Mm-hmm.

67%.

Uh, it's not something I would support, and if you don't believe me, look at the family history on it, 'cause my mother voted against it.

Right? At the end of the day, we have to stand up for, for, for what's right in Alabama.

If, if standing up for rural hospitals make me a bad person, then it makes a lot of people in the State of Alabama, uh, bad people, and I don't think that's the issue.

If standing up, uh, and introducing legislation like we've recently introduced to provide a tax break for the outrageous cost for child enrichment op- opportunities, child sports participation, giving a $5,000 tax break, uh, to parents absorbing those costs of activities that used to be, uh, nearly free when you and I were growing up that, that they're spending so much money on.

If that makes me a bad person, then there are a lot of bad people.

Mm-hmm.

Is that how you see it?

Well, what I see is that we, you know, uh, we being the state of Alabama in 19, uh, from 1920s, '30s, '40s, '50s, 1960s, through the 1970s, even into the '80s, uh, the state of Alabama's congressional delegation, uh, did not include a legitimate opportunity for any African American to win.

Uh, and post this decision in Louisiana, if it runs its course, uh, in the state of Alabama, which we're still hopeful that it will not, um, given some differences in the case, uh, post that, that's exactly what is about to happen again.

Uh, so we are certainly about to return to an era or certainly on the cusp of returning to an era, uh, where Black people in the state of Alabama do not have a legitimate opportunity, uh, to have representation, uh, at every level of government

Writ large, do you think this gerrymandering war is good for the country?

Absolutely not.

Uh, it is a terrible idea.

It was something that was terrible, uh, to start with in Texas.

Now, that ruling, of course, protected your district, but now that Section 2 has been effectively gutted, do you have confidence, Congressman, the ruling will hold and your district will survive?

We do have confidence, uh, because the Alabama case was a little bit different than the Louisiana case.

In the case in Alabama, they actually made, uh, a finding of an in- of intentional discrimination.

They also found a Section 2 violation.

Uh, that preliminary finding went up to the Supreme Court once before back in 2023, uh, and the Supreme Court upheld that preliminary finding.

And then also in this most recent decision in the Louisiana case, they referenced the Alabama case several times throughout it, including at the end of that decision where they said, "We're not overturning the Alabama case because Alabama never even attempted to defend its map as a partisan gerrymander." Uh, which is what the Louisiana case was, was essentially all about.

And so, uh, we have confidence for those reasons in addition to a court order that's in place in our case, uh, that the court, uh, that the State of Alabama actually agreed not to, um, uh, redraw its maps ahead of the 2030 census unless the Supreme Court overturned the case.

How should Democrats be responding to this moment?