How the Supreme Court and GOP Are Undermining Black Political Power After Voting Rights Act Ruling

This is a lightly edited transcript of the May 8 edition of Right Now With Perry Bacon. You can watch the video here or follow the show on YouTube or Substack.

Supreme Court Ruling Sparks Republican Redistricting Push

Perry Bacon: I’m Perry Bacon, host of The New Republic’s show Right Now. I’m joined today by two distinguished political scientists: Hakeem Jefferson of Stanford University and Jake Grumbach of the University of California, Berkeley. It’s afternoon for them—just barely—while I’m on the East Coast. Thanks for joining us at what’s clearly a difficult moment.

These are two people I really enjoy talking to, but we’re speaking at a time that’s not ideal. Literally about an hour ago, Tennessee voted to eliminate its majority-Black congressional district. Alabama and South Carolina are among the states now considering similar moves following last week’s Supreme Court decision that further weakened—almost invalidated—the Voting Rights Act. We’re here to discuss the fallout from that ruling and what it means for Black representation in Congress. Thanks for being here.

Hakeem Jefferson: Thanks for having us.

Bacon: Hakeem, let’s start with your reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Court’s Logic: Race Equals Partisanship

Bacon: The question I want to ask both of you is this: Justices Alito and Roberts, along with the rest of the Supreme Court majority, appear to be operating on the assumption that Black voters are inherently Democrats. They argue that gerrymandering based on partisanship is acceptable, even if it dismantles majority-Black districts. Since Republicans now control these state legislatures, they can redraw the lines to their advantage. But why should we care if Black representation declines as a result?

Jefferson: Thanks again for having us, Perry. I’ll let Jake take the lead here, because he wrote a piece that brilliantly dismantles the court’s flawed reasoning. Jake’s insights on the intersection of partisanship and race in U.S. politics are right on target. So I’ll let him lay the groundwork.

But first, let’s be clear: The Voting Rights Act is one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in U.S. history. The post–Civil War amendments were designed to guarantee rights for Black Americans, but in the South, local jurisdictions systematically imposed barriers to voting. The Voting Rights Act removed those burdens, ensuring Black citizens could access the ballot.

Political scientist Katherine Tate has explored why Black political representation matters. Her work suggests that Black representatives—who share the lived experiences of their constituents—may advocate for policies that address the unique challenges faced by Black communities.

Why Black Representation in Congress Matters

The Voting Rights Act is perhaps the most effective—if not one of the most effective—pieces of legislation in the country’s history. The post–Civil War amendments were meant to enshrine these rights for Black folk. But we know, across the American South in particular, there were these attempts to burden the franchise for Black people. The Voting Rights Act comes along and helps to ensure that Black people got to enjoy access to the ballot without the burdens that lots of local jurisdictions tried to put in front of them.

Jefferson: Jake, your turn. Help us understand why the court’s framing of race as mere partisanship is so dangerous.

Grumbach: Thanks, Perry. The court’s decision rests on a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps a deliberate misreading—of how race and party affiliation overlap in the U.S. The justices seem to suggest that because Black voters predominantly support Democrats, districts drawn to include majority-Black populations are inherently partisan gerrymanders. But this ignores the fact that race and party are deeply intertwined in American politics. Black voters support Democrats not just because of policy preferences but because of historical and systemic exclusion from the political process.

When the court treats race as equivalent to party, it effectively gives states permission to dilute Black voting power under the guise of partisan fairness. This is a perversion of the Voting Rights Act’s original intent, which was to protect minority voters from precisely this kind of manipulation.

Jefferson: Exactly. The court’s logic implies that Black voters are just Democrats in disguise, so their districts can be erased without consequence. But this erases the lived reality of racial discrimination in voting and representation.

What’s Next for Black Political Power?

Bacon: Given this ruling, what’s the likely outcome for Black representation in Congress over the next decade?

Grumbach: We’re already seeing the immediate effects. States like Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina are moving to eliminate or weaken majority-Black districts. This isn’t just about reducing Democratic seats—it’s about silencing Black voices in government. Historically, Black representatives have been crucial advocates for issues like criminal justice reform, education equity, and economic justice. When their numbers decline, those priorities lose political traction.

Jefferson: And let’s not forget the long-term implications. The Supreme Court’s decision sets a precedent that could embolden other states to target minority districts under the guise of partisan redistricting. This isn’t just a Southern problem; it’s a national one. States with growing Black populations, like Georgia and North Carolina, could see similar efforts in the coming years.

Bacon: So what can advocates do to push back against this trend?

Grumbach: The fight will likely move to the state level. Lawsuits challenging these redistricting plans under the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act will be critical. But we also need to mobilize Black voters and their allies to demand fair representation. The court’s decision doesn’t erase the power of the ballot box—it makes it even more essential.

Jefferson: And we can’t underestimate the role of public pressure. The more people understand what’s at stake, the harder it will be for states to justify these discriminatory practices. This isn’t just about Black representation—it’s about the health of our democracy.

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court Ruling: The Court’s decision last week further weakened the Voting Rights Act, allowing states to eliminate majority-Black congressional districts.
• Republican Redistricting: Tennessee has already moved to erase its majority-Black district, with Alabama and South Carolina considering similar steps.
• Impact on Representation: Black representatives have historically championed policies addressing racial inequities. Their reduced numbers could stall progress on issues like criminal justice reform and economic justice.
• Legal and Political Response: Advocates plan to challenge redistricting plans in court while mobilizing voters to demand fair representation.