nonprofit filed a brief to the supreme court in a landmark voting rights case, leonard leo told kellyanne conway, of course who later became a trump adviser that he wanted to give ginni thomas, quote, another $25,000 with, quote, no mention of ginni, of course. that day her company billed the judicial education project for $25,000 and that money was for ginni thomas. documents reviewed by the post show that conway s company paid thomas s firm $80,000 between june 2011 and june 2012. it s still not fully clear what exactly ginni thomas did for conway s polling company or for the judicial education project. the nonprofit did file a brief in shelby versus holder where the court invalidated key parts of the voting rights act of 1965. justice thomas wrote an opinion in that case that was consistent with judicial education project s position. here s how leonard leo is responding to this reporting. quote, the work ginni did here did not involve anything connected with either the court s bus
came in. 2013, the court did shelby versus holder. it required states that had a history of suppressing voter laws to first preclear any changes in their electoral processes with the department of justice. when the court invalidated the preclearance regime in shelby county, it is shortest that section to the voting rights act still remained as a vehicle for challenging discriminatory voting laws and here we are today, seeing whether or not the court agrees that section two will continue to be a viable remedy for these kind of discriminatory voter claims. the issue here in alabama that alabama drew a series of redistricting that s basically packed black voters into a single majority minority district. based on the population and racially polarized voting patterns of alabama, federal district court determined that it was likely that there could
sounding the alarm after the supreme court agreed to take up a case next term that could have major implications in 2024. the high court will hear an appeal in a north carolina redistricting case that could give state legislatures power over federal elections. president of the brennan center for justice telling nbc news, it could be, quote, one of the most significant, if not at one of the most destructive cases on american democracy. joining me now, don calloway, democratic strategist, and founder of the democratic voter protection fund. msnbc political analyst, and it david jolly, sorry, excuse, me former congressman from florida, and msnbc political contributor. welcome into all of you. i want to get all of your reactions to all. this town, you first, how much does this concern? you it concerns me very much. it goes back to 2013 s decision and shelby versus holder, which essentially dismounted section
the martin luther king iii s group, to me nationally, because we cannot risk their moving this dime of the voting rights that was guaranteed after the 60s. after the 65 voting rights act that was damaged in 2013 with shelby versus holder, that now has come into almost irreparable harm with section two. so time is not something that we have, and we wanted to put the president on alert on that. you must remember that the voting rights act did not come from lyndon johnson down. it came from the fights in selma, alabama, up, and that s what we intend to do to make shup that this country stands for the right for people to use their vote. democracy is at stake here. reverend al sharp ton, thank you. you can catch the rev coming up at 5:00 p.m. eastern on politicsnation right after this show, right here, of
the fight. but yes, it was contemplated as a part of a let s throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, and our effort to defend our democracy. i don t want to throw any cold water on that enthusiasm, but my sense and i want to hear from you is that this is an uphill battle. for sure. i mean, we re talking about this week we celebrated or acknowledge or commemorated the eighth anniversary of shelby versus holder, supreme court course that kicked the teeth out of the voting rights act, particularly sections 4 and 5 which merrick garland, ag garland acknowledged in his press conference on friday, had that provision still been the law of the land, senate bill 202 would have never passed because what it says is jurisdictions with a history of discrimination when they want to make changes