Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Supreme Court Deals Another Blow To Landmark Voting Rights Act; Landmark Ruling Could Reshape Southern State Congressional Maps; Jeffries On Voting Rights Ruling: We'll "Continue To Fight Back"; Supreme Court Tosses Out Louisiana Congressional Map As An Unconstitutional Race-Based Gerrymander. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired April 29, 2026 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR, INSIDE POLITICS: Welcome to Inside Politics. I'm Manu Raju in for Dana Bash. And we are following breaking news on several fronts.

Right now, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dan Caine, are under oath, fielding questions from lawmakers for the first time since the Iran war began. But the Supreme Court quickly eclipsed that high stakes hearing with a ruling that could reshape the battle for the House. Their six-three decision narrows a core piece of the Voting Rights Act. It could make it easier for GOP controlled states to draw maps that eliminate majority minority districts.

The case centers on two majority black districts in Louisiana, one of which state Republicans sought to eliminate. Louisiana secretary of state says she is currently analyzing the court's opinion, but it could upend the political map nationwide as both parties race to redraw the lines and gain an edge before Election Day, which is now just over six months away.

I want to get right to CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. Elie, how sweeping is this decision and could it impact this year's midterms?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: For sure, Manu. I think it certainly will. So, the core bottom line holding of the Supreme Court today is that it is unconstitutional for states to draw congressional maps with the intent to create majority black or majority other racial minority districts. Now, there's a little bit of history that's relevant here to understand what happened.

Louisiana has six congressional districts in the U.S. House. And after the 2020 election, Louisiana first drew a map that had one majority black district. By the way, the total population of Louisiana is about one-third black. Now that was challenged and found to violate the Voting Rights Act because it did not adequately represent the black population of the state.

Louisiana then went back to the drawing board. They came up with a new map that had two majority black districts, that was then challenged and went all the way out to the Supreme Court today. And the Supreme Court said that two district map is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of race. Now, let me read you sort of the key holding. Say, this was a six to three opinion, with the six conservatives striking down Louisiana's two district map and the three liberals dissenting.

Now the majority opinion was written by Justice Alito. Here's something that he wrote in the opinion. He wrote that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was designed to enforce the constitution, not collide with it. Unfortunately, the lower courts have sometimes applied this court's precedence in a way that forces states to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the constitution forbids. Meaning, the Voting Rights Act, if it collides with the anti- discrimination provision in the constitution, the constitution wins out. You cannot discriminate on the basis of race.

In dissent, Justice Kagan wrote this. She wrote, I dissent, then from the latest chapter in the majority's now completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act. I dissent because the court's decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. So, Justice Kagan and the dissenters are saying, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act that was intended to protect the rights and the voice of minority voters, and now we are disregarding that.

With respect to other states, Manu, we've already seen Florida and Mississippi take steps to try to redraw their maps to eliminate some of these majority black districts, which will almost certainly have the effect of swinging seats over from Democratic toward Republican leaning.

RAJU: Yeah. And it can maybe help the Florida Republicans if those -- that effort is challenged in court, it seems. Elie, separately, we're waiting for yet another ruling. This one from the Virginia Supreme Court. This over the democratic effort to give them up to four seats in that state on their redistricting plan. How do you see that playing out?

HONIG: Yeah. This one is moving quickly. The Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments just on Monday, just a couple days after the referendum passed. And this is the referendum that redrew Virginia's districts, congressional districts, to essentially have 10 of the 11 be Democratic leaning, democratic favoring.

If you look at the Supreme Court arguments in the Virginia Supreme Court Monday, it seems like the justices have a problem with the procedure behind this map, basically to make a long story short, Virginia was supposed to wait 90 days between passage of the law and beginning to vote on the referendum. They did not wait those 90 days.

So, the justices of the Virginia Supreme Court seem to voice real concern with the procedures behind this referendum. We should get a ruling fairly soon, but don't be surprised if the Virginia Supreme Court strikes down that 10 to one redistricted map and makes Virginia go back and do it again. [12:05:00]

RAJU: Yeah, that would be a huge, huge blow for Democrats efforts to take back the House. We'll see if that ultimately pans out there the way that it could that you're suggesting might. Elie Honig, we're really grateful for your expertise. Thank you so much.

My terrific panel is here, including Laura Coates. We're so grateful to have you in your legal expertise here. It's interesting you look at the opinion and the dissent, because the opinion -- the majority opinion tries to suggest this is perhaps more narrow, perhaps more narrowly focused on Louisiana. And then you have Elena Kagan, and the dissent saying, this could blow up the Voting Rights Act altogether.

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: She's absolutely right. And frankly and I've been a voting rights attorney in the Civil Rights Division when they still had Section 5. Remember that was the one that said, you had to get the preauthorization if you were a state that traditionally discriminated against in voting and get the preclearance from the government for you made any changes. When that went away, monumental consequences.

Now you've got Section 2, which is really the last way to actually say, and go to the courts and make sure there's not going to be vote dilution. Meaning, I don't care how many times I go to the voting booth, I'm never going to be like the candidate of my choosing, because you have strategically made it such that I have no power. It really is only a name.

Frankly, this hefty opinion. It's like pages and pages of trying to say one thing in the minority, essentially a majority. It essentially says, yeah, as long as I get a race neutral reason, which could be a wink and a nod. I'm not doing it for that reason. It's actually this. That's fine. It makes it virtually impossible for someone wanting to challenge these different districts as being gerrymandered, as being a viable claim.

And so, you've got not just like a toothless tiger, you've got no tiger. All you have now is the theory that you have to trust people who are in power to do things that are in the best interest of those who are not. And I don't know about you guys, I don't know when that's happened.

RAJU: Yeah. I mean, as Elie suggested, I asked him, could this impact this year's midterms? He said, it certainly could. Yes, it could. Do you think the timing is such that it could impact some of these states?

COATES: The reason you don't want to change any voting laws so quickly, so close to any election or have any consequential action, is because you never want to infuse and inject confusion into an election. You don't want the process by which you vote to interfere with the decisions people make when they are voting.

And they could have a consequence of people either saying, I don't want to be a part of a rigged system. It can have people saying to themselves, well, you know what, there's so much confusion. Is this the right district -- what I have is that correctly be counted? But it also can lead people to feeling empowered and emboldened and saying, you know what, I might have just enough time to make just enough tweaks that I can create a different district. But however, this is long-term. It's a consequences long term, not just as in the immediate.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: And I think that that is exactly the political strategist both sides we've been talking to today, explain it just like that short-term versus long- term. I mean, people, particularly on the Republican side, have been waiting for this ruling all year long. And now that we are in the final days of April, early voting in Louisiana starts Saturday. The overseas ballots have already been mailed in. So, the attorney general in Louisiana is reviewing this. We shall see what comes of that.

But there really is not time for significant changes this year. However, as this opinion was being read literally at the same hour, it was being read it from the Supreme Court via majority opinion and the dissent. The Florida House of Representatives was voting to approve this new proposed map in Florida.

(CROSSTALK)

ZELENY: Absolutely. So, it also makes it more difficult to challenge laws like that. Now if you take a look at the Louisiana map right here. I was -- as Elie was saying before, there are six seats in Louisiana, four Republicans and two Democratic seats that obviously will change. But in the long-term across the south, look for new maps to be drawn in Republican led states across the south.

Here is just one example. South Carolina, for example, its already split fairly significantly, but we are going to see, likely in 2028 a new map entirely, but the national map here. This is why it matters. We're in the middle of this massive mid-decade gerrymandering. Florida is not on here yet because the changes haven't been made there.

But if those laws are passed for potentially new Republican seats there. So, all of this, effectively, is a wash, but this changes things dramatically, if not for November, certainly for 2028 and beyond, and it's just a moment of history.

RAJU: Yeah.

ZELENY: That is what is so significant about here. Back in 2013 on the Shelby case that you were talking about, I was standing in John Lewis' office as he was watching this being a dismantled. At that point, he thought that that was as far as this could go now. This is really the full circle move from that. So historically, it is very, very --

[12:10:00]

RAJU: I just want to -- just before you jump in, Jamie, this is Democratic districts that are at risk potential. This according to left leaning groups who have analyzed the impact on a number of states here. They say they think 19 seats could be at risk all throughout the South. The question will be the timing. Is this a 2028 play? Is this a 2026 play?

There are some primaries here coming up, not until later in the cycle, August 6. There's one in Tennessee that Steve Cohen seat. That's a majority minority district. That's an August 6. The one democratic seat there, the Jim Clyburn seat in South Carolina. That is the one that democratic seat in South Carolina. That's a June 9 primary. Jamie, this shows you the ramifications long term for this ruling.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. Just think about that number, 19 seats in play. And let's look at this politically. Laura, you talked about confusion going into this race. We're worried about voter suppression. Apart from the long-term impact, we are going to see people take advantage of that confusion. There is going to be, you know, these midterms are so high stakes that anybody who thinks they can take advantage, you know, on the state level of this decision, there is going to be a scramble to see if they can, because each side thinks this is an existential midterm with the House especially.

RAJU: Yeah, no question.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. No. Look, I think when we're looking at that map, I just would remind everyone that a big part of all of the redistricting we're seeing happen this year is because that was exactly the strategy that the Trump administration came into office with. Being like this is going to be a way that we can try and alleviate some of the pressure. Now, not necessarily, I think, the Louisiana case, but all of the other states that we're talking about.

And one thing I just want to add as well, just in light of specifically talking about the Supreme Court. Jeff and I were just chatting about this before the show. The six conservative Supreme Court justices were at that state dinner last night when the president had King Charles and the queen there.

And I was catching up with our Supreme Court, you know, Joan Biskupic and John Fritze this morning. They were like, were they invited? Were they not? The White House wouldn't answer, but it was only the six conservative ones who were there, not the liberals. And I think that just goes to show a decision like this is something that the president is going to be celebrating, and something that he's really been trying to, in many ways, sometimes, with his rhetoric, almost pressure them into voting with him.

One of the things we've heard him say repeatedly in recent weeks when it comes -- when supreme court issues come up, is that the Democrats always stick together, the Republicans don't. You've seen him launch direct critiques --

RAJU: Yeah. This time we've seen the conservatives stick together. How Hakeem Jeffries reacted here. He said that right wing conservatives have been attacking the right to vote for decades. It's not a surprise that they are continuing to try to undermine the ability of every single American to participate in a free and fair election. He said, we're not going to step back. We will continue to fight back. He told that to our colleague Annie Grayer just this morning in the aftermath. But can they fight back? It seems like that they are -- they are in a real jam here.

COATES: I mean, you're fighting against total illogical conclusions. I mean, you have Alito essentially arguing that there's been so much progress that a lot of these rules related to having race-based endeavors to get equality and voting are almost passe. I mean, my mother grew up in the segregated south. I'm only 45 years old. Thank you very much.

You have the idea of talking about how each of these things that are rolling back changes. Do you know how hard it is to get the finances to be able to go to court on an everyday litigation basis, let alone to go against the state for having redistrict in a way that takes away all of your power?

We know just by even what you were saying, Alayna, the Trump is well aware of the beauty of a voting block. It's called a six-three majority. And they have the ability to have a system in place that always guarantees a particular outcome that might be in line with what you want. Well, that's what democracy, in some respects, is denying to people who cannot be included within lines that are gerrymandered in a way that allows them to have power.

Now here is the rub of this, right? Part of the issue here has been people trying to use race as a way to correct what has been racially motivated to undermine, gerrymandering as a concept has always been antithetical to what people want when they want equality and voting. But the question here is, as a society, knowing how important it is that that race has been taken into account.

Is there really no mechanism in order to factor in what has been a deciding factor in the actual creation of these maps? Well, this court is telling you absolutely not, as if we all live in a sort of utopia world where race does not matter and is not seen, but there's a whole hell lot of red pens around districts saying, yes, it does. And as you know, full well, people authentically in the south are voting in line with a particular party based on their race. So, the intimation that it's just political is disingenuous.

[12:15:00]

RAJU: Yeah. Just a hugely impactful decision this morning. It's going to play out for years and years to come. And there are more coming up on our breaking news. Our next guest. Thanks, he can lose his seat in Congress depending on how Louisiana responds to this ruling. Plus, a live look at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifying right now before the House Armed Services Committee, for the first time since the war in Iran began. They continue to keep an eye on that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) RAJU: We're following breaking news on a landmark Supreme Court decision limiting the Voting Rights Act ahead of the midterm elections. My next guest called today's ruling quote, a devastating blow to the promise of equal representation in our democracy. That's Congressman Troy Carter, who represents the second congressional district in Louisiana, which was not the subject of this case, but could now end up caught in redistricting.

Congressman, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate your time. Do you think that your district could be gutted as a result of this ruling?

REP. TROY CARTER (D-LA): It's certainly possible. When you look at the infringement that we're recognizing from this 80-page ruling, it is quite possible that if the sixth congressional district was ruled unconstitutional, it potentially throws into the mix, a redrawing of the entire map, which would cause disruption across the state.

RAJU: And could that happen by this year's midterm elections?

CARTER: You know, the precedent has been set. If you recall four years ago, before Congressman Fields his map was created. Garret Graves map was deemed to be unconstitutional, but the map had gone too far, and it was too late. Supreme Court said, yes, it's unconstitutional, but it's too close to the election to impact. Therefore, it will happen in 2026. That gave birth to the sixth congressional district that's now held by Congress member Cleo Fields.

The same argument would hold true. Our elections have begun. Qualifying has ended. Early voting in my race begins on Saturday, just two days from now. So conventional wisdom and precedent demonstrates that it's too late for this year but probably going to be redrawn in the 2028 cycle.

RAJU: But have you heard if they're going to try, the Republicans will try to do it in this cycle, try to impact this cycle, even though early voting is about to begin? And have you heard it may happen this cycle?

CARTER: I have not. I have not. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's some attempt. But I think the math and the precedent, and we're prepared, obviously, to defend the reality that precedent has been set as it relates to the previous elections that they were too close to Election Day. And in fact, those were much further out than this election is.

RAJU: And Congressman Carter, one left leaning group, the black voters matter fund has projected a loss of up to 19 democratic seats with this ruling. So, what will this mean for your party, for the Democrats to be in the majority in the House?

CARTER: Well, the implications are grave, and it's grave because any time you have an attack on voting rights, on the will of the people. You act in accordance with an antidemocratic country. Listen, we have rules of engagement for a reason. All of this was fine until President Trump determined that he needed just a few more votes to maintain control of the House. Well, the public determines who controls the House through the electorate, not through mid-cycle reapportioning that manipulates the process to benefit one party or another --

RAJU: But do you think the --

CARTER: -- and the mix of this violates the rights of individuals?

RAJU: But sorry to interrupt. But do you think your party can actually be in the majority, be a majority party in the House under this opinion, if 19 seats are eliminated?

CARTER: Well, I think that it would obviously be very challenging, given the gravity of what's going on. Remember, this is a 80-page document. We're still reviewing the ramifications and all of the twists and turns with it. It obviously creates an obstacle because anything that attempts to dilute individual votes, particularly African, American votes, is an affront to our process.

Here we are in 2026 we should still not be fighting about equal protection under the law. We should still not be fighting about equal protection and equal rights to vote. Hence, the reason the first thing we need to do is to pass the John Robert Lewis' Voting Rights Act to make sure that we solidify and memorialize that every American has the right to vote.

RAJU: Yeah. And that's not moving anywhere, as you know, in the Republican med House. I do want to really ask you, Troy. I want you to read a part of the majority opinion, because this is what it says. Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority minority district, no compelling interest justify the state's use of race in creating SB8. The map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs' constitutional right. So, the court is saying that this is a violation of the constitution, which is why it ruled this way.

[12:25:00]

CARTER: Yes. And that's the ruling and we have to look deeper into the other parts of it. We know that Section 2, which was of grave concern, appears to have been survived the test and just has a narrow explanation or opportunity to defend against racial discrimination, improving racial discrimination. The reality is, any time you have an affront to voting rights period, it's an affront, particularly in the south. The south is quite different in our voting patterns than there are in other parts of the country as you all know.

RAJU: Yeah. I'm wondering, do you think that -- when the Voting Rights Act went into effect in 1965, there were just six black members of the House and zero black members in the south. Now there are 25 black representatives from the south. Do you think we could go back to the 1965 numbers after this decision?

CARTER: There are some who clearly want us to. There are some that clearly want to turn the clock back, to go back to what some may figure and consider the good old days where African Americans and other minorities did not have representation, where the House looked like a country club of old white men that did not have the type of diversity that the country now represents.

Yeah, I think there are some that would like to do that. But rest assured, we're going to fight with every fiber of who we are to uphold the tenets of the constitution, to uphold the voting rights and uphold everyone's right to vote for who they choose and not to be placed in a position where their votes are being attacked, as we've seen happen over the last several years.

RAJU: All right. Congressman Troy Carter from Louisiana and the news from today and he's saying that his district could be impacted here by this ruling. Thank you so much for taking the time and sharing your perspective. Really appreciate it.

CARTER: Thank you.

RAJU: And more on our other breaking news story. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth currently testifying on the Hill for the first time since the Iran war began. Secretary just told the Armed Services Committee the biggest adversary we currently face are the quote, defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:30:00]