Episode Details

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, two of the nation’s leading election law scholars dissect a ruling that could soon reverberate through elections at every level of government.

Nathaniel Persily joins Pam Karlan for a discussion about the Callais decision—what it means for racial representation, partisan gerrymandering, and anti-discrimination law. Karlan and Persily are longtime collaborators, including as co-authors of The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process. Their conversation traces the Voting Rights Act’s evolution from the landmark Thornburg v. Gingles decision to the Court’s latest narrowing of Section 2, and examines how the ruling could affect congressional maps in 2026, minority representation at every level of government, and the broader future of disparate impact protections. As Persily explains, the Court has moved from treating partisan gerrymandering as constitutionally suspect to a place where it is now “a legitimate state practice, a legitimate interest that’s almost being celebrated.”
 

Links:

• Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law School Page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

[00:00:30] Introduction: The Voting Rights Act Under Siege

[00:02:18] Section 2's Original Promise: Results Over Intent

[00:11:06] Louisiana v. Cali: Dismantling the Gingles Framework

[00:23:17] From Unconstitutional to Celebrated: The Partisan Gerrymandering Evolution

[00:28:14] Future Implications: Elections and Civil Rights

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.