there s a body of work, a substantive agenda that she either delivered or blocked. on that note, in terms of what she blocked, the one of the first major challenges she faced after taking over s house minority leader in 2003, was then president george w. bush s proposal to privatized social security. it would ve been a devastating permanent probably transformation of the american welfare state and our social safety net. but leader pelosi was absolutely instrumental in blocking. she resisted pressure to present countering poses, calculating the republican plan would collapse under its own weight. when members pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release arrival plan. i remember when this was a case. the press was all like, what are democrats gonna do? she was defiant, saying, quote, never, is never good enough for you? and you know what? it worked. republicans tore themselves apart. never brought the bill to vote in the house or senate. just completely collapsed in on
they basically told in ohio the state supreme court to take long off off a short pier. but these three alone, that s three seats. alabama, louisiana, florida, remove three seats that likely would ve gone to the democrat. this is the council for the naacp defense fund. she worked on the cases i just mentioned and she joins me now. great to have you. can you kind of lay out the case of what current u.s. voting rights law, the voting rights act, 14th amendment, says about the questions that were issued in the two clear cases in alabama and louisiana? sure, chris, thanks. so the voting i writing ads rights act in 1965 if she rob roberts recognized in his dissent in the alabama case, prevent state registry jurors from cracking black voters in particular in a way to dilute their voting power and that is also prohibited by the 14th amendment, particular preventing any discriminatory map and has the effect of denying black voters there are any voters of color a fair opportunity to elect cand
administrators are confused by changes to close to an election, and so that somehow justifies discriminatory maps with deny voters within the state and opportunity to like the candidate requires, in fact, a discriminatory map must go into effect for at least one election before it can be reneged. in louisiana i should know that the supreme court did not give any justification whatsoever. it was not too close to a candidate qualifying deadline or any election deadline. the supreme court just decided that it seemed poised to possibly change the applicable standard for section two voting rights act cases and that it would hold the case in louisiana voters in limbo until it rendered a decision in alabama case. so the alabama case has now been argued and so we ll get a decision from the court. likely not good. but there is an outside chance that this can be remedied in the future, there s also a chance that the court basically
violates the voting rights act. they ordered alabama to redraw the map and add another majority black district. but republicans took the case to the friends on the trump supreme court in the majority there says the map gives white voters disproportionate power is fine. go on. basically the exact same thing happen next door in louisiana. louisiana is one of blackest states in the country. a third of louisiana citizens are black. 33%. and once again, republicans drew a map with one majority black district out of six. and a federal judge ruled the map was illegal for the exact same reason and the judge ordered a second map drawn. the trump court said no, the map is fine. two states, two seats. in florida it was even more egregious. in florida republican governor ron desantis forced the
lot of the money came from. it s wild. in louisiana i should know that the supreme court did not give any justification whatsoever. it was not too close to a candidate qualifying deadline or any election deadline. the supreme court just decided that it seemed poised to possibly change the applicable standard for section two voting rights act cases and that it would hold the case in louisiana voters in limbo until it rendered a decision in alabama case. so the alabama case has now been argued and so we ll get a decision from the court. likely not good. but there is an outside chance that this can be remedied in the future, there s also a chance that the court basically keeps taking a sledgehammer to the pillars of the voting rights act, which seems more likely. kathryn sadasivan, thank you so much. still ahead, wealthy donors dumped billions of dollars into the midterm elections. but whatever no exactly where a