This is a word, a podcast from Slate. I'm your host, Jason Johnson.

Racial gerrymandering, deliberately drawing political maps to disempower voters of color,

we need black folks, is illegal. But in a South Carolina case, the U.S. Supreme Court

seems poised to make racial gerrymandering almost impossible to prove. What could that mean

for black voters in the state and around the country?

It matters less that, you know, a party does or does not admit that they were acting or

assorting people according to race and what matters is really the effects of what they

were doing.

The latest fight for voting rights coming up on a word with me, Jason Johnson. Stay with

us.

Welcome to a word, a podcast about race and politics and everything else. I'm your host,

Jason Johnson. The formal name of the case is Alexander versus the South Carolina state

conference of the NAACP. But the issue at the heart of this dispute is old fashioned

racial gerrymandering, drawing political maps to give white voters disproportionate power

over black folks. And many observers who witness recent Supreme Court arguments over the

case feel the conservative majority of justices think that's just fine. What would that mean

for disenfranchised black voters in South Carolina and around the country? Joining us to

talk about that is Brandon Tensley. He's the National Politics Reporter for Capital

B News, a nonprofit news organization focusing on issues that impact African Americans. Brandon

Tensley, welcome to a word. Thank you so much for having me.

So most people in America do not follow what's happening with the Supreme Court. Tell us

sort of briefly about this most recent case dealing with South Carolina.

...