geoff: The U.S. Supreme court today struck down republican-drawn congressional districts in Alabama that civil rights activists say discriminated against black voters. The ruling was a surprising departure from court opinions over the past decade narrowing the scope of the voting rights act. Chief justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by the three liberal justices as well as conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh. To help us understand the significance of all this, I'm joined by newshour's supreme court analyst Marcia Coyle -- and redistricting expert, David Wasserman of the cook political report with Amy Walter. Welcome to you both. Marsha, we will start with you. The chief justice wrote there were legitimate concerns the voting rights act may impermissibly elevated race and the allocation of political power within the states but added our opinion today does not diminish or disregard these concerns. It simply holds a faithful application of art precedents and fair reading of the record do not bear them out here. What is the court saying with this ruling? >> I think the chief justice is saying the majority is aware that whenever you deal with racial classifications, whether it is in redistricting or other contacts, there is that concern that race may dominate, and so he is reassuring everyone there really is a totality of circumstances, test for section 2, and the court's precedents have imposed limitations that protect against race actually dominating into redistricting, and that is been the case for some 40 years. Section 2 claims are extremely hard to win and federal courts and they have not been awaiting. He is saying -- winning. He is saying there are safeguards here. Geoff: This ruling was seen as a surprise given the conservative makeup of this court and the ways in which the court as we mentioned in previous rulings has hollowed out the voting rights act. Naacp legal defense fund and an attorney argued the case before the court and in a statement today, the organization says this decision is a clear message to lawmakers that their responsibility as not changed. They must ensure voters of color are not denied an opportunity to participate in the electoral process. What are your takeaways from this ruling? >> I am somewhat surprised, I cannot say I am shocked because the initial decision to strike down Alabama's congressional map was handed down by two trump appointees on the panel. At once, this is an application of longtime precision -- precedent, but it is a seachange politically because Alabama as only had one black since 2002, and it was only in the last decade black politicians begin to question this kind of configuration of districts. Now we are likely to see additional more proportional maps and acted Louisiana as well. There will be cases that play out in Georgia, potentially South Carolina, Texas that could net Democrats and additional 2 to 4 seats in the house and that can put them in closer contention for control given how narrow the Republicans margin is today. Geoff: We have a map that shows the number of states where there are congressional districts that are being dedicated, and this decision is going to force many of these estates, force every state to think about how they redraw congressional lines and areas that have a significant black population. >> Not just black voters but hispanic voters in some cases as well. Keep in mind Republicans thought they had a bit of an insurance policy heading into 2024 in the house, because they captured control of the North Carolina supreme court, which is clear the path for the Republican legislature to re-gerrymander the state's boundaries. This ruling offset to that and could actually impact Republicans' thinking in north Carolina and make them more risk-averse to the threat of a voting rights act lawsuit. That but it forces them to draw a less ambitious plan. At the same time, New York Democrats believe the judiciary in that state has turned in their favor, and some of them are pushing to redraw the state's political boundaries that are advantageous to Democrats. We could see a net benefit in redistricting for Democrats prior to the 2024 election, and that is different from what we thought would be the case a couple of months ago. Geoff: Looking at this ruling, what should we see as the significance if it all of chief justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh siding with the liberals? >> I was not surprised the chief justice ended up in the majority or that he wrote it, because he has been out front on all of the court's major race related decisions, not just redistricting contacts. Justice Kavanaugh hedged a bit in that decision last year, so we were not really sure where he would come out, but I think the chief justice is -- justice's ability to put together majorities and closely contested cases does seem to hinge more and more on whether justice Kavanaugh will join him in taking a more restrained opinion than the other conservatives in the majority or just to join with the court's three liberal justices. It is sort of a plan perhaps from the future that justice Kavanaugh becomes the median justice and the key to whether Roberts can get what he wants when faced with five conservatives who may not want to go along with him. My thanks to you both. >> Thanks. >> You are welcome. ♪♪
