Podcast Summary: Today, Explained – "Is voting doomed?"

Date: October 15, 2025
Hosts: Noel King, Sean Rameswaram (not present in transcript)
Guests: Mark Joseph Stern (Slate), Ian Millhiser (Vox)

Overview of the Episode

This episode centers on a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court case—Calais v. Louisiana—that challenges the remaining core of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), a landmark civil rights law that has protected minority access to voting for decades. The hosts and guests unpack the legal arguments, historical context, potential implications of the Court's decision, and reflect on both partisan and structural dimensions of voting rights in America.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Case: Calais v. Louisiana

• Background: Louisiana redrew its congressional districts, increasing majority-Black districts from one to two in compliance with the VRA.
  • [02:16] Stern: “This case is Calais versus Louisiana, which is a challenge to what remains of the Voting Rights Act, a seminal 1965 law designed to protect and enhance minority participation in elections.”
• Plaintiffs (Calais and others): White voters argue the new map gives Black voters "too much power" and that the VRA’s focus on race violates the Constitution.
  • [04:18] Stern: “The plaintiffs here say, look, taking race into account that way, using race to decide whether a law or a map is constitutional, that actually violates the equal protection clause.”

2. Changing Positions and State Action

• The Louisiana legislature initially defended its map, but later reversed course, effectively siding with those challenging the VRA.
  • [05:32] Stern: "The attorney general, the solicitor general, the state legislature, the governor, all of them have now decided that in fact they deserve to be sued and that the map they drew is unlawful."

3. The Supreme Court’s Recent History with the VRA

• Allen v. Milligan (2023): The Court upheld the VRA and race-based districting as a remedy for discrimination.
  • [06:15] Stern: “It was only in 2023, in a decision called Allen v. Milligan, that the Supreme Court upheld… yes, the Voting Rights Act does require states to ensure that minority voters have fair and equal representation.”
• Current Threat: Despite Allen, the current case threatens to end the use of race-based remedies in districting.
  • [07:25] Stern: “…here we are barely two years later, and the Supreme Court is doing exactly that. It is entertaining what is very much an existential threat to the foundation of the Voting Rights Act.”

4. The Stakes: What Happens If the VRA Is Gutted?

• Core issue: If race can’t be taken into account to fight racist districting, legislatures could redraw maps to dilute minority power with no VRA to challenge them.
  • [09:07] Stern: “The court would be saying, you cannot fight racism by taking race into account…you have to pretend to be colorblind.”
• Scope: The impact would be national, not just in Louisiana.
  • [10:29] Stern: “There are many, many maps drawn in states all across the country that were designed to comply with the Voting Rights act... If the Supreme Court guts the Voting Rights act, then it will be open season on these black communities and brown communities…”
• Partisan Dimension: Black Americans, who vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, would lose representation, potentially shifting as many as 19 House seats.
  • [11:42] Stern: “…if the law is gutted or overturned…Democrats could lose as many as 19 seats in the House of Representatives…”

5. Longstanding Skepticism and Partisan Implications

• John Roberts: Has a history of opposition to broad interpretations of the VRA, dating to his time in the Reagan administration and his 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision.
  • [07:50] Stern: “…John Roberts, when he worked in Ronald Reagan’s Department of Justice, lobbied against an expansion of the Voting Rights act quite vigorously.”
• Arguments Against the VRA: Conservative justices claim America is less racist than during Jim Crow, so VRA protections are no longer necessary. Critics call this view naïve and historically dangerous.
  • [22:15] Millhiser: “They argue … that the United States is less racist now than it was in 1960…so we no longer need these protections…”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On what’s at stake in plain language:
  • [09:07] Mark Joseph Stern: “The court would be saying, you cannot fight racism by taking race into account.”
• Explaining why the Supreme Court’s majority is reconsidering the VRA so quickly after upholding it:
  • [07:50] Mark Joseph Stern: “It does seem to me that the decision two years ago was always on kind of shaky ground because it was a 5 to 4 ruling...”
• On the transformation of the Voting Rights Act debate:
  • [15:55] Ian Millhiser: “The premise of the Voting Rights act is that it comes out of the Jim Crow era when there was states who were engaged in a terrible evil. …And now the problem is that the federal government is the wrongdoers. I do not trust Donald Trump with power…”
• On whether federal protections are still needed:
  • [22:15] Ian Millhiser: “…the United States is less racist now than it was in 1960…so we no longer need these protections because America doesn’t have the same race problems.”
  • [23:43] Ian Millhiser: “And now that we know what happened to black Americans after that decision, my God, was the Supreme Court wrong about that.”
• On the new relevance of ‘federalism’:
  • [24:55] Ian Millhiser: “You know, federalism, the idea that we should devolve power to the states is not something that…people on my political side…have historically been very favorable to…But it is also the case…states generally draw the electoral maps in the US and that means that blue states can counter Republican gerrymanders.”

Important Timestamps and Segments

| Timestamp | Topic | Speaker(s) | |--------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | 00:03-00:46 | VRA introduction & popularity | Noel King, Mark Joseph Stern | | 02:02-06:01 | Calais v. Louisiana: facts, arguments, flip-flop | Noel King, Mark Joseph Stern | | 06:01-07:25 | Supreme Court's recent (Allen v. Milligan) ruling | Mark Joseph Stern | | 07:35-08:57 | Why the Supreme Court is revisiting the VRA | Noel King, Mark Joseph Stern | | 09:07-11:18 | Implications of gutting the VRA | Noel King, Mark Joseph Stern | | 11:42-12:43 | Partisan consequences of weakening the VRA | Noel King, Mark Joseph Stern | | 15:40-17:16 | Federal power: from hero to potential threat | Mark Joseph Stern, Ian Millhiser| | 17:33-21:56 | Legal & historical context (Shelby, Roberts, etc.) | Noel King, Ian Millhiser | | 22:15-23:43 | Conservative justices’ arguments against the VRA | Ian Millhiser | | 24:47-26:05 | Millhiser on federalism as a defensive strategy | Noel King, Ian Millhiser |

Episode Tone & Style

The tone is concerned and analytical, mixing historical context, legal expertise, and current political urgency. Both guests, especially Stern and Millhiser, are passionate about the implications of the case—Millhiser reluctantly entertains arguments against the VRA while warning of their risks, and Stern sounds alarmed about the shaky future of voting rights protections.

Summary for Non-Listeners

"Is voting doomed?" breaks down a Supreme Court challenge that could upend a half-century of minority voting rights protections. Experts explain how this case—driven by claims of reverse racial discrimination—could eliminate the ability to use race as a remedy for racist gerrymandering, potentially letting conservative legislatures across the country further marginalize Black (predominantly Democratic) voters. The conversation traverses legal arguments, historical mistakes, present partisanship, and the uneasy potential of relying on states' rights to safeguard democracy in a new, fractious era. For anyone concerned about the future of American elections, the episode underscores that what happens in this Supreme Court term could reshape voting—and representation—for millions.