CBS News97%
NAACP president calls Supreme Court redistricting decision "one of the worst" in history 95%
5/13/2026, 12:38:42 AM
BS Summary: This video contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 57% saturation with 316 hits. Analysis detected 1,915 faulty-reasoning hits from 554 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 92.7% and a BS Rank of 95% (849 of 16,813 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 95.00% of the video peer group.
Republican Alabama Governor Kay Ivey is pushing back primaries for four congressional districts following
Monday's Supreme Court decision allowing the state to use a 2023 map with only one majority black district.
The decision came after another high-profile Supreme Court decision that struck down a Louisiana congressional map saying the state relied too heavily on race when it drew a second majority-minority district.
Other states including South Carolina and Mississippi are also looking to redraw their maps based on that ruling.
that ruling. President and CEO of the NAACP, Derrick Johnson, joins us now.
Thank you for being here. What's your reaction to the Supreme Court decisions impacting Alabama and Louisiana and the removal of these majority black districts?
I think history will account for this decision as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history.
It ranks for us equivalent to Dred Scott decision 1800s where the court said blacks had no rights, whites were bound to uphold
Plessy versus Ferguson's which legalized separate but equal. Things were definitely separate but never equal. And this decision will rank among those.
But the fact that this court refused to acknowledge that we have in this country, particularly in southern states, consistent approaches of racism, particularly in electoral politics, and would allow states to have license to discriminate against African Americans is unconscionable to say the least.
Monday we had on Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley on this program. He was supportive of the ruling.
I want to play a bit of what he said.
I think this whole thinking behind the Voting Rights Act and racial gerrymandering that suggests that that only black officials can represent black constituencies is is way out of date.
In fact, today, most of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus do not hail from majority black districts.
What's your response?
Well, first of all, why is it illegal in the South, particularly former Confederate states, of African Americans have 60% black districts somehow is illegal, but white members of Congress can have 60% white districts. It is unconscionable to say that that should remain the same.
remain the same. Racial block voting in this country, particularly in the same. Racial block voting in this country, particularly in the southern region of this country, is still the prevailing way in which people participate, policy makers seek to undermine the voices of African Americans, and African Americans are citizens of this country and should be entitled to equal protection under the law, and this court, in my opinion, is violating the spirit of the Constitution.
What do you say to people who say, "Look, my my vote is being stripped away, so why bother?"
Well, you know, our vote is our currency, and we must collectively deposit our currency.
Unfortunately, in this country that we have said for so long with the leading democracy, a far too many American citizens are participating. Less than 60% of our eligible voters participate.
That's not a leading democracy when Australia, over 95% of vote eligible voters participate, or Canada, about 92%, Germany, 93%.
We need to open up access to voting and to
ensure that all citizens can cast an effective ballot.
effective ballot. Jared Johnson, thank you.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.