{"text":[[{"start":6.9,"text":"Late last month, the US Supreme Court significantly weakened one of America’s most hallowed pieces of law: the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Justices ruled 6-3 that Louisiana should not be allowed to create a new, majority black voting district, since doing so would be discriminatory. The ruling reflected a fundamental political divide over how much progress has been made in combating racial discrimination, and what, if anything, still needs to be done to prevent it. "}],[{"start":34.15,"text":"President Lyndon Johnson signed the act into law five months after the “Bloody Sunday” attacks on civil rights activists in Selma, Alabama. It was designed to prevent racial discrimination in voting, protecting the 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution, which preserve equal rights. It prevented things such as literacy tests for voters, or allowing federal officials to monitor state and local elections. Amended five times, it was eventually used to redistrict certain areas of the country to include more black voters."}],[{"start":64.95,"text":"The act was an acknowledgment of the fact that in many parts of America, particularly the Deep South, state and local statutes — the “Jim Crow” laws — purposely enforced segregation and disenfranchisement of Black Americans. It was also a tacit acknowledgment that voting often broke down along racial lines. Districts without a critical mass of Black voters were unlikely to get any Black candidates."}],[{"start":90.9,"text":"Republicans (and most Supreme Court judges, six out of nine of whom were appointed by Republicans) tend to support the ruling, and the idea that the US has good minority representation in Congress. They view the battle for racial equality as won, and any race-based laws as no longer necessary to preserve constitutionally mandated ideas about equality under the law."}],[{"start":113.2,"text":"Democrats, by contrast, believe that without such rules, minority representation would plummet, and with it, so would their political support in Congress. Some data supports that idea. One recent study found that in 2013, after the court eliminated a provision that forced districts with a history of racism to get federal permission to redistrict, there was “significant and robust” evidence of a racial turnout gap that worked against voters of colour."}],[{"start":141.45,"text":"While the new Supreme Court ruling makes race-based redistricting illegal, it does not outlaw gerrymandering itself. That means that both Republicans and Democrats are now racing to redraw election maps in their own favour before November’s midterm elections. Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries has, for example, called for a redrawing of New York state election maps to make up for gains that Republicans might make in the south following the court ruling (Louisiana is already redrawing its map in response to the decision)."}],[{"start":173.79999999999998,"text":"While it is not yet clear how all the partisan redistricting will affect the midterm and 2028 presidential elections, one thing is obvious: politics are now even more polarised in the US. Democrats who had once tried to push back against the entire concept of gerrymandering are calling for “maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time”, as Jeffries put it recently, in response to what they view as Republicans’ efforts to weaken the voting power of racial minorities."}],[{"start":200.7,"text":"All this is likely to embolden the more radical sides of both parties. Democrats are deeply split over whether, should they win back the House and even the Senate in the midterms, they should seek retribution against Republicans and the various perceived injustices of the Trump administration, or try to move the country towards a more constructive agenda. The Supreme Court ruling has made it less likely that the better angels will win. "}],[{"start":229.79999999999998,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1778563133_6062.mp3"}