Instant Reaction: Supreme Court Curbs Use of Race in Drawing Voting Districts

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Balance of Power" (Bloomberg)

Episode: Instant Reaction: Supreme Court Curbs Use of Race in Drawing Voting Districts
Date: April 29, 2026
Host(s): Joe Mathieu, Kailey Leinz
Featured Guests: June Grasso (Legal Analyst), Michael McKee (Bloomberg Economics Reporter)

---

Episode Overview

This episode delivers instant reaction and analysis to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that restricts the use of race in the drawing of voting districts. Hosts and guests examine the repercussions for the Voting Rights Act, political gerrymandering, the immediate impact on state legislatures, and what this decision signals for the future of American elections.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Context & Background: The Voting Rights Act Under Siege

• The Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been “under fire for…a long time,” especially by the Roberts Court, with earlier decisions removing key provisions such as preclearance (certain states needed DOJ approval before changing voting laws). (02:01)
• June Grasso notes:
  “The Roberts Court has been very receptive to sort of destroying, I'll use the word destroying, the Voting Rights Act…Now this is really the other significant part…which was passed in 1965 to address discrimination against black votes.” (02:01)
• The latest Supreme Court decision takes aim at Section 2, the remaining bedrock of the VRA.

2. The Supreme Court’s Decision and Immediate Legal Impact

• The Court’s new interpretation allows states to “without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens voting power,” as cited from Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent. (02:29)
• Grasso underscores the significance:
  “I think it's a stunning decision. Although the court has been heading in this way for a long time, I think a lot of people hope that they wouldn't get to it at this point…it's really consequential.” (03:39)
• The decision is seen as potentially “consequential for Republicans…holding the House,” if states can implement new redistricting quickly. (03:02)

3. What’s Left of the Voting Rights Act?

• Grasso’s assessment:
  “I don't think there's much left of it...the two biggest sections were…the section that was eliminated or…gutted in…Shelby County, and then this section. So I don't think there's much left of the Voting Rights Act.” (04:24)

4. Redistricting, Gerrymandering, and Political Gamesmanship

• Redistricting has become highly politicized, often resulting in bizarrely-shaped districts and gerrymandering by both parties.
• Grasso explains:
  “They have people who do this for a living…all kinds of…electronic ways of doing it…but only in Democratic states they've had maps drawn by commissions…But when you let Republicans or Democrats do it, they're going to do it to their own advantage.” (05:33)
• Only some states have adopted independent commissions, and this has placed those states at a disadvantage compared to others who do not use commissions.

5. Immediate Political Fallout

• The effect of Supreme Court decisions is swift:
  Host: “When the Supreme Court…makes a ruling like this, people jump into action right away.”
  Grasso: “Right…states will start looking at this and deciding what to do. Louisiana certainly is going to jump into action…they're going to start looking at their maps and seeing what they can do…this is opening up a can of worms…the implications are…crazy.” (06:35–07:09)
• States are expected to redraw districts, likely to favor the party controlling the legislature, and possibly further diluting minority voting power.

6. Politics vs. Race in Redistricting

• The court has ruled that it is permissible to gerrymander based on politics, but previously not by race. The new decision blurs this line: Grasso: “Think about that. Think of it's okay to gerrymander based on politics. So…before this decision it was just, you couldn't gerrymander based on race and now you can gerrymander basically based on race. No matter what the Supreme Court said in its majority opinion.”* (07:53)

7. Broader Constitutional and Political Consequences

• Michael McKee highlights that the ruling “sets the stage for states to redraw congressional districts,” but notes logistical challenges—many states may be unable to do so in time for upcoming primaries, yet longer-term effects are significant. (10:16)
• McKee: “At this point, there could be a shift in the balance of power in some states once they can get around to actually changing their congressional districts.” (11:22)
• States may increase the number of safe districts for the controlling party while minimizing minority electoral influence.

8. Was This Ruling a Surprise?

• According to McKee, the decision was widely anticipated:
  “No, it's not at all [a surprise]. In fact, legal and political analysts had been expecting this for quite some time. The Court has not liked the Voting Rights Act for many years…So they've been gutting it one section at a time. This is section two, and now it is gone.” (11:47)

9. Looking Forward: Remaining Supreme Court Cases

• The biggest case still pending concerns the attempted firing by Donald Trump of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, a decision which Bloomberg is watching closely, mentioning the Court’s tendency to release the most controversial opinions at term’s end. (08:23–09:58)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• June Grasso:
  • “The Roberts Court has been very receptive to sort of destroying, I'll use the word destroying, the Voting Rights Act.” (02:01)
  • “Under the Court's new view of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens voting power.” — Quoting Justice Kagan’s dissent (02:29)
  • “I just think this is opening up a can of worms…the implications are just, are just crazy. I think as far as what's going to happen next…I’m still stunned by this.” (07:03)
  • “It's okay to gerrymander based on politics…before this decision…it was just, you couldn't gerrymander based on race and now you can gerrymander basically based on race.” (07:53)
• Michael McKee:
  • “It does have a long term foundational impact, however, in that it dilutes minority voting power in the sense that you can't create a district that is basically guaranteed to elect a minority. And that would be a question of disenfranchisement for a lot of people.” (10:45)
  • “No, it's not at all [a surprise]...The Court has not liked the Voting Rights Act for many years...they've been gutting it one section at a time. This is section two, and now it is gone.” (11:47)

---

Important Timestamps

• 02:01 – Grasso outlines Supreme Court history and the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act
• 03:39 – Why the current ruling is “stunning” and consequential
• 04:24 – “Not much left” of the Voting Rights Act
• 05:33 – Gerrymandering explained and role of commissions
• 06:43 – Likely immediate reactions from states
• 07:53 – Legal delineation between political and racial gerrymandering
• 08:23 – Previewing remaining Supreme Court cases (Lisa Cook/Fed case)
• 10:16 – Michael McKee analyzes the economic and long-term political context
• 11:47 – Why the outcome was not a surprise to analysts

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is frank, detail-oriented and at times candidly critical, particularly regarding the Supreme Court’s trajectory and perceived political consequences. Legal jargon is explained accessibly, and the journalists maintain a sense of urgency over the real-world implications of the Court’s decision.

---

Summary Takeaway

The Supreme Court’s decision to limit the use of race in redistricting is seen by the panel as the near-final dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, with grave implications for minority representation and the fairness of the electoral system. With both legal and political experts anticipating immediate and long-term fallout, the stage is set for yet another wave of legal battles and growing partisan division in how America draws its voting maps.

Transcript

[Host]

Is your multi entity management creating more confusion than clarity. You need the Intuit ERP Intuit Enterprise Suite. It's the AI native ERP solution that's powerful, painless and proven. Learn [e-mail] ERP being a small business owner isn't just a career, it's a calling. Chase for Business knows how much heart and effort go into building something of your own. Manage all your business finances, from banking to payments to credit cards all in one place with Chase's digital tools. Plus access online resources designed to help your business thrive. Learn [e-mail] business chase for business Make More of what's yours the Chase Mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply JP Morgan Chase Bank NA Member FDIC Copyright 2026 JPMorgan Chase Co. Sonesta TravelPass makes

[Advertiser/Commercial Voice]

traveling more rewarding Designed to help you get more out of every stay. Sign [e-mail] to enjoy instant savings, bonus points and valuable perks like early check in, late checkout, room upgrades and free stays over time. With Sonesta Travel Pass, every stay brings you closer to your next reward. Choose from more than 1100 hotels across 13 distinctive brands and unlock the best available rates when you book direct with Sonesta Travel Pass. Here today, roam tomorrow. Join [e-mail] terms and conditions apply.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio News

[Advertiser/Commercial Voice]

this is a breaking news update from Bloomberg. Instant reaction and analysis from our 3,000 journalists and analysts around the world.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

Supreme Court ruling today curbs the use of race in drawing voting districts. Let's get some some perspective on what all this means. June Grasso is our legal analyst at Bloomberg here. June, talk to us about just the background of this case and then maybe what we may know about this ruling here.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

So I mean, the Voting Rights act has been under fire for, you know, such such a long time and the Roberts Court has been very receptive to sort of destroying, I'll use the word destroying, the Voting Rights act in 2018, I believe it was. They they took one part of the act which required preclearance. Certain states that had a history, considered to have a history of racism, Texas, et cetera. Certain states in the south would have to get preclearance before they redistricted, before their plans were approved. They took away that. And now this is really the other significant part of the Voting Rights act, the remaining part of the Voting Rights act, which was passed in 1965 to address discrimination against black votes. And I'll just read a line from what the dissenting opinion of Justice Elena Kagan, the three liberals are in dissent, said, under the Court's new view of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens voting power. Of course, the majority does not announce today's holding that way, but it's understated, even antiseptic. So, I mean, this is really consequential. And it's consequential for, For, I think the Republicans, you know, holding the House. If some of this, if some of these states can redistrict before the midterms. I mean, I don't know if that would be possible as far as timing, but it really, it really is consequential for voting rights. And the Court has, you know, systematically through the years, you hear them say, well, you know, we're so far away from the time of the Voting Rights act, and there isn't. I mean, I think Justice Roberts was the one who said it in Shelby county. You know, we don't have that kind of discrimination anymore. Anymore. So we don't. And how long can we keep doing this? How long can we keep having these rules that prioritize, you know, race in voting districts? So it's, I think it's, It's a stunning decision. Although the court has been heading in this way for a long time, I think a lot of people hope that they wouldn't get to it at this point, but. So, you know, it's really consequential.

[Host]

It's consequential. And you go back to the Voting Rights act that you mentioned and how this is kind of part of the dismantling of it. What is left of the Voting Rights act right now?

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

You know, I don't think there's much left of it. I'm gonna have to. I have to get an expert to. Because the two big. The two biggest sections were the section that was eliminated or, you know, gutted in, in the Shelby county case, and then this section. So I don't think there's much left of the Voting Rights Act.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

How are districts drawn up in the first place? I mean, that's my question.

[Host]

That is a great question.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

Gerrymandering. Have you seen the. Have you seen some of the. Like, even if you look in Louisiana, in order to get to keep the House speaker in a Republican district, you know, they have these odd shapes that you would never imagine. You know, different kinds of weird shapes so they can get in people that they want. It's, it's, it's political at this point. It's, you know, and you know, the Democratic states do it as well, the Republican states do it as well. And it's, you know, it's just the,

[Interviewer/Reporter]

in my old district in New Jersey, which we've since moved from, I finally saw it on a drawn somewhere and it was unbelievably, it's just a bunch

[Host]

of squiggly lines everywhere.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

How did they figure that out? Because having lived there, like, that's not how I think of my area. Is this town. This town, this town, you know.

[Host]

No, it's been cherry picked.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

Yes, exactly. I mean, they have people who do this for a living. You know, they have also, they have all kinds of, you know, electronic ways of doing it. But if you looked at this, I mean, the one in Louisiana looks like a sliver up the coast. I mean it's. But all the states and you know, there's, the only thing that has happened is, but only in Democratic states they've had maps drawn by commissions. So in that way you get a fair map because it's drawn by a commission with maybe equal representatives, but only Democratic states have done that. And that's put them in a bad position, which is why you have some states like California, redistricting in a different way, not using the commission. So, so the way to do it is to have a commission. But when you let Republicans or Democrats do it, they're going to do it to their own advantage. And it's so easy for them to draw maps and just eliminate certain minority populations. It's a mess, really. It's just a mess.

[Host]

Let me ask a really dumb question. When the Supreme Court rules, makes a ruling like this, people jump into action right away.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

Right.

[Host]

I mean, this has immediate consequences.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

Well, yeah. Well, I think what will happen is, yes, states will start looking at this and deciding what to do. Louisiana certainly is going to jump into action. Yeah. Because what they're going to do is, you know, the politics of it. They're going to start looking at their maps and seeing what they can do and how they can use their power as legislators to redraw the maps. I mean, I just think this is opening up a can of worms that, you know, the implications are just, are just crazy. I think as far as what's going to happen next, because, you know, you see that what's happening. Florida is trying to redraw its maps without even this decision. So, you know, we've come to the point, where are we going to have Democratic states with all Democratic districts and Republican states with all Republican districts. It's just, it's sort of mind boggling. I'm still stunned by this.

[Host]

Does this change any of what California voters just decided or what Virginia voters

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

dec. No, I don't think this has anything to do with that because that was a separate. I think that California and the California, Texas passed the Supreme Court. I think California may have passed the Supreme Court as well. They're saying that wasn't based on race, that was based on politics. And it's okay to gerrymander based on politics. So think about that. Think of it's okay to gerrymander based on politics. So you know, Republicans and Democrats are fine or they're allowed to go in and gerrymander based on politics. Before this decision it was just, you couldn't gerrymander based on race and now you can gerrymander basically based on race. No matter what the Supreme Court said in its majority opinion.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

What's left for the Supreme Court this session here? I mean this was a big one.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

Yeah. The big case, the case that we're waiting for at Bloomberg is the case of the, the attempted firing by President Trump of Lisa Cook, the Fed Fed Reserve governor. And the thing is that every week that it's opinion day, we expect that case to come out because it was argued so long ago and because it seemed like the justices were on board with not allowing her to be fired. But it's taking so long that you start to wonder what's happening. Is it because they're writing a lot of concurrences and dissents? You know why? It's, Is it because they're having a hard time distinguishing as they want to the Fed chair from other, other board members that he's fired? So is that what's taking them long? Are they just holding it?

[Interviewer/Reporter]

That's what I think. I think they're just good programmers and they're holding their juiciest one for them.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

They say they don't, they say they don't. But I don't, I really don't believe that because it's no coincidence that all these controversial cases come down the last day of the term. So when is the last day of the term? Well it, it's a movable date.

[Host]

Okay.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

It used to be the very end of June.

[Host]

Uh huh.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

And then they would go on vacation. But, but it's now, we've had a couple of times where it went into July because they couldn't get their stuff finished and they had so many late breaking opinions. There used to be, I mean there's A story about a justice that used to have his car waiting outside the court the last day so they could drive him to, you know, his vacation spot. Then they all disappear and go to different, you know, different locations for the summer.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

Want to bring in Michael McKee, covers all the economics and international aspects of our reporting for Bloomberg. Boy, we just had a Supreme Court ruling which has obviously political ramifications for this country, maybe economics as well. What's your initial take of the Supreme Court ruling here?

[Michael McKee]

Well, the ruling sets the stage for states to redraw congressional districts, but the question is, do they have time to do that? In some states where they have a number of black majority districts, it's already too late because filing deadlines for primaries have already passed. The issue is how many states could still do it. One expects that Louisiana would try. But the question, the secondary question is then how far do they get with this? Because if you draw the districts, you know, somebody is going to complain to the courts about it. It goes back into the court system to question whether the new maps are discriminatory in one way or another. It does have a long term foundational impact, however, in that it dilutes minority voting power in the sense that you can't create a district that is basically guaranteed to elect a minority. And that would be a question of disenfranchisement for a lot of people. And the kind of deal that many states made that they would never admit is that we'll give you your own minority district and then we will be able to use the rest of the state for our own white majority districts and most states, Republican districts. So at this point, there could be a shift in the balance of power in some states once they can get around to actually changing their congressional districts.

[Host]

Boy, this gets messy really quickly that that's the net effect of this kind of decision. Was this a surprise, the way that Supreme Court ruled?

[Michael McKee]

No, it's not at all. In fact, legal and political analysts had been expecting this for quite some time. The Court has not liked the Voting Rights act for many years. Chief Justice Roberts has said that while it was useful at one, it cannot be permanent law because many of the states and many of the aspects of the Voting Rights act have been, you'd say, cured, taken care of, people can vote, poll taxes are gone, that sort of thing. So they've been gutting it one section at a time. This is section two, and now it is gone. So the Voting Rights act itself is not, not worth much anymore. But that was expected, and that's why you have a lot of lawyers, especially on the Democratic side, waiting to pounce on any new districts redrawn to see if they can make the case that they discriminate in one way or another and aren't fair.

[Host]

If your finance team spends more time finding data than using it. If there's one entity here and one here and one here and one here. If scaling your business feels like starting over, you need the Intuit erp. Intuit Enterprise Suite is the AI native ERP solution that's powerful, painless and proven. Learn [e-mail] ERP support for the show

[Interviewer/Reporter]

comes from Public Lately it feels like there are two types of investing platforms. Some are traditional brokerages that haven't changed much in decades, and others feel less like investing and more like a game. Public is positioned differently. It's an investing platform for people who are serious about building their wealth on public. You can build a portfolio of stocks, options, bonds, crypto without all the bugs or the confetti. Retirement accounts? Yep. High yield cash? Yes again. They even have direct indexing. Public has modern design, powerful tools and customer support that actually helps go to public.com market and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com market ad paid for by

[Michael McKee]

Public Holdings Brokerage Services by Public Investing Member FINRA SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors SEC Registered Advisor Crypto Services by

[Interviewer/Reporter]

ZeroHash all investing involves risk of loss. See [e-mail] Disclosures Small businesses are the

[Host]

pulse of every community. They bring people together, create opportunities and drive growth. With a widespread presence in communities across the country, Chase for Business supports small business owners at a local level that makes it possible for you to connect, learn from each other and grow together. There's a real commitment to seeing small businesses succeed. The Chase for Business team has knowledge and expertise that span a wide range of financial areas. They can help you make more informed decisions as you navigate the complexities of running your business. They'll help your business grow with individual guidance and convenient digital tools all in one place. With that guidance and your determination, you can take your business farther and help build a brighter future for your community. Learn [e-mail] business chase for business Make More of what's Yours the Chase Mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Member FDIC Copyright 2026 JPMorgan Chase Co.

[Cincinnati Insurance Advertiser]

If you follow markets, you know the value of long term thinking. You plan, you diversify, you prepare for volatility. But in life, even the best strategies can't prevent every bad day a fire, a loss, a disruption that demands immediate attention. When that happens, what matters isn't just what you planned. It's who shows up. That's where Cincinnati Insurance comes in. For more than 75 years, they've helped individuals and businesses navigate life's toughest moments with care, expertise and personal attention. Together with independent agents, Cincinnati Insurance focuses on relationships, not transactions. Their approach is grounded in experience, follow through and trust built over time. Bad days happen, and when they do, you deserve an insurance partner who understands risk, respects what you've built, and is ready to help you move forward. The Cincinnati Insurance companies Let them make your bad day better. Find an independent agent@cin fin.com as industries

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

evolve faster than ever, companies need an

[Host]

environment that accelerates strategic growth.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

And Michigan delivers on that promise.

[Host]

From emerging startups to global enterprises, Michigan

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

offers what executives value most a resilient, innovative ecosystem, diverse communities that attract top

[Host]

talent, and a quality of life that supports work life. Balance with our unified Team Michigan approach, businesses scale faster and compete at the highest level.

[Legal Analyst (June Grasso)]

Michigan Pure Opportunity Seize your [e-mail] these

[Advertiser/Commercial Voice]

days it seems like AI agents are just about everywhere you turn every field and every function. But without identity, you can't trust they'll serve your business instead of jeopardizing it. Fortunately, Okta helps you get identity right by securing your AI agents identities, giving you a single layer of control, a single standard of trust. So whether an AI agent supports a single user or your entire enterprise, with Okta you'll turn risk into opportunity. Secure every agent. Secure any agent. Okta secures AI.