SCOTUS Profoundly Changed Elections—Mid-Vote! (w/ Kate Shaw)

The Bulwark15mApril 30, 2026

Get the full intelligence

Search transcripts, export clips, track mentions, and explore all topics from “SCOTUS Profoundly Changed Elections—Mid-Vote! (w/ Kate Shaw)” inside PodZeus.

AI-Generated Summary

In this episode of The Bulwark, host Sarah Longwell is joined by legal expert Kate Shaw to dissect the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Louisiana v. Calais, a landmark decision that significantly undermines the Voting Rights Act. The Court ruled that using race to create a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana violated the Constitution's principle of racial neutrality, effectively invalidating a key mechanism for ensuring minority voting power. Shaw explains how this decision is part of a broader, decade-long dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, beginning with Shelby County (2013) and continuing through Brnovich (2022), and now culminating in a radical interpretation of constitutional colorblindness. She critiques the conservative legal theory that government must never consider race—even to remedy past discrimination—arguing it contradicts the original intent of the 14th and 15th Amendments. Justice Elena Kagan’s fiery dissent emphasizes the historical significance of the Voting Rights Act and asserts that only Congress, not the Court, has the authority to deem it obsolete. The episode also touches on shifting political attitudes, noting that the Voting Rights Act was once a bipartisan priority, now a flashpoint in a deeply polarized era.

Key Takeaways
1

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Calais effectively invalidates race-conscious redistricting to protect minority voting power, marking a major blow to the Voting Rights Act.

2

The Court’s 'colorblind' constitutional theory contradicts the original intent of the 14th and 15th Amendments, which were designed to address racial inequality through targeted remedies.

3

The decision reflects a broader conservative legal philosophy that claims racial discrimination no longer exists, despite evidence of systemic inequities.

4

Justice Kagan’s dissent powerfully argues that only Congress—not the Court—has the authority to determine whether the Voting Rights Act remains necessary.

5

The shift from bipartisan support for the Voting Rights Act (e.g., George W. Bush’s reauthorization) to a 6-3 conservative consensus underscores the deep politicization of civil rights law.

Chapters
0:00
2 min

Introducing Kate Shaw and the Supreme Court Ruling

Sarah Longwell introduces Kate Shaw, a legal expert with deep experience in constitutional law and the Voting Rights Act, and sets the stage for a discussion on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Calais.

2:00
3 min

The Louisiana v. Calais Case and the Court's Decision

The court said that using race to create a second majority Black district violated the Constitution because the Constitution doesn't let you essentially think about race in that way.

Highlight
5:00
4 min

The Conservative Legal Theory of 'Colorblindness'

The Constitution is fundamentally and so we're not going to allow government to say, oh, we have a benign reason for using race.

Highlight
9:00
3 min

Historical and Constitutional Contradictions

It's hard for me to sort of get my head around how originalists say the meaning of those amendments has changed because circumstances have changed.

Highlight
12:00
3 min

Kagan’s Dissent and the Future of Civil Rights Law

Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed, not the members of this court.

Highlight
High-Impact Quotes
Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed, not the members of this court.
Elena Kagan14:07
Viral: 95.0
I dissent because the court's decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality and electoral opportunity.
Elena Kagan13:38
Viral: 92.0
The VRA, quote, was born of the literal blood of union soldiers and civil rights marchers.
Elena Kagan13:51
Viral: 90.0
Speakers

Host

Sarah Longwell

Guest

Kate Shaw
Topics Discussed
Supreme Court and Voting Rights95%Voting Rights Act Dismantling92%Racial Equality and Constitutional Law90%Congressional Authority vs Judicial Power88%Colorblind Constitutional Theory85%Historical Context of Civil Rights82%Originalism and Judicial Interpretation80%Redistricting and Gerrymandering75%
People & Brands

Voting Rights Act

other

15xNegative

Kate Shaw

person

12xPositive

Sarah Longwell

person

10xNeutral

Louisiana v. Calais

other

8xNegative

Elena Kagan

person

7xPositive

Shelby County v. Holder

other

5xNegative

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

other

4xNegative

Samuel Alito

person

3xNegative

Southern Poverty Law Center

organization

3xNeutral

Northwestern University Law School

organization

3xPositive

Get the full intelligence

Search transcripts, export clips, track mentions, and explore all topics from “SCOTUS Profoundly Changed Elections—Mid-Vote! (w/ Kate Shaw)” inside PodZeus.

Start discovering podcast insights today

Start with a 7-day trial and explore a growing catalog of popular podcasts. No credit card required.

No credit card required • 7-day trial • Cancel anytime