MS NOW Expert Warns Republicans Could ‘Gerrymander Racial Minorities Into Oblivion’ — And Gain 19 House Seats

Slate senior legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern warned MS NOW on Sunday that Republicans could gain up to 19 seats in the House of Representatives by the 2028 election, if they are able to “neutralize” the Voting Rights Act next year.

Stern told The Weekend: Primetime he is worried the 1965 law could be gutted by the Supreme Court when it rules on Louisiana v. Calais. That case deals with racial gerrymandering and redistricting in the state of Louisiana following the 2020 U.S. Census.

“This gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to neutralize what remains of the voting rights act and to allow states to really gerrymander racial minorities into oblivion, to deny them fair representation,” Stern said.

He continued, saying, “it stands to give Republicans 15 to 19 more seats in the House of Representatives in the 2028 cycle. That is a bombshell. It is huge, and I feel like it’s not really getting enough attention in proportion to the impact that it may well have.”

Stern’s answer came after co-anchor Elise Jordan asked what SCOTUS ruling he thought would be “the most consequential” going into 2026 regarding “presidential power.”

Stern also cited the Trump V. Slaughter case, “in which the Supreme Court is poised to allow President Trump, and, theoretically, every future president, to fire virtually any executive official that they want, especially high-ranking executive officials.”

He continued, “This decision stands to fundamentally restructure our government. As Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor pointed out during oral arguments, this will abolish independent agencies. It will put almost all of the executive branch under direct presidential control, in direct violation of Congress’s wishes, and it will allow Trump to really just consolidate an unfathomable amount of authority in the White House, taking that power away from Congress.”

Amy Howe with SCOTUSBlog explained Trump’s argument:

The president and his supporters are proponents of a doctrine known as the “unitary executive” theory – the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one at the center of this case – that restrict his ability to do so violate the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government.

Watch above.