Home
เข้าสู่ระบบ
สมัครสมาชิก
เนื้อหาการเรียน
Loading...
The voting rights case that could set us back 60 years - Video học tiếng Anh
ฝึกฟัง
ฝึกฟัง
/
Video
/
VOX
/
The voting rights case that could set us back 60 years
The voting rights case that could set us back 60 years
เลือกโหมดการเรียน:
ดูคำบรรยาย
เลือกคำ
เขียนคำใหม่
Highlight:
3000 Oxford Words
4000 IELTS Words
5000 Oxford Words
3000 Common Words
1000 TOEIC Words
5000 TOEFL Words
คำบรรยาย (321)
0:02
The Voting Rights Act is not just a
0:05
victory for black Americans. In the
0:07
words of Martin Luther King Jr., it
0:10
enriches the lives of all Americans.
0:13
>> The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a very
0:16
big deal. It transformed America,
0:18
marking the end of the Jim Crow era and
0:20
effectively banning racial
0:21
discrimination in elections.
0:23
>> When Lynden Johnson came into office, he
0:26
made black civil rights a priority. It
0:29
is to give all our people the right to
0:32
choose their leaders. To deny this
0:36
right, I think is to deny democracy
0:40
itself.
0:40
>> When Congress passed the Voting Rights
0:42
Act, I mean, they talked about it as,
0:43
you know, being this crown jewel, right?
0:45
Like that they had finally writed a
0:47
wrong.
0:48
>> The stunning thing about the Voting
0:49
Rights Act is just how fast it worked.
0:52
Um, so on the day it was signed, less
0:54
than 7% of black eligible voters in the
0:57
state of Mississippi were registered to
0:59
vote. Just 2 years later, that number
1:01
was 60%.
1:02
>> But in the past few decades,
1:04
conservative justices on the Supreme
1:06
Court have taken major steps towards
1:08
dismantling it.
1:09
>> Supreme Court just finished hearing
1:10
arguments in a major Republican
1:12
challenge to the Voting Rights Act. This
1:14
is a case that could gut key provisions
1:16
that prohibit racial discrimination in
1:18
redistricting. He's talking about the
1:20
Louisiana versus Cala case. At first
1:22
glance, it might look like yet another
1:24
scuffle over who gets their way when it
1:26
comes to drawing electoral maps. But the
1:28
truth is, there is a lot at stake here.
1:31
And you should care about it. Because if
1:33
the plaintiffs in this case get their
1:34
way, the Voting Rights Act could be
1:37
erased and America could be transformed
1:39
again, but this time it would tear down
1:41
more than half a century of voting
1:43
rights progress. The Supreme Court is
1:45
now set to decide not just if Louisiana
1:47
must keep two majority black districts,
1:49
but whether the Voting Rights Act can
1:51
continue protecting minority
1:53
representation nationwide.
1:55
>> So, slap on your I voted stickers and
1:57
get your notebooks out because this
1:59
video is going to take a trip through
2:01
history to explain how a shifting
2:02
Supreme Court got us here and how this
2:04
case in Louisiana could upend voting
2:06
rights and political representation for
2:08
a generation. This is The Docket, a
2:11
Patreon exclusive Vox series unpacking
2:13
the Supreme Court cases that you need to
2:15
know about.
2:17
Let's go back in time to 1965.
2:21
The world got Beatle Mania, The Sound of
2:23
Music was released, and it's also the
2:26
year when the Voting Rights Act was
2:27
passed. It was the culmination of years
2:30
of effort and sacrifice by the Civil
2:32
Rights Movement. The VRA has been
2:34
amended several times, but there are two
2:36
key pillars to know. Section two and
2:38
section 5. Section two bans denying the
2:41
right to vote on account of race and was
2:43
also amended to include the right to
2:45
elect representatives of their choice.
2:48
Section five said that certain
2:49
jurisdictions with a history of racial
2:51
discrimination had to get permission
2:53
from the federal government if they
2:55
wanted to change their voting laws. The
2:57
aim was to prevent the states and
2:59
jurisdictions on this map, mostly the
3:01
south, from passing laws that would
3:03
discriminate against black voters. We're
3:05
going to look at three major cases since
3:08
then that are key to understanding
3:10
Louisiana versus Cala. First stop, 1986,
3:14
a case called Thornberg versus Jingles
3:16
built upon section two and establish
3:19
rules governing when an alleged racial
3:21
gerrymander violates the VRA.
3:24
>> The two most important factors under
3:26
jingles, one is whether a state has
3:28
residential segregation. So, you know,
3:31
white people tend to live in one part of
3:32
the state, black people tend to live in
3:33
another part of the state. And also
3:35
whether it has racially polarized
3:37
voting. So, voters of one race tend to
3:40
vote for the Republican party, voters of
3:42
the other race tend to vote for the
3:43
Democratic party. And the reason why the
3:46
Supreme Court honed in on those two
3:48
factors is that when you have voters
3:51
clustering together and you also have
3:53
racial polarization,
3:55
that tends to produce two separate
3:57
political communities where it's very
4:00
easy for whichever racial group is in
4:03
the majority to essentially cut the
4:06
other group out of power by just drawing
4:08
maps where they don't have any
4:09
representation. And so you need to draw
4:11
additional black districts, additional
4:13
Latino districts, you know, additional
4:15
districts to make sure that that
4:16
minority group also has representation.
4:19
As a result of jingles, the number of
4:21
black representatives shot up thanks to
4:23
the creation of more majority black
4:25
districts. The second case, which came
4:27
in 2013, was not so favorable to the
4:30
Voting Rights Act. One of the key
4:32
pillars of protection, section 5, was
4:34
struck down in a case called Shelby
4:36
County versus Holder in a 5 to4
4:38
decision. The result was that states and
4:41
jurisdictions that used to have racist
4:43
voting laws passed a number of new
4:45
voting restrictions that
4:46
disproportionately affected minority
4:48
voters. We saw a flood after the Shelby
4:52
decision, a flood of laws designed to
4:57
make it hard just to show up at the
4:59
polls. The premise of the Shelby County
5:02
majority opinion is, well, we don't have
5:05
all this racism anymore that we used to
5:07
have in 1965, so we don't need the law
5:11
that stops the racism that we used to
5:13
have in 1965.
5:15
>> That left section two as the remaining
5:16
safeguard to protect the voice of
5:18
minority voters. Fast forward to 2023.
5:21
Another gerrymandering case, Allen
5:23
versus Milligan, is heard by the Roberts
5:25
court, now made up of six
5:27
Republicanappointed and three
5:28
Democratapp appointed justices. With the
5:31
Voting Rights Act on the line once
5:32
again, the ruling in Milligan upheld
5:35
essential parts of section 2 and struck
5:37
down a racially gerrymandered map in
5:39
Alabama. Chief Justice Roberts and
5:42
Justice Kavanaaugh voted with the
5:44
court's liberal minority. because this
5:46
court or at least its Republican
5:47
majority is so hostile to the voting
5:50
rights act. I think everyone thought
5:52
they were going to, you know, strike
5:54
down the anti-jerrymandering provisions,
5:56
overrule jingles, you you know, allow
5:59
Alabama to have whatever maps Alabama
6:01
wanted. And everyone, including me, was
6:04
shocked when that didn't happen.
6:06
>> I wanted to take a second to thank our
6:08
Patreon members. We're putting this
6:10
episode of our Patreon exclusive series,
6:12
The Docket, on YouTube. Videos like this
6:15
one are only possible through the
6:17
financial support of our members. And
6:19
for a few dollars a month, you can get
6:21
access to exclusive video reporting, new
6:23
shows we're developing, and a chance to
6:25
chat directly with our journalists.
6:27
Reporting on important topics like this
6:29
one take time, care, and real resources.
6:32
Support from members gives us the
6:34
independence to report on these kinds of
6:36
urgent stories. Your membership allows
6:39
us to produce journalism that is
6:40
accurate, interesting, and fun to watch.
6:43
And if you're not able to support
6:45
financially right now, you can still
6:46
follow us on Patreon for free to stay
6:49
connected to our community and our
6:51
reporting. Now, back to the video. Now,
6:54
in Louisiana versus Kelly, the US
6:56
Supreme Court appears willing to strike
6:58
down section 2 despite the striking
7:00
similarities to Milligan. This case has
7:03
been kicking around for a few years
7:04
before it made it to the Supreme Court.
7:06
So, let me catch you up. In 2022,
7:09
Louisiana state legislators drew an
7:10
electoral map called HB1 that only
7:13
included one majority black district out
7:15
of six statewide despite the 2020 census
7:19
showing that onethird of the Louisiana
7:21
population was black. Civil rights
7:24
groups and community members sued, and
7:26
it was decided that they needed a new
7:27
map with two majority black districts to
7:30
reflect the state's population. The new
7:32
map SB8 passed in the state legislature
7:35
in 2024 and it seemed like it was over.
7:38
But a group of non-affrican-American
7:41
voters claimed SB8 was unconstitutional
7:44
because race was the sole reason for the
7:46
map. They argued because the map was
7:49
created to fix discrimination against
7:51
black voters, it was discriminating
7:53
against white voters. This is Louisiana
7:57
versus Kelly. And the Klay case wound up
7:59
being heard by two Trump judges. And
8:01
those Trump judges said that the maps
8:04
that Louisiana drew were themselves
8:07
unconstitutional.
8:08
>> After an initial oral argument in March
8:11
2025, the Supreme Court heard
8:13
rearguments 7 months later.
8:15
>> We will hear argument first this morning
8:17
in case 24109, Louisiana versus Cala.
8:21
These arguments were framed around a
8:23
single question. Whether the state's
8:25
intentional creation of a second
8:27
majority minority congressional district
8:29
violates the 14th or 15th amendments to
8:32
the US Constitution. And this court's
8:34
cases in a variety of contexts have said
8:37
that race-based remedies are permissible
8:42
for a period of time, sometimes for a
8:44
long period of time, decades uh in some
8:48
cases, but that they should not be uh
8:52
indefinite and should uh have a end
8:55
point. if it's going above and beyond
8:57
what the 15th amendment requires
8:59
um of its own force, but Congress has
9:02
actually chosen the Voting Rights Act as
9:04
a remedy, does that affect the question
9:07
of whether it can go on indefinitely or
9:08
not?
9:09
>> I had two takeaways from the the
9:11
argument in Cala. Um one is that the
9:14
Republican justice are absolutely
9:16
determined to eliminate the Voting
9:19
Rights Act racial gerrymandering
9:20
safeguards. The other thing is that they
9:24
have no idea how to do it. they couldn't
9:25
agree on a rationale for why it's uh why
9:29
they should do it. They sort of started
9:31
with the outcome they wanted and then
9:32
were tossing out different theories they
9:34
could use to get to that outcome.
9:36
>> I find it particularly cruel um to use
9:39
two amendments that were created to
9:41
protect black and other communities of
9:43
color and women right after
9:46
reconstruction to use those two
9:48
amendments to then take away voice and
9:50
rights from the very people it was they
9:52
were created to protect. In many ways,
9:54
the Voting Rights Act has already been
9:56
gutted and no longer carries the same
9:58
protections it once had. This case could
10:01
be its last gasp.
10:03
>> Now, our governor, our attorney general,
10:05
and our legislature, who are all
10:07
Republican controlled, are saying that
10:09
it was a mistake. It was a mistake to
10:11
create a fair map. It was a mistake to
10:14
give voice to an opportunity for black
10:16
voters to be able to to elect a
10:18
candidate of choice, to have true
10:20
representation. You know, I've always
10:22
viewed the Voting Rights Act as like a
10:23
sacred text. You know, this is the law
10:26
that finally made the United States into
10:29
a liberal democracy where everyone had
10:31
an equal or at least every citizen had
10:34
an equal say in who would govern them.
10:38
But the law only works if you can trust
10:41
the federal government to, you know, to
10:44
want to implement this law. If the court
10:46
decides to strike down section two, it
10:48
would be ruling that any use of race in
10:50
districtricting, even if it was meant to
10:52
remedy racial discrimination in the
10:54
first place, is illegal.
10:56
>> In the likely event that the Supreme
10:59
Court overrules Jane Bolts and
11:01
eliminates the Voting Rights Acts,
11:02
protections against racial
11:04
gerrymandering, the immediate effects
11:06
could be pretty catastrophic both for
11:08
black representation and for Democrats.
11:10
Some reports suggest that as many as 19
11:13
House seats could be flipped Republican
11:15
with redrawn district maps. And it's not
11:18
just the House of Representatives.
11:20
>> This is bigger than just one
11:21
congressional seat in the state of
11:23
Louisiana. We could see a sweeping
11:25
change that would set us back 60 years.
11:28
>> What happens next with the Voting Rights
11:29
Act won't be clear until the Supreme
11:31
Court makes a ruling on the case, which
11:34
should arrive just in time to set the
11:36
stage for the 2026 midterm elections. It
11:39
might very well usher in a renewed fight
11:42
over voting rights in America in the
11:44
21st century.
11:45
>> It cannot be minimized um the fact that
11:48
people died for black voters to have
11:50
voice and opportunity and
11:52
representation. I think you absolutely
11:54
will see, you know, black voters
11:56
mobilizing across this country. There's
11:57
going to be a reckoning
