Rouge fifty two point four. They say somewhere between
fifty two point four and fifty three point point five. Today, Janey,
you were arguing before some Supreme Court justices who were
challenging whether or not race should still be an issue.
When you're saying, clearly, there's a pattern and practice of
(09:02):
white folks failing to vote for a black person, a
black candidate, regardless of what side of the aisle there on.
There is this clear pattern, and they're arguing, like, well,
do we still need to considerate should this be a remedy?
And I was fascinated to hear that when you consider
just the demographics of the cities we just laid out,
(09:23):
they would be lacking in representation in Shreveport and Baton Rouge.
It would only be New Orleans that would have unless
they redraw it so that it encompasses all this.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
But then, what does that map look like a garden stake?
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Exactly. Listen, you laid it out. You could have been
up there with me. The facts are so clear in Louisiana.
Of all states, Louisiana is not the one to be
the vehicle for narrowing Section two. In fact, it is
the poster child for why we actually have Section two. So,
as you rightly point out, Louisiana has the highest percentage
(09:55):
of black people of any state in the country outside
of mississipp Right, So black people are about a third
of the population. And the reason that we brought our
suit initially was because even though black people were very
three percent of the population and the white electorate is
steadily declining year after year, they were in control of
(10:18):
eighty three percent of the congressional districts. They occupy fifty
eight percent of the electorate. We're control of eighty three
percent of the district. That alone should tell you something
is not right. But we know the Voting Rights Act
does not guarantee you proportional representation. You can't just go
in there with the numbers and be like, give me
another district. You have to explain that the reason we
(10:40):
don't have a district is because of race, and there's
a whole set of factors and a lot of proof
that you have to put on to establish that. And
we did that, and a federal court said, Okay, we've
heard your witnesses, we've read your evidence, we've looked at
all the arguments. You're you're going to win this claim
if you keep going at it. So why don't we
(11:01):
stop the state right now and say, you know what,
this is not looking good for you. This looks like discrimination.
You need to draw another map. They appealed that another
panel of judges, this time appellate judges in one of
the most conservative circuits in the country. The Fifth Circuit said, yeah,
we agree, this is a unanimous panel. Appealed again, another
(11:23):
unanimous panel. So at this point we've got seven federal
judges in the Fifth Circuit saying this looks like discrimination.
Because Louisiana is drawing maps, and every time they say
they want a map that doesn't have precinct splits or
that you know, respects certain communities, we said, okay, here's
(11:43):
a map that does all that, and it gives black
people a right to vote in another district. You want
this particular you know, equal population that we got a
map for that. We had a map for everything they
asked for, We had a map for that. So we
pull on seven different maps and Louisiana looked at all
seven of them and saw that we had an extra
black district in there and said, you know what actually
(12:04):
will pass. And so that's the type of discrimination that
we're talking about. It doesn't anymore happen with people saying
we don't like black people and we're trying to, you know,
cut you out of power. It's much more complicated, much
more subversive, and it requires a lot more resources and
litigation like the kind we brought to us that out.
(12:24):
So that's what we had to explain to the court today,
and we were really defending the map that we won
against a challenge from some white voters in Louisiana who
were now saying that the fair map that we got
drawn the one that elected Cleophiels in twenty twenty four.
They're saying, now that map somehow is unfair to them
(12:44):
ease and so is they go back to numbers. They're
fifty percent of the population, they still control like sixty
six percent of the congressional district, so they are still
represented super proportionately, and yet their crime foul.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Yeah, and I think that that is also another big
part of this, Like the significance of this case Louisiana
was up today, but folks are relying on how the
court rules here to determine what happens with these other maps.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
We know, just over this year they have done.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
This mid midterm redistricting processes in Texas, in Missouri and
talking about it in Indiana, and they are hoping on
a wing and a prayer that the court will eliminate
Section two because that pushes all of these maps and this,
you know, kind of this midpoint redistricting forward. The Congressional
(13:41):
Black Caucus has sixty three seats right now. One is
vacant because Governor Abbott has refused to fill Sylvester Turner's
seat after passing Maygy rest his soul.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
But they're talking about.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Upwards of thirty Congressional Black Caucus seats being in harm's
way if Section two is eliminated.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Janey, what what.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Hope can you give to people when you consider just
your experience today and what you were arguing. One thing
that I was encouraged by because I think some folks
need to hear it as much as I don't mind
talking about race and facing racism, the panel current clearly
did so. One of the things you had to say
in orals today was not all of Section two remedies
(14:24):
center race. Can you talk a little bit more about
that and what other remedies folks can rely upon? And
why so important not to just blaket say we don't well,
we don't care what state it is. Section two is
not here anymore. We don't need it. That's it's it's
just an overreach. But I want to hear your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
That's right, So you know, I think the Court has
said over time, it has expressed some discomfort in the
use of race, although it is lawful under its own
precedent that if there is a clear and specific violation
that's based on race, you can use race to fix it. Right,
That makes that makes sense. It all is quite logical.
That said, the extent that they are embracing, and we
(15:03):
embrace too, the ultimate goal where we have a political process,
an electoral process where race doesn't play a role and
who wins and who loses. We want that too, and
I think we just differ on how we get there.
And what was really at play today was, you know,
how much can you use race? And was race really
the driving factor in how this map was created? And
(15:26):
our position was this, Listen, we think the map that
elected Cleo Fields. We think the map that the state
drew is actually constitutional. There's a solid argument for why
it passes one of the toughest tests in our law,
which is strict scrutiny. But we also are saying, listen,
we don't really care what map remedies the violation. If
(15:48):
you have a map that doesn't take race into account
and you can still somehow at the end of the
day give black people an opportunity to elect candidates of
their choice and not be diluted and not the you know,
canceled out of the process, we'll take it. You know,
we don't hear how we get there. We just want
a fair map. So if the court feels more comfortable
(16:10):
with a certain type of map or the map being
drawn in the particular way. Let's do it. But let's
not use that concern to rewrite the law. Let's not
use this ridiculous suit that was brought to challenge the
map as a vehicle for in any way undermining the
crown jewel of civil rights legislation. That is the problem.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
Yeah, And in this Milligan case where the Alabama's congressional map,
that the one that allowed for Shamari Figures to now
join us, and in that case you had well, I
was at least surprised by the votes of and the
opinions and the alignment on the issue with Justice Kavanaugh,
(16:58):
Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts. I'm interested to
hear your perspective on the line of questioning they asked
today and if to you it signals anything one way
or the other about where they might far where they
see a distinction between the Milligan case and the Calais case.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Yeh.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
So I have to give a shout out to our
Milligan case because that's the case that LDF litigated as well.
One of our amazing attorneys who's one of our directors
of litigation duel. Ross argued that case Alan versus Milligan,
and it is a case that has set all sorts
of other litigation and motions since then because it really
(17:37):
made it clear what the standards are for proving when
there's racial discrimination in the districting context. So, I mean,
what the question today suggests to me is that maybe,
and just as Kavanaugh was kind of transparent about this
in his concurrence in the Calais, I'm sorry the Milligan
(17:58):
dis Milican initially and he said, well, maybe Section two
can authorize race based remedies, but maybe it can't do
it indefinitely. Maybe this can't go on into the future
with no end in sight. And so some of this
question had to do with what type of limit, time
limit should we put on Section two. My argument is,
(18:18):
we don't put a time limit on a statute. A
statute is there when you need it. When there's a violation,
you can bring a suit under the statute. If there's
no harm, no foul, there's no violation, no lawsuit, nothing,
And that just having a law on the books doesn't
harm anyone, And in fact, it helps the ultimate cause
(18:39):
of ending race discrimination voting because it tells potential violators.
You know, if I do this, I may run a
foul of the law. So let me stay on the
right side of the line. And I don't see any
harm in US keeping Section two on the books and
US using it less and less frequently it as needed.
I don't know if Justice Kavnaugh was convince by that argument.
(19:01):
I hope that he was. I think it makes a
lot of sense to me. But we'll see, you know,
we'll see if he thinks that it's necessary to say maybe,
you know, twenty five years from now, maybe two three
district encycles from now. Will have to have Congress think
about it again. But the other argument that we made,
which I think is really important, is that it's not
the Court's job to decide when a statute ends. It's
(19:22):
Congress's job. I mean, there's a separation of powers for
a reason. So if the Court is saying we think
there should be a limit, it should give Congress an
opportunity to determine what that lineit is. To base that
on a record of evidence that says, you know, what
do we need Do we need fifty more years, do
we need twenty more years? Do we need you know,
ten more we just recycled five whatever it is. We
(19:44):
can't just pull these numbers out of thin air. It
should not be just based on what I say or
what Justice Kalano thing. It should be based on evidence,
and it should be based on some considered reasoning by
people who were elected to represent us and make our laws.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Do you think that we're in this mess? Though? A little?
Speaker 1 (20:12):
And I do think it's mess because I don't think
I think the misnomer is that people think you want
to be going to argue this case.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
I think you want to be saying this is settled.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Law, and I'd rather go I'm not saying you don't arguing,
but you rather go argue something else, like what is
the evolution of this? Congress has refused to act since
Shelby versus Holder. There's not been a Voting Rights reauthorization
Act passed only under the Democratic majority. I think the
Voting Rights Advancement and Reauthorization and Advancement Act was passed
(20:47):
twice by the House and not ever considered in the Senate.
Or no, when it was considered in the Senate, it failed.
And so there's not been any bipartisan effort by Congress
to reauthorize. So it feels like the Supreme Court is like, Okay,
well they're not acting, so let me feel this vacuum,
even though that's not what their branch of the government
(21:08):
is supposed to do. I think that that is a
little scary, and I do want to know. I hope
this is not a dumb question, but I want to know,
and I want people at home to know. Why would
the Supreme Court want to rehear arguments in this case?
What do they think is so significantly different from Milligan,
which I know is a different set of issues, but
(21:29):
pretty dark gone close, like it's Alabama versus Louisiana. Louisiana
got more black people. Maybe that's the biggest difference. But
I want to know why they wanted to rehear it.
It feels I'm nervous that it's like, are y'all trying
to undo what you just did?
Speaker 3 (21:42):
The record is very clear just from a couple of
years ago.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
That is not a dumb question at all. That literally
is the million dollar question. I mean, is it is
something that made us scratch our heads when we got
that we argument order in June of this year, when
we thought, you know, our colleague who argue the case
initially did a great job. We expected that we would
get a decision, and instead they said they wanted to
hear it again. And so all we can think of
(22:06):
is that obviously there weren't enough votes to conclusively decide
the case in June, and they wanted to hear more.
I do think that this issue of whether there should
be a time when it is part of what was
animating the conversation here, But it is truly so closely
aligned with the Milligan case that it's just hard to imagine.
(22:28):
The Court typically doesn't take cases that can be easily
decided based on president They're supposed to take cases that
are novel theories of law, or where there's a circuit
split right where half the country's, you know, applying the
law one way, half the country's applying it a different way.
To the Supreme Court has to come in and tell
us what we should all be doing. There's nothing in
this case that makes this really Supreme Court worthy, or
(22:52):
certainly we argument worthy, other than a concern that they
might do something wrong. I hope that we cleared that
up today. I hope they understand that the consequences are
potentially too grave, and those are not only the practical
consequences of what may happen to elected representatives across the country,
but also the legitimacy of the Court is very much
(23:14):
on the line because their last decision was a mere
twenty eight months ago, and so to reverse course now
when nothing has happened in between those twenty eight months.
But you know, an administration change just doesn't bode well
in terms of how people may perceive of this decision.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Jane, we have a question from the audience, all Enjoy.
That's cute, all Enjoy. The question is what are the
options or next steps if Scotus rules to strike or
weaken Section two.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
I think the question really is on recourse.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
What recourse do we have if we don't have Section
four protections as much that they've changed it, Section five
and the preclearance section is virtually gone.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
What do we have left if we don't have Section two.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Yeah, it's gonna be very, very tough. We always have
the Constitution, we do have some state voting rights acts,
we have other areas of law that we can rely on.
But what it's going to do is make a districting
much more manipulated, and it means that these upcoming midterm elections,
(24:20):
I know that they are incredibly important. If you sit
here right now, they will become even more important because
it may be the very last election that we get
on fair lines. If we don't wind up electing a
Congress that's going to pass the John R. Lewis Voting
Rights Advancing Act for the Freedom to Vote Act, you
know that is that has got to be the centerpiece
(24:42):
of the elections as we head toward them, no matter
the outcome of this case. To be honest, because even
if we win, as we should and as I expect
we will because that's what the law says, there's still
a lot of work around our democracy that needs to
get done, and we do need stronger laws in order
to get there.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
We definitely do.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
There's another question about who's leading these lawsuits. And one
thing I also want to flag is in this particular case,
I started listening to the Solicitor General's arguments from Louisiana.
In this particular case, it's pointed out I believe it
was by Brett Kavanaugh saying, well, what made you switch sides?
(25:21):
And I want to actually hear your answer on what
you think the reason for the Solicitor Jenner for the
Louisiana State to switch sides on this case.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Why do you think that happened?
Speaker 2 (25:30):
Well, I think that Louisiana switch side because they saw
an opportunity to get out from under the Voting Rights
Act and having to comply with the law. They switched
sides from the standpoint of saying that the law, that
the map that they created is something that they wanted
to continue to descend. So they were always opposing what
(25:53):
we said in terms of the discrimination DAVI was. Remember
they were the original discriminator, so they were always saying, hey,
we did nothing wrong until we made it, you know,
policely clear that they had violated the law. And then
they did draw a new map and they defended that map,
and we were glad that they defended that map because
we think it is a fair map. They switch sides,
(26:15):
I think only because they saw an opportunity in this
reargument to try to push the court to do away
with any obligations. And in sad what's most disturbing, which
I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to really teeth
out in the argument, is that they actually admit in
their brief that there may you know, it may be
that we never get rid of racially pullarrivability. It may
(26:36):
be that we never end residential segregation, and so that
means that Louisiana is going to have to comply with
this law forever. Yeah, that's right, that's right. If racism
continues to plague our society and make our electoral processing
and balance and unfair, You're right, you are going to
have to continue to follow the law and make sure
that black people aren't always on the lusion side. It
(26:58):
is thick, and what you should be saying is we're
going to do everything we can to end these factors
that make our electoral process unequal and unfair and unbalanced,
as opposed to saying, you know, whining about the fact
that you might have to continue to comply with the law.
So that to me was the most damning part of
their argument and should give the court a lot of
(27:21):
pause and disturb the court that they're saying basically, this
could go on forever and we wouldn't have to do
anything about it.
Speaker 3 (27:28):
That is the part. I'm glad you got to say
it here breaking news, y'all. I want to I want
to just ask you.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
This.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Somebody is and I know that there are folks that
are watching everything that's happening throughout the country right now,
and it gets really discouraging and overwhelming. I was already
discouraged when they you know, got it bra in twenty thirteen,
and now it feels like they don't want us to
have any protections left. There's some folks sit at home
right now, Janae, who voted because you know, Grandma told
(27:59):
them to in the last selection, and they're like, what
does it do?
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Like I'm watching someone who.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Looks like they're legitimate, like deliberately trying to cause harm
to people who look like me. And now the court
where this man has been able to appoint, you know,
three justices, they're trying to cause me harm. And when
I look at my state legislature, I don't see people
who are making decisions that make life better for me.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
How what is the what is the urging.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
That you give to someone to continue to get up,
to go to the ballot box and to fight a
little longer when they're not seeing that change they so
desperately need and desire.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
Yeah, that is that is such a good question. And
I guess there are a couple of answers one is
that all of that proves the importance of elections. Right,
who is sitting in the White House matters a ton.
It matters, you know, who we wind up arguing before
when we go to the Supreme for it. It matters
what executive orders we now have to navigate and fight. Right,
(28:56):
So who winds up in the White House is actually
extraordinarily sequential, not only because of the policies that come
out of the White House, but the power that the
president can wield in other parts of government. The other
piece of this is that people think that when you
you know, mail in your ballot or you go to
the precincts and you you know, pull down that lever,
(29:20):
that you can then walk away and think that everything
is going to be all right and that the people
you put in office are just going to do right
by you. That is a very naive way to look
at politics. Uh, it doesn't. It doesn't factor in accountability,
it doesn't fact you're in the fact that democracy is
an active sport. You've got to call on your representative
and tell them exactly what you want. You have to
(29:43):
you know, be in their face, go to their town halls,
you know, write the letters, be engaged with an organization
you know, like ours or others that are doing advocacy
so that we can amplify your wishes and make sure
that elected officials are aware of the priorities of the
black community. I mean, it doesn't end with this casting
(30:03):
about I know that you know, people talk about the
right to vote and I'm one of them, how all
powerful it is, and it really really is. But it
is just the entry point, right it is. It is
one power that we all have. But it doesn't end there.
We have got to engage and we've got to hold
people to account. That you don't like what your state
legislature are doing, then or legislator is doing, then get
(30:25):
them out. But the other thing, we've got to recognize
that it's not a single person can just change everything.
And that's why getting additional districts matter. That's why making
sure that we use every bit of political power we
have is so critical because you know, one person in
a body of thirty is not really going to be
able to make a difference. But the more influence we
(30:47):
can have across you know, more districts and the more representatives,
the better we might be able to get outcomes that
really matter for our community.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
I love that.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
So I today you argued a Voting Rights Act case.
When you consider what is before us right now. If
you had the top three civil rights issues that you
think not just our community, but the country should be
paying attention to, what would they be.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
Well, Again, voting rights is definitely number one, because it is,
you know, the gateway I think to everything else. I'm
also extraordinarily concerned about the abuse of executive power. I'm
extraordinarily concerned by how the Trump administration is wielding military power,
(31:38):
using the National Guard to bombard black communities and cities,
and especially black led cities, with violent militaristic operations. I
think it's sinful, horrible, a moral and certainly deeply unconstitutional
and something that we need to I love seeing what's
(31:59):
happening in Chicago. I love seeing some of the some
of the pushback, and we need to be much more
united on that. The other concerns that I have obviously
you know, immigration and ice and the way that again
our our own government is being weaponized against everyday people
who are just trying to make a living and a
(32:20):
life in this country. And that in of itself should
be enough to give all of us pause and make
all of us, you know, turn out the discreet and protest.
But when we think about how that can easily be
turned into a way to terrorize even people who are
lawfully in this country, even people who have you know,
(32:42):
done absolutely nothing wrong, it is it is actually quite
scary and alarming. And that is another area where I
just don't see. I think enough, you know, enough enough
concern uh that, And I don't know that people understand
what you know, what that can potentially mean for all
(33:04):
of us if we let this continue to happen unchecked.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
Yeah, you know, one thing that was recently put on
my radar was the undermining of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Rules at DOT. Taking out race and gender considerations for
dbes is going to be detrimental not just to our community,
not just to white women, but to the economy. So
(33:30):
I think the other thing people don't always consider is
the clear overlap between civil rights protections and how students
are educated, what books we can read, you know, where
we can go to school or to work, or what
contracts we can qualify for. So I'm so grateful for
your work, dear sister. We always in our podcast the
(33:51):
costs to action. And I know folks at home want
to know. Okay, I might not be admitted to the
bar and certainly not to admitted to practice and argue
before this three Preme Court, but there's.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
Something they can do at home. What would you offer them?
Speaker 2 (34:04):
So everybody needs to join up with something, right, I
mean it's it's it's easy to sit at home on
our councter, have our screen right in front of us
and just scroll and feel like we're we're doing something
and we're saying connected. But unless you are part of
some sort of movement, whether it's you know, your local
you know NAACP, or your you know, whatever organization that
(34:27):
suits you, a local community organization, something that you know
resonates with you and your identity and some of the
issues that you care mostly about. We all need to
be linked up with something and with other people who
are doing something to change this moment. That is key.
The other piece is you have to be prepared to
vote and exercise their power. I mean that is serious.
(34:48):
You need to bring other people with you. You need
to make sure that people are prepared. If it takes
a passport for you to vote, get a passport, you
don't have enough money. Let's find a way to get
to you one anyway. Let's figure it out, because is
when we get hit up on these midterms, we know
that there's going to be a lot of challenges. There
may be changes to the laws of you know, what
the proper identification is or whatever. Let's get out ahead
(35:10):
of it. We know this is happening. We know that
they will do anything possible to keep us out of power.
So let's get out ahead of those things. And then
I would say, you know, find a way also to
make your protests known and visible. There are so many
ways to do that. Even if you can't physically turn
out on the streets or there aren't protests happening in
(35:33):
your neck of the woods, you can always use the
power of your purse, your pocketbook, you know, your Apple
k or whatever you use is your e commerce, think
about ways where if there are cities and states that
are not serving us well, or that are issuing policies,
or that are complicit with a rogue government, you know,
(35:55):
withdraw your fund so the extent that you can. You know,
if there are businesses that turn their back on DEI
stop it. I know we all love the convenience of
different you know entities out there that give us things
immediately next day, or you know a store that we
all love to go into. Uh huh. Now it's not
the time for convenience or luxury or comfort. Now is
(36:16):
the time for us to figure out what is it
that we are willing to sacrifice for our freedom? What
are we willing to sacrifice for, even if it's not
our own personal freedom, for the freedom of our communities,
So the freedom of our most vulnerable members and everybody
should be There should be at least five things that
you are not doing anymore that you used to do
(36:36):
because you know it's the right thing to do in
this moment. If this is still difference as usual, we're
doing it long.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
I love that, and it is so true. Janey.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Now sent everyone my good sister, who I'm very proud
of for arguing before the Supreme Court today. We are
in an era where we need to cherish and honor celebrate,
lift up and pray for our hero.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
She certainly want of mine, Jenny.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
How can folks learn more about NAACP Legal Defense Fund
and where to find.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
You wonderful Please go to NAVPLDF dot org. Follow us
on all of our social channels. We are on you know, threads,
We're on Blue Sky, of course, we're on ig We're
also on that old, ancient, terrible platform. We're still there
because that's where we still get a lot of our
information out and then you can find me on all
(37:27):
of those channels as well, so you know, please get engaged.
And we are a trusted information source. So I know
there's a lot of disiness and mal information out there.
Count us as a place in space that cares deeply
about informing black people, educating black people, and hearing from
black people. So please please connect with us.
Speaker 3 (37:48):
I love it, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
She is the President and Director General of the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund. She's also a historical argument to make
up before the Supreme Court today. And let me tell y'all,
if they are smart, JANAE. Nelson will win this case. Okay,
So shout out to you, good sister.
Speaker 3 (38:06):
We are so grateful for everything you do. Y'all.
Speaker 1 (38:08):
Please make sure you support the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
If we do not, we cannot have sisters like her
arguing before the Supreme Court when we know it is
in our best and highest interest I am also stealing
mal information for usual, I'm stealing another term from Jannae Nelson.
She's also the person that said people power is what
defines democracy. So we will continue to protect our power
(38:30):
as the people.
Speaker 3 (38:31):
And until then, y'all welcome home.
Speaker 1 (38:45):
Native Lampod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Reason Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.
Hosts And Creators
Tiffany Cross
Andrew Gillum
Angela Rye
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.