From New York Times, I'm Michael Obaro. This is Adali.

Today, why the Supreme Court is unusually split over a case that could give partisan state

legislators unchecked power over the way elections are run. My colleague, Adam Lipteck,

followed along as the justices debated the case. It's Friday, December 9th.

Adam. Hello, Michael. Good evening. I have a confession to make which is that I miss you.

I don't get to do a lot of these interviews with you anymore. Sabrina really likes you and she's been hogging you and it's been challenging.

I feel so bad about that. I want to be both of your friends.

I think you can be both of our friends. So a few weeks ago, in an interview with Sabrina,

you previewed this entire Supreme Court term for us and you briefly told us about this case back then.

But now that this case on Wednesday went before the court in full oral arguments,

you can remind us what it's about and why it's so important.

So on one level, it's about gerrymandering and what can be done about voting maps

worked by partisanship. But on a much broader level, it's about a quite radical theory

that would completely reorient the relationship between the federal government and state governments

and also upset ordinary checks and balances in state governments. So while important and interesting enough

just on the gerrymandering point, it is also a case with the potential to really completely transform how American elections are conducted.

So tell us the story behind this case.

A couple of years ago, after the most recent census, North Carolina draws new congressional maps.

It's drawn by the state legislature controlled by Republicans.

And like state legislators in many places, they tried to advantage themselves.

So North Carolina is basically a purple state. It's about 50-50 Republican and Democrat.

Swing state. Yeah, swing state.

...