Hey folks, Joyce Vance here.

Preet is out this week, so today I'm joined by Jeney Nelson.

Jenae is the president and director of the NACP's legal defense fund and a voting rights and election law expert.

Recently, she argued the major voting rights case, Louisiana v. Calais, before the Supreme Court.

We discussed the court's ruling and what it means for the future of the Voting Rights Act.

Listen to the full conversation now in the Insider feed. And if you're not yet a member,

we hope you'll join our community to help support our work and get access to exclusive

subscriber benefits.

Head to cafe.com slash insider or stay tuned.substack.com.

Now, enjoy a free excerpt from our conversation.

You know, I'm going to jump right in without any pleasantries because I want to talk with you about Louisiana versus Calais.

At this point, we all know the outcome of this case.

Gerrymandering is now A-OK.

How would you describe this decision that the court made, the legal decision, in terms that are

accessible to people who maybe haven't had the opportunity to read the majority opinion

and the dissent to, which I want to talk with you about?

So there are two big things happened in this case. First, the congressional map that governs Louisiana's congressional

elections was struck down. And that map was one that was purposed to remedy racial discrimination

that we established on a robust record at trial a few years ago,

and that six federal judges affirmed was the right remedy for this discrimination.

Ultimately, this case was then challenged by some self-styled non-black voters. Ultimately,

they were white voters. How did they describe themselves in the complaint, just so we're all

...