“Debate in the nation’s highest court”

Summary

Podcast Summary: Deadline: White House

Episode: “Debate in the nation’s highest court”
Date: October 15, 2025
Host: Nicolle Wallace (MSNBC)
Guests: Janai Nelson, Mark Elias, Michelle Norris, Rachel Maddow, Andrew Young (audio clips)

---

Brief Overview

This episode closely examines the Supreme Court’s current deliberations over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), specifically the implications for Louisiana’s congressional map and the broader future of voting rights in the United States. The conversation features legal and political analysis from Janai Nelson (litigator in the case), Mark Elias (prominent voting rights attorney), Michelle Norris (senior contributing editor), and Rachel Maddow (host, MSNBC). The episode explores the historical bipartisan support for the VRA, the increasing partisanship threatening its provisions, and the stakes for minority representation and democracy itself. The latter half discusses a new documentary about civil rights icon Andrew Young, contextualizing the present struggle in the broader arc of civil rights history.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Supreme Court and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

(01:09–06:58)

• Nicolle Wallace situates the day’s Supreme Court oral arguments within the historic context of Martin Luther King’s plea for the ballot, describing the VRA as “the beating heart” of American democracy.

• The core question: Can race be legally considered in drawing congressional district maps? Louisiana’s map with two majority-Black districts is under challenge.

• Janai Nelson strongly asserts the consequences if Section 2 is weakened:

  “I think the results would be pretty catastrophic. ... Every congressional member who is Black was elected from a VRA Opportunity district." (02:08)

• The New York Times reports that, without Section 2, Republicans could eliminate up to a dozen Democratic-held districts, significantly affecting minority representation.

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor is quoted expressing concern about the impact of dismantling such protections.

• Nelson rebuts arguments that the map is discriminatory against white voters, emphasizing that Section 2 is about eliminating racial discrimination, not partisanship:

  “Section 2 and the Voting Rights Act is laser focused on eliminating racial discrimination from our electoral process, regardless of party.” (04:10)

2. The Political and Legal Shift on Voting Rights

(06:58–09:13)

• Mark Elias explains the procedural irregularity: the Supreme Court “heard a case today that, to be clear, no one brought to them,” expanding the scope to question Section 2’s constitutionality.
• Highlights bipartisan origins of the VRA, previously expanded and reauthorized under both Democratic and Republican administrations (Reagan, Bush):

  “It was renewed by Ronald Reagan in 1982 … and in 2006 under George W. Bush, passed the Senate 8 to 0.” (07:24)

• Drastic change: In the Trump and post-Trump GOP, not a single Republican supports reauthorization, making it a “party line issue.”

3. Intent vs. Impact in Discrimination

(09:13–11:29)

• Michelle Norris stresses the distinction between intent and impact in discrimination law; highlights Trump’s efforts to redraw maps for partisan gain.
• Raises the question: Is the push for “colorblind” systems genuinely about equality, or about preserving power?
• Wallace re-emphasizes the historic unity VRA once exemplified, now lost to polarization.

4. Judicial Philosophies and Demographic Realities

(11:29–14:06)

• Norris discusses Chief Justice Roberts’ long-time opposition to the VRA, arguing that equating remedies for discrimination with “new” discrimination is disingenuous and ignores systemic roots.
• Context: Racial concentration in districts results from historical injustices in housing, education, and access to capital.
• The manipulation of district lines (“cracking and packing”) systematically suppresses minority representation.

5. Electoral Consequences and Constitutional Purpose

(14:06–16:03)

• Wallace illustrates the potential map changes—showing that, in several southern states, all Democratic districts at risk are also the only majority-Black districts.
• Elias points out the possible realignment could disproportionately affect Democrats, possibly beyond “12 seats.”
• Argues that the core constitutional amendments (13th, 14th, 15th) were specifically enacted to empower Congress to safeguard Black Americans’ rights—not the courts or states:

  “There is nothing conservative about a ... court imposing its policy over Congress’s judgment.” (15:36)

6. Coordinated Assault on Voting

(16:03–18:34)

• Wallace voices alarm at the shifting landscape: Republican state legislatures are restricting voting rights, Trump is driving partisan gerrymanders, and the Supreme Court is poised to erode critical VRA protections.
• Elias describes a systematic Republican campaign to suppress votes, especially for minorities and young people, including limiting vote by mail and access to the ballot.
• He underlines redistricting as part of a holistic strategy to retain power by any means, including “taking control of the vote counting and certification process.” (17:54)

7. The Counteroffensive and Ongoing Legal Battles

(18:34–20:30)

• Norris notes that Democrats have only recently started organizing at scale to counter these tactics. Grassroots registration is increasing, but Republicans have a significant head start.
• She references a North Dakota case (8th Circuit) that could bar individuals from suing to enforce the VRA, further disadvantaging communities if partisan officials refuse enforcement.
• Summed up with:

  “Sometimes if you can’t win clean, you don’t play fair. And ... that is what this looks like.” (19:55)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Mark Elias (on the Supreme Court’s intent):

  “This was a case set up to do immense damage to the crown jewel of American democracy, which is what Democrats and Republicans have called the Voting Rights Act for decades.” (05:41)

• Michelle Norris (on intent):

  “Is this really about creating a just and fair colorblind system ... or is it really about the preservation of power? And I think we know the answer to that.” (09:03)

• Janai Nelson (on the real-world consequence of the case):

  “You have to create maps where you're going to have six districts out of seven always white because that's our partisanship. That means Blacks never have a chance, no matter what their number is, until they reach more than 51%.” (23:14)

---

The Andrew Young Documentary: Connecting Past and Present

(21:24–32:38)

• Andrew Young (on his civil rights work):

  “If I had to take a few kicks and licks to get a Civil Rights Act, I do it any day of the week. That's what I call the dirty work.” (21:24)

• Rachel Maddow joins to discuss her new project, “Andrew: The Dirty Work”, centering on Young’s legacy and the struggle for voting rights.

  • She draws parallels between the bloody fight of the 1960s and present-day threats to the VRA:

    “That is the moral inheritance that we have of the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court is seemingly pretty glibly willing to throw away right now.” (27:46)

  • Young’s firsthand retelling of MLK’s assassination is haunting and humanizes the stakes:

    “I don't think he ever heard the shot. I don't think he felt any pain. Maybe that's just what I want to believe.” (28:31)

• Maddow emphasizes that “dirty work” often means building coalitions and doing hard, sometimes thankless community engagement—the same skills today’s voting rights advocates will need.

---

Reflections on Contemporary Resistance and Pro-Democracy Organizing

(35:42–43:10)

• Young’s lessons: Working across lines of difference is key, both in international diplomacy and in domestic resistance movements.

  “I'm very well prepared to work with people I disagree with. As a Black boy in the Deep South, I learned to be comfortable talking to people from different backgrounds.” (35:07)

• Maddow draws a line from civil rights organizing to today’s spontaneous, decentralized protests, citing the “soul of the country” as residing in local, organic resistance:

  “People are instinctively ... in all of these places ... showing itself in this instantaneous, emotional, non violent reaction to say, no, we are not doing this, this is not who we are and you work for us.” (41:09)

---

Journalism & Resistance to Authoritarian Rule

(43:10–48:48)

• Maddow and Wallace discuss breaking news: journalists walking out of the Pentagon over Trump administration demands for access and content control.
• Maddow views this as a key institutional stand against creeping authoritarianism:

  “When journalists and the news organizations that employ them stand up like this ... it is a good sign about the self respect and Vision and values and bravery of people who are really important to the health of our democracy.” (46:23)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:09–06:58: Legal arguments on Section 2 of the VRA, importance and consequences
• 06:58–09:13: History of bipartisan VRA support; political context
• 09:13–11:29: The question of intent in discrimination
• 14:06–16:03: Effects on electoral maps and the foundation of the VRA
• 18:34–20:30: The Democratic counteroffensive and broader threats to enforcement
• 21:24–32:38: Andrew Young documentary, civil rights legacy, parallels to today
• 35:07–43:10: Reflections on activism, ground-up protest movements, enduring lessons
• 43:10–48:48: News media resistance to Trump-imposed content controls

---

Tone & Language

• The conversation is serious, urgent, and grounded in historical perspective.
• Guests blend legal expertise with lived experience and personal anecdote, particularly during the Andrew Young documentary segment.
• The tone is both analytical (on Supreme Court and legal matters) and emotive (regarding threats to democracy and civil rights achievements).

---

Conclusion

This standout episode situates the existential fight over voting rights—in the courts, the streets, and the media—within the broader sweep of American history. It exposes the danger posed by coordinated rightwing efforts to restrict the franchise and roll back decades of hard-won gains, demonstrates the power of resilient pro-democracy activism, and reminds listeners of the “dirty work” it takes—and will continue to take—to ensure a multiracial, representative democracy.

Transcript

[Progressive/Lifelock Announcer]

Deadline. White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts. Quote [e-mail] to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744.

[Podcast Host/Producer]

By new customers surveyed who save with.

[Progressive/Lifelock Announcer]

Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations. It's Cybersecurity Awareness Month and Lifelock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, Lifelock is your best choice. Lifelock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft. Guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected with a 30 day free [e-mail] Specialoffer terms apply.

[Nicole Wallace]

Hi there everyone. It's 4 o' clock in New York, more than 68 years after Martin Luther King pleaded give us the ballot and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights. The beating heart of the Voting Rights act was the subject of debate today in the nation's highest court, and the justices appear to be on the verge of a decision that could have enormous consequences for for the upcoming midterms and for our very democracy. At issue today Louisiana's congressional map adopted last year with two majority black districts in order to comply with curbs on racial gerrymandering put in place by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The justices today are being asked whether race can be considered a factor in drawing maps. Here is how Janai Nelson, the lawyer defending Louisiana's congressional material, describes the stakes.

[Janai Nelson]

Were Section two to cease to operate in the way that you just described? What could happen? What would the results on the ground be?

I think the results would be pretty catastrophic. If we take Louisiana as one example, every congressional member who is black was elected from a VRA Opportunity district. We only have the diversity that we see across the South. For example, because of litigation that forced the creation of opportunity districts under the Voting Rights act, every justice in Louisiana has been elected through a VRA Opportunity district and nearly all legislative representatives.

[Nicole Wallace]

The New York Times reports this quote without Section two, Republicans could eliminate upward of a dozen Democratic held districts across the South. The plaintiffs are seeking to overturn the map and potentially bring down Section two argued that creating majority black districts amounts to discrimination against white voters. Here's what Justice Sonia Sotomayor said about.

[Progressive/Lifelock Announcer]

That, my humble point is that the government has no business telling citizens in which districts they may live or what voting are they.

[Janai Nelson]

But during that council, the six plaintiffs in this case are white plaintiffs who live in a district with black voters. So no one's keeping them out of that district. No one's stopping them from participating in the voting process. No one is stopping them from trying to run candidates or support candidates that reflect their views.

[Nicole Wallace]

An attorney for the Trump administration called the voting map a, quote, reverse partisan gerrymander, saying that white Democrats in red states do not get maps drawn allowing them to elect Democratic candidates. But the logic of that ignores the history. It ignores why the Voting Rights act exists, why it was put in place in the first place, and it ignores the impact that any decision weakening or striking down parts of the Voting Rights act will have. Once again, here is Jani Nelson.

[Janai Nelson]

My opponents here would like to make this a partisan issue because they believe the case law will enable their case to prevail, but it does not. This is about race. Section two and the Voting Rights act is laser focused on eliminating racial discrimination from our electoral process, regardless of of party. And if we look at many of the black Congress people who were elected, they came out of Section two opportunity districts. They don't have to be majority minority districts. Many of them are crossover districts. And so if we remove Section two, we also recognize that there will likely be a resurgence of of discrimination because Section two plays a deterrent effect.

[Nicole Wallace]

That is where we begin today with some of our favorite experts and friends. MSNBC senior contributing editor Michelle Norris is here. Also joining us, voting rights attorney, founder of Democracy Docket, Mark Elias. Mark Elias, I ask you the same question that we started with here, the stakes of today's arguments in case.

[Mark Elias]

Yeah, the stakes are enormous. I mean, the fact is that the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case today that, to be clear, no one brought to them. The case that was brought to them out of Louisiana was argued last term, did not challenge the underlying constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. We went through briefing, we went through oral argument. We all waited for a decision by the end of last June in the case that was actually brought by the plaintiffs and the petitioners in that case. Instead, what happened is the Supreme Court decided that it wanted to hear a different case, so it ordered the parties to brief and re argue a broader question, the question of whether or not Section two of the Voting Rights act remains constitutional, and if so, how does it get severely limited? And that was what the argument was about today. Like, make no mistake, I never predict with certainty what the outcome of cases will be. You never know what the dynamics are among the justices. But this was a case that was set up to do immense damage to the crown jewel of American democracy, which is what Democrats and Republicans have called the Voting Rights act for decades. And that is where this court today signaled it wants to go again, understanding it may not get there, it may back away from it, it may at the last minute decide not to do this. But everyone needs to be clear eyed that that is what the court is poised to do. And if it does so, it will have dramatically detrimental effect to black and Hispanic and other minority voting rights. And it will also potentially tilt the balance of power going into the 2026 midterm elections.

[Nicole Wallace]

Marc Elias, Just refresh my memory on the history of the lack of partisanship. Is George W. Bush the last Republican president to renew the Voting Rights Act? I believe I remember an event in the Roosevelt Room where that is renewed and then it becomes a political pinata in the last two decades. I mean, just take me through the political side, not the legal side of this debate.

[Mark Elias]

Sure. So the Voting Rights act gets enacted in 1965 with bipartisan support, Republicans and Democrats both voted to enact the Voting Rights Act. It was renewed under Republican presidents. It was renewed by Ronald Reagan in 1982. And in fact, not only was it renewed under Ronald Reagan in 1982 with again overwhelming bipartisan support, it was actually expanded. The provision that is now being attacked, this section 2 of the voting Rights act, which prohibits both discrimination in voting with intent, but also with the effects of discriminating against voters, that was put into law in 1982 under Ronald Reagan. Again, wide bipartisan support. It was, as you point out, reauthorized again in 2006 under George W. Bush, passed the Senate 8 to 0. There were only 33 no votes against in the House. It was sponsored by the business community. Walmart's president CEO pushed for reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. And it is only in the age of Donald Trump and the in his first term and now, you know, today in which it has become a party line issue in which no Republican will support reauthorization in the Voting Rights Act.

[Nicole Wallace]

Michelle, I thought that just, I think it's important context that legally and politically right now it's something another thing pulling our country apart through its existence. It has been one of the few things that brought us together that Democrats and Republicans agreed on that had unanimous votes in The Senate and 22 was even in those times, a very small number of dissenters in the House. And here we are now with that larger frame. Tell me how you watch today's arguments.

[Michelle Norris]

I want to pick up on something that Mark mentioned, intent. There was an intense argument over intent in the arguments today. And this notion that a pernicious outcome has to be based on someone intending discrimination or that rather something could happen because of a series of accidental decisions and that would lead to something pernicious, but it wasn't about intent. I think we have to look at intent here, particularly when we're talking about voting access, and put it in context, because it's been widely reported that Donald Trump has been pressuring states to redraw their electoral maps as Democrats work hard to take over the House. And so you could look at this and you could ask, is this really about, you know, the case that was bought by a group of people who self identify as non black voters? Is this really about creating a just and fair colorblind system to create equality, access to the ballot, or is it really about the preservation of power? And I think we know the answer to that. And the question is whether the Supreme Court will allow itself to be used in, you know, is part of that effort to try to maintain power not just by Donald Trump, but by Republican legislatures all around the country.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's so important to not isolate this issue and sort of dissect it as a tree, but to continue to stare at the forest. And I want to play a little bit of of what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, sort of in defense of.

[Michelle Norris]

Section 2, if I'm right, that Section 2 is about identifying the problem and then requiring some remedy. I don't understand why your answer to Justice Kagan's question about is this a compelling state interest is no. The answer is obviously yes, that you have an interest in remedying the effects of racial discrimination that we identify using this tool. Whether you go too far in your remedy is another issue, Right.

[Nicole Wallace]

Such stark statements today and questions coming from the justices. MICHEL?

[Michelle Norris]

Well, you know, this is we should also remember in putting this in context, Nicole, that Justice Roberts has really, you know, has been fighting against the Voting Rights ACT and Section 2 in particular for a very long time, back to when he was a baby lawyer working in the Reagan administration and working for Rehnquist. And one of the things that comes up again and again from him and from people who are arguing against this is that the way to end discrimination. He actually said this in a case that involved an effort to desegregate a school system. The way to end discrimination is to actually end discrimination. And what they're basically doing is conflating the remedy with the discrimination that called for the remedy in the first place and saying that in order to remedy these issues, that actually becomes a form of discrimination. And looking at the 14th Amendment in the purest sense, that the government cannot use race in any way in making any kind of decisions. And what that does is it disenfranchises a large number of people. And when you ask about context, the other thing to remember is the fact that so many people of color are concentrated in these districts is a result of discrimination in itself there. Because the reason that they're so concentrated is because they couldn't live other places. They didn't have access to capital, they didn't have access to mortgages. And so you create a system over time based on discrimination where you've got large groups of people who are concentrated, and then you create a system that doesn't allow them to have access to the vote because you either have them concentrated in so many, so small districts that they don't they're not able to elect a large number of representatives, or you crack and frack their voting blocks and you distribute them in places where then they aren't able to vote in their best interest. And at the same time, arguing that this has nothing to do with race on its face just doesn't make sense.

[Nicole Wallace]

Doesn't make any sense. The politics, though, are the mask off moment for the Republicans. And let me just show the map from the New York times that shows 12 Democratic districts in the south that could be eliminated. One in North Carolina, one in South Carolina. It's the only Democratic district. One in Georgia, two in Alabama, the only Democratic districts, two in Louisiana, at least two in Florida and one in Tennessee. I think the Times analysis of this Mark Elias is that the Democrats would have to win the popular vote by 5.1 to 6.1 points to win the House if all of the map shape shifting that Republicans aspire to do takes place.

[Mark Elias]

Yeah, and I think that 12 seats is actually sort of somewhat of an undercount of what the actual impact would be when Republicans took the gloves off and went all in. So, you know, I don't think Anyone should think 12 seats is the worst case scenario. I think that that is actually you kind of will be their jumping off point. I want to add one thing though, to all of this, which is that, you know, having been lectured for years and decades by conservative lawyers and Republican lawyers about the importance of textualism and originalism. Let's be clear. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which is what the Voting Rights act is premised on, particularly the 14th and 15th amendment, were enacted after a bloody civil war against the south and were put in place precisely, precisely to protect black former slaves who were being denied their basic civil rights. It was precisely to protect their voting rights that the 15th Amendment was enacted. And the 15th Amendment and the 14th Amendment give Congress, not the courts, not the states, but Congress the authority to enact legislation in order to remedy those harms. And I frankly sometimes find myself sitting in kind of an alternate universe as I listen to conservatives talk about the importance of this policy or that policy, race neutral or Jim Crow is over when Congress has made a judgment over and over again under the constitutional power given it to given to them to enact and to strengthen the Voting Rights Act. The answer is if Republicans want to do away with Section 2, they need to pass a law. They need to repeal the law that's on the books. But there is nothing conservative about a jurisprudence or an approach to a law passed by Congress and reauthorized over and over again on a bipartisan basis that is expressly authorized by the Constitution. There's nothing conservative about that. To now say we're going to ask the courts to impose their policy judgments over that of Congress's.

[Nicole Wallace]

Mark, can I ask a dumb question? It feels like a full on assault on voting rights from all the voter suppression laws. 48 states enacted some form of voter suppression predicated on the big lie. A lie so audacious. Bill Barr said it was bs. You now have the Supreme Court sounding the way they sounded today. I don't want to sugarcoat it. And you have Trump driving partisan gerrymanders in Texas and Indiana. What does the pro democracy side look like on the other side and does it stand a chance?

[Mark Elias]

Look, I mean I come on your show all the time and try to sound this alarm that the Republican Party and its supporters have an all out assault on voting in the United States. They want to make it harder for you to vote and easier for them to cheat. They want to enact laws that make it harder for you to register to vote. They want laws that make it harder for you to be able to vote by mail. They want to make it easier for ballots to be disqualified if they are voted by mail. They want to target young voters through discrimination against college and other methods of young voting. They want to restrict voting opportunities by minority voters. This is their game plan to keep power in 2020. Redistricting is really just one manifestation, as you point out, of a larger strategy that they have. It is the most obvious manifestation because everyone can see that when you shift lines on a piece of paper and move district lines, that is a way that Republicans can rig the outcome of elections in their favor, but it is not the only way. Putting troops on the city streets of our nation's bluest cities is a way they do it. By Donald Trump saying that he is going through executive order to.

[Janai Nelson]

To.

[Mark Elias]

To disqualify certain voting equipment or to do away with certain methods of voting is another way they do it. Republican states enacting voter suppression laws is still another way they do it. The fact that the Department of Justice is trying to gain access to sensitive voter data on every individual voter in this country and is currently suing eight states that have refused to turn that over, and my law firm is intervening to defend voters in those states, that is getting yet another way they are doing this. This is a holistic effort to try to keep power in 2026 and beyond by literally disenfranchising people they think who don't support them and by trying to take control of the vote counting and certification process.

[Nicole Wallace]

Michelle, if there were one thing that could focus everybody else, it would be make sure you get to vote. Make sure you get to pick your leaders in two and four years. Are you. What is your observation of the counteroffensive?

[Michelle Norris]

You know, there's a lot of people that are working very hard at this. As Mark has noted, the Republicans have been at this for a very long time. The Democrats are in some ways playing catch up on this. But I think that there are a lot of people that are working hard on this effort to make sure that people understand the importance of voting. I was just actually in Chicago and there were people out on the streets. They're actually registering to people to vote. I think that those kinds of things are happening. But this has to be an asymmetrical battle that is happening on several fronts, because as Mark laid out, it's happening in all kinds of ways. And there is another case that's sort of in the background out of the 8th Circuit, the North Dakota case, which wants to limit the ability of individuals or private parties to actually sue to enforce the Voting Rights act, saying that only government can do that. And if the government is controlled by Republicans who are interested in limiting your access to the ballot, well, that is another example of that's not conservative. Trying to take away rights from people to actually enforce something like this. So it has to happen on all kinds of levels. But what Mark just laid out is interesting because said more simply is sometimes if you can't win clean, you don't play fair. And I think that that's what we're seeing here is that it's harder and harder because of demographic changes, because of, because of rights that people have won either through Congress or through the courts, that it's harder and harder for Republicans to imagine that they can hold on through voting in a country that is rapidly changing demographically. And so sometimes if you can't win clean, you don't play fair. And that is what this looks like.

[Nicole Wallace]

I like your shorthand a whole lot. I'm going to borrow that and use it myself. I'm Michelle. Mark, thank you so much for starting us off on this story.

[Rachel Maddow]

Wow.

[Nicole Wallace]

When we come back, my dear friend and colleague Rachel Maddow will be our guest. We'll talk with her about the potential gutting of the Voting Rights act and what it could mean for voters, especially black voters in this country. And we'll talk about Andrew Young, a friend and aide to Martin Luther King, an architect of the civil rights movement who spent his early career organizing voter registration drives, marches, and who drove the movement into congressional legislation. He's the subject of a new documentary that Rachel executive produced about his decades of public service and the hard work it takes to ensure that our democracy holds. It's called Andrew the Dirty Work. We'll show you some of it and talk to Rachel about why she took on this project. Don't go anywhere.

[Andrew Young]

Nobody really wanted to go work for Martin Luther King. He had been stabbed, bombed, jailed, and he didn't have any money. If I had to take, take a few kicks and licks to get a civil Rights act, I do it any day of the week. That's what I call the dirty work.

[Progressive/Lifelock Announcer]

It's Cybersecurity awareness month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, Lifelock is your best choice. LifeLock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteeing or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected. With a 30 day free trial at lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.

[Nicole Wallace]

The connection between the guests on the show is the show. All that we do is put together people who are smart, people who are brave, people who are honest, and lots of times people who've never met each other to have a conversation that has never happened before, but on that day deepens everyone's understanding about the moment in which we gather.

[Podcast Host/Producer]

Deadline White House with Nicole Wallace Weekdays from 4 to 6pm Eastern on MSNBC. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access. Add free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace, why is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free Listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

[Janai Nelson]

What you're suggesting is that people of one race are blacks in Louisiana who will have to be 51% of the population before they'll be able to elect another black candidate. Because what you're saying is partisanship is non negotiable. You have to create maps where you're going to have six districts out of seven always white because that's our partisanship. That means blacks never have a chance, no matter what their number is, until they reach more than 51%.

[Nicole Wallace]

That was today. That was Justice Sonia Sotomayor discussing the dire consequences and implications of the Supreme Court potentially gutting the Voting Rights act that black voters may not get the chance to elect a black candidate if they are gerrymandered into districts that deny them a voice. With a key section of the Voting Rights act up for debate at the Supreme Court today, and with fears growing that the legacy of the civil rights movement is in deep danger, our friend and colleague Rachel Maddow is out with a new project centered on one of the heroes of that movement and the fight for civil rights and our democracy. It details the life and legacy of civil rights icon Andrew Young, whose incredible career started as a close confidant of Martin Luther King Jr. After King's death, which he witnessed, Young continued King's work, serving in Congress as mayor of Atlanta and as the United States Ambassador to the United nations here in New York. It is titled Andrew the Dirty Work. It is a tribute to Young's willingness to do what he describes as, quote, the things that nobody else wanted to do but feeling that you had the responsibility to try. Take a look.

[Andrew Young]

When Dr. King went to jail in Albany, it was my job to go in and visit him every day. My presence meant that he didn't have to assert his middle class values, that he could be neutral. And so I was sort of known as the Uncle Tom, in the group, nobody particularly wanted to go meet with white folks. Nobody wanted to take the time to go around and explain to the black middle class what was going on. In everything I've done in life, there's always something that somebody considers too difficult and nobody wants to. That's what I call the dirty work. And I decided that that was my job.

[Nicole Wallace]

Wow. Joining me now is my friend, the host of the Rachel Maddow show right here on msnbc, New York Times best selling author, a beloved colleague and friend. She's also the executive producer of this, of this brand new documentary, the Dirty Work. This is so amazing, Rachel, I'm not going to ask you what I really want to know, which is when the hell did you do this? I'm going to ask you, you why, why this story and why now?

[Rachel Maddow]

You know, first of all, thank you for having me here, Nicole. I know there's a lot going on. It's an honor to be here with you on this show on this day. But thinking about what you've been talking about with Michelle and Mark and what happened at the Supreme Court today with the Voting Rights Act, I mean, one of the reasons to make this film, one of the reasons to watch this film now is to hear Ambassador Young hear Andrew Young talk about what it took to get the blood on the pavement of that bridge to Selma, which allowed the United States government to get over itself and pass a Voting Rights act to guarantee voting rights for black Americans in the South. And to think about not that that was ever, ever seen as something that was inevitable. I mean, President Johnson, after the Civil Rights act in 1964, had flat out Trump told Martin Luther King and Andrew Young, I have spent my political capital, I do not have additional political capital to spend to get you a Voting Rights Act. Instead, Martin Luther King and Andrew Young left the White House having been told that by President Johnson and said that said, we're going to go back down to the south and get him the power he needs to be able to pass a Voting Rights Act. And the way they got him that power was with their incredibly disciplined, spiritually grounded, impeccably nonviolent movement, which showed the American people what it meant to stand up for that kind of righteousness, even in the face of horses and dogs and firehoses and blood and death. And that is the moral inheritance that we have of the Voting Rights act, which the Supreme Court is seemingly pretty glibly willing to throw away right now. And it's just while we are fighting for those things, while we are recognizing the stakes of what we're up against right now. I think it's really worth hearing from the people who earned us those things in the first place.

[Nicole Wallace]

I want to play a little bit more of it. I know you're going to anchor an hour and then play the whole thing on Friday, which we'll all watch, but I want to show a little bit more of it here. It's hard to pick from all of this, but I want to show Young describing the assassination of Martin MLK, Jr. He was there.

[Andrew Young]

When we came out. I said, you know, you really probably ought to get your topcoat. I got the impression that he was sort of looking up, kind of checking the weather, looking at the sky, trying to decide. And at that moment, a shot rang out. He fell. There was a South African photographer who had been following us around, and he took the picture that has become so infamous. We were pointing because the police who were supposed to be protecting us were all on the other side of the street, and they were all running toward us. And we were saying that the shot came from over there. When I saw him, there was no hope. His entire neck had been severed, and you could see his spinal cord, his heart was still beating, his pulse was still there. But I don't think he ever heard the shot. I don't think he felt any pain. Maybe that's just what I want to believe.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's haunting, it's harrowing. And yet, on and off television, you and I have talked a lot about political violence. I think you were the first person who said this thing to me, that violence isn't politics, it's something else.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah. And, you know, in this film, Andrew Young is alive. He's 93 years old. The reason we wanted to make this now is because he can tell us about his own mind, his own heart, his own experience through these things. I think that's really valuable. Valuable as millions of Americans are planning to take to the streets the morning after this film airs on Friday night here on MSNBC on Saturday, you know, 5 or 6 million Americans are going to turn out to go protest. And I think it is valuable to be able to hear from somebody who was part of one of these, you know, moral cornerstone movements of our country what it was really like as a person. Not to be the figurehead, not to be the guy at the podium, but to be somebody who's just doing the work. Because so many Americans right now are doing the work and are thinking about what it means to be part of a difficult, long standing, dug in pro democracy movement that's going to take years in this country. So there's that. But, you know, we only show him a couple of times as current day Andrew Young in the film. And one of them is after he reflects on the death of his friend Dr. King, where he's emotional still about thinking about his loss. And it just, it's a reminder, as if any of us needed it, that there is nothing strategic about political violence. There is nothing that is tactically consequential about it at all. All it is is crime and loss and failure. And there's nothing ever positively gained about it other than regret and lives crushed. And you know, it doesn't. That's why it doesn't matter. The motivation of assassins, the motivation of people who commit political violence. Violence, I think should be barred from the airwaves when we talk about these things because once you've crossed the line into violence, you're no longer committing a political act. You are doing something else and you should pay for it, regardless of why you did it.

[Nicole Wallace]

Andrew Young is, as you said, he's still alive. He's still sharp as a tack. What are his thoughts about this moment that you can, you know, I think one of your gifts to all of us is to take us out of ourselves and put us back into our history. What does he tell us about our history that's instructive or has changed the way you cover this moment?

[Rachel Maddow]

Well, you know, he's, like you said, he's sharp as a tack. And some of what he has to say about this moment I can't repeat on television. I mean, talk to him about it. We'll get there. We'll get there.

[Nicole Wallace]

Like year three. We'll get there. Exactly.

[Rachel Maddow]

He's pretty clear eyed about exactly where we are and what he thinks about a lot of people, people in American politics today. And I will always let him speak for himself along those lines. But I think part of the reason he's telling the story now is to kind of prepare Americans right now who are engaged in this struggle right now to be dug in for the long haul and to make sure that we've got, whether or not you're religious, to at least have a spiritual groundbreaking in what you're doing so that you know what you stand for. You have the discipline to always be nonviolent in the way that you stand for it. You have the ability, which is difficult and under pressure, you have the ability to trust those who you are standing up with so that you are a movement and not just a collection of individuals. We got to think about this task that's ahead of us right now. I mean, we have an authoritarian government in this country that is trying to destroy the democracy and, and millions of Americans are standing up to try to preserve the democracy and defeat this authoritarian movement. This is something that is not going to be a quick fight. This is something that is going to take discipline, it's going to take a long time. It's going to take us making mistakes, iterating, sticking with it anyway, doing the drudge work, doing the dirty work that it takes to get movements like this over the finish line, even when you don't get recognized for that movement. And we just need to start thinking of ourselves that way, I think, in this country. And I think Andrew Young wants to help us do that.

[Nicole Wallace]

I want to play a few more clips. I want to ask you a million more questions. We have to sneak in a break. Will you stick around?

[Rachel Maddow]

Of course, of course.

[Nicole Wallace]

Okay. We'll be right back.

[Podcast Host/Producer]

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with MSNBC's newest news Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.

[Nicole Wallace]

The American people are basically telling the.

[Rachel Maddow]

President that they are not okay with any of this.

[Podcast Host/Producer]

Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at msnbc.com project47 Start your day with the MSNBC daily newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up [e-mail] Mrs. King said to.

[Andrew Young]

Me, I really wish you wouldn't go to the United Nations. She was worried about my security. I said, look, I stayed alive with all of those sharks and snakes around your husband. I said, I'm not the least bit afraid of the folk I'll run into at the UN Humans are another phenomenon. I'm very well prepared to work with people I disagree with. As a black boy in the Deep South, I learned to be comfortable talking to people from different backgrounds. And that's the key to our relationships around the world.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's also the key to successful resistance movements. Right. Cobbling together an unlikely coalition that wants one thing to preserve our democracy. How do you see that mindset, which, I mean, as you said, sharp as a tag, this is still a core belief. What do you think the pro democracy movement could glean from that?

[Rachel Maddow]

Well, I mean, some of it is just reflection on, like, how far we've strayed, how far we've gotten off course. I mean, he's the first black congressman from Georgia since Reconstruction. Now, today in the Supreme Court, we're looking at the Supreme Court, the conservative majority in the Supreme Court apparently poised to impose. I mean, drop all the euphemisms, drop all the legalese. What they are talking about here is guaranteed all white rule again in Alabama, in Mississippi, in South Carolina, in Louisiana. I mean, you think about how diverse those states are. What they're talking about reimposing, going back to, is guaranteed all white rule in states that have huge, huge populations of black voters. I mean, that is where we are exactly today. And you look at Andrew Young, and we think of him as like carved in the mountain, right? We think about Andrew Young as a titan of the civil rights movement and how far he came. But Andrew Young coming up today would have no path like the one that he had in the immediate wake of the civil rights movement, as the MAGA movement and the conservatives today undo not only the Voting Rights act of 1965, but essentially the Civil Rights act of 1964 as well. I mean, that. That I think is part of it is recognizing exactly what's being walked back.

[Nicole Wallace]

Rachel, how do you swim through that new reality that, you know, I mean, I asked Mark Elias in the last block, how is it that MAGA and Republicans are successfully pressuring Republican states to re. Gerrymander. Gerrymandered maps likely prevailing at the Supreme Court in putting into place exactly what you just articulated and menacing the act of voting by normalizing soldier like people and actual soldiers on the streets of American cities?

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah, well, I mean, it' swhat Andrew Young talks about in terms of his role in the civil rights movement. Part of what he describes as the dirty work is having to go and negotiate with the other side. I mean, he's beaten severely in Florida when he crosses the street to go to try to negotiate with the Klan on a Saturday night when they've got guns underneath their robes. We've got Andrew Young crossing over and meeting with segregationist white businessmen. We've got Andrew Young crossing over and meeting with segregationist white churches. He's the one who's having those very difficult, very uncomfortable conversations. And it's a reminder of his skills and his ability to diffuse situations and to, you know, cross bridges rather than break and all those things. But it's also a reminder that there was another side to this fight. It wasn't just the civil rights movement against prevailing custom. It was the civil rights movement against an active, organized segregationist movement in this country. And what we've got right now, what the movement is right now that Americans on the other side are up against, is a movement that is deathly afraid of the fact that there is no longer going to be a white majority in this country within 20 years. They want to guarantee all white rule. And to the extent they can, one party rule in this country in a way that is impervious to those democratic changes, they do not want people who are not white and people who are not on their side of the issues to have a shot at political power anymore. This is not a new idea. This is not some innovation of the 21st century century. This is simply a return to the kind of politics that kept Jim Crow in force in the era that Andrew Young risked his life to lead us through.

[Nicole Wallace]

One of the things that you bring into sharp focus for all of us, I always describe you as our North Star in a lot of ways, but also editorially, is the protests. And you started covering them after Election Day, before Trump was sworn in. Right. So the immediate response to his election has a grassroots response. It's organized by no one. I mean, I don't think Democrats got out of bed the next day, but there were protesters on the streets in blue states, in red parts of blue states, in red parts of red states. What are you seeing and can you sort of quantify what's happening organically in this country in terms of protest and dissent on the street?

[Rachel Maddow]

One of the most interesting things about it, Nicole and I was really interested in part of your conversation earlier this hour with Michelle and Mark about this as well, is that we are seeing very much ground up, ground level up, grassroots and very spontaneous forms of protest in this country. You look at what's happening in Chicago, these scrappy, instantaneous, almost reflexive, neighborhood by neighborhood reactions and responses, audiences hyper local, not top down organized at all. And yes, there are some aldermen and alder women involved and there are some state legislators who are involved and there are some Democrats who are kind of trailing behind, catching up on what people are doing. But people are instinctively in Los angeles, in Washington D.C. in Memphis, in Chicago, in all of these places, in Portland. Obviously you've just got sort of the heart of the American people showing itself itself in this instantaneous, emotional, non violent reaction to say, no, we are not doing this, this is not who we are and you work for us. And seeing the energy there and the persistence of it, the I think good hearted nature of it, that it is fierce but instinctively non violent. I think because we have the moral inheritance of movements like the civil rights movement that have created who we are as generations of Americans. By this point, I mean, there's a lot going on in terms of the, I think native reaction to this. And you get all of these like gray beard commentators saying, why aren't the American people reacting more strongly to what Trump is doing? Well, I don't know, maybe because you haven't noticed what they're doing is why it seems that way to you. I mean, there's protests in this country every day and actually the little ones in Republican held states and the little ones that arise seemingly out of nowhere, the spontaneous ones that happen when people see what's happening to their neighbors and they park their car and they get out and they link arms to their neighbors to try to protect people. And that's the soul of this country right now. And the political movement and the elected officials that learn how to draft in that wake and learn how to harness that energy toward electoral ends will win in the electoral side of this democracy. But the street side of this democracy, I think is going to show its force on Saturday at the no Kings program protests and I think has been a just continuing inspiration to me since before this last inauguration, Rachel, because I.

[Nicole Wallace]

Have you and I would regret it if I didn't do this. I'm going to take a break and ask you to weigh in on some breaking news coming out of the Pentagon. I think we both knew about the 5 o' clock deadline today to sign on to state sanctioned content or not. There's some developments there that I want to ask you about on the other side of a break. We'll both be right back. We have some breaking news to tell you about on the story we've been covering here all week. Since we've been on the air, dozens of news outlets covering the Defense Department have left the Pentagon after refusing to agree to and sign the Trump administration's new demands that significantly curb access to and the ability to report on and cover that building, the Pentagon and the men and women of the military. The people refusing to sign include Fox News Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's former place of work. A Pentagon reporter from the AFP posted this photo of journalists on the steps of the Pentagon after handing in their badges that gave them access to the building. A correspondent from Reuters tweeted this, quote, the physical Pentagon bureaus of Reuters and virtually every other news organization are now officially closed, but we will continue to cover the Pentagon fairly and aggressively from outside the building, holding the US Military accountable. We're Back with Rachel. I know you got everyone's attention, the world's attention, with your open a week ago Monday about how authoritarianism is here. It's not on the horizon. It's not something theoretical that you and I both covered in the months leading up to the election. It's not a question before the voters. It's what they have ushered in with the reelection of Donald Trump. And this, this is, you know, chapter one, shutting out the free press, shutting out access to the truth about the military.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah. But this is also a really important chapter in what it means to stand up to authoritarianism. Nicole, we have talked about the fact that, you know, the people have been brave, individual Americans, the people who you're going to see out this Saturday at the no Kings protests, the people who you've seen in every state of the country almost every day of the week taking some act of protest against Trump. Those folks have been brave and principled and unafraid. The cowardice that we have seen has been from institutions, and that includes media organizations and news organizations, where we've seen executives over and over and over again make cowardly and craven decisions to try to appease Trump or please him in some way in the hopes that maybe that earns you another day of being allowed to operate at his pleasure. It's just been disgusting what we've seen from the most important and valuable corporations in this country and law firms and universities and all the rest of it. In this case, we've got all of those Pentagon reporters with their news organizations behind them, them standing up and saying, no, we are not stenographers. We are not going to work under strictures where we are only allowed to write down what you tell us we can write down. That's not journalism. And we're not going to do it under those terms. We'll do it some other way. We'll give up these bureaus, these physical bureaus inside the Pentagon. Sure. And that is a compromise. Absolutely. We will find other ways to do this work because you keeping us here while we only write what you want and approve us of saying would have us working here as your lackeys rather than working as journalists. And we're journalists. I find this to be incredibly inspiring. And I don't know how it's going to result or how it's going to resolve in terms of what happens with that press space inside the Pentagon. But when journalists and the news organizations that employ them stand up like this, particularly ones on the right, it is a good sign about the self respect and Vision and values and bravery of people who are really important to the health of our democracy. I just, I think this is a really good sign.

[Nicole Wallace]

Do you think it's happening because it's the military or do you think it's happening because there's something different about the Pentagon press corps?

[Rachel Maddow]

I think it might be happening because news organizations have realized that it's really embarrassing to cave to Trump. I think that, you know, that we haven't necessarily, you know, I think the Trump administration, people who are working for him know what they're trying to do. I think they are trying to impose one party permanent rule, getting rid of American democracy and all, for all intents and purposes and having an authoritarian takeover of the country. Like, I think they know what they're doing. So are they susceptible to changing the their minds because of people protesting and calling them out for what they're doing? Maybe not at this point, although I think people are going to keep chipping away at it. But every other institution in the country that is public facing in particular, whether it is a company, whether it is a news organization, whether it is a professional organization of every kind, I think people have now gotten the message that it is a humiliation and it is something that you cannot live down until, till you change course and change your mind to bend the knee to this guy. And so I don't think anybody, any self respecting news organization knew that they could accept these sort of rules and leave their reporters in there under these Orwellian rules. And so I think that the weather is changing and that institutions know it's not a good look to capitulate to this guy and to this insane stuff they're demanding of people in this country and anymore.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's something that Martin Sheen said on Saturday at our MSNBC live event. He said this is fleeting. And the idea that people think that this will be the weather, to use your word, forever and that it won't at some point be the most hideous brand ever to be. I mean, imagine being Paul Weiss, right? The first law firm that capitulates to Trump. That won't always be a good look, but they will have always gone first. It's so nice to talk to you and we got our hook in you and made you stay the whole hour. Rachel, thank you so much for spending the hour with us. The doc is Andrew.

[Michelle Norris]

Thank you.

[Nicole Wallace]

Thank you. The doc is Andrew Young, the Dirty Work. It airs here on MSNBC at 9:00, clock Eastern, but Rachel anchors the hour before that. So just cuddle in on Friday night for an incredible night, an important night of television. There will be that special edition of Rachel ahead of the film and then the film itself. Up next for us, new reporting and new threats from Donald Trump on his retribution campaign. Much more news ahead. Cliff, Frank, we'll be right back.

[Progressive/Lifelock Announcer]

It's Cybersecurity awareness Month and Lifelock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, Lifelock is your best choice. Lifelock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected with a 30 day free [e-mail] Specialoffer terms apply.