Transcript Highlights:

• That's intentional racial discrimination, or at least it strongly appears to be.
• And it is a form of racial discrimination under the Constitution, and a form of racial discrimination
• It's a complicated state because of a very deep history of racial discrimination against Latinos.
• It is blatant racial discrimination, it lacks due process, and will affect federal policies that impact
• This is a shameful attack and blatant racial discrimination.

Committee: House Congressional Redistricting, Select

Transcript Highlights:

• Racial discrimination by any definition.
• Or four districts drawn along strict racial lines.
• Principle response highlighting that racial discrimination motivates.
• The outcome, the net effect, is intentional discrimination.
• This is not a racial shift. This is a value shift.

Bills: SB 2 , SB 5 , SB 9 , SB 7 , SB 17 , SB 4 , HB4 , HB1 , HB3 , HB20 , HB22 , SB9 , SB7 , SB17 , SB4 , HB4 , SB2 , SB5

Transcript Highlights:

• It is inappropriate in my view and I think Title VII's language is clear that racial discrimination is
• So yes, in addition to race, I would see religious discrimination, and other forms of discrimination
• It's the pervasive racial discrimination that exists against Asians, whites, and other disfavored groups
• I think unlike most quote-unquote major civil rights organizations today, you oppose racial discrimination
• Racial quotas violate our civil rights.

Committee: Senate Senate Judiciary

Keywords: Department of Justice, nominations, Assistant Attorney General, civil rights, enforcement, committee discussion

Summary: The meeting covered important discussions surrounding key nominations in the Department of Justice, specifically for the roles of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and the Office of Legal Policy. Various committee members took turns to express their views on the nominees, emphasizing the implications of their potential confirmation on civil rights enforcement in the country. Alongside the committee discussion, the nominees provided insights into their professional backgrounds and how their experiences align with the responsibilities of the positions for which they have been nominated.

Transcript Highlights:

• In that opinion, the court said eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.
• </c> protect individuals from discrimination protect individuals from discrimination on<00:13:14.839>
• 54.680><c> its</c><00:13:54.880><c> non-discrimination</c> Kentucky in its non-discrimination Kentucky
• </c><00:14:55.079><c> and</c> charged to prevent discrimination and charged to prevent discrimination
• discrimination happens, because there is discrimination in this world and the universities need a count

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Postsecondary Education met to consider House Bill 4, relating to postsecondary education. Before taking up the bill, the committee adopted a committee substitute. The substitute removed language creating a private right of action and immunity provisions, added a definition of “indoctrinate,” revised language tied to the Attorney General, and added a new section directing the Auditor of Public Accounts to review compliance every four years. If an institution is found out of compliance, it would have 180 days to cure the issue or become ineligible for formula funding increases in the following fiscal year, with an opportunity to petition the Attorney General. The substitute also added language barring licensing authorities from requiring diversity, equity, and inclusion training as a condition of initial or renewal licensure. Representative Decker presented the bill as an effort to end what she described as unconstitutional DEI practices in Kentucky’s postsecondary system and to refocus colleges on academic instruction, equal opportunity, and affordability. She argued that DEI offices and initiatives have cost taxpayers heavily and have not improved enrollment outcomes for low-income and underrepresented students. Michael Frasier, testifying in support, framed the bill as an equal-protection measure rather than simply an anti-DEI bill, saying it targets preferential treatment and discrimination while exempting traditional civil-rights compliance offices such as Title IX, disability, and other anti-discrimination functions. He also argued that the bill aligns with recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent and that Kentucky should shift toward socioeconomic-based approaches. Several members raised concerns about the bill’s assumptions and effects. Representative Willner questioned the claim that DEI initiatives caused enrollment declines and asked why the state would not make such programs more inclusive instead of eliminating them. Representative Stalker argued that the bill ignored decades of exclusion in higher education and asked what would replace DEI efforts aimed at closing achievement gaps and preventing brain drain. Supporters responded that the bill addresses unconstitutional preferences and that the state should move toward equal treatment and socioeconomic factors rather than race-based criteria. After discussion, the committee substitute was adopted, and the committee continued consideration of House Bill 4.

Transcript Highlights:

• Discrimination is wrong. For too long, the state has promoted discrimination based on sex and race.
• My question is: how are the people who are being discriminated against supposed to stop discrimination
• Discrimination is wrong. State-sponsored discrimination is also wrong. Discrimination is wrong.
• Chief Justice Roberts wrote, 'Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.'
• Chief Justice Roberts wrote, 'Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.'

Bills: HB2523 , HB2606 , HB2684 , HJM4012

Committee: House Technology, Economic Development, & Veterans

Keywords: community reinvestment, housing, local funding, urban development, economic revitalization, data protection, privacy, performance measures, reporting requirements, office of privacy, social disadvantage, business certification, state guidelines, economic equity, minority-owned businesses, combat veterans, support, military service, injury compensation, veteran affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• And, you know, since federal, you know, actions, you know, against discrimination and voting.
• You know, what does it mean to have a history of discrimination like that?
• It's only where one racial group is overcoming the desires of another racial group.
• It's only where one racial group is overcoming the desires of another racial group.
• We don’t collect voter self-reported racial or ethnic identity at the moment of registration.

Summary: The committee held a work session on voting rights in the United States and Washington, beginning with testimony from Marissa Wright of Campaign Legal Center and David Montes of the ACLU of Washington. They described the federal Voting Rights Act’s main protections—preclearance, vote suppression, and vote dilution—and argued that Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich have weakened those tools. They said Washington should consider stronger state-level protections, including a preclearance program and broader safeguards against discriminatory voting practices. Members asked about Washington’s history of discrimination, voter roll purges, noncitizen registration, and remedies under the Washington Voting Rights Act, including ranked-choice voting and district-based systems. The committee then heard from the Office of Equity and several commissions, which described their roles in advising state government and working with communities. They focused on the immigration sub-cabinet created under Executive Order 2509, saying it is intended to improve coordination across agencies, the legislature, the courts, and community organizations on issues such as data privacy, language access, health care, education, and accountability under the Keep Washington Working Act. Members asked about the use of NGOs, accountability for KWW violations, and the sub-cabinet’s goals, and the panel said the effort is meant to help government respond more quickly and collaboratively while centering immigrant, disability, LGBTQ, and other communities. The final panel was from the University of Washington Elections Database Project, which presented data on vote-by-mail ballot challenges, cures, and rejections from 2020 to 2024. They reported that about 1.5% of ballots are signature-challenged in most elections, roughly 60% of challenged ballots are cured, and overall rejection rates are about 1% in general elections and 1.5% in primaries. The researchers said voters of color, younger voters, and some tribal-area voters experience higher rejection rates, and that differences appear tied to signature mismatch, language access, ballot timing, and familiarity with the system. In the last panel, Maria Fernandez and Vicki Frausto of EIA described voter education and civic engagement work in Yakima County and Sunnyside, including concerns about intimidation, language barriers, signature mismatch, and at-large election systems; they said stronger Washington Voting Rights Act protections would help communities elect candidates of choice. No votes were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And they were the second largest targeted group of racial ethnic hate crimes.
• And so in racial hate crime, there's a lot of crisscrossing in terms of different racial groups targeting
• other racial or ethnic groups.
• They are documented incidents of discrimination or harassment and documented incidents of discrimination
• Of these intakes, 18% were related to employment discrimination, 14 were related to education discrimination

Summary: The Select Committee on Racism, Hate, and Xenophobia met to hear from Los Angeles County officials and community advocates about rising hate, discrimination, and xenophobia, with opening remarks emphasizing the need for stronger anti-hate infrastructure, community-based reporting, and state support. Assemblymember Lowenthal noted the broader economic and social impacts of discrimination, and the committee framed the hearing around understanding local conditions and identifying legislative responses. Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission Executive Director Robin Toma presented county hate-crime data showing record-high levels in 2024, with racial/ethnic hate crimes remaining the largest category and anti-Black hate crimes the most common. He also highlighted high levels of anti-Latino, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-transgender hate, the role of underreporting, and the county’s L.A. vs. Hate system for reporting and victim support. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said it uses hate-crime and hate-incident data to guide proactive patrols, community outreach, and training, and discussed the need to build trust amid immigration enforcement fears that discourage reporting. Community organizations described how current political rhetoric and federal immigration enforcement are intensifying fear and underreporting. LULAC called for multilingual, culturally competent reporting systems, prevention education, and stronger support for grassroots organizations. The Jewish Federation of Los Angeles described severe anti-Semitism, increased security costs, and the need for safe worship protections, security grants, and Holocaust education. The NAACP emphasized the continuing impact of anti-Black racism and the need for cross-community solidarity, while the Los Angeles LGBT Center highlighted rising anti-trans violence and urged funding for gender-affirming care, LGBTQ centers, and reauthorization of California vs. Hate. CHIRLA and CAIR California both described heightened fear among immigrants and Muslims, workplace discrimination, and the need for stronger civil-rights protections, data collection, and community-based reporting. No formal votes were taken. The discussion focused on policy ideas and funding priorities, including improved law-enforcement training, alternative sentencing or diversion for hate offenders, protections for houses of worship, and continued or expanded funding for California vs. Hate, Stop Hate, and related programs. Committee members and witnesses repeatedly stressed that hate is underreported, that words and leadership rhetoric matter, and that California should continue investing in prevention, response, and healing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Discrimination is wrong. For too long, the state has promoted discrimination based on sex and race.
• My question is, how are the people who are being discriminated against supposed to stop discrimination
• Discrimination is wrong. State-sponsored discrimination is also wrong. Discrimination is wrong.
• Chief Justice Roberts wrote, 'Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.'
• Chief Justice Roberts wrote, 'Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.'

Summary: The committee met to take executive action on House Bill 2523, concerning the Community Reinvestment Program, and House Bill 2606, concerning the Office of Privacy and Data Protection. Staff briefed a proposed substitute for HB 2523 and several amendments. The substitute would change how Community Reinvestment Account funds are distributed, require tribal consultation, update the community reinvestment plan on a regular cycle, expand reporting and Office of Equity responsibilities, add definitions, and broaden the WSIPP study. Amendments to shorten the plan update cycle, restrict recipients from receiving other state housing assistance, bar certain officers and family members from grants, require independent audits, and expand WSIPP review were debated; only the amendment changing the plan update cycle from 10 years to 5 years was adopted. The committee then voted 8-5 to report the substitute HB 2523 out of committee with a do pass recommendation. HB 2606, which was described as implementing JLARC recommendations to reduce redundancy and improve efficiency in privacy/data protection functions, was then approved unanimously and reported out with a do pass recommendation. The committee then held public hearings on House Bill 2684 and House Joint Memorial 4012. HB 2684 would establish rebuttable presumptions that members of certain groups are socially disadvantaged for purposes of OMWBE certification, including adding Middle Eastern and North African individuals to the framework. Testimony was split: some speakers opposed the bill as discriminatory or constitutionally problematic, while others, including representatives of MENA businesses, CAIR Washington, and OMWBE, supported it as a needed fix to improve access to certification and contracting opportunities. The chair noted that amendments could still be submitted before the next day’s executive session, and the bill was set for further consideration the following morning. House Joint Memorial 4012 urges Congress to bring the Major Richard Star Act to a floor vote. The prime sponsor and veteran advocates testified that the memorial seeks to address the “wounded veteran tax” by allowing combat-injured service members who retire before 20 years of service to receive both retirement pay and VA disability compensation. Supporters said the change would correct an inequity affecting Washington veterans and their families. The committee closed the hearing on the memorial and announced that both HB 2684 and HJM 4012 would be considered the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• . and they were the second largest targeted group of racial ethnic hate crimes.
• And so in racial hate crime, there's a lot of crisscrossing in terms of different racial groups targeting
• other racial or ethnic groups.
• They are documented incidents of discrimination or harassment.
• Of these intakes, 18% were related to employment discrimination, 14% were related to education discrimination

Transcript Highlights:

• He created the Racial Justice Bureau to strengthen our capacity to focus on racial and social justice
• He created the Racial Justice Bureau to strengthen our capacity to focus on racial and social justice
• This is pure racial profiling, as we know it.
• And then our last panel is going to be from the Racial Equity Commission.
• The Racial Equity Commission framework, as I shared, will be...

Summary: The Select Committee on Hate, Racism, and Xenophobia met to examine the scope of hate activity in California and hear from state agencies, commissions, and community organizations. The chair opened by framing hate as a persistent crisis affecting many protected groups, and Assembly Member Gonzalez briefly joined the committee. The first panel included the California Department of Justice and the California Commission on the State of Hate, both of which presented recent data and policy recommendations. The Department of Justice reported that in 2024 California saw 2,023 reported hate crime events, 2,568 hate crime offenses, and 2,491 victims, with anti-Black bias remaining the most common category, followed by anti-Jewish and anti-Latino bias. DOJ also said referrals for prosecution increased, and it described its hate-crimes guidance, rapid response protocol, and multilingual resources. The Commission on the State of Hate said hate is undercounted in law enforcement data and cited a survey suggesting about 2.6 million Californians experienced at least one hate act in a year, including more than half a million potentially criminal incidents. It recommended permanent data infrastructure, mandatory law enforcement training, and continued funding for community-based prevention and victim support. The committee then heard testimony from representatives of the NAACP, LULAC, Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, CHIRLA, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, CARE, Equality California, and the Racial Equity Commission. Witnesses described systemic racism, anti-immigrant enforcement, antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Asian bias, and anti-LGBTQ+ hate, often linking these harms to political rhetoric, social media, and federal actions. They urged the Legislature to fund programs such as California vs. Hate, Stop the Hate, nonprofit security grants, language access, school and mental health supports, and legal assistance, while also protecting civil rights, due process, and free speech. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing, but members indicated they would request additional recommendations and continue the discussion in future hearings.

Transcript Highlights:

• district, there has to be a compelling record of egregious racial discrimination that immediately precedes
• Those conditions are that there has to be an immediate record of egregious racial discrimination that
• discrimination that requires the development or use of district lines drawn with racial intent, if you
• discrimination that requires the development or use of district lines drawn with racial intent.
• discrimination.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• district, there has to be a compelling record of egregious racial discrimination that immediately precedes
• And those conditions are that there has to be an immediate record of egregious racial discrimination
• discrimination that require the development or use of district lines drawn with racial intent.
• discrimination.
• discrimination.

Transcript Highlights:

• Closing the racial wealth gap is essential to closing health racial gaps.
• Closing the racial wealth gap is essential to closing health, racial health gaps.
• the racial wealth gap.
• The racial wealth gap is also a racial entrepreneurship gap.
• Fully uncovering the racial wage gap as a driver of the racial wealth gap has not yet been done.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion

Summary: The Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion held a hearing on the impact of federal policy on the racial wealth gap in Massachusetts, the fourth in a series on federal impacts on racial equity. Chair Bud Williams and Chair Miranda opened by emphasizing that no bills were being heard and that the committee would instead take testimony from invited witnesses; public written testimony was also accepted. The chairs and witnesses repeatedly cited long-standing wealth disparities affecting Black and brown communities, including homeownership, wages, business ownership, and access to capital, and linked those disparities to federal policy changes, housing, education, health care, and workforce development. Administration officials testified first. Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development Lauren Jones described persistent labor market disparities, including higher unemployment for Black and Latino residents, lower median hourly wages, and underemployment among degree holders, and highlighted state efforts such as ESOL-for-work funding, workforce training grants, MassHire career centers, skills-based hiring, and the state equity dashboards. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kiami Mahania argued that poverty drives poor health, not the reverse, and said wealth gaps contribute to chronic disease, maternal health inequities, medical debt, and shorter life expectancy; she pointed to the Advancing Health Equity Massachusetts initiative, a health care affordability working group, and the governor’s push to bar medical debt from credit reporting. Assistant Secretary Juan Vega of EOED focused on entrepreneurship and procurement, citing technical assistance grants, founder support programs, place-based investment, the Business Front Door, and the need to broaden access to contracts, capital, and business growth opportunities. Committee members pressed the panel on the effects of the federal “big beautiful bill” on households, especially single-parent and Black women-led households, and on whether the state could develop more timely data systems instead of relying on federal numbers. Officials said the impacts were still being monitored, but warned that Medicaid and SNAP changes would likely hit lower-income households and community institutions hard. Members also asked about unions and apprenticeships, microbusiness definitions, supplier diversity, pay equity, and degree inflation; the administration said registered apprenticeships and skills-based hiring are key tools, and noted that wage equity reporting is still in its early stages. Later testimony from BECMA’s Nicole O’Bean stressed that tariffs, DEI rollbacks, immigration enforcement, capital gaps, and federal funding cuts are constraining Black-owned businesses and inclusive procurement, while Gastón Institute researchers described severe Latino homeownership and rent burdens, educational inequities, and the need for housing, labor, and education policy changes to close the wealth gap.

Transcript Highlights:

• Obviously, we had to take some of it out because of legalities and discrimination issues.

Bills: HR267 , HCR105 , HCR107 , HCR110 , HCR113 , HCR114 , SB4 , SB52 , SB57 , SB145 , SB152 , SB194 , SB237 , SB333 , SB433 , SB483 , SCR37

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Keywords: diabetes, amputation, amputations, diabetic foot ulcer, peripheral artery disease, PAD, wound care, podiatry, vascular disease, endocrinology, limb salvage, health policy, public health, healthcare costs, insurance coverage, Louisiana Department of Health, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Louisiana Center for Health Innovation, patient education, screening

Transcript Highlights:

• Racial discrimination policies have consequences.
• Racial discrimination policies have consequences.
• We have been quite successful in the past six years in confronting and stopping racial discrimination
• Please keep racial discrimination illegal. Thank you. Thank you.
• Would ACA 7 or narrowing Prop. 209 allow for racial or sex discrimination?

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• district, there has to be a compelling record of egregious racial discrimination that immediately precedes
• And those conditions are that there has to be an immediate record of egregious racial discrimination
• discrimination that require the development or use of district lines drawn with racial intent, if you
• discrimination that require the development or use of district lines drawn with racial intent.
• discrimination.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, now did you look at any racial discrimination during...?
• it amounts to being racially gerrymandered.
• Rights for all, or were you on the wrong side of history, upholding discrimination with this racial gerrymandered
• discrimination that is against the law.
• Courts have been clear; partisanship is not a license to engage in racial discrimination.

Bills: HB4 , HB4

Transcript Highlights:

• district, there has to be a compelling record of egregious racial discrimination that immediately precedes
• intent or racial lines.
• Those conditions are that there has to be an immediate record of egregious racial discrimination that
• discrimination that require the development or use of district lines drawn with racial intent.
• discrimination.

Transcript Highlights:

• He created the Racial Justice Bureau.
• He created the Racial Justice Bureau to strengthen our capacity to focus on racial and social justice
• This is pure racial profiling, as we know it.
• And then our last panel is going to be from the Racial Equity Commission.
• The Racial Equity Commission framework, as I shared, will be...

Summary: The Select Committee on Hate, Racism, and Xenophobia met to hear opening remarks, state data, and testimony from community organizations and equity commissions about rising hate and discrimination in California. The chair framed the hearing as a response to persistent targeting of protected classes, and members said the committee’s purpose was to elevate community voices and identify policy responses. Assembly Member Gonzalez and Assembly Member Lowenthal also briefly commented on the importance of listening to communities and developing legislative solutions. The California Department of Justice reported that 2024 hate crime events, offenses, and victims all increased from the prior year, with anti-Black bias remaining the most common category, followed by anti-Jewish and anti-Latino bias in different breakdowns. DOJ also noted increases in referrals for prosecution and described its hate-crimes guidance, rapid-response protocol, and outreach efforts. The California Commission on the State of Hate said hate is underreported, cited survey data suggesting millions of Californians experienced hate incidents, and recommended permanent data infrastructure, mandatory law-enforcement training, and sustained funding for victim support and prevention programs. Commissioners also emphasized that public messaging by leaders can influence hate and violence. A long panel of advocates described the impacts of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-LGBTQ+ hate, and anti-immigrant enforcement on their communities. NAACP representatives focused on systemic racism in policing, education, health, housing, and environmental justice; LULAC and CHIRLA described ICE raids, profiling, and fear in Latino and immigrant communities; Jewish, Muslim, Asian American, and LGBTQ+ speakers highlighted rising threats, harassment, and the need for language access, school protections, security funding, and legal assistance. The Racial Equity Commission closed by describing its statewide framework work, community engagement, and a December 1 deadline for delivering recommendations to the Legislature and administration. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing, but members said they would request additional recommendations and continue the work through future hearings and briefings.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we're going to really achieve a post-racial society, all of us have to be involved in that.
• Just more evidence of Alabama's intent to discriminate.
• If we're going to really achieve a post-racial society, all of us have to be involved in that.
• If we're going to really achieve a post-racial society, all of us have to be involved in that.
• Do you know Alabama was caught in the Shelby case in the '90s intentionally discriminating Discriminating