Share This Podcast

• Check out Rick’s blog – https://electionlawblog.org/
• Call Congress – 202-224-3121
• Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8
• What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast

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

TRANSCRIPT

Jane Coaston: It’s Wednesday, August 6th, I’m Jane Coaston, and this is What a Day, the show enjoying another episode of A Republican Town Hall Goes Horribly Wrong. Here’s Nebraska Republican Representative Mike Flood finding out just how his constituents feel about President Donald Trump’s big, beautiful law gutting Medicaid. 

[clip of Representative Mike Flood] And more than anything, I truly believe this bill protects Medicaid for the future. [sound of crowd booing]

Jane Coaston: You’re doing great, sweetie. [music break] On today’s show, Trump signs an executive order establishing a task force on the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, and Rwanda becomes the third African nation to agree to take in US deportees. But let’s start by talking about the Voting Rights Act, which turned 60 today. The Voting rights act of 1965 was passed at the peak of the civil rights movement. It was aimed at ensuring that the constitutional right to vote could actually be enjoyed by actual Black Americans. Before its passage, millions of them were subject to bullshit voting tests that kept them out of the voting booth and out of political power. And when I say bullshit voting tests, I mean like literacy tests, moral character tests, or the so-called grandfather clause, which helped ensure that no one whose grandfather couldn’t vote, say, because they were slaves, would be able to do so themselves. The Voting Rights Act ended that, but now it’s at risk. Or at least what’s left of it. About a decade ago, the Supreme Court gutted one key pillar of the Voting Rights Act. And now it’s facing a second major challenge, which ties back to our new favorite word, redistricting. We’ve been talking a lot about redistricting on the show lately. As of our recording time, Tuesday night Eastern, Texas Democrats are still in Illinois and New York to prevent Republicans from pushing through new congressional maps that would help Trump in next year’s midterms. That’s despite threats from Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott to have them arrested. And Trump saying that the FBI, quote, “may have to help round them up.” But now redistricting fever has hit California, Missouri, Maryland, and Indiana as red and blue states alike contemplate redrawing congressional maps to make sure their party stays winning. But back to the Voting Rights Act. On Friday, the Supreme Court asked for briefs from opposing parties in the Louisiana case centered on the creation of a second congressional district that would likely be majority Black. This is a long running debate, but the TLDR is that the new district is the result of a lawsuit, but then that district is being challenged by quote, “non-African-American voters” for violating the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. Basically, a map created to ensure that Black voters have electoral power in a state where roughly a third of all residents are Black is being challenge by non-Black voters who are arguing the map is racist. I know, it’s a lot. So, to explain this case, the Voting Rights Act, and why some of your favorite legal experts are very anxious right now, I spoke to Rick Hasen. He’s an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. Rick, welcome to What a day! 

Rick Hasen: Great to be with you. 

Jane Coaston: So, on this anniversary, since many people have the memories of goldfish, can you remind us why the Voting Rights Act was so significant in 1965 and what it was able to achieve? Something I’ve been thinking about is um, you know, my grandfather, African-American, born in Mississippi in 1920, um he would be subject to grandfather clauses that would make him uneligible to vote because his grandfather couldn’t. That ends with the Votting Rights Act. But can you tell us a little bit more about the legislation? 

Rick Hasen: Well, let’s talk about Mississippi. In Mississippi, before the Voting Rights Act, the rate of African-American voter registration was 6.7%. I mean, that is abysmally low by any standard, it was the lowest in the country. And after the Votting Rights Act within four years, that number was over 50% and kept growing. And so Voting Rights Act in 1965 required federal registrars to be allowed to come in and register voters. Federal examiners to make sure that voting was being conducted right. And one of the most important things it did, it said, if you’re a state with a history of race discrimination in voting, you’ve got to get federal approval before you make changes in your voting rules so you don’t make things worse off. So that was a really good start in 1965. 

Jane Coaston: Now, despite its landmark status, the Voting Rights Act has taken a lot of hits in the past decade or so since the Supreme Court struck down something called the pre-clearance process. What was that case and how has that changed voting laws around the country? 

Rick Hasen: So that preclearance is exactly what I mentioned about getting federal approval of voting changes. The idea is you if you’re a state like Texas and you want to redistrict, you have to draw new districts for your voters, you had to go to the Department of Justice or to a federal court and show that the change wouldn’t make minority voters worse off. And so this stopped the most egregious bad things from happening. And the court repeatedly upheld this as constitutional, even though it was a big infringement on state sovereignty. So in 2013, the very conservative Roberts Court came up with a ruling that said that even though it used to be constitutional, it’s no longer constitutional. And the reason it was no longer constitutional, the court said, is because the states that were picked for coverage under this pre-clearance provision, were picked based on data that went back to the 1960s and ’70s. That’s too old, you need to show a current problem in order to justify this law, to which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent said, yeah, that’s like putting away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you’re not getting wet. That is, you know, if uh you don’t know how much you’re getting protected by this until you actually lose it. And now we know it made a difference. 

Jane Coaston: Now it appears that one of the remaining protections for voters, Section 2, will again be challenged in court. Before we get to the latest, can you remind me what Section 2 is and how it’s supposed to apply in redistricting cases. 

Rick Hasen: So back in 1965, when section two of the Voting Rights Act was included, there was a section two, but it basically just restated the 15th Amendment. That’s the amendment that came after the Civil War that said that you can’t have race discrimination in voting, it didn’t guarantee anyone the right to vote, but said, if you’re gonna hold an election, you can discriminate on the basis of race. Well, that provision wasn’t well enforced by the Supreme Court. The Voting Rights act started us on the road of helping, but It wasn’t enough. And in 1980, the Supreme Court said, yeah, you know, uh we’re not gonna make things better under the Voting Rights Act. We’re just gonna make sure they don’t get worse in those states with this history of discrimination. So Congress responded to a 1980 case called City of Mobile, in Alabama versus Bolden, and said, we’re gonna say that the Voting Rights Act is gonna protect minority voters and ensure that they have the same opportunity as other voters to participate in the political process. And to elect representatives of their choice. That’s kind of murky language, but in a 1986 case called Jingles versus Thornburg, the Supreme Court said, here’s how it applies to redistricting. If you’ve got racially polarized voting, whites voting for one set of candidates, and minority voters voting for another, and the minority group is large enough you could draw a district in which they’d have a fair chance to elect their candidate of choice, you’ve gotta give that chance to the minority voters. And so that is what section two has required. The Supreme Court has enforced it since 1986. It reaffirmed it most recently a couple of years ago in another case out of Alabama called Milligan. 

Jane Coaston: So, as you mentioned, Section 2 has been argued before the Supreme Court before, but this latest case involves a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map. The court first heard arguments in March, but then punted a decision to next term briefly. If you can, what is this case about? Because as far as I can tell, it’s about maps and people saying that doing something good for Black people is secretly racist. 

Rick Hasen: Well, that’s probably a good shorthand of the, the legal uh case is quite complex. So basically, Louisiana has six congressional districts. In the past, one of those six was drawn to give Black voters a chance to elect their candidate of choice. There was a lawsuit after the latest round of redistricting that said, you’ve got to draw two, because there are many Black voters who are not being represented in that one district, and you can draw another one. And whites and Blacks still prefer different candidates. And so Louisiana, kicking and screaming, drew a second district. And then that drew another lawsuit. And that lawsuit claimed that drawing that second district was unconstitutional. How could it be unconstitutional? Because the Supreme Court has said since the 1990s that when you take race into account too much, when you make it the predominant factor in drawing districts and you don’t have a compelling reason to do so, then that violates the equal protection clause. And so what we thought the case was about when it was argued back in March was what was the predominate factor that Louisiana was relying on when it drew that second district? Was it race? In which case you’d have to have a compelling reason to draw these lines or was it really about politics? So we thought it was gonna be just another one of these racial gerrymandering cases, but the Supreme Court, last Friday, after five o’clock in the beginning of August, I mean, if you really wanna hide something, that’s the time to do it, they issued this very opaque order where they said, here’s what we wanna hear in re-arguments of this case next year. Assuming that, these are not the court’s words, but my words, assuming that race was what predominated in drawing that second district, is doing that to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act now unconstitutional? In other words, race-conscious districting itself violates the Constitution, which would mean that Section 2 is either partially or totally unconstitutional. They never mentioned Section 2. They never say the word Voting rights Act. But they obliquely point to some pages in one of the briefs that argue, you can’t use the Voting Rights Act to justify taking race into account in drawing districts in this way. 

Jane Coaston: So a statute that is supposed to protect the rights of minority voters is being argued before the Supreme Court because the plaintiffs say that doing so, protecting the rights of minority voters, violates the Equal Protection Clause, and is racist. 

Rick Hasen: Yes, I think I hear in your voice a sense of irony and it’s one that I share. 

Jane Coaston: Okay so you described that this move last Friday, you know, at the, when you want to release bad news time, that move, you said it was, quote, “deeply disturbing.” Why does it have you worried? 

Rick Hasen: Well, you know the court that decided Shelby County versus Holder, the case that killed off one of the two big pillars of the Voting Rights Act, was less conservative and less radical than the current court. In that last Alabama case that I mentioned from a couple of years ago called Allen versus Milligan, where the Supreme Court said that Alabama had to draw another Black congressional district, it was a five to four decision and Justice Kavanaugh, who was one of the two conservatives who sided with the three liberals on the court in in upholding the decision to require the drawing of this majority minority district in Alabama. Justice Kavanaugh said, you know, this isn’t the case but I’d love to hear some arguments about whether time’s up for section two as well. And so he’s probably decided now’s the time to hear those arguments just before we get into a midterm elections I think that there’s a fair chance we don’t know, but there’s a fair chance that the court strikes down Section 2 or more likely could kill Section 2 by a thousand cuts. They’ve already started to do that, but they could make it effectively um inoperable without actually saying we’re overruling Section 2 and try and avoid the wrath of the voters. I think, and I said it in my Slate piece, we could see a new civil rights movement emerge out of this. If the Supreme Court knocks down both major pillars of the Voting Rights Act really, what is the court but somewhat at war with American democracy itself? We can’t expect the Supreme Court’s going to save us. The Supreme Court has almost never been the leader on voting rights. It’s going have to come from the people. And it may mean constitutional amendments. It may mean, you know, a new civil rights movement. But I think things are going to have to come to a head because the current situation where the Supreme Court is siding against the voter is simply unsustainable for a democracy. 

Jane Coaston: Rick, thank you so much for your time. 

Rick Hasen: It’s been a pleasure talking to you. I wish we could have talked about something a little more uplifting. 

Jane Coaston: Me too. That was my conversation with Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. We’ll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, 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. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] The United States is fully prepared to welcome the world to Los Angeles for the 2028 Summer Olympic Games. Very exciting day of my life when we got nominated and we ultimately got it. And I didn’t think I’d be here for the games in this capacity, but it worked out that way. So I’m very happy about that. 

Jane Coaston: Speak for yourself. At some point after President Trump gallivanted on the roof of the White House Tuesday, he came down to sign an executive order establishing an official task force on the 2028 Summer Olympics. The games will be held in Los Angeles, the first Olympics to be hosted by the U.S. since the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Trump said the task force would make sure the games are safe and successful. During the signing Tuesday, Trump also praised Gene Sykes, the chair of the U. S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee Board of Directors, for the committee’s move to effectively bar transgender women from competing in women’s sports. But for some reason that accomplishment or accomplishment didn’t receive the hurrahs Trump was hoping for. Aww.

[clip of President Donald Trump] It’s amazing that we don’t hear any applause for that when everyone feels it. [sound of light applause] It’s a 97, don’t worry about it. That’s a 973, it’s not 80-20, it is 97-3. But nobody wants to clap, it’s crazy. The United States will not let men steal trophies from women at the 2028 Olympics. 

Jane Coaston: Go fuck yourself. According to the White House, the task force will work with federal, state, and local partners to manage security, transportation, and entry-exit processes for the games. Trump will, of course, chair the taskforce. And Vice President J.D. Vance will be vice chair. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is weighing plans to fully occupy the Gaza Strip, according to reports from multiple news outlets. We’re taping this at 8 p.m. Eastern. This is a very fluid story, so things may have changed by the time you’re hearing this. But on Tuesday, Netanyahu met with top security and defense officials to talk about the war. A statement issued by the prime minister’s office said the Israel Defense Force’s chief of staff presented him with, quote, “options for proceeding with the campaign in Gaza.” The statement continued, quote, “the IDF is prepared to carry out any decision made by the Security Cabinet.” During his press conference on the Olympics Tuesday, President Trump sidestepped a question about whether he’d support a full occupation of Gaza. He said he wasn’t aware of the quote, “suggestion,” and insisted he was focused on getting aid into the territory. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] So that’s what I’m focused on. As far as the rest of it, I really I really can’t say. That’s going to be pretty much up to Israel. 

Jane Coaston: If Netanyahu does order the full occupation of Gaza, it would be a massive escalation in the war, at a time when Israel’s government is facing mounting domestic pressure to reach a ceasefire with Hamas and return the remaining 20 hostages who are believed to still be alive. It’s also facing international fury over a growing starvation crisis in Gaza. Israel already controls around three-quarters of the territory. It’s unclear where Gaza’s two million people would go, since Israel has also mostly sealed its borders. Rwanda has become the third African country to accept US deportees as part of the Trump administration’s plan to send people, really, wherever the hell it wants, no matter where they’re originally from. A spokesperson for the Rwandan government said the country would accept up to 250 people and all the details are still being worked out. She said Rwanda would have, quote, “the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement.” South Sudan and Eswatani have also agreed to accept US deportees. Already a combined 13 men who the U.S. described as dangerous criminals in the country illegally have been deported. Neither country has given any details about its agreements with the Trump administration, which is suspicious. The state department said the US quote, “works with Rwanda on a range of mutual priorities,” but it did not directly comment on details of the deportation deal. This is somewhat familiar territory for Rwanda. Three years ago, it struck a deal with the United Kingdom to accept asylum seekers and got a ton of backlash for it. The current UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, spiked his predecessor’s plan when his Labor Party took over the government last year. A federal judge in Boston blocked the Trump administration from reallocating billions of dollars meant to help communities protect themselves against natural disasters. The judge granted a preliminary injunction Tuesday sought by 20 Democrat-led states as their lawsuit continues. Those states include the usual suspects. You guessed it, California, New York, and Massachusetts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency initially announced it was ending the $4 billion program in April. But it later said in a court filing that it was just evaluating it. Hmm. The state’s lawsuit says any attempt to redirect the funding would run afoul of the Constitution because it was already allocated by Congress. But what else is new? In his ruling, the judge said he was not convinced Congress had given FEMA any discretion to redirect funds. And that’s the news. [music break] One more thing, let’s talk about the Jeffrey Epstein case because a lot has happened over the past few days. Last week, Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s partner and co-conspirator was moved from a Florida prison to a minimum security facility in Texas where her new neighbors include disgraced Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes and Real Housewives of Salt Lake City glass thrower and convicted fraudster Jen Shaw. The move came after Maxwell who is pursuing an appeal of her case, met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, AKA Trump’s personal attorney until his recent promotion, for nine hours over two days in July to talk about, well, we don’t know. The Justice Department is reportedly debating whether to release the transcript of their conversation. But in another episode of a continuing series I’m calling, why is he being so fucking weird about this? President Trump said Tuesday that whatever Blanche asked, he’s sure it’s fine. As long as he focused on the most important question. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] That uh whatever he asked would be totally appropriate and it’s not an uncommon thing to do that and I think he probably wants to make sure that you know people that should not be involved or aren’t involved or not hurt by something that would be very very unfortunate very unfair to a lot of people. 

Jane Coaston: People who should not be involved. Hmm. Also on Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice to release documents related to Epstein. And they sent subpoena to ten individuals, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey to compel them to testify about what they knew about Epstein and the case against him. But one person who didn’t get a subpoena was Trump’s former Treasury Secretary, Alex Acosta, which is weird. See, back when Acosta was a Florida prosecutor in 2008, he’s the one who signed off on a deal with Epstein that let him serve minimal jail time and ended an investigation into his alleged sex trafficking. Epstein could have gotten a life sentence for the crimes he was accused of, but instead he got 13 months in a work release program, had to pay fines, and register as a sex offender. I think it’s worth mentioning that Acosta is now a member of the board of directors for Newsmax, the television network for people who think Fox News is too woke. And on Friday, Newsmax host Greg Kelly sure had a fascinating take on Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman who the DOJ says sexually abused dozens of women and girls herself and with Epstein. 

[clip of Newsmax host Greg Kelly] But that doesn’t mean that Ghislaine Maxwell is guilty. And there was a hell of a lot of evidence out there that she’s innocent, and a hell of a lot of evidence that they railroaded her. Part of a deep state media hysterical plot. 

Jane Coaston: No, there isn’t evidence of that. There is tons of evidence, particularly from her victims, that Maxwell was a sexual abuser who groomed girls as young as 14 to perform sex acts with Epstein and herself. And based on this clip, and others, there’s also evidence that Greg Kelly is prone to acting like an asshole. Anyway, despite Trump’s most desperate dreams, this case isn’t going away. [music break] 

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: That’s all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, don’t take a morning stroll on the roof of your house, and tell your friends to listen. And if you’re into reading and not just about how the President of the United States, a 79-year-old man, spent his mornings shouting at reporters from the roof of the White House, like me, What a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at Crooked.com/subscribe. I’m Jane Coaston and check on the seniors in your life. Make sure they’re not taking a walk on the roof, even if they’re Donald Trump. [music break] What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It’s recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily Fohr. Our producer is Michell Eloy. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Gina Pollock, and Laura Newcomb. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adriene Hill. We had help with the headlines from the Associated Press. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. [music break]

[AD BREAK]