The Return of Jim Crow

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: It Could Happen Here

Episode: "The Return of Jim Crow"

Host: Mia Wong (Cool Zone Media/iHeartPodcasts)
Date: May 14, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In "The Return of Jim Crow," host Mia Wong delves into a recent Supreme Court decision—Louisiana v. Calais—that, in her view, revives voting restrictions reminiscent of the Jim Crow era by gutting protections in the Voting Rights Act. The episode explores the legal, historical, and political ramifications of the ruling, its impact on minority voting rights, and the broader consequences for democracy in the United States. The discussion is urgent, direct, and grave, with Mia framing the moment as a seismic shift toward the re-establishment of white supremacist political control via the courts.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Happened: The Supreme Court Decision (Louisiana v. Calais)

• Issue: Whether Louisiana can redraw its electoral map to eliminate two majority-Black congressional districts by distributing Black voters across multiple districts, thereby diluting their voting power.
  • "Can a state create an electoral map where they spread all of the black voters across different districts in order to make them a minority in every district, thus making it impossible for black voters to select a candidate of their choosing?" (Mia Wong, 02:55)
• Background: Achieving two Black-majority districts was hard-won through civil rights litigation. The case cuts to the heart of the Voting Rights Act's original purpose: to prevent precisely this form of disenfranchisement.

2. Legal Framework: The Voting Rights Act & Its Erosion

• Minority-Majority Districts: Districts where a majority of voters are minorities, intended to allow communities of color meaningful electoral representation—a direct response to Jim Crow practices.
• Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:
  • Text clarification:
    • “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed… in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen… to vote on account of race or color…” (Mia quoting statute, 07:42)
  • Crucial distinction: Results, not intent. Previously, just the impact ("results") of a law or practice could trigger a violation, not the motives behind it.

3. The Court’s Radical Shift: From Results to Intent

• New Standard: Plaintiffs (often Black voters and civil rights groups) must now definitively prove that gerrymandering was intentionally and explicitly racist, not merely that it results in disenfranchisement.
• Quote/Analysis:
  • "You have to prove that they specifically wanted to do this out of racism and not just because they want to elect Republicans by gerrymandering it partisan. Lee. Which is, amazingly, a thing that's legal to do in the United States for reasons that are incredibly baffling." (Mia Wong, 06:11)
• Implication: Partisan gerrymandering (even when it effectively disenfranchises minorities) remains legal; only explicitly racist intent is now prohibited, creating a legal loophole.

4. Critical Commentary from Experts

• Edward Foley’s Reaction:
  • Constitutional law professor (not a leftist, per Mia) calls the decision an “abomination.”
  • "The ruling purports to interpret the Voting Rights Act Section 2, but it destroys the central meaning of the section, converting it into the exact opposite of what Congress meant for it to do." (Edward Foley, quoted by Mia Wong, 09:35)
  • Underscores that Congress, in 1982, intentionally switched from intent to results precisely because proving racist intent is nearly impossible in practice.
• Congressional Power under the Constitution:
  • The Court’s new justification—that Congress lacks authority to draw voting-rights protections from the 15th Amendment—is rebutted by the Constitution:
    • "Article 1, Section 4... says the Times, places and manner of holding elections... shall be prescribed in each state… But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations..." (Mia quoting Constitution, 13:24)

5. Immediate Aftermath: Shadow Docket and Alabama

• Alabama’s Defiance: After being ordered in 2023 by the Supreme Court to create fair districts, Alabama refused, prompting intervention by lower courts.
• Supreme Court’s Hypocrisy:
  • On shadow docket, Court allowed Alabama’s racially discriminatory map just 8 days before an election—despite previously stating, in the same ruling, that such overt discrimination wouldn't be permitted.
  • "Alito says… he won't overturn cases that are like overt discrimination… and then they did it anyway. Jesus Christ." (Mia Wong, 18:56)
  • Rules are inconsistently applied depending on whether the outcome will benefit the Republican Party.

6. Broader Political Context & Analysis

• End of Multiracial Democracy:
  • "It's a seismic shift in just literally what this country is toward. Something that unbelievably and unfathomably bleak state of pure white rule." (Mia Wong, 26:17)
• Historical Parallels: U.S. was not a democracy before the 1965 Voting Rights Act because Black people (and other minorities) were systematically disenfranchised.
• Republican Party’s Overt Aims:
  • The resegregation of political power is described as the longstanding project of the Republican Party, with references to the evolution from resistance to school desegregation (via “school choice”) to current efforts to eliminate Black political representation.

7. The Danger of Relying on Elections Alone

• "People who are talking about this think that it can be reversed just by voting more... The whole point of this is to make sure that elections and whatever the will of the people is, is incapable of actually affecting the white supremacist state because non-white people just don't get votes. You can't just vote harder your way through all of this shit. You have to actually do things." (Mia Wong, 27:06)

8. Closing Note: A Call to Action

• "If you’ve ever asked yourself what you would be doing in Nazi Germany [or during Jim Crow], the answer is whatever the fuck you’re doing now. And if you’re not happy with that answer, then it’s time to move." (Mia Wong, 28:33)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Court's Reasoning:
  • "It's just pure Calvin Ball shit. Like, I mean, it's just. Jesus Christ." (Mia Wong, 14:31)
• On Historical Significance:
  • "Getting the 1965 Voting Rights act was one of the major achievements of the civil rights movement, right? It's like one of the biggest goals of the moderate wing of the movements was to have elections in which black people got to actually fucking vote and not have their vote intentionally diluted." (Mia Wong, 22:24)
• On the Gravity of the Moment:
  • "This is one of the bleakest moments of this administration. Right on top of just the multiple genocides they're committing... what they're doing right now is attempting to end multiracial democracy in the US." (Mia Wong, 26:17)
• On Personal Responsibility:
  • "If you’ve ever asked yourself what you would be doing in Nazi Germany, it’s right now. And… if you’ve ever asked yourself what would you be doing during Jim Crow, the answer is whatever the fuck you’re doing now. And if you’re not happy with that answer, then it’s time to move." (Mia Wong, 28:33)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:26] – Mia Wong introduces the crisis around the Supreme Court ruling
• [04:00–05:41] – Explanation of "minority-majority" districts and their roots in civil rights law
• [06:35–09:58] – Moving from "results" to "intent" in the Voting Rights Act & summary of expert legal opinion
• [12:05–14:18] – Constitutional context for Congressional authority; rebuttal of the Court’s logic
• [18:12–22:24] – Immediate aftermath: Alabama, shadow docket, and hypocritical application of rules
• [22:41–24:14] – History of disenfranchisement, meaning of the 1965 Voting Rights Act
• [25:01–26:17] – Republican political history, resegregation, and current anti-Black policies
• [27:06–28:33] – On the ineffectiveness of voting, necessity of action, and the moral challenge of our time

---

Tone & Language

The episode is direct, angry, and urgent. Mia Wong pulls no punches, using profanity and clear moral language to underline the stakes: “Jesus fucking Christ,” “pure Calvin Ball shit,” “a pure white supremacist Jim Crow state.” There’s an insistence on facing the gravity of the crisis, rejecting euphemism or false optimism.

---

Summary Conclusion

This episode is a fierce, clear-eyed breakdown of how recent Supreme Court decisions have eviscerated voting rights protections, with direct lines drawn between these legal developments and the return of Jim Crow-style disenfranchisement. Wong situates the current moment as a pivotal, grim juncture in U.S. history and calls for concrete action beyond electoral politics. The podcast serves both as a legal analysis and a call to self-examination and resistance.

---

Transcript

[Podcast Announcer]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human. You know what they say. Early Bird gets the ultimate vacation home. Book early and save over $120 with VRBO because early gets you closer to the action. Whether it's waves lapping at the shore or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks. Well, whatever you want it to so you can all enjoy the payoff come summer with VRBO's early booking deals. Rise and shine. Average saving 150 $41 select homes only.

[VRBO Advertiser]

Whether it's a birthday trip, a family reunion, or just a fun getaway, booking a VRBO vacation rental means no worrying about surprises. VRBoCare and 247 Life Support have your back if something's off. The loved by Guest filter helps you find top rated homes, and verified reviews mean real feedback from real VRBO guests so you know exactly what you're booking.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

Honestly, I just booked my VRBO because there was a sweet wine fridge.

[VRBO Advertiser]

Hey, we all have our reasons. Don't walk into a surprise if you know you VRBO terms apply. See vrbo.com trust for details.

[Saigon Podcast Narrator]

Wanna keep up with everything trendy? From breaking news to shareable jokes, pop culture bites to viral food spots, it's all on TikTok. Download TikTok now to explore.

[Veeve Healthcare Advertiser]

This ad is brought to you by Veeve Healthcare, the makers of Aperitude Cabotegravir.

[Apretude Medication Informant]

You never skip your SPF and you carry hand sanitizer like an accessory. But what are you doing for HIV prevention? One way to help protect yourself from H is Apretude, a prescription medicine used to reduce the risk of getting HIV in adults and adolescents weighing at least £77.

[Veeve Healthcare Advertiser]

You must be HIV negative to receive Apretude and get tested before each injection. If you think you're exposed to HIV or have flu like symptoms, tell your doctor right away. More HIV testing may be needed. Apertude does not prevent other sexually transmitted infections. Practice safer sex to reduce your risk. Get Apertude as scheduled. Missing doses increases your HIV risk. Don't take aperitude if allergic to it or taking certain medicines that may interact. Tell your doctor about your medical conditions, liver problems and mental health. Serious side effects include allergic reactions or rash, liver problems and depression. If these occur, get medical help right away. The most common side effect is injection site reaction.

[Apretude Medication Informant]

Bring your A game and talk to your doctor. Learn [e-mail] or call 1-888-240-0340.

[Mia Wong]

Welcome to It Could Happen Here, a podcast where the thin veneer of democracy that has hitherto veiled, the settler colony of the United States in the mask of humanity is being increasingly ripped away, leaving behind, I think calling it a new Jim Crow is. That title's already been used for something else, but it's a return overtly to some of the worst discrimination of the Jim Crow era. So I'm your host, Mia Wong. Let's talk about what is actually at issue here. And that is a recent Supreme Court ruling called Louisiana v. Calais. On a sort of micro level, this is about the question of can Louisiana just eliminate the two majority black districts that it had in its congressional map in 2024? Getting to this map in the first place was a subject of really intense civil rights litigation. To get to the point where there were two majority Black districts in 2024, on a macro level, what is at stake here is can a state create an electoral map where they spread all of the black voters across different districts in order to make them a minority in every district, thus making it impossible for black voters to select a candidate of their choosing? Until now, the answer was no, because this is specifically what the Voting Rights act was passed to stop.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

Like this.

[Mia Wong]

Specifically like this. This is one of the very specific things I cannot emphasize this enough. This specific thing, which is spread out the black vote across a whole bunch of districts where everyone else is white, so that black people cannot choose who they want to elect. This is like one of the specific things it was designed to stop. Again, up until now, you have not been allowed to do this, and this has led to the creation of what are called minority majority districts. This is a long and complicated history that frankly could be its own, probably is like multiple people's doctoral dissertations. The short, short version of what a minority majority district is, is it's a district where the majority of voters are from a minority group, thus allowing people from a minority group to select a candidate of their choosing. There are a lot of these districts in the south specifically to prevent Republican politicians from making it impossible for black voters to elect anyone they chose. And fundamentally, what's at stake here, right, is the constitutional right to elect a candidate of your choosing if you are part of a minority group. Right. This is why all of this stuff was passed in the first place. Because under what we call Jim Crow, it was extremely easy for a white majority to simply effectively deny the rights of black people. And this is other non white people too. But like this is primarily black people. It was very, very easy to simply deny them from ever getting to elect anyone by just drawing maps where a candidate they would vote for can never be elected.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

This is one of the bases of

[Mia Wong]

Jim Crow overt discrimination.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

The Supreme Court has decided.

[Mia Wong]

No, actually, what they've decided is that if the Republican Party that controls the legislature draws a map that does the thing we've been talking about, where they spread out all of the, like specifically the black vote into a bunch of districts so that black people can't elect a representative. In order to challenge this as violation of your. Of your voting rights, you have to

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

prove, definitively prove that the intent was

[Mia Wong]

racism and not literally anything else. So, for example, and this is, this is the thing that's really at issue here, right? You have to prove that they specifically wanted to do this out of racism and not just because they want to elect Republicans by gerrymandering it partisan. Lee. Which is, amazingly, a thing that's legal to do in the United States for reasons that are incredibly baffling.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

And also, you have to be able

[Mia Wong]

to prove that they created this map specifically out of the intention to disenfranchise a minority group.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

And also you have to create a

[Mia Wong]

map that would allow them to achieve whatever other goals they supposedly want, like, for example, again, making sure that Republicans have all the seats in a state, but also not be racist. So you have to create a map for them that would allow them to do this in order to prove that there could be another map that achieves their goals of, like, partisan gerrymandering that isn't also racist.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

It's completely unhinged legally. This is, this is a shambles. We have covered some downright, like, hideous

[Mia Wong]

nonsense on this show in terms of Supreme Court decisions, right? Like, this Supreme Court has just the lowest level of legal literacy in, like, living memory of any Supreme Court. It is astounding the kinds of just absolute horseshit they are popping out with this.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

This is maybe their worst ruling, which is difficult to prove because there have

[Mia Wong]

been so many abhorrent ones. Even just from a pure legal perspective, this one is so bad it defies belief. So, okay, one of the main issues Here is section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. I'm just going to read what it says. Quote, no voting qualifications or prerequisite to voting or standard practice or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any state or political subdivision in a manner which results. Keep that in mind later. Which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973, baby. So again, I can't emphasize this enough, right.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

The way this is written is that it says that you can't apply qualification

[Mia Wong]

or prerequisite to voting or have any standard or practice or procedure cannot be imposed by the state or any other political subdivision that results in the denial or abridgement of the rights of citizens to vote in account of race. Right?

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

It specifically says results.

[Mia Wong]

It does not say intent.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

Now this is incredibly important because Alito is like, no, fuck that. Actually, you have to prove intent.

[Mia Wong]

I'm going to quote from a piece in SCOTUS blog by Edward Foley, who has an extremely long title of the

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

Charles B. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold

[Mia Wong]

Chair in Constitutional Law, is the director of Election at Law at Ohio State University. He's written a book on electoral law. He is a constitutional law professor who specifically does election law. He is like, by no means a leftist. He's coming in to the right of, like, Justice Jackson and her dissent in this case. Right?

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

But even he. I'm going to quote what he.

[Mia Wong]

What he writes about this. He calls this ruling an abomination, which is like a thing that you don't really get from, like, legal people. They don't say shit like that. I'm going to quote what he says about this quote. The ruling purports to interpret the Voting Rights Act Section 2, but it destroys the central meaning of the section, converting it into the exact opposite of what Congress meant for it to do.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

The one thing that is UNAMBiguous about Section 2 is that the 1982amendment to

[Mia Wong]

the sections test creates a, quote, results test for determining whether there is liability under the section replacing the intent test that the Supreme Court had previously adopted for Section 2 claims. As the text states, quote, no standard practice or procedure shall be imposed which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race. Yet the case defiantly converts Section 2 back to an intention query rather than a results analysis. So what happened here, right, to make this extremely clear is that Congress in 1982 had amended this. They amended what this thing said, right? Because Supreme Court had been adopting a standard of intent, right? Which means that you have to prove that, like, these people were like mustache twirling, saying the N word in fucking Klan robes, doing Nazi salutes. You have to, like, prove that they intentionally did this for racist reasons and not any other reason. And Congress went back and went, no, fuck that. If the result of it is racist, then you can't do it even if, like nominally. What you're saying out loud is that you're doing this for non racist reasons. If the result is racism, then you have to not do it. And Alito goes, yeah, no, fuck that. We're just like flipping it back to a intent standard for no reason other than I want to be able to do racism and help the Republican Party win seats. The other thing that fully talks about is the court is arguing that like, Congress can't draw from the 15th Amendment in order in order to like have the Voting Rights act work in the first place. I'm going to quote him again. Yeah. The court in this decision did not need to consider the question of congressional power to enforce the 15th amendment. That is because the power of Congress to enact Section 2 of the Voting Rights Amendment for the purposes of the case could have been sustained not under the 15th Amendment, but under Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

Congress has full power under Article 1, Section 4 to enact laws governing the, quote, time, place and manner, manner of congressional elections. Thus, Congress can enact a prohibition against

[Mia Wong]

minority vote dilution for congressional districts under a disparate impact theory without any consideration of discriminatory intent and not rely on the 15th Amendment at all. So, okay, what does this mean? Right. What Alito is saying is that like, oh, well, actually Congress doesn't have the authority to like write the section of the Voting Rights Amendment. They don't have the authority to do it under the 15th amendment because it like oversteps the rights of states to, you know, like run their own elections. Right? So I'm gonna do the thing I did last time with fully's thing and just read the full Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution. By the way, when something says like Article 1, Section 4, you have to remember that all of the amendments, right, the amendment that got rid of slavery, even like the first Amendment, right, the freedom of speech, that's an amendment that's not in the original text that had to be added onto it. And obviously we have something called the Bill of Rights that like, you know, was like the first 10amendments that was passed with the Constitution. But that's not stuff that was like put like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship. That was not in the original text of the Constitution. That was the amendments put on.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

This is something that the people who

[Mia Wong]

wrote the Constitution were like, fuck it, this is going to be in the original thing, right? So Article one, Section four, this is from like the original fucking body of text of the Constitution says, quote the Times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

So yes, obviously they can fucking do the Voting Rights Amendment. They literally have the ability. Like it says in Section 1, Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.

[Mia Wong]

By such regulations, they mean the times, places and manner of holding elections. They could just do this, right?

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

So obviously they can fucking do the Voting Rights Amendment. It's. It's just. It's literally just there in the Constitution.

[Mia Wong]

It just says that.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

It's all like this. It's gibberish. It's like, oh my God, you can just read the text of the Constitution and it says you can do this. It's God. Holy shit.

[Mia Wong]

Even from the perspective of like, if you treat the law as real, this

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

is just pure Calvin Ball shit. Like, I mean, it's just. Jesus Christ.

[Mia Wong]

Okay, you know what's real and not Calvin Ball? It's. It's these products and services.

[VRBO Advertiser]

Booking a verbo vacation rental means you get verbo Care and 247 Life Support. Verified reviews from real guests and top rated homes with the Love by guest filter.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

I just booked my verbo because there was a sweet wine fridge.

[VRBO Advertiser]

We all have our reasons. If you know you've Erbo terms apply. See vrbo.com trust for details.

[Robert Smigel or Humor Me Podcast Host]

Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy not quite on Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier this week. My guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Who's the worst singer in the group?

[Mia Wong]

The worst?

[Robert Smigel or Humor Me Podcast Host]

Yeah, Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard you only got in because your parents made a huge

[Mia Wong]

donation to the group? To the group the Yard Birds. Right?

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

That's the name.

[Robert Smigel or Humor Me Podcast Host]

The Harvard Yard. They're open if you have a name suggestion, we're open. Since you guys are middle aged one erection, listen to Humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast.

[Mia Wong]

Humor me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny.

[Tom Bogart]

American soccer is about to explode.

[Tab Ramos]

The World cup is coming.

[Mia Wong]

Ramos sending on Ernie Stewart the ch.

[Tab Ramos]

I'm Tab Ramos.

[Tom Bogart]

I'm Tom Bogart. On our podcast Inside American Soccer. You'll get the real storylines.

[Tab Ramos]

I'm not worried about Pulisic. I'm not worried about Baligan. I'm not worried about McKinney. My only concern is what happens in the back.

[Tom Bogart]

The biggest decisions.

[Tab Ramos]

You're gonna look at stats and numbers. He has no shot at making this World cup team.

[Tom Bogart]

And the truth about the U.S. national team.

[Tab Ramos]

It wouldn't be a huge surprise if our team ends up in the quarterfinals or potentially a great run into the semifinals.

[Tom Bogart]

The World cup is almost here. Experience it all with us. Listen Inside American Soccer with Tom Boger and Tab ramos on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Podcast Announcer]

This is Saigon, the story of my

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

family and of the country that shaped us.

[Tab Ramos]

The United States States will not stand by and allow any power, however great, take over another country.

[Saigon Podcast Narrator]

From iHeart podcasts, Saigon, please allow me

[Mia Wong]

to introduce Joseph Sherman.

[Saigon Podcast Narrator]

You don't think I'm serious about a free Vietnam?

[Veeve Healthcare Advertiser]

I should stop talking so much.

[Podcast Announcer]

I like hearing you talk.

[Saigon Podcast Narrator]

One city, a divided country and the war that tore America apart.

[Mia Wong]

This is for Vietnam.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

I've taken a hit from Japanese ground fire to.

[Robert Smigel or Humor Me Podcast Host]

Do you read me?

[Mia Wong]

They're pouring petrol all over him.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

He's holding matches. I'm on a landmine for freedom. Let's get out. Freedom for midnight.

[Saigon Podcast Narrator]

Run Saigon. Starring Kelly Marie Tran and Rob Benedict.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

Staying here's madness.

[Mia Wong]

The world should hear about this. There's a fire coming to this country

[Podcast Announcer]

and it's going to burn out everything.

[Saigon Podcast Narrator]

Listen to Saigon on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Mia Wong]

We are back. So, okay, what has the result of this been? It's been about two weeks since the court did this decision. The court immediately followed this up by allowing Alabama to gerrymander the shit out of their upcoming election. They're doing this via again the shadow docket, which is their ability to just be like, no, fuck you. We're not ruling on this case without actually issuing a decision. An unsigned one paragraph thing from the court can just dictate what the law is. It's great.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

It's amazing.

[Mia Wong]

And by amazing, I mean Jesus fucking Christ. This happens about a week after the

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

original Supreme Court decision.

[Mia Wong]

This shadow docket allows Alabama to put in place a map that was already

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

found to be explicitly racially motivated. A thing Alito said in the decision that he wouldn't do. Right. Alito says in the decision that he won't overturn A, cases that are like overt discrimination and B, that he wouldn't overturn this exact case. And then they did it anyways. Jesus Christ. Just like, oh my God.

[Mia Wong]

So the short version of the Alabama conflict I'm drawing here from Slate's story on this thing is that Alabama tried to do a map that would let them get rid of like both of the congressional black congressional candidates in the states by gerrymandering the black vote. There's a whole bunch of court cases about this. In 2023, the Supreme Court said that they couldn't do this and they had to make fairer districts that didn't like, violate the Voting Rights Act. So this was three years ago.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

This like the Supreme Court said they

[Mia Wong]

had to do this. Here's some Slate quote, Alabama, however, refused

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

to comply with that order. Again, like they got an order from

[Mia Wong]

the Supreme Court and refused to do it, quote.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

So the lower court imposed its own

[Mia Wong]

map featuring two districts where black voters had a real shot at choosing their representative. The court also found that in defying its previous mandate, the Alabama legislature had engaged in intentional racial discrimination, violating the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause in addition to the Voting Rights Act. Up until Monday, this decision had prevented the legislature from joining the former Confederate states. Now racing to eliminate black representatives from their congressional delegations, Alabama Republicans pressed the district court to lift its bar, but it refused. So they filed an emergency request at the Supreme Court asking permission to re gerrymander black communities in light of this decision. Now, I can't emphasize enough this vote from when they were granted this position, this vote is in like eight days, right? People, people had already started voting for candidates in primaries, right? And Supreme Court was like, yeah, sure, yeah, you can, you can fucking re gerrymander this thing eight days before the election. That's absolutely fine. Even though, again, I cannot emphasize this enough in the ruling. Alito specifically said in the majority opinion that they wouldn't overturn this exact case. And then they did it. It's mind boggling.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

It used to be like, it really

[Mia Wong]

truly did used to be that if you were going to do shit like this, you had to like, sort of like pretend that you were following some

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

kind of legal order.

[Mia Wong]

And now you just don't.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

You can just fucking do Calvin Ball shit.

[Mia Wong]

You can just literally lie about what you're doing in your decisions and then just fucking do whatever you want about it. And obviously, you know, as Slate points out, and this has been pointed out by a whole bunch of different outlets, the Supreme Court also had used another legal principle to prevent states that would have, were trying to like, make more democratic maps, both in the sense of, like, not being racist, and also that would elect more democratic politicians. And even though it was three months before the election, the court was like, well, it's actually too soon. Like, it's too close to the election for you to be changing this stuff. But then also now they're just letting Alabama do one of these, like, eight days before an election. So it's so incredibly clear that what's happening here is that the court is trying to allow Republican politicians to just

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

straight up rig elections for them by doing gerrymandered districts in a way that lets them eliminate the ability of non white people to vote.

[Mia Wong]

And this is a huge fucking deal. Getting the 1965 Voting Rights act was one of the major achievements of the civil rights movement, right? It's like one of the biggest goals of the moderate wing of the movements was to have elections in which black

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

people got to actually fucking vote and not have their vote intentionally diluted so they could never actually elect a candidate.

[Mia Wong]

And that's what's being done here, right? And this has been pointed out. It's like anyone who's read any kind

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

of analysis of racial politics in the U.S. one of the consistent themes of this sort of, you know, what you would call, I guess, like the era of black uprising, right? The sort of modern era stretching from roughly Ferguson, although I guess you could talk about the stuff in the bay before that, roughly from Ferguson through 2020,

[Mia Wong]

was that the US was not a

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

democracy before the 1965 Voting Rights act,

[Mia Wong]

because the principle of one person, one

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

vote was not real, because you could simply disenfranchise anyone from a minority group.

[Mia Wong]

And that was the status quo of the south, and also like a lot of other parts of the country, too, was this very overt ability of these people to, you know, not only just like this is. This is one of the components of segregation, right? It's not just like imposing segregation legally

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

in public spaces, Right? It's also, you know, like, preventing. It's preventing black people from voting.

[Mia Wong]

And this is the thing that the Supreme Court ruling has just effectively destroyed, right? It's the thing that, like, made it possible to even sort of like in

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

the loosest sense possible, call this country a democracy.

[Mia Wong]

And it's gone. It's just gone. And now, you know, it's like, okay, like, what. What fucking is this now?

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

And, you know, I don't know. It's like, it's.

[Mia Wong]

It's an even more just extremely overt Jim Crow state. This is what the goal of the Republican Party has always been like, they want resegregation. It's been the basis of modern Republican politics forever, right? It's, you know, dating back to if you want to look at like what Trumpism descends for. We've talked about this at length on the show. The thing that became the sort of religious right was originally born out of like the school choice movement. And the thing about the school choice movement was that it was an anti integration thing. After losing their fight to be able to have whites only schools, a bunch of these sort of right wingers were like, okay, well we'll just do private

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

schools or we can do that.

[Mia Wong]

And that's the basis of modern Republican politics, right? Of, you know, sort of both evangelicalism

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

and sort of the Bush administration and Trumpism and Reagan too, is this shit.

[Mia Wong]

And this has been what the Republicans have done when they've been in power, right? This is a lot, a lot of the Trump administration, like what they were

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

doing, like all the stuff about dei, all the stuff about wokeness.

[Mia Wong]

This is also a lot of what

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

Doge was doing was trying to make it so that black people couldn't work for the US government, right? It was a huge purge of black women from the U.S. government. And now we're seeing this on the level of elections and on this level, what the Republicans are trying to do

[Mia Wong]

with these gerrymandered maps is remove non

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

white people and especially black people from Congress so they can just have untrammeled white supremacist rule.

[Mia Wong]

And they're doing it by claiming both that it's actually partisan, it's just partisan gerrymandering, which is legal to disenfranchise black voters because black voters won't openly vote for the party of white supremacy. And they're also claiming that like not doing this is like infringing on the civil rights of white people. A thing that like is completely, you know, just gibberish world turned upside down nonsense.

[Podcast Co-host or Guest]

But they can just do that now because they're in power and because the court will just let them do this shit. And so I think in a way that really has not been conveyed in the media and in the discourse, this is one of the bleakest moments of this administration. Right on top of just the multiple genocides they're committing, right on top of just the ethnic cleansing of non white people from the US that ICE is doing, what they're doing right now is attempting to end multiracial democracy in the US and obviously politically I have my critiques of electoral democracy as a concept. But having it just revert back to only white people get to decide who politicians are is something even worse than what we've had so far. You know, it's a seismic shift in just literally what this country is toward. Something that unbelievably and unfathomably bleak state of pure white rule. And the people who are talking about this think that it can be reversed just by voting more. But no, it can't. The whole point of this, right, is to make sure that elections and whatever the will of the people is, is incapable of actually affecting the white supremacist state because not white people just don't get votes. You can't just vote harder your way through all of this shit. You have to actually do things. And, you know, if we don't want to live in a white supremacist society, we're going to have to actually take action to combat and actually resist the fact that this is like, this is just a pure white supremacist Jim Crow state now. Yeah. So this has been. It could Happen here. I don't have a non bleak way to end this, but the common refrain is if you've ever asked yourself what you would be doing in Nazi Germany, it's right now. And I think you can also add to that, right, if you've ever asked yourself what would you be doing during Jim Crow? The answer is whatever the fuck you're doing now. And if you're not happy with that answer, then it's time to move.

[Cool Zone Media Announcer]

It Could Happen Here is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from Cool Zone Media, Visit our website coolzonemedia.com or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts you can now find sources for It Could Happen here listed directly in episode descriptions. Thanks for listening.

[Podcast Announcer]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.