Stateside with Kai and Carter: Stacey Abrams on why gutting of the US Voting Rights Act is ‘evil’
Hosts Kai Wright and Carter Sherman of The Guardian's 'Stateside' podcast interview Stacey Abrams about the Supreme Court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act through Louisiana v. Calais. Abrams frames the ruling not as a partisan issue but as a move toward authoritarianism, arguing that while the decision is 'evil,' it has misread the moment and that determination — not optimism — must drive the response. She outlines strategies including court battles, voter registration, coalition building, and ultimately a new constitutional amendment affirming an explicit right to vote.
Summary
The inaugural episode of 'Stateside' features hosts Kai Wright and Carter Sherman discussing the Supreme Court's recent gutting of the Voting Rights Act with Stacey Abrams. Wright opens by noting that as someone born in 1973, he represents the first generation of Black Americans to grow up in a functioning democracy shaped by the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and he fears those protections will not exist for the next generation.
The hosts provide historical context, tracing Black voter registration in Mississippi from 66% of Black men in 1867 during Reconstruction, to fewer than 5% by 1955 under Jim Crow, back up to the 60-plus percentile range after the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. They explain that the Act has now been effectively gutted through two rulings: the 2013 Shelby County decision eliminating preclearance requirements, and the recent Louisiana v. Calais decision requiring plaintiffs to prove explicit racist intent rather than merely demonstrating racially discriminatory outcomes. They note that Tennessee immediately moved to eliminate the last remaining Black-majority congressional district following the ruling, and that Louisiana's congressional primary elections were thrown into legal limbo.
Stacey Abrams opens by pushing back on despair, drawing on her family history — her father was arrested at 14 for registering voters in Mississippi, and her mother did the same work on the other side of town at the same age, narrowly avoiding arrest. She describes visiting her hospitalized father the day the Supreme Court decision came down, noting that even in his illness, her parents wanted to talk about voting rights and remind their children that the work must continue.
Abrams characterizes the ruling as 'evil' — specifically evil in the sense of stripping rights from others in pursuit of power — but also 'pedestrian,' arguing that those behind it cannot win on ideas and so resort to silencing opposition. She distinguishes between optimism ('I'm sure we'll win') and determination ('I'm going to win'), arguing that determination is internal and cannot be taken away, while optimism can ebb and flow.
She reframes the entire conversation away from partisan politics, arguing that the United States has entered a state of 'competitive authoritarianism,' in which democratic institutions are hollowed out from within to concentrate power in fewer hands. She argues this is not Democrats versus Republicans but democracy versus authoritarianism, pointing to Hungary as a cautionary example of how this trajectory unfolds over time.
On concrete strategies, Abrams points to her testimony in the Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee against the redistricting maps, noting the outcome was predetermined but the goal was to build a legal record. She outlines a three-part response: fighting in the courts to build records and sharpen arguments even without winning; contesting at the ballot box by growing electorates in the newly fractured districts; and holding elected officials accountable regardless of party. She notes that Tennessee's cracked districts, while harmful, create three new competitive opportunities where there was previously one.
Abrams also addresses the Supreme Court's argument that higher Black turnout during Obama-era elections proved the Voting Rights Act was no longer necessary, calling this a deliberate misreading of the data. She emphasizes that voter suppression operates on three levels — registration, casting a ballot, and having that ballot counted — and that Georgia has suppressed all three. She describes the Voting Rights Act as a 'cheat code' to overwhelm suppression that has now been removed.
On long-term solutions, Abrams argues that the most comprehensive fix would be a constitutional amendment creating an explicit, affirmative right to vote — something that does not currently exist in the U.S. Constitution. She notes that the 15th Amendment only prohibits denying the vote on the basis of race, which is why Jim Crow laws used race-neutral mechanisms like literacy tests and poll taxes to disenfranchise Black voters. She calls 'race neutrality' the most dangerous phrase in America today, arguing it provides cover for targeted disenfranchisement. Short of a constitutional amendment, she supports the John Lewis Freedom to Vote Act. She closes by noting that demographic trends show the U.S. will become majority-minority by 2046, and argues that the speed and urgency of the current authoritarian push reflects that those in power can read those numbers too.
Key Insights
- Abrams argues that the Supreme Court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act constitutes 'evil' in the specific sense of stripping rights from others in pursuit of power, but also describes it as 'pedestrian' because it reflects an inability to win on ideas rather than a sophisticated strategy.
- Abrams explicitly distinguishes between optimism and determination, claiming optimism can ebb and flow while determination is internal — and that the moment opponents strip people of determination, they achieve the complacency and compliance they have sought for 400 years.
- Abrams reframes the voting rights battle not as partisan but as a conflict between democracy and competitive authoritarianism, arguing that democratic institutions are being used as weapons of authoritarianism by hollowing out their meaning and legitimacy.
- Abrams contends that the United States has never had an explicit, affirmative constitutional right to vote — the 15th Amendment only prohibits denying the vote based on race — which is why so many laws have been needed to protect voting access and why those protections remain so vulnerable.
- Abrams argues that 'race neutrality' is the most dangerous phrase in America today, drawing a direct parallel between Jim Crow-era tools like literacy tests and poll taxes — which were facially race-neutral but targeted Black voters — and contemporary voter suppression tactics validated by the court's intent-based standard.
- Abrams describes the Voting Rights Act as a 'cheat code' to overwhelm voter suppression, and argues that while removing it is catastrophic, the proper response is to accept that the rules have changed without accepting that the change was legitimate — and to fight harder within the new constraints.
- Abrams argues that Tennessee's move to crack Black-majority districts, while harmful, inadvertently creates three new competitive districts where there was previously one, and that organizers' job is to grow into the spaces that were scattered.
- Abrams asserts that the urgency and speed with which states moved to exploit the ruling — Tennessee acting within days — reflects that those in power are reading demographic projections showing the U.S. becomes majority-minority by 2046, and are racing to entrench power before that shift occurs.
Topics
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to Access