BREAKING: BOMBSHELL update from US Supreme Court

This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we have an update here on a case that I've been watching closer than any other case that's coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court. Can you explain what that update is?

Yeah, this is a very, very big update, and I need everyone to do me a favor. You got to watch this video to the end because there's a lot that's going to be packed in here, okay? And then I need you to share this with your friends. The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled for oral argument on October 15th, this is like the first two weeks that they are back, the rehearing in the Louisiana redistricting case. This is an enormous deal. It looks like the U.S. Supreme Court may be trying to not only undermine the Voting Rights Act, potentially going so

far as to overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but they are trying to do it on an expedited schedule, presumably because they know the 2026 midterms stand in front of all of us.

Okay, so can you give a brief update here in terms of why this case in particular is so important? We've spoken about this in other videos, but look, we have spoken about Supreme Court cases, we've spoken about appeals court cases, district court cases, district court cases.

This one is hands down the most important case that we've focused on over the last few years.

That's absolutely right. Which again, is why I need people to watch this video all the way to the end and get all of this information. And also why it's important that you share this information with your friends. This Supreme Court case has the potential to undo Section 2 of

the Voting Rights Act. We all know about Shelby County. We all know that the Supreme Court in 2013 undid and gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That provision said that if you were in a jurisdiction in a state with a history of discriminating against minority voters, before you could change your voting rules, you had to get preclearance from the Department of Justice or a court in Washington, D.C. The thing that is oftentimes not as focused on is the remaining key provision of the Voting

Rights Act, Section 2. What does that do? That applies nationwide. And it says that if you engage in voting discrimination against minority voters, those laws, those actions can be undone. And it has become the central tool that is used to prevent Republican gerrymandering, to screw over and discriminate against minority voters. If this

goes away, then states like Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Texas, they will be able to enact new maps that just run roughshod over minority voters in ways that are unimaginable to us today. So everybody needs to be paying attention to this case. Everybody needs to be following it on DemocracyDoc, the website I created, and everybody needs to be watching these videos and really educating themselves and their friends. So this case is

going to be heard on October 15th. Does that offer any insight? Can you read anything from the tea leaves here in terms of what that means for the Supreme Court? Is that early? Is that late? Is that completely normal and doesn't give any insight at all into how the Supreme Court might look at this.

Look, it doesn't tell us what the outcome will be. And no one can go all like the courts don't matter and it's all rigged business on me, okay? Like we got to fight till the bitter end. We got to expect the Supreme Court's gonna do the right thing.

We've got to have trust in the lawyers who are arguing this case. My law firm has been involved in representing one of the groups of black voters who brought the original case in Louisiana. So no giving up on me here. Right, OK? So everyone's got to stick with us.

But what it means is that the Supreme Court term, which doesn't begin until the beginning of October, this case has been put at the very beginning. Like, this case could have been scheduled in October, could have been scheduled November, December, or even January. The Supreme Court is having this be one of the very first cases

that it adheres this term. And one of the reasons that may be is because they want a decision to be able to be issued early in the term, early in 2026, because there will be midterm elections. And if they were to strike down the Voting Rights Act,

you could see Republican states all across the deep South and potentially elsewhere decide to redraw their maps and draw out of existence existing black and Hispanic opportunity districts that right now, if they tried to do, would violate the Voting Rights Act. Again, not a prediction.

I believe that we have to win this case and that we will win this case. We have won previous cases before. We won the Alabama case a couple of years ago, which was the last time that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was in danger. So again, no giving up on it, everybody. You cannot get fatalistic here. We have to hold the Supreme Court to the law, to its precedent, and to what Congress intended

when they enacted this.

Mark, does the fact that this Supreme Court has upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act numerous times in numerous states, including Louisiana, including Florida, including Alabama, does that offer any insight into whether or not they would be more or less willing

to uphold Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when that issue as a standalone issue comes in front of the court?

Look, the fact is this has come up before the court. As you point out, like you listed some of the states that the current composition of the Supreme Court has decided, but honestly, the amendments to section two that sort of have set the basic framework that we all operate in under were put in place in 1982 under Ronald Reagan. Yeah. And conservative Supreme Courts ever since,

and yes we have had conservative Supreme Courts ever since, they have all in one form or another reaffirmed section two of the Voting Rights Act, applied section two of the Voting Rights Act, struck down actions that violate section two of the Voting Rights Act, struck down actions that violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. I mean, this is as close as you get to well-settled law that has not just existed but has been over and over and over again applied to a variety of districting and district maps over

the course of decades. And for the U.S US Supreme Court to decide now somehow that you know it has it no longer is necessary because times have changed you know there's no longer a need for it or whatever excuse they would have is simply inexcusable and we cannot allow that to happen we cannot we cannot give in to that as inevitability we have to hold the Supreme Court to those precedent

and assume that in the end, they will, as they did in Alabama, they will do the right thing and Section 2 will survive.

But does the fact that they're bringing this up to hear these arguments in the first place, does that suggest that at least among one justice, there's some openness to striking this down?

Oh, it's more than one justice. I mean, look, we have seen at least three justices of the Supreme Court cast serious doubt on the Voting Rights Act or more. I mean, we've seen individual justices say that they believe it should be a section

to the Voting Rights Act either is unconstitutional or it doesn't apply to redistricting at all. So let's be eyes open. I mean, I'm not here to sell, you know, fairy tales. There is a contingent of the Supreme Court that is hostile to the Voting Rights Act, and that is something that is a tragedy for democracy and is something that we have to worry about. It is also the case, to make matters worse, that this Louisiana case was heard last term. The Supreme Court had an

opportunity to put this to bed, and instead they ordered it re-argued. And they ordered it re-argued on a question that looks an awful lot like what you would do if you were a court looking to strike down the Voting Rights Act, right? There is a reason why this case is being re-heard this term, and it is not for any good reason, it is for a very concerning reason. And that suggests that it's not just one justice or two justices or even just three justices, right? We need, in order for the Voting Rights Act to survive, we need to win two of the following three in this rehearing. Ready? Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett. Now,

each of them, you can say, has good reason to believe that they should be in favor of holding Section 2 based on their past votes. But each of them have said things or written things that suggest that maybe they don't think Section 2 should remain good law.

So this is very much an open question. It is very much of deep concern to me and to you and to everyone who cares about the pro-democracy movement. But, you know, again, the reason why I wanted everyone to watch through the end of this video is because I need everyone to listen and not give up on democracy. The cynics want you to believe that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is going to be struck down. Donald Trump wants you to think that the Supreme Court is rigged against voting rights.

That is the game that the right wing is playing. The best thing you can do right now to support voting rights, the best, most important thing you can do right now to ensure that Section 2 remains strong is to believe that it is constitutional, to insist that the Supreme Court follow the law, and to not give in to the cynics, not give in to the idea that that democracy is going to die in the plain light of day while the legacy media watches on and does nothing. We need everyone to have the confidence that courts have to do the right thing and will

do the right thing. And if we do that, we may once again surprise everyone and pull a win out of this

Supreme Court. Mark, I want to put this into perspective here because we're right now engaged in this nationwide battle where a bunch of states are looking to redraw their maps. We're seeing it on the Republican side in Texas, in Missouri, in Indiana, in Florida. And of course, Democrats are rightfully looking to respond. And we've heard from governors in places like California, Illinois, possibly New York,

although it wouldn't be immediate, and Maryland as well. Can you put this into perspective? While we kind of squabble over a few seats in different states here and there, which may amount to, I don't know, 12 seats or so, if Republicans are able to gerrymander all the states

they've been talking about, Democrats probably somewhere along the same lines. But what would overturning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act mean in terms of being able to redraw maps and eliminate these opportunity districts?

Look, if there's no Voting Rights Act protections, and the Supreme Court has already said there's no protections against partisan gerrymandering, and the Supreme Court is being interpreted to have said that you can do unlimited mid-cycle redistricting, although I have my doubts about that.

But if you take those three things, then there's nothing that prevents Republicans from gerrymandering with complete abandon. And there are dozens upon dozens, if not more than a hundred districts that right now Republicans keep their hands off of

because they believe that it will, if they touch them, it'll either violate the Voting Rights Act or trigger a lawsuit claiming violation violate the Voting Rights Act or trigger a lawsuit claiming violation of the Voting Rights Act. And so they leave those districts alone. And so you will go from a world in which right now you have seen the expansion of Black Opportunity

districts in states like Alabama and Louisiana to potentially Republicans saying, let's do away with them entirely. Same thing in Georgia. Same thing in Florida. Same thing in Texas with Black and Hispanic districts. I mean this would be a catastrophe for voting rights in this country and a catastrophe for democracy in this country. And that's the reason why I feel so strongly about this. It's why I am pressing so hard all

of you to share this video so that your friends and family know the stakes here. Also, do me a favor, you know, sometimes Brian and I do these videos and it's hard to know, like, what you all are thinking. So put a comment and let us know, like, if this is something on your mind, tell us it's on your mind. If there's something else you think we should be doing

videos on, let us know that as well. Finally, Mark, let's finish off with this. When do you expect, at the earliest and at the latest, we might hear some type of ruling from the Supreme Court here? And is there still the possibility that exists that the Supreme Court might not rule in time for it to apply to 2026? Look, I mean, the Supreme Court can rule whenever

it wants, right? We know that typically its most important decisions are not handed down until the end of June, and that would frankly be too late for the 2026 cycle. The reason why this has caused alarm bells to go off for me is because they scheduled this argument very, very early. Now, on the one hand, you could say that's just because it's a rehearing and they didn't need as much prep time or whatever. this argument very, very early. Now, on the one hand, you could say that's just because it's a rehearing and they didn't need,

you know, as much prep time or whatever. On the other hand, you could imagine that because it involves redistricting, they might actually want it to be later so that there is not gamesmanship that comes out of any decision,

good, bad, or someplace in between. And therefore, they purposely would not want a big redistricting case to be decided in the middle of, frankly, a midterm election. So they can rule any time as early as, I would say, January. Remember the Citizens United case, which

was also a re-argued case? That decision was issued on January 10th of 2010 after it was re-argued, so very early in the cycle. But it can also be one of the last decisions that comes out in June. We're just going to have to wait and see and pay attention by subscribing to this YouTube channel and these Democracy Watch videos.

Well, I appreciate that and also highly recommend because Mark is on the front lines of this fight. There is no better, more authoritative voice on this issue than Mark and his team. So highly recommend for anybody who has not yet subscribed to Democracy Docket's YouTube channel.

I'll put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen.

I'm Mark Elias. I'm Mark Elias.

This is Democracy Watch.