A Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Voting Rights

This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Spring always feels like a reset. Clearing things out, simplifying what you don't need, Apple Card is built with that same idea in mind. No annual fee, no late fees, and no foreign transaction fees. No fees, period. Get started and apply in the Wallet app on your iPhone today, subject to credit approval. Variable APRs for Apple Card range from 17.49% to 27.74% based on creditworthiness. Rates as of 01/01/2026. Existing customers can view their variable APR in the Wallet app or at card.apple.com. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA. Salt Lake City branch. Terms and more at applecard.com. From the New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court dealt what may be a final blow to the landmark Voting Rights Act in a ruling that will supercharge the already partisan battle to control the country's election maps. Today, Adam Liptak on the legal logic of the ruling and Nick Corassinidi on how the decision will reshape American democracy. It's Thursday, April 30. Adam, this was a very big ruling on a very big piece of our history. Yeah. The Supreme Court did further and in a sense final damage to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, probably the greatest legislative achievement of the civil rights movement, which was meant to protect minority voting power. So it's meant to stop southern officials from using all kinds of methods from violence to poll taxes, to literacy tests, to grandfather clauses, to keep individual black voters from the voting booth. But it also meant to ensure that minority voters as a group had the collective power or at least the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Right. At the time, president Johnson called it a triumph for freedom. That's right. And it worked. Voter registration and voter turnout numbers in Southern states went from single digits for minority voters to sometimes achieving levels higher than those of white voters. But this gave rise to an attack from the right and from Republicans because, you know, frankly, protecting minority voters often meant protecting Democratic voters because there's a high degree of correlation between the two. So tell us how that pressure from the right brings us to yesterday's ruling. So in response to challenges from conservatives, the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued the third in a trilogy of decisions that have collectively hollowed out and rendered the Voting Rights Act toothless. The first one in 2013 cut the heart out of the Voting Rights Act, which had required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before they changed voting practices. The second one in 2021 made it all but impossible to sue under the Voting Rights Act for so called vote denial claims, claims that election administrators had made it harder to vote by, say, instituting voter ID. And then this third and last decision on Wednesday took aim at …