Share This Podcast

• Check out Strict Scrutiny – https://tinyurl.com/7dfbhmc5
• Call Congress – 202-224-3121
• Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy
• What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast

Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/

TRANSCRIPT

Jane Coaston: It’s Thursday, April 30th, I’m Jane Coaston, and this is What a Day, the show watching Arizona Republican Representative Abraham Hamadeh give Secretary of War Pete Hegseth a remarkably bad idea. 

[clip of Representative Abraham Hamadeh] I would love for President Trump’s Truth Social posts to be leaf-letted all over Iran, to be honest with you. I think that would encourage them to actually take to the streets. 

Jane Coaston: I have to assume he doesn’t mean the a whole civilization will die tonight post. [music break] On today’s show, Hegseth gets grilled over how poorly his war with Iran is going. And Jerome Powell stands up to the Trump administration, again. But let’s start with the Supreme Court of the United States, which is rarely a good sign. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down a 2024 Louisiana map that created a second majority Black voting district. The map was drawn after Black voters challenged the state’s existing districts. Which only included one majority Black voting district, despite the fact that Black Louisianans make up one-third of the state. But in a 6-3 decision, the court found that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not give states the ability to create voting districts specifically based on race, in effect turning past understanding of section 2 on its head. So it comes as no surprise that President Donald Trump was locked in on the historic ruling when asked about it in the Oval Office on Wednesday. Locked in. 

[clip of unnamed news reporter] Mr. President, in light of today’s Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, do you want Republican states in the South to look at redrawing congressional districts before the midterms?

[clip of President Donald Trump] I don’t know you’ll have to tell me, when did the ruling come out? I’ve been with the astronauts. I’ve been with contractors because we’re trying to get the ballroom built–

[clip of unnamed news reporter] Yeah. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] Ahead of schedule. It’s right on schedule. It’s ahead of schedule now. I want to keep it that way. 

[clip of unnamed news reporter] The ruling came out today. [?]

[clip of President Donald Trump] And I was also with commissioning uh some people, but one of, you know, David Warrington’s son. I don’t know. You know David. Everybody knows David. He’s got this incredible son. So he was just sworn in. So we had other things. Tell me about the uh the what happened? 

[clip of unnamed news reporter] Well. 

Jane Coaston: David Warrington is White House counsel, FYI, because I’m sure you were wondering. So Wednesday’s ruling did not outright overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but Justice Elena Kagan argued that it had done so in all but deed. Quote, “under the court’s new view of Section 2, a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power.” I am not an attorney, but I am a voter. I’m the grandchild of Black woman born in the rural south before the Voting Rights Act, when Black voters were required to take literacy tests or oral examinations before being permitted to register. So I want to know, what does this mean for future Black voters, for Asian, Hispanic, and other minority voters, for redistricting, for America? No pressure. To find out, I spoke to Leah Litman. She’s a professor at the University of Michigan and co-host of Crooked Media’s Strict Scrutiny. Leah, welcome back to What a Day. 

Leah Litman: Thanks for having me. 

Jane Coaston: The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the Voting Rights Act. But it’s claiming the VRA is still in place and that everything’s fine. There’s a major discrepancy in reading the opinions between what Sam Alito says and what Elena Kagan says. Can you explain the court’s decision? 

Leah Litman: Sure. So just on that, who are you going to believe? Sam Alito or your lying eyes? Um. I’d choose, you know, obviously, my lying eyes. So the court basically today dismantled what remains of the Voting Rights Act, nullifying the Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial discrimination in districting. It made it all but impossible to establish a violation of the voting rights act. At least in a world where there is racially polarized voting, which of course is our world. 

Jane Coaston: Can you tell us a little bit, like, where does the Voting Rights Act come from, what is it supposed to do, and who is it intended to protect? 

Leah Litman: The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 um in the wake of Bloody Sunday, you know, the march, the demonstration um in Selma when voting rights protesters and demonstrators were met with vicious violence from segregationists in the South. And the act, as initially passed, had two key components. One was the pre-clearance process, which required certain states with especially egregious histories of racial discrimination and voting to get the federal government’s permission before changing their voting laws or policies. And the other was section two, which is the nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting. Congress has repeatedly reauthorized and expanded the Voting Rights Act, including most recently in 2006, with broad bipartisan support. And on section two specifically, the ban on discrimination and voting, Congress amended and expanded the Voting Rights Act to prohibit not just intentional discrimination, but also laws or policies that have the effect of disadvantaging voters based on their race. So the Voting Rights Act was supposed to and did for a time turn the country into a multiracial democracy. It was designed to ensure states did not create laws or policies that locked voters of color out of power. 

Jane Coaston: So, something that gets me about the majority opinion in this case is that Samuel Alito essentially argues like, no, no, no. This isn’t about race. This is about politics. This is you know it just so happens that most white people in Louisiana want to vote for Republicans and most Black people in Louisiana wanna vote for Democrats. Now, how that could have anything to do with racial discrimination is left to the imagination. Is that something that we’re seeing more of where the argument is being made that this is not about racial discrimination but some sort of political sorting? 

Leah Litman: We are increasingly seeing that argument, in part because the Supreme Court has embraced and indulged that argument. Basically, what the Supreme court has said is, so long as state legislatures come forward and say, oh, we drew these districts in order to secure partisan advantage, in order to advantage the Republican Party, then who cares if the districts have the effect of locking Black voters out of power. Basically they are excusing racial gerrymandering in a world where there is racially polarized voting. So long as race correlates with party, Justice Alito and the other Republican appointees have said it’s totally fine, complies with the Voting Rights Act if you write a set of rules that dilute the voting power of racial minorities. And they’ve reached this anti-Democratic result on the basis of their previous anti-Democratic decision. Which said federal courts can’t do anything to fix those partisan gerrymanders where legislatures are drawing districts in order to advantage one political party and disadvantage the other. So the Supreme Court has really exacerbated and accelerated the partisan gerrymandering wars and has basically allowed partisan gerrymandering to cannibalize the protections against racial discrimination in voting. 

Jane Coaston: We’re going to talk more about gerrymandering in just a second, but I’m reminded of how before the Voting Rights Act, you had states across the South where technically Black voters could vote, if their grandfathers could vote or if they could pass a test like answering how many windows are in the governor’s mansion. Tests that technically a white person could also fail, but just so happen to be made so that typically African-Americans were pushed out of the ballot box. It’s interesting to see that correlation now where it’s not technically about race, but it’s about race. And we know it is. But to discuss redistricting, there are redistricting efforts going on across the country, Washington, Florida, California, you name it. And then in the hours after this decision came down, we saw Tennessee Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn ask state lawmakers to redraw Tennessee’s map and add another Republican seat in the House. Which would take away the only blue house seat in the state. So moving forward, how will this ruling affect these redistricting fights that are in limbo right now? 

Leah Litman: So in the short term, it’s not entirely clear how many they will affect because it would require states to draw new districts potentially that are supposed to go into effect before the 2026 midterms. And in a lot of places, you know candidates have declared their candidacy, and so they might be partially underway in a way that doesn’t allow the state to write a new set of rules right now. But going forward, it’s extremely likely that this decision will allow states to engage in additional rounds of redistricting and draw a new set of maps that erases the districts where minority voters, where voters of color actually had political opportunities, where they had the political power to select representatives. The precise estimate as far as how many districts this might affect, a little unclear. The lawyer for the Trump administration, which of course was arguing in support of eviscerating the Voting Rights Act suggested maybe this could eliminate Voting Rights Act protections for like 15 or so districts in Congress. A professor at Harvard Law School estimated, no, the number is actually closer to 70. And that doesn’t even count the number of state and local political offices that were protected by the Voting Rights Act. So you know, on the slightly longer horizon, you know this decision is going to have sweeping and substantial effects as far as what our multi-racial democracy looks like, whether it is a multi-racial democracy and who gets to have political power. 

Jane Coaston: I mean, I want to be blunt, who does this impact most? 

Leah Litman: It allows white Republican voters to essentially write a set of rules that lock themselves in power. And it allows them to lock out of power, Black voters, Hispanic voters, other voters of color. And disadvantage the Democratic Party, because basically what the opinion says is, oh, racial minorities, you can have your voting rights, you can have your voting rights act districts, as long as you vote Republican. Like that is the upshot of this decision. 

Jane Coaston: Leah, as always thank you so much for joining me. 

Leah Litman: And no thanks to Sam Alito. 

Jane Coaston: Never thanks to Samuel Alito. That was my conversation with Leah Litman, professor at the University of Michigan and co-host of Crooked Media’s Strict Scrutiny. There’s still more news to come, and mercifully, Clarence Thomas isn’t involved. If you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. [music break]

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: Here’s what else we’re following today. 

[sung] Headlines. 

Jane Coaston: Joining me is Crooked’s news editor, Greg Walters, to talk about the big stories. Hey, Greg. 

Greg Walters: Hello, Jane. 

Jane Coaston: Greg, the war in Iran is not going great. We’ve gone from the goal of regime change when the war began to Trump saying on Wednesday that Iran has to say, quote, “we give up.” Also on Wednesday, Secretary of War/little boy, Pete Hegseth spent the morning yelling at members of the House Armed Services Committee as they asked him basic questions.

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 1] Do you know how much it will cost Americans in terms of their increased cost in gas and food over the next year because of the Iran war? 

[clip of Pete Hegseth] I would simply ask you what the cost is of an Iranian Nuclear bomb. 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 1] No no, I’m going to give you that opportunity.

[clip of Pete Hegseth] I would simply ask you what the, you’re playing gotcha questions about domestic things. 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 1] Sir, sir, not it’s not–

[clip of Pete Hegseth] I’m not. 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 1] You’re asking you’re saying it’s a gotcha question to ask what it’s going to be in terms of the increase? [?]

[clip of Pete Hegseth] Why won’t you answer what it costs to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 1] I give you that.

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 2] How many more months, just order of magnitude, do you think that you’re going to need to be able to conclude operations successfully? And how many more billions of dollars do you think you’re gonna ask this body for? 

[clip of Pete Hegseth] Well, as you know, and as the president has stated, you would never tell your adversary, especially once you’ve– 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 2] Sir, I recognize that is the line that you always do. 

[clip of Pete Hegseth] Especially once you’ve–

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 2] But give me an order of action. 

[clip of Pete Hegseth] –decimated their military and you control their trade. 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 2] Three [?], four [?]?

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 3] How much has Iran profited from your administration lifting the sanctions on Iran when you started this war? 

[clip of Pete Hegseth] I can tell you, Iran is financially devastated right now. 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 3] Okay, well if–

[clip of Pete Hegseth] In conjunction with the Treasury and–

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 3] –they’ve earned about 14 billion dollars. 

[clip of Pete Hegseth] Operation Economic Fury, they’re at a point where between the blockade–

Jane Coaston: Economic Fury?

[clip of Pete Hegseth] And what we’ve done to them militarily, remember they don’t have a Navy, they can’t contest the blockade. 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 3] Okay. 

[clip of Pete Hegseth] Between what we’ve done to them military and financially. 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 3] Well what kind of a Navy can they buy for 14 billion dollars? 

[clip of Pete Hegseth] They’re at a place uh where they have very few options. 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 3] How many Chinese missiles can they buy for $14 billion? Does that sound like winning? 

[clip of Pete Hegseth] They’re not. We’re ensuring and they’re not buying Chinese missiles. 

[clip of House Armed Services Committee member 3] Okay. 

Greg Walters: Jane, that appearance went about as well as this war has been going. Uh. The Pentagon is now saying that this conflict has cost $25 billion so far, which is the entire annual budget of NASA for this year, or more than the entire annual economic output of Jamaica. And don’t get me started on what we could do with that money if we spent it on child care, health care, the homeless, hospitals. Like we’re now about nine weeks into Trump’s four to six week war and oil prices keep rising while the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane remains shut. There’s even a new joke about this on Wall Street, Jane. 

Jane Coaston: Oh yeah, I love a good finance joke, as long as it doesn’t involve math. I would love to hear it. 

Greg Walters: Okay, so you’ve heard of TACO, right? 

Jane Coaston: Sure. It stands for Trump Always Chickens Out, which means investors can bet that Trump won’t follow through on his dumbest ideas, which is unnerving, but for different reasons. 

Greg Walters: Well, they’ve got a new one, NACHO, not a chance Hormuz opens. 

Jane Coaston: See, Greg, that’s funny because earlier this month, a Fox News host tried to start a new pro-Trump Mexican-themed food acronym, also nacho, but it stands for Never Avoids Confronting Hard Obstacles. Looks like that didn’t take. 

Greg Walters: You know, at this rate, Jane, we’re gonna be sitting here in 2028 trying to think of acronyms for guacamole and chilaquiles to describe all the dumb stuff Trump wants to do. It’s like an entire menu, each with like an idiotic Trump policy. 

Jane Coaston: Speaking of spicy and idiotic news, Jerome Powell is not backing down in his feud with Trump. Today, Powell said he’s going to stay on at the Federal Reserve as governor once his tenure as chair ends in the middle of May. 

[clip of Jerome Powell] You know, my concern is really about the series of legal attacks on the Fed, which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors. But these legal actions by the administration are unprecedented in our 113-year history, and there are ongoing threats of additional such actions. I worry that these attacks are battering the institution. After my term as chair ends on May 15, I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time to be determined. I plan to keep a low profile as a governor. 

Jane Coaston: It seems like the more pressure Trump puts on Powell, the more he piles on the flimsy investigations and brazen lawsuits and keeps yelling about how Powell is too late, the harder Powell is digging in, which makes sense to me because that’s what I would do. 

Greg Walters: Right, I wasn’t used to thinking of the Federal Reserve as like a bastion of anti-authoritarian resistance, but here we are. 

Jane Coaston: Federal Reserve, fight the power. 

Greg Walters: It’s worth remembering what’s at stake here. Trump wants to jam down interest rates in order to juice near-term economic growth and stock prices. And one reason you don’t do that is because it could unleash inflation. Powell kept rates steady today, and Trump hates that because it’s responsible and boring. 

Jane Coaston: Yeah, Trump would rather be like, fuck it, let’s ball with really low interest rates as long as I benefit personally. 

Greg Walters: Exactly, I mean, this is the hold my beer presidency, or the like, let me into the cockpit to show you how to fly this thing presidency. And then the next thing you know, the passengers and crew are all stuck to the ceiling while we hit Mach 2, headed straight for the Grand Tetons. 

Jane Coaston: Actually, I’m glad you brought up planes, even though that metaphor scares me, because we need to talk about the robots at Japanese airports. 

[clip of unnamed news reporter 2] Japan Airlines testing humanoid robots at an airport in Tokyo starting next month. The bots are designed to move baggage and cargo. These robots can operate for a few hours before needing a recharge. Humans will still handle the critical safety jobs, but these humanoids will do the heavy lifting at least when it comes to your checked item. 

Jane Coaston: For those who can’t see the video on YouTube, we’ve got people-shaped robots putting bags into planes, and I have questions. 

Greg Walters: Yeah, I can’t decide if this is Star Wars or the Jetsons. Like, am I nervous about this or amused? 

Jane Coaston: Yeah, like, there’s a thin line to me between C-3PO and the Terminator. I don’t like it. As you know, I do not like humanoid robots because they will probably turn against us. But you’ll never turn against me, Greg. 

Greg Walters: Not until I’m programmed to, Jane. 

Jane Coaston: Comforting. And that’s the news. [music break] 

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: That’s all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, enjoy Elon Musk’s incredibly uncomfortable time in the witness box in his trial against OpenAI, and tell your friends to listen. And if you’re into reading, and not just about how the trial pits Musk against Open AI CEO Sam Altman in a battle between two remarkably unlikable people with too much money, like me, What a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at crooked.com/subscribe. I’m Jane Coaston. And just to give you a taste of how truly weird this trial is, on Tuesday, when Musk was first asked who Shivon Zilis was, Musk identified her as his chief of staff. On Wednesday, Musk clarified, she is also his partner and mother of four of his 14 children. Normal [music break] What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. Our show is produced by Caitlin Plummer, Emily Fohr, Erica Morrison, and Adriene Hill. Our team includes Hayley Jones, Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Joseph Dutra, Johanna Case, and Desmond Taylor. Our music is by Kyle Murdock and Jordan Cantor. We had help today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. [music break]