> >> NOW ELECTIONS ARE ABOUT VOTERS CHOOSING THEIR POLITICIANS.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE MAP LETS POLITICIANS CHOOSE THEIR VOTERS?

WELL, MANY ARGUE THAT THE ALABAMA STATE LEGISLATURE'S PUSH TO REDRAW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS IS DOING JUST THAT.

AND PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING.

THIS FOLLOWS THE SUPREME COURT GUTTING THE KEY PROVISIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, MAKING IT HARDER TO CHALLENGE PLANS THAT DILUTE VOTING POWER ALONG RACIAL LINES.

OUR NEXT GUEST, DEMOCRATICIC REPRESENTATIVE SHOMARI FIGURES JOINS HARI SREENIVASAN TO DISCUSS THE COURT'S RECENT RULING.

>> SHOMARI FIGURES, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU ARE A REPRESENTATIVE CONGRESSMAN FROM ALABAMA.

I GUESS LET'S START A LITTLE FARTHER BACK.

YOU RAN BACK IN 2023.

GROWING UP, WHAT DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT?

>> WELL, LOOK, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING RAISED BY PARENTS WHO WERE BOTH ELECTED OFFICIALS.

>> YEAH.

>> MY FATHER WAS ONE OF THE FIRST BLACK SENATORS ELECTED IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA, POST RECONSTRUCTION.

MY FATHER INTEGRATED THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA'S LAW SCHOOL.

MY MOTHER WAS ON THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE CITY OF MOBILE, CITY GOVERNMENT WAS FORMED IN A VERY WELL SUPREME COURT CASE, BOLDEN VERY CITY OF MOBILE, DECIDED IN THIS MOST RECENT LOUISIANA CASE AS WELL.

SO I GREW UP, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE SHADOWS OF IT, UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS, WHAT IT MEANT, THE ROLE THAT IT PLAYED IN BOTH OF MY PARENTS BEING IN ELECTED OFFICE.

SO, YOU KNOW, I GREW UP WITH A HISTORY AND UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATION AND RESPECT FOR WHAT THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT MEANT.

>> SO WHAT DID THE CREATION OF YOUR DISTRICT, THE ONE THAT YOU REPRESENT NOW, WHAT DID THAT MEAN?

HOW DID THAT IMPACT BLACK VOTERS IN YOUR AREA?

>> AFTER THE DECISION CAME DOWN FROM THE SUPREME COURT IN 2023, WHICH EFFECTIVELY ALLOWED THE COURT TO IMPOSE ON IS THE STATE THE ABILITY TO REDRAW DISTRICTS, IT CREATED AN OPPORTUNITY, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE COURT DESIGNED ITS REMEDY TO DO.

IT GAVE ALABAMA THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT.

THEY REFUSED TO DO IT.

SO THE COURT ESSENTIALLY HAD THE DISTRICT REDRAWN BY AN INDEPENDENT --AN INDEPENDENT PARTY.

AND IT GAVE FOR THE FIRST TIME A LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITY TO A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE STATE AND THE AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION IN THE STATE, LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT A SECOND MEMBER OF CONGRESS.

MY DISTRICT IS NOT A MAJORITY BLACK DISTRICT, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF.

IT'S ABOUT 47% BLACK, 46% WHITE.

SO IT'S A VERY RACIALLY DIVERSE DISTRICT.

AND WITHIN THAT DISTRICT, IT PROVIDED A LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITY FOR MYSELF AND CANDIDATES LIKE ME TO HAVE A SHOT AT ACTUALLY BEING ELECTED.

>> JUST TO BACK UP FOR OUR AUDIENCE, AT THAT TIME THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT ESSENTIALLY ALABAMA LAWMAKERS HAD CREATED AND ADOPTED A MAP THAT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BLACK CITIZENS, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

SO WHEN IT WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT THE FIRST TIME, THEY HAD THESE VOTING RIGHTS ACT CASES WORK ON A PRELIMINARY FINDING.

AND SO THE ORIGINAL PART OF THE CASE THAT WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, THE LOWER COURT HAD FOUND THERE WAS A LIKELY VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN '23.

AND THEN THE COURT ORDERED THAT THE DISTRICTS BE REDRAWN.

AND THEN THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT TRIAL HELD IN 2024 WHERE THE COURT ACTUALLY MADE THE FINDING THAT THERE WAS DISCRIMINATION, THAT THERE WAS INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION.

AND BY THAT TIME, WE'D ALREADY BEEN RUNNING FOR ELECTION AND BEEN ELECTED.

SO THIS ALL BEGAN WITH A FINDING --ULTIMATELY, A FINDING OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION THAT THE LOWER COURT FOUND THAT THE STATE OF ALABAMA HAD ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN.

>> OKAY.

SO HERE WE ARE, FAST FORWARD NOW TO THE PRESENT DAY.

AND BECAUSE AS A RIPPLE EFFECT OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SUPREME COURT IN LOUISIANA, WHAT IS THE CONVERSATION TODAY AT THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE?

WHAT ARE THE MAPS THAT THEY WANT TO PUT BACK?

?

>> SO ALABAMA WANTS TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT THEM TO DO.

THEY WANT TO GO BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS IN TERMS OF USING MAPS THAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY TRIED TO USE.

AND ALSO BACKWARDS IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE MAPS, THE OUTCOMES THAT WILL ULTIMATELY COME FROM HAVING ELECTIONS WITH THOSE MAPS.

YOU ALSO GOT TO REMEMBER THAT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF HOW THE STATE ACTED IN THE LITIGATION, THEY REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL COURT ORDERS, THERE IS ACTUALLY A COURT ORDER IN PLACE WITH THE LOWER COURT THAT PREVENTS THE STATE OF ALABAMA FROM REDRAWING ITS DISTRICTS AFTER THE 2030 CENSUS UNLESS THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS THE CASE.

SO WHAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS ESSENTIALLY DOING NOW IS TRYING TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO MOVE VERY QUICKLY IN THE EVENT THAT A COURT DOES ALLOW THE STATE TO REDRAW ITS MAPS.

SO THEY ARE AMENDING THE PRIMARY ELECTION SCHEDULE.

WE'RE ALREADY IN THE MIDDLE OF A PRIMARY ELECTION.

IT'S ALREADY STARTED FOR ABSENTEE VOTING.

I'VE ALREADY VOTED MYSELF BECAUSE I WILL NOT BE IN THE CITY ON ELECTION DAY.

THEY ARE AMENDING THE PRIMARY SCHEDULE AND ALSO PASSING CONTINGENCY MAPS.

THESE ARE BOTH MAPS AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAD PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BUT THAT WERE DECLINED TO BE USED BY THE FEDERAL COURT.

SO IN THE EVENT THAT THE COURT LIFTS THE ORDER, THEY COULD USE THESE MAPS AND HOLD THE ELECTION AT A LATER DATE THAT IS TYPICALLY ALLOWED UNDER OUR CURRENT LAW.

>> YOU KNOW, AT THE CORE OF THIS IS THIS IDEA THAT HOW DISTRICTS ARE DRAWN WILL INEVITABLY PREDISPOSE THE OUTCOME.

IF I HAVE X NUMBER OF BLACK PEOPLE IN THIS DISTRICT, THEY ARE LIKELY TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

IF I DON'T, THEY'RE LIKELY TO VOTE REPUBLICAN.

THIS IS A SOLIDLY RED STATE.

SO HOW MUCH OF THAT PLACE OUT WHEN IT ACTUALLY COMES TO PEOPLE PULLING THE LEVER?

IS IT ALL SORT OF AN AUTOMATIC PARTY LINE VOTE?

IS IT BY DEMOGRAPHIC?

IS IT BY RACE?

>> LOOK, I'D HAVE TO PULL THE EXACT DATA POINTS IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS DECISION HAS ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT IT'S OKAY TO END UP IN A PLACE WHERE YOU HAVE DISCRIMINATORY OUTCOMES AS LONG AS YOU TELL US THAT THEY WERE DONE FOR PARTISAN REASONS.

ANOTHER WAY OF KIND OF SAYING THAT IS IT'S OKAY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST DEMOCRATS ARE BLACK AS LONG AS YOU DON'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE WHO ARE DEMOCRATS, WHICH LEADS TO THIS VERY AWKWARD SORT OF CONUNDRUM OF ALMOST A CHICKEN AND EGG CONVERSATION, WHICH COMES FIRST.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO HAVE REAL IMPACTS IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA, NOT JUST AT THE CONGRESSIONAL LEVEL, BUT AT EVERY SINGLE LEVEL OF PARTISAN ELECTION GOVERNMENT, RIGHT.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT STATE SENATE MAPS, WHICH IS ALSO INVOLVED IN SOME LITIGATION HERE IN THE STATE WHERE THEY ALSO MADE A FINDING THERE.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT STATE REPRESENTATIVE MAPS, STATE SCHOOL BOARD MAPS, JUDGES AND OTHER OFFICIALS.

SO THIS IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

>> YOU KNOW, A BLACK REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE IN OHIO, JOSH WILLIAMS, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE LOUISIANA DECISION.

HE SAID, LOOK, THE IDEA THAT BLACK AMERICANS NEED SPECIAL DISTRICT CARVED OUT FOR JUST THEM IS A COMPLETE NONSENSE.

IT'S VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

OF COURSE THE WHITE HOUSE IS CHEERING THE DECISION IN THE SUPREME COURT.

THEY CALL IT A COMPLETE AND TOTAL VICTORY, AND "THE COLOR OF ONE'S SKIN SHOULD NOT DICTATE WHICH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT YOU BELONG IN. "

WHAT'S THEIR RESPONSE TO THAT LINE OF THINKING?

>> LOOK, I THINK IT'S MISLEADING FIRST AND FOREMOST.

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS NOT ABOUT CARVING OUT DISTRICTS FOR BLACK PEOPLE TO WIN.

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS ABOUT CARVING OUT DISTRICTS THAT CREATE A LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITY FOR FAIR REPRESENTATION.

SO THAT YOU CAN'T WATER DOWN THE BLACK VOTE IN A WAY THAT ESSENTIALLY MAKES IT MEANINGLESS IN TERMS OF HAVING A LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITY TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S A --I THINK THAT'S GENERALLY A PRINCIPLE THAT MOST PEOPLE CAN AGREE WITH, RIGHT.

AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO DOESN'T SEE IT THAT WAY.

BUT LOOK, I THINK TO THE WHITE HOUSE'S POINT OF THIS BEING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL VICTORY, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

IT'S FAR FROM THE CASE.

THEY WERE HOPING THAT THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT WOULD BE DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I THE COURT DID NOT DO.

IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT A COMPLETE AND TOTAL VICTORY FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA, BECAUSE IN THE DECISION, JUSTICE ALITO SPECIFICALLY SAYS "WE ARE NOT OVERRULING THE ALABAMA CASE. "

IN FACT, HE GOES SO FAR TO HIGHLIGHT THE CASE THAT IN THE ALABAMA CASE, THE STATE DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DEFEND ITS MAP AS BEING DRAWN FOR PARTISAN REASONS.

I THINK THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES TO WHAT THE STATE OF ALABAMA DID AND HOW THE SUPREME COURT VIEWS WHAT THEY DID.

>> EVEN IF IT'S NOT ALABAMA, ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE RIPPLE EFFECTS THROUGHOUT THE SOUTH HERE?

WE ALREADY SEE KIND OF MOMENTS IN MOVEMENTS IN TENNESSEE AND POSSIBLY OTHER STATES AS WELL.

>> OH, FOR SURE.

THERE WILL CERTAINLY BE RIPPLES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THOSE RIPPLES WILL CERTAINLY BE MORE PRONOUNCED IF NOT EXCLUSIVE ILY PRONOUNCED IN STATES THAT HAVE A REPUBLICAN TRIFECTA, HAVE A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR, A REPUBLICAN-LED SENATE, A REPUBLICAN-LED STATE HOUSE.

IT'S ALSO GOING TO BE DISPROPORTIONATELY ACROSS THE OLD SOUTH, WHICH IS THE PLACE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT WAS BORN OUT OF BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES THAT WE SAW ACROSS STATES LIKE, YOU KNOW, ALABAMA AND LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI AND TEXAS AND GEORGIA AND TENNESSEE AND SOUTH CAROLINA AND A HANDFUL OF OTHERS.

SO WE'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO SEE IT.

SO THERE WILL BE RIPPLE EFFECTS NOT JUST ACROSS THE COUNTRY, BUT AGAIN, ACROSS EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT THAT RUNS PARTISAN ELECTIONS.

>> HOW MUCH OF THIS WHAT'S HAPPENING IN ALABAMA, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN TENNESSEE AND OTHER PLACES, LOUISIANA ARE PART OF THIS NATIONAL ARMS RACE, IF YOU WILL, TO TRY TO SHORE UP DISTRICTS FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL OR THE MIDTERM CYCLE?

>> WELL, WHAT STARTED IN ALABAMA IS NOT PART OF THAT.

BECAUSE THIS CASE IN ALABAMA STARTED RIGHT AFTER THE 2020 CENSUS.

THIS LAWSUIT WAS ORIGINALLY FILED IN 2021, AND IT WAS STILL SORT OF ONGOING.

AND NOW UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE WE'RE SEEING THE PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TERM YOU WANT TO USE, WHETHER IT'S STACK THE DECK FOR THE ELECTION, MOVE THE GOALPOST OF THE ELECTION OR CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME DURING THE GAME, WHATEVER TERM YOU WANT TO USE, BECAUSE HE IS LEADING THAT EFFORT, YOU ARE SEEING STATES GRASP AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY HAVE TO PICK UP SEATS.

THIS IS SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY THAT STARTED IN TEXAS.

CALIFORNIA RESPONDED AND APPROPRIATELY RESPONDED.

DIDN'T HAVE AN OPTION BUT TO RESPOND.

WE'VE SEEN OTHER STATES PICK UP THE CHARGE FROM DONALD TRUMP TO ACT IN THE SAME MANNER, AND WE MOST RECENTLY SAW VIRGINIA COME IN AND RESPOND AS WELL.

WE EXPECT OTHER STATES TO GET INVOLVED IN.

THIS AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS A RACE TO THE BOTTOM.

AND THE END, WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, I THINK THE MARGINS ARE GOING TO LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE NOW IN TERMS OF LEGITIMATE SEATS THAT A DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN CAN WIN WHEN YOU AGGREGATE THE RESULTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THIS IS NOT THE PLACE WE SHOULD BE IN, BUT TEXAS STARTED THIS.

DONALD TRUMP STARTED THIS.

THIS WAS CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING ON BACK IN 2020 WHEN THIS MATTER FIRST STARTED IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE SPEED AT WHICH THE LOUISIANA CASE THERE IS USUALLY THIS SORT OF 32-DAY PERIOD WHEN THE RULING IS ANNOUNCE AND WHEN THE JUSTICES FORMALLY PASS A DECISION, THEY KIND OF FAST TRACK THAT IN THIS CASE AND EVEN IN THE WAY THE JUSTICES WERE SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER.

JUSTICE JACKSON, IN HER DISSENT TO THE COURT SAYING LOOK, THIS IS GOING TO BE SPAWNING CHAOS IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.

AND JUSTICE ALITO CALLING HER REASONING BASELESS AND INSULTING AND SAYS IT LACKS RESTRAINT.

HOW DO YOU VIEW THAT AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS WATCHED THE COURT?

>> LISTEN, IT'S CERTAINLY DIFFERENT THAN THE LANGUAGE I GREW UP READING AND STUDYING WHEN I WAS A LAW STUDENT.

YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO REMAIN AT A PLACE WHERE WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE FAITH IN OUR JUDICIARY.

IF WE LOSE FAITH IN THE JUDICIARY BRANCH AS A WHOLE IN ITS ENTIRETY, YOU KNOW, THEN WE ARE IN A DARK PLACE AS A COUNTRY.

YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A FAN OBVIOUSLY OF THIS PARTICULAR SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT CAME OUT.

BUT I AM A FAN OF THE DECISION THAT CREATED THE PATHWAY FOR ME TO GET TO CONGRESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THAT WAS THROUGH A THREE- JUDGE PANEL.

TWO OF THE JUDGES WERE APPOINTED BY DONALD TRUMP AND ONE WAS ORIGINALLY APPOINTED TO THE BENCH BY RONALD REAGAN.

AND EVEN THEY UNANIMOUSLY DETERMINED THAT ALABAMA HAD INTENTIONALLY RACIALLY DISCRIMINATED.

WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO SEE OUR COURT IN A WAY WHERE THEY MAINTAIN COLLEGIALITY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO BE IN A PLACE WHERE WE CAN, YOU KNOW, MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD ULTIMATELY AT THE END OF THE DAY TO GET TO A POINT WHERE CAN HAVE MORE SAY OVER WHAT TYPE OF JUSTICES AND WHAT TYPE OF JUDGES ARE BEING PUT ON THE COURT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS HERE IN ALABAMA?

AND IS IN PRIMARILY A RESISTANCE TO THIS DECISION WHEN THIS KIND OF FRAMING IN ALABAMA STATE LEGISLATURE BY DEMOCRATS ON THE LEFT, ARE THERE PEOPLE WHO ARE REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENTS WHO ARE ALSO CONCERNED BY THIS?

>> I THINK CONCERNS ARE ABOUND ACROSS THE BOARD FROM A VARIETY OF REASONS.

YOU LOOK AT, FOR INSTANCE, MY --THE DISTRICT THAT I REPRESENT RIGHT NOW.

ONE OF THE COUNTIES, MY HOMETOWN COUNTY, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA, WE NOW HAVE TWO MEMBERS IN CONGRESS, ONE ON EACH SIDE OF THE AISLE.

A LOT OF PEOPLE, DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN, LIKE THAT DYNAMIC.

THEY LIKE THE FACT THAT REGARDLESS WHO IS IN CONTROL IN CONGRESS, REGARDLESS OF WHO IS IN CONTROL OF THE WHITE HOUSE, THAT WE HAVE A LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO FURTHER THE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES THAT MATTER LOCALLY, THAT WE HAVE LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE TO BE ABLE TO PURSUE FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS.

SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT NOT EVERYBODY IS JUST IN LOCKSTEP WITH IT IN TERMS FROM A VOTER BASE.

IN TERMS OF WHAT'S NEXT, FIRST AND FOREMOST IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA, WE ARE A BUSINESS AS USUAL IN TERMS OF ME BEING IN CONGRESS.

AND CONGRESSWOMAN TERRY SOL BEING IN CONGRESS.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA.

THE LAW HAS NOT CHANGED.

IN FACT, THE SUPREME COURT EXPLICITLY SAID WE'RE NOT OVERTURNING THE ALABAMA CASE.

AND SO THE STATE IS GRASPING AT STRAWS.

THEY'RE LITERALLY PULLING OUT EVERY STOP.

THEY'RE TRYING TO FILE EVERY TYPE OF MOTION THEY CAN POSSIBLY FILE AT THE SUPREME COURT AND AT THE LOWER COURT.

AND TO THIS POINT, NOTHING HAS RESULTED IN ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW THE STATE OF ALABAMA TO REDRAW ITS CONGRESSIONAL MAPS.

>> WHEN YOU TALK TO ALABAMA REPUBLICANS AND ASK THEM ONE-ON-ONE, WHETHER IT'S IN THE HALLWAYS OR WHEREVER, YOU SAY LISTEN, YOU THROUGH THESE MAPS WERE BAD, AND AT THE MOMENT, YOUR PARTY IS FIGHTING TO PUT THOSE MAPS BACK IN.

WHAT'S THEIR RESPONSE TO YOU?

>> I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HEAR WITH DONALD TRUMP.

A LOT OF REPUBLICANS DESPISE DONALD TRUMP IN PRIVATE.

THEY SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE THINGS THAT HE IS DOING.

THEY SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE HARM THAT HE IS CAUSING.

I MET WITH SOME FARMERS EARLIER WHO WERE DIE-HARD REPUBLICANS, BUT THEY WERE DEFINITELY --DEFINITELY NOT A FAN OF THE IMPACT THAT THE TARIFFS HAVE HAD ON THEM, THE IMPACT THAT THESE RISING FUEL COSTS HAVE HAD ON THEM, AND THE IMPACT THAT THE LACK OF SUPPORT COMING TO THE AG COMMUNITY, WHILE WE'RE SEEING SUPPORT GO TO OTHER FARMERS IN ARGENTINA HAS HAD ON THEM.

SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THAT LOSS OF SUPPORT, HOW DOES THAT TRANSLATE INTO PEOPLE MAKING THEIR VOICES HEARD, AND ARE THEY WILLING TO SPEAK OUT AND VOTE AGAINST THAT SORT OF --YOU KNOW, THAT SORT OF THINKING THAT'S LITERALLY HARMING THEM.

SO HERE WE SEE A LOT OF THAT SAME SENTIMENT WITH THE MAPS.

SOME REPUBLICANS KNOW THAT THEY'RE PROBLEMATIC.

SOME REPUBLICANS CERTAINLY KNOW WHAT THE UNDERLYING REASON WAS BEHIND LINES BEING DRAWN THE WAY THEY WERE DRAWN, WAS TO PUT AS MANY BLACK VOTERS WHO THEY ASSUME WILL VOTE DEMOCRATIC INTO A SINGLE DISTRICT TO LIMIT THEIR IMPACT.

AND THEY KNOW IT'S WRONG.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, NOT TOO MANY ARE WILLING TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE TO PUSH BACK ON AND GET TO A MAP THAT ALLOWS FOR FAIR REPRESENTATION AND OPPORTUNITIES.

>> HOW MUCH OF THIS COMES DOWN TO KIND OF NATIONAL POLITICAL ALLEGIANCE DOING WHAT'S GOOD FOR YOUR SPECIFIC STATE AND WHAT'S GOOD FOR YOUR SPECIFIC CONSTITUENTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LICHTED TO DO TO KEEP THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE IN MOBILE THAT SENT YOU THERE.

>> YES.

THAT EXTENDS NOT JUST FROM MOBILE BUT UP TO MONTGOMERY, THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, WHICH IS WHY THIS CASE HAS EVEN MOREL VENICE AND SIGNIFICANCE TO ME.

LIKE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ULTIMATELY CAME OUT OF WHAT STARTED IN MONTGOMERY IN 1955, THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

AND PLACES LIKES TUSKEGEE IN MY DISTRICT AS WELL WITH THEIR LONG STORIED HISTORY.

I THINK SO A LOT OF IT COMES FROM MORE OF AN ALLEGIANCE TO PARTY THAN IT DOES TO COUNTRY.

AND THAT'S ESPECIALLY THE SORT OF RACE TO THE BOTTOM NOW WHERE YOU'RE LITERALLY SEEKING TO MINIMIZE IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA'S CASE, THEY'RE COMING OUT SAYING HEY, WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE, ELIMINATE -- AND THIS IS COMING FROM PEOPLE IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE, THAT THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY THAT A DEMOCRAT HAS TO WIN.

IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA.

AND THAT IS NUTS.

THAT SORT OF --THAT SORT OF PHILOSOPHY, IF THAT WAS THE MIND-SET WHEN WE WENT INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, WE WOULD NOT HAVE EMERGED WITH A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

IF YOU TOLD SMALLER STATES, IF YOU TOLD, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE MINORITY OF A POLITICAL PARTY AT THAT TIME THAT HEY, WE WANT TO CREATE A SYSTEM, WE WANT TO CREATE A NATION OF LAWS THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW US TO MUTE YOU, TO REMOVE YOUR ABILITY TO HAVE LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE REPRESENTED IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THEY ALL WOULD HAVE PUSHED AWAY FROM THE TABLE.

SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE SENTIMENT IS JUST UN-AMERICAN.

IT'S NOT RIGHT.

IT'S NOT FAIR, AND IT'S NOT MAKING US THE BEST NATION THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY BE.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SHOMARI FIGURES, DEMOCRAT FROM ALABAMA, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU.

HAVE A GOOD ONE, MAN.

>