www.newsbusters.org
PBS Throws Left Hook: 'GOP-led Redistricting Efforts May Disenfranchise Black Voters'
The Supreme Court seems set to use a case regarding a map laying out U.S. House of Representatives districts in Louisiana to overturn Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which would end the practice of racial gerrymandering -- majority-black districts carved out in a way that all but guarantees Democratic representation.
Section 2 of the VRA forbid voting qualifications that denied the right of black citizens to vote, but has burgeoned into the assumption that black Democrats have a right to see their preferred candidate win House seats, giving one political party a huge built-in advantage in the race for political control. The argument isn’t about voting rights, but about how Section 2 has been abused to preserve partisan advantage for Democrats in the House of Representatives, especially with the 2026 mid-term congressional elections approaching.
Monday’s PBS News Hour segment on the controversy came with the irresponsible online headline “How GOP-led redistricting efforts may disenfranchise Black voters.” That history-laden word “disenfranchise,” redolent of poll taxes and Jim Crow, didn’t come up during the actual segment, suggesting a headline writer with his left thumb on the scale. The only guest for the segment was from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which did not suggest an attempt at ideological balance.
Co-anchor Geoff Bennett: Republican lawmakers in North Carolina moved forward with a proposal today to redraw their state's congressional map in a way that would eliminate its only swing district. The mid-decade redistricting is part of a nationwide push by President Trump and his Republican allies to help the GOP maintain control of Congress in next year's elections, often through maps that have the effect of diluting Black political power and diminishing the voting strength of communities of color. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared willing to issue a ruling that could further that effort during arguments in a Louisiana redistricting case.
Bennett hosted NAACP Legal Defense Fund president Janai Nelson, who argued the case before the Supreme Court “in defense of Louisiana voters” and the state’s current two majority-Black districts.
Nelson: So, Section 2 is part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's a permanent provision of that act. And it basically says that there's no voting practice, procedure, qualification, anything having to do with voting that can abridge the right to vote, so deny it or dilute it or harm it in any way, minimize it, on account of race.
But there is a difference between a right to the franchise and a right for your preferred (Democratic) candidate to triumph, which is how racial gerrymandering under Section 2 has worked.
Bennett asked about plans by Republicans in North Carolina “to effectively oust one of the state's three Black members of Congress by carving up an area of Eastern North Carolina in this congressional map.” [As always, PBS capitalizes “Black” but not “white” in transcripts.]
Rep. Don Davis won the First District election in 2024 with 52.4 percent of the vote. Only 39 percent of the population in that district is black.
Nelson argued: "I can't imagine how this map in North Carolina can achieve its partisan goals lawfully in the way that they're trying to do it now without violating the rights of Black voters."
Bennett offered only a mild riposte. "And is that what you would say to people who say, look, the Voting Rights Act has outlived its purpose, the conditions that existed in 1965 no longer exist today?"
Nelson claimed Section 2 was relevant today, based on ongoing “discrimination” in some states, and was “sadly, still current, still rampant, and still contaminating our democracy and our electoral processes.”
Even good news for black turnout was turned around in Bennett’s telling.
Bennett: There are people who point to the fact that Black turnout has actually improved in recent elections. How do those turnout numbers obscure what folks might see as inequities in access and representation when it comes to voting?
Then came the un-journalistic fawning over a liberal guest, a regular habit on PBS.
Bennett: Janai, I see the late Justice Thurgood Marshall there in a picture over your shoulder. Can I ask you, what did it feel like to follow in his footsteps and argue a major voting rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court?
A transcript is available, click "Expand."
PBS News Hour
10/20/25
7:23:44 p.m. (ET)
Geoff Bennett: Republican lawmakers in North Carolina moved forward with a proposal today to redraw their state's congressional map in a way that would eliminate its only swing district.
The mid-decade redistricting is part of a nationwide push by President Trump and his Republican allies to help the GOP maintain control of Congress in next year's elections, often through maps that have the effect of diluting Black political power and diminishing the voting strength of communities of color.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared willing to issue a ruling that could further that effort during arguments in a Louisiana redistricting case.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund president Janai Nelson argued the case before the court in defense of Louisiana voters, and she joins us now.
Thanks for being with us.
Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund: Thank you. Happy to be here.
Geoff Bennett: So what was the main argument you presented before the court in defense of the existing Louisiana map that includes two majority-Black districts? What did you want the justices to understand about the stakes?
Janai Nelson: Well, I wanted the justices to understand that that map was remedying very flagrant violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that, if for some reason, that map was not acceptable to them, that the proper recourse is to send it back to the lower courts, so that another map could be drawn that does remedy the racial discrimination that we proved in the case, and that what the court should not do is tinker with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, because it has been such a formidable protection and tool to advance our democracy.
And you just explained the many ways in which Black voters are often exploited or their votes are diluted for a variety of reasons, including sometimes partisan aims. And the Voting Rights Act, Section 2 in particular, is the only shield from that we can use with any expectation of real protection.
Geoff Bennett: For the unfamiliar, what is Section 2 and what does it do?
Janai Nelson: So, Section 2 is part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's a permanent provision of that act. And it basically says that there's no voting practice, procedure, qualification, anything having to do with voting that can abridge the right to vote, so deny it or dilute it or harm it in any way, minimize it, on account of race.
Geoff Bennett: And, as we mentioned, North Carolina Republicans are moving forward with this plan to effectively oust one of the state's three Black members of Congress by carving up an area of Eastern North Carolina in this congressional map, and this district happens to have a large Black population.
So how does that square with what constitutes racial dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
Janai Nelson: Well, it's pretty squarely a violation of the act, as far as I can tell. It is using Black voters as a means for gaining political power or partisan control.
And while the Supreme Court did say in another case, Rucho v. Common Cause, that it will not entertain any partisan gerrymandering claims, racial gerrymandering is still unlawful and it's still justiciable by the court, meaning that those claims are still viable before the court.
And I can't imagine how this map in North Carolina can achieve its partisan goals lawfully in the way that they're trying to do it now without violating the rights of Black voters. And that's why we really need section 2, because Section 2 protects voters from being exploited by politicians or people who simply want to perpetuate discrimination.
Geoff Bennett: And is that what you would say to people who say, look, the Voting Rights Act has outlived its purpose, the conditions that existed in 1965 no longer exist today?
Janai Nelson: Absolutely.
Well, one of the things that's important to know is that Section 2 is not anchored in any particular facts from 1965. It is based on current conditions. So the exact type of discrimination that we're seeing in places like North Carolina, as we saw in Louisiana, as we saw and proved in winning a case in — just two years ago in Alabama in a case called Allen v. Milligan, this type of discrimination is, sadly, still current, still rampant, and still contaminating our democracy and our electoral processes.
And it's not just an issue for the voters who are impacted. It's an issue for all Americans, because any elected official who is voted on, on a discriminatory map and ultimately winds up legislating is legislating from a discriminatory foundation. And, ultimately, that harms the legitimacy of our governing body. So it's something that all Americans should care deeply about.
Geoff Bennett: There are people who point to the fact that Black turnout has actually improved in recent elections. How do those turnout numbers obscure what folks might see as inequities in access and representation when it comes to voting?
Janai Nelson: So those turnout numbers are a very interesting story. One, they are a direct product of the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
So, without the Voting Rights Act, we would not see turnout improving in the way that it has. A lot of the progress has been a result of litigation. It's been a result of the deterrent effect of having these statutes in place, which is precisely why they need to stay in place and why they are continuing to protect our democracy.
Geoff Bennett: Janai, I see the late Justice Thurgood Marshall there in a picture over your shoulder. Can I ask you, what did it feel like to follow in his footsteps and argue a major voting rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court?
Janai Nelson: It felt like a very heavy weight of responsibility. And it felt like I had the honor of caring for a very important legacy of this institution that has argued so many important landmark cases to improve and perfect our nation across our 85 years of existence.
And so it was a true honor. And I just hope that I lived up to a fraction of his legacy.
Geoff Bennett: Janai Nelson with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, thanks again for your time. We appreciate it.
Janai Nelson: Thank you.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
