the power to lose weight like never before. join for $1. hurry, join by june 29th and you'll get a free summer starter kit. the weight watchers 360 program. because it works. good morning. i'm chris jansing. six decisions left before the supreme court ends this term. right now we're waiting for the big three. all have to do with equality. defensive marriage act. prop eight. enormous implications for lgbt americans. and the decision on the voting rights act in 1965. pete williams is at the court and will bring you those decisions as soon as they come down. we are also keeping our eyes on the florida courtroom where george zimmerman is being tried for second-degree murder in the shooting of trayvon martin. a charge he denies. a key witness for the prosecution takes the stand today. this is the young woman who was

on the phone with martin during the final minutes of his life and whose statements to police were a turning point in this case. we will have her testimony when it happens. as we wait, let's get to the hunt for edward snowden. he is believed to be in russia. everyone says he's there. but the russians are saying he's not. at a news conference the foreign minister said we consider the attempts to accuse russia of violation of law and even some sort of conspiracy, which on top of that are accompanied by threats as absolutely ungrounded and unacceptable. well, here's john mccain's take. it's reminiscent of the days of cold war when you hear him say he's not in russia when every shred of evidence says he is. we have to deal with vladimir putin for what he is. he's an old colonel that dreams of the day of the russian empire

and he continues to stick his thumbs in our eye in a broad variety of ways. >> we know snowden left hong kong and made it to the russian airport where he was supposed to get on a flight headed to cuba. but his connection flight was empty. and this whole thing is turning into a major fiasco between the u.s., russia, china, three nations where the relationship hasn't been exactly warm. but president obama tried to stay above the fray. >> what we know is we're following all the appropriate legal channels and working with other countries to make sure rule of law is observed. beyond that i'll refer to the justice department that has been actively involved in the case. >> i want to bring in senator robert menendez. good to see you. >> good to see you, chris. >> why are we having so much trouble bringing edward snowden back to the u.s.? >> well, obviously, we have

countri countries who see it in their interest not necessarily to be helpful here. snowden clearly has from all accounts additional information. he is in my mind being facilitated by countries who are happy to see him on the course he's on. it's very difficult to understand particularly the russian position that they have no way to consider extraditing him back to the united states when russian police were surrounding the plane that he was supposed to have gotten onto cuba. and threatening to take phones away from journalists. if you seem to have the ability to do that, it seems to me you have the ability to have access to snowden. >> what do we need to do now? make a personal phone call?

does he need to be stronger on the issue as critics have suggested? >> i think secretary of state, secretary kerry didn't mince any words. either in the relationship with hong kong or the russians. you saw the russian's sharp retort. they obviously felt the sting of the criticism. i think it's very clear to the russians where we're at. i think it's very clear to the ecuadorians or any other country giving him asylum, that they would have real consequences for their relationship with the united states. >> assange says snowden hasn't talked to the chinese or the russians. but there are questions. a former general was quoted as saying there's no way you get someone with this kind of knowledge of the cia in your radius and you let him go.

how worried are you about that? >> well, look, we have always been in an intelligence race with the russians. that's historical. he'll continue today. and snowden may well be consider a treasure-trove. and so ultimately to think that there wasn't some attempt by them to engage with snowden to extract information from him. and in doing so that they would help him. ultimately exit the country once they got whatever information they wanted is not beyond the realm of the possibility. it is a real concern. >> i want to switch gears and talk about immigration. big vote yesterday to start the debate. 15 republicans voted yes. but were you disappointed you didn't get 70? >> no, i personally always said that, in fact, you know, 60 was a super majority in the senate.

i've never insisted on created an artificially new limit. we don't get 60 votes in the senate virtually ever. so to have gotten 67, and unfortunately two of our colleagues, their flights were canceled, we would have been at 69 yesterday. that's as robust a vote as you're going to get on something as significant, as comprehensive, and some cases as controversial, and i think it is a tremendous acknowledgment of solving a problem, the american people want to see solved. poll after poll, across the spectrum, they want to see us solve our problem of our broken immigration system, and yesterday's vote was pretty overwhelming and should send a strong message to the house when that becomes the final vote on passage. >> the border surge is estimated, as you know, senator, to cost $30 billion, and still didn't win over a lot of the

republicans. even bob corker said it was overkill. do you think it was worth adding this amendment? >> look, at the end of the day there are colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i've said this many times, no matter what we do, no matter what amendments we permit them to have. these are the same people who at different times in questioning the debate said they want a fence. now they don't want a fence. they wanted more border patrol, now they don't want border patrol. so these are individuals who really have a problem with a fundamental issue. and that problem is they cannot see themselves ever agreeing to a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented in this country. that's the core problem. so we will never solve that problem. that's an essential part of what democrats insist on. >> senator robert menendez. thank you so much for being with

us. it is interesting about this amendment. now you have a letter to harry reid that more than a dozen senators say, well, we want our amendments. what does this vote, if anything, tell you about the road ahead? >> i think going into last night is the same as going out of last night. we kpt the votes will be wrapped up in the senate. i don't know if they will get 70 votes. i do think it will pass. there still awaits a long road in this. we have talked about it for weeks now. i don't see a path forward in the house. correct me if i'm wrong, everybody. but i think john boehner was very clear that he doesn't see enough republican votes to get there. he will not bring it to the floor without enough votes to get it across. and i think the majority of leadership will have problems with certain elements of the bill. it paves a huge hurdle. >> well, there's an interesting quote from congressman tom cole who said, nick, why should a minority of the minority in the senate influence a majority of the majority in the house?

>> well, he's right. and look, there's a fundamental problem here, which is that the majority of the party that runs the house doesn't want this to happen. and it's the top -- the second term for this president who he decemb despises. and it's the top priority of the other team. it seems irresolvable to me. >> well, the president's meeting with all the congressional leadership, is there anything he can say or do at this point? >> i think he is the more he is involved, the more problematic. it is. he is going to be careful about how he moves ahead. it's been enough of a drag along. the more he's involved the concern is it will repel republicans. >> let me ask you ab what you think is going on with edward snowden.

the president has come under a lot of fire. he said nobody is afraid of this guy. that's what he said about president obama. has it been mishandled? >> what is he going to do with china and russia? is he going to invade russia because of snowden? it seems to be a generic critique of the obama foreign policy, right? but i don't know what specific actions they think should be done or should have been done the last week that would have had a different result. >> i think nick is right. >> i need to interrupt you. we have a ruling from the supreme court on voting rights. generally considered one of the most important affected civil rights laws in history. the case challenges two specific provisions of this law. section five which requires preclearance for changing the election procedures or "b" outlines a formula for which jurisdictions should be covered. and this is really focused on

shelby county, alabama. and they argue there that this law is outdated. that they shouldn't have to follow these things. what are you looking for? >> you know, i think what we're looking for is whether the supreme court will go narrow or broad in this case. if it goes narrowly it can strike down that states have to opt in or opt out of this mechanism. if the supreme court goes broad and strikes down the mechanism all together, section five, that would be a much broader holding. >> let me read to you a couple of the arguments that were made. sonja sotomayor said why would we do this when it's the epitome of how we started? it's an old disease. it's gotten better. a lot better. but it's still there. let's go to nbc's pete williams at the court. >> reporter: well, this decision

strikes down a key part of the voting rights act and leaves it up to congress to fix it. they were two parts of the law in question. this is the civil rights law signed by president johnson in 1965, renewed four times, most recently in 2006. it says that states or counties or towns with a history of discrimination must get permission from the federal government in advance before they can make any changes at all in their election procedures. this is the so-called preclearance requirement. well, the court upheld that today. but the court struck down the map, the formula that congress has repeatedly used over the years to decide who is covered by the voting rights action. now this leaves it up to congress, but the question is, how likely do you think congress is to do something major like this? to take another look at where

discrimination at the polls is a problem. decide who is okay now, who isn't. the supreme court signaled three years ago it thought the voting rights action was out of step with the time. things have changed in the south, in an opinion written by chief justice john roberts. and he writes the court's opinion again today. so the court is clearly leaving it up to congress. the question is, can congress muster the ability to do what was done? yeah. >> all right, that is pete williams reporting from the court. i'm joined by rick, a constitutional law professor at nyu. >> based on the reports we're getting, this is the most moe mentous decision about the voting rights action since it was first enacted in 1965. by striking down the coverage for this act, the court has essentially made this part of the act no longer in effect in the south and in the areas of the country it covered. >> what's the real life impact of this ruling? >> well, that's going to be very

complicated to sourt out. there's a lot of symbol lance. how much it's going to affect things on the ground is open to a lot of debate and question. the polling places, precinct locations, voting rules, that may be more difficult to catch. but a lot of law developed. there's a lot of law in the area outside of section five. but in terms of symbolic proportions, this is hugely moe mentous in the his riff of the united states supreme court. >> judith joins me as well from washington, d.c. do you agree with that? what is your reaction to the court's ruling? >> well, i think we have to understand that this is one provision of the voting rights act. and we have to put it in perspective. clearly, this is a huge disappointment with regard to voting rights and civil rights. but it means it punts back to

congress. when we look at this, congress had in front of it in 2006 over 15,000 pages of record that showed that there was discrimination in those states. that was ongoing discrimination. we know that the voting rights act was really important because it stopped the texas voter i.d. law. it stopped the south carolina voter i.d. law from going into effect this year. clearly there is still a need for it. now we have to go back to congress and figure out which states should be covered. we know from 2011 and 2012, we saw a lot of laws that went forward that really set voting rights back about a century. and so this will leave open who should be covered under the voting rights action. what is important is section five still exists. it was upheld. i haven't read the decision yet because i'm sitting here with you. it sounds from what has been reported is section five, which

means the federal government still has to prove discriminations still exist and will have to figure out who gets covered by that. >> and for what has to go back to congress, how confident are you that anything would happen? and that it would go the way of voting rights and civil rights? >> well, of course, this is a difficult congress to get anything through that is really progressive legislation. but you know, look. the voting rights action, when we look back at the reauthorization again, in the senate it was a 98-0 vote. it was signed by governor bush. so clearly it was a bipartisan effort in 2006. so i think we'll see that again. i think we're going to have to work hard as a civil rights community, fwu not just as a civil rights community. this is an american democracy issue. so everyone should be behind making sure that discrimination does not happen in voting and in particular in our democracy.

>> the supreme court has halted the use of a key part of the landmark voting rights law. i also want to bring in mark, president of the national urban league. she calls this a huge disappointment. what is your view? >> i'm more than disappointed with the supreme court. the supreme court has retrenched because it's important to recognize that under section four, as it was written, any jurisdiction that felt it had a case to opt out of section five had the opportunity and the right to do it. it's very critical to note that the record says that the justice department has blocked under section five over a thousand voting law changes from these southern states. >> let's talk about how it really works so that people really understand what this is going to mean for voting rights. what particularly did this do?

as it was written. >> what it basically did is it said, the southern states along with arizona, texas and some northern jurisdictions, before they could change a voting law, had to submit it to the justice department for approval in advance. it was an efficient way of ensuring that discrimination did not take place in the states that had long histories of racial discrimination when it came to voting. what we saw in the last election of 2012, we saw numerous states in the south and some outside of the south pursue, if you will, voter i.d. and what i would call discriminatory voting schemes that were designed to suppress the vote. the point is we still need the voting rights act. while the court didn't touch the other provisions, it is true

that the ball goes back to the congress and the civil rights community will be strong in encouraging the president and the congress to act with speed, with speed to rewrite, if you will, a new section four that complies with today's standards. and i think what you can find is that some jurisdictions were not covered in the 1960s, which should be covered now. you may find some jurisdictions that were covered. counties, elections, jurisdictions that may not be covered. this is not a positive decision. but let's be clear, there is an opportunity for congress, for the president's leadership to go in and write a new section four. that's what we're going to be calling for, and that's an important takeaway for this decision. >> let me bring in pete williams back. he has a chance to look briefly. i know going into this there was a suggestion among some analysts

that it would be justice kennedy who would bring in the swing votes. he seemed to be troubled by the fact that a state or local government would have to go to a federal government to do something as simple as a polling place. from your quick look at what this is, what was the majority opinion based on? >> well, that's been part of the concern. that's part of the issue for the people below. they say the voting rights act turns everything upside down. a case is, in essence, guilty until proven innocent, if it wants to make a change. the federal government assumes it's acting with a discriminatory purpose. it has to satisfy the justice department or three judge panel that it's acting without kis criminatory intent or its change would have no discriminatory affect. but this is towards the end of the chief justice's opinion here. he says congress can draft

another formula based on current conditions. that's a requirement to exceptional conditions still exist, justifying such extraordinary departure from the traditional course of legislation between the states and the government. final he he says our country has changed. while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, congress must ensure this salespeoples to current conditions. now justice ruth bader ginsburg is summarizing he descent. that's a dramatic thing that justices can do to emphasize their strong feelinging. he says the sad irony lies in the failure to grasp why the voting acts law is proven effective. it appears to believe the law's success in eliminating discrimination means preclearance is no longer

needed. he says just the opposite is true. the fact that things have changed in the south is a result of the voting rights act, she says, and this decision will only invite trouble. so it's a huge defeat for the civil rights community on the most important civil rights law ever passed, and it does raise an enormous political question now. can congress do what it did in 1965, look at the country, survey the country, make the factual findings necessary to "a", gather the facts, and "b" summon the will to say, okay, parts of massachusetts, you're covered now. parts of alabama, you're not. that was a very hard thing to do. it was hard enough in '65. what's it going to be like in 2013? >> and for a justice to read a descent from the bench, how rare is that, pete? how symbolic is that? >> rare, highly symbolic, and

this is the time of year we get them. this is when the big decisions come down that have been the hardest ones about which the feelings are the strongest. >> thanks so much pete williams. i know you're going to continue to look at that decision. let me bring in the reverend al sharpton. what is your reaction here? >> this is devastating. when you look at the fact that just last year when we saw several states go into schemes of voter suppression, that it was established by the data. it disenfranchised black and latino voters more than anyone else, and that three states were blocked because of the exact section they just outlawed today. the justice department stopped this in south carolina and texas so now those states could have proceeded, according to this ruling, and it would have directly impacted a lot of voters.

so this is devastating. we need to really put pressure on congress to deal with this, but we're dealing with a congress that will be hard to put pressure on. this is going to call for mass mobilization and a lot of pressure from the civil rights community. but any way, shape or form that one is going to act as if this is a problem of the past, you only need to look at 2012 and the impact of changing voter i.d. laws and the disproportionate impact it had on black voters and the justice department used section five to stop that in some states clearly shows why we're not talking about 1965. we're talking about 2013. we just came out of elections that we had to use section five to protect voters. >> i want to ask you this and start with mark moriel. where do you go in terms of congress with this? we just talked about mass

mobilization. where do you go in congress? >> i think it's too early to tell. we hope we are going to be able to assemble the kind of coalition we had in 2005 when we extended the voting rights act, which was strong bipartisan majorities in both the house and the senate. we need to determine what is the best and new coverage effort? that is going to take some effort. that is going to take collaboration. we will be encouraged by leadership from the president and attorney general. i also think this is an opportunity for both sides of the congress to demonstrate this will not get caught up in partisan wrangling and construction. certainly we're concerned about that. but i do think because this is a democracy issue. this goes to voting. we will be watching very carefully to see how states react to this, whether there will be a rush to influence

voter suppression and legislation, anew given the supreme court's decision. that's why it's critical that congress move quickly and carefully. there's going to have to be hearings. there will be a record. we want to see them do something as quickly and intelligently as possible and draft a new coverage formula, which is consistent with these times. but this is what is important. this pendulum has swung from the '60s. the '70s, the '80s, the '90s to u 21st century. 40 states, in fact, where legislation was introduced to suppress the votes which had the intent, i think of trying to suppress the vote of poor people of color and people of color across the nation. there was a reaction to that. the justice department intervened. civil lawsuits were filed across the country. there was a mobilization effort which pushed that back and

defeated it to a great extent. one tool that was essential to that was section five and section four that the supreme court validated today. i'm a son of the south. i am a son of the south. the south has changed. it's changed because of the civil rights act. because of the interventions that the acts have allowed. my own state, louisiana, did not draft a constitutionally permissible legislative reapportionment at any time from the 1960s until 2010. they were batting 0 for 4 in 2010. finally they did one that did not get validated. so the record is going the show numerous instances where it in fact protected democracy in the nation. >> i am being told to go to break. how different is the congress now than in 2005?

can this get done? >> well, the question is can we mobilize and build across lines for the right coalition? let's not act like in '65 they wanted to do it. the people forced it. and from a lot of mobilization, which we did last year, and a lot of colessing, we can make this happen. but let's not act as though the whole country just got up in 1965 and said let's give voting rights. let's not act like it's just the south. there were places in new york that were part of this societying rights act section five. so we're talking about a problem that is nationwide. it was basically in the south. it's now give tennessee green lights for states to make changes without preclearance. that's a devastating blow to those of us who need that protection, particularly given the voter screenings we saw in

2012. we're not going to take it without a real fight and real per sis tans. we will prevail as we did in 1965. >> todd, i don't know if you have any reaction from there yet. you're obviously going to us from the bureau in d.c. our chief white house correspondent. the president leading with the leadership of both the house and senate later today. that's one opportunity presumably for this to come out. have you heard any reaction yet from the white house? >> look, i imagine we are going to hear from the president on this. remember, one of the things he did right after the election, chris, is he set up a commission that headed up by both the lead lawyers for his campaign and for romney's campaign to talk about the issues that took place, for instance, on election day. what's wrong with the issues and this stuff? that's a separate issue from the voting rights act, but at the same time, the way the states

make decisions on how to conduction the election, what they put on the ballot. how long early voting was, things like that. this was all part of the conversation that reverend al was referring to. the question is, does the president use this as an opportunity? he's going to have to own this. he's going to have to drive this. it's not going to come from congress. inertia is what, particularly some republicans, who believe this should be left to the state. there shouldn't be the federal government. so in order to beat back inertia, the president is going to have to own this. is there more people to bring in. does he create a commission that includes a bipartisan group of governors to help put together how do we write the modern map since preclearance is something that the supreme court says is constitutional. >> and one of the things you think about when you say that is

it's another opportunity for things to get mired in, you know, controversy and for things to be slowed down another a time when our experts are saying to us time is of the essence here. >> i think time is of the essence. all the sudden this washington, i don't think congress is mature enough to do this now. to be perfectly blunt. that the political, ideological, some of the ways the members conduct themselves. i'm a pessimist on their ability to do something like this. but they're going to have to. and, you know, this is one branch of government telling the other branch, go get it done. go get it right. the way immigration worked, have to go to the senate first and see if there's a bipartisan con sen us. if i'm the president, he's going to have to own this. he's going to have to drive this to get this done, and he's going to have to go outside. go find a bipartisan coalition

of state governors so that you create this concept of the state's rights meeting with what should be done, what should have federal oversight, how should all this work. a functional washington would approach this in this manner saying we know they had problems on election day. they were too many lines. people waited too long. now they have been ordered to rewrite how the map works when it comes to preclearance. a pucksal washington would look at this in a big way and say this is an opportunity to fix what is a messy, flawed, voting system. >> i just want to reset. it's 32 minutes past the hour. there has been a major decision by the supreme court on a voting rights act and it's a setback for civil rights that basically says a key provision of the voting rights act cannot be enforced until congress comes up with a new way of deciding which states and localities and how

they will require close federal monitoring of the elections. i want to go back to pete williams who has been looking at this 5-4 decision for more detail details. >> the court says there's no doubt that discrimination still exist exists in voting. requiring advanced permission, continue to satisfy the current situation on the ground. it says the act imposes current burdens that must be justified by current needs. it also says there's no denying that the conditions that originally justified the voting rights act in 1965 no longer characterized voting, even in the areas still covered by the law. it quotes census data here. african-american voter turnout exceeds white voter turnout in five of the six states that were originally covered by the voting rights act with a gap of 16%.

and there's a lot of statistic call stuff in this opinion, including this little chart. they look a lot at how things, they say, have changed in the south. and so this is obviously an attempt -- thanks, ian. this is an obvious attempt by the supreme court to come up with something of a compromise to say, okay, we're going to put this part of the voting rights act on ice until the congress does the same kind of analysis that was done in 1965, and then this preclearance requirement can come to life. so the court is saying, yeah, there may still be a need. there may still be pockets where discrimination is such a problem that they should be presumed improper until proven otherwise, that's a requirement. >> the question is, how does that even begin? i want to bring in the codirector of the advancement

project. where do you begin? >> first we should look at the states that are already covered. you know, when you look at those states, 81% of the cases brought under section two of the voting rights act, which allows organizations like advancement projects and others to bring affirmative cases to stop voter discrimination, 81% of those that were successful cases were in the covered states. so we know the covered states still have discrimination. we're not talking about 1962 discrimination. we're talking about 2005, 2006, 2012 discrimination. so i think what we're going to have to do is we're going to have to bring out the record. we know discrimination still exists in those states. we know that diskrichl nation also exists in other states. when we look at 2011 and 2012

rk, many states tried to roll back voting rights by making it harder to vote for people of color. they did that because they knew people of color turned out in record numbers in 2008 and voted for this president. that was discrimination. so we are going to have to set the record straight. we are going to have show congress and many people in congress already know there was discrimination that is current day discrimination, and we have a lot of evidence of that. and so we'll be bringing forth that evidence to congress. i mean, it's a shame that we have to do that because we know and the court knows that discrimination still exists. we know we want free, fair and accessible elections. we know there are cases still pending. the texas voter i.d. case was stopped because of preclearance by the justice department. but it is in the wings to go to the supreme court. so we know that it exists. we're going to have to show congress and work with them to

really pin down which states should be covered. but i'm confident that we're, as reverend al said, we're going to mobilize people. we know we need to do it immediately. many states still have laws that are proposed that will turn back the clock. there are some pepdi ipending i legislate like north carolina. it includes everything from rolling back early voting to voter i.d. to penalties for students. so, you know, we're going to continue to fight. we're going to mobilize people. we have to show that people care about the issue and we're going to make this an election year issue if we have to. >> and chuck suggested, he assumes we will hear from the president at some point today. you work on issues with the

president like this, yes? >> yes, and i actually think there's nobody in political office today who understands these issues better than president obama. he understands their history. he understands there are policy consequences on the ground. he may not want to be thrust into the middle of these kinds of issues with everything else on the agenda, but he's the person best positioned to leave the country forward on how we respond to the decision. and i would also like to say that we face a big choice on how to improve the system of absence to the ballot box going forward. one choice is to try to stay within the framework that this part of the statute created in 1965 and to tie voting protections to issues of case and particular parts of the country. but there's a very different alternative now, which is to adopt legislation that is universal, applies across the

nation and protects the right to vote in general terms. the problem with trying to stay within the 1965 model is it's very hard to explain what parts of the country they will arise in. in 2012 they arose in ohio, in pennsylvania. they arise where you have intense partisan competition. they think by manipulating the system they can gain some sort of advantage. and where the competition will exist will change from election to election. so try to figure out a way to tinninger with the formula and update it. stay within the mindset of 1965. i've been advocating something broader. >> let's talk about that. is there a way to take this ruling, which is a setback for civil rights, and turn it into a positive? kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies.

need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle. need a little kick? anbe a name and not a number?tor scottrade. ron: i'm never alone with scottrade. i can always call or stop by my local office. they're nearby and ready to help. so when i have questions, i can talk to someone who knows exactly how i trade. because i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. that's why i'm with scottrade. announcer: scottrade- proud to be ranked "best overall client experience."

(annoucer) new beneful medley's, in tuscan, romana,

and mediterranean style varieties. ♪ just mix it in, and take play to new places. three cans in every pack. new beneful medley's. we are told that justice ruth bader ginsburg has now come

off the bench after doing something justices rarely do on the the supreme court. they read the dissenting opinion. in this case it's about the civil rights action. a key provision of this critical legislation struck down just in the last half hour. i continue to be joined by mark mauriel. we were talking to chuck tord and he said the president is going to have to show some leadership on this. what do you want to hear from him? what do you want to see him do? >> the first thing we want is to see the president's continued commitment to protecting voters around the country, and i think his justice department has used this very section. but i think more than just hearing from the president, we are going to hear from people all over the country. let's not forget with all the voting suppression last year, there was record turnout. people stood in line seven or eight hours because people are

not going to be robbed of their right to vote. and mark mauriel and i, we're going to call an emergency summit within days to mobilize the national community. that president and congress needs to hear from us. we just announced yesterday the 50th anniversary march on washington. this march will now be with martin luther king's son around protecting voter rights. what they have just done is really revoked a lot of what dr. king's dream was all about. we build a monument to dr. king, and part of, at least half of what drrks king's dream was about was voter rights. it was 65. they just revoked that. we are not going to sit by and allow that to happen. >> you showed the ability in the past to mobilize people. i'm thinking of something very different.

98% of the people who wanted background checks for guns and couldn't get it through congress, there seems to be a tremendous push, an agreement, but the general thought is it will get through the senate, not through the house. how do you make this successful, mark? >> there is no right more fundamental to americans than democracy. no more right more essential to this nation but the right to vote. here we have been on international efforts in iraq and afghanistan to secure a democracy, to create democratic systems, to do regime change. here we are looking at what is happening in syria. this is a chance for us to focus on right here in the united states of america. this issue is very large in the 21st century. that right to vote is so basic and fundamental.

every member of congress has to run for election in 2014. we are going to invite and call on them to take a strong stand in support of democracy, in support of what i would call a new approach to the voting rights act in this country, in light of this decision. this is not going to be -- we're not going to let anyone hide. we're not going to let anyone pretend that they're an ostrich. we want people to step up and be accounted for. we have, obviously in the short run, to determine what the agenda for the congress is going to be. and we looked to the president, and i know we can count on the president to get a strong voice, his strong moral leadership. when lbj in 1965 and 1965 stood up a generation ago. when dr. king and whitney young and others stood at the lincoln memorial in 1963ious, they

framed this as a moral cause because voting was so fundamental. we changed the constitution to protect the right to vote. we changed the law. it's always been about expanding democracy. this decision has the potential effect of contracting democracy, which is why americans have to stand up in our position to this, and in favor of a positive, proactive response. >> tom goldstein is actually here as well. i want to get more on this. it's good to see you, tom. and i want to ask you about something in particular. you just heard them talking about the fact that we have seen efforts to get more minorities to the polls, be successful in so many places at the same time. i want to make sure i'm not taking this out of context. pete williams talked about the

chart. it talks about the changes since 1965 to 2004 in the makeup of voters, and in one, two, three, four, five of the six states, i think they were saying or six of the seven states, i have to look back at my notes, they are now significantly more black voters. it almost seems as though they were using more blacks going to the polls as a reason to strike this down. . am i misreading that? >> no, you're not. that's exactly right, chris. justice ginsburg's decent for nour members of the court they say they use the success in order to kill it. you take a drug that works. do you then stop it? and the majority of the supreme court was persuaded that when we do have some improvement and some of these preclearance jurisdictions, particularly in the south, and congress needs to revisit the list. the dilemma is that while

congress can respond to the decision, congress can create a new narrower list. the politics of these days makes that unbelievably tough. on the question of mobilization, one thing i would point you to that's tangible from my world here outside the supreme court is people have known the decision was coming for years, basically. the conservatives signaled they were angling to strike down section five. they had a had the of concerns about it. this are zero protesters here in the civil rights community. and that gives you a sense of whether or not it's going to be really possible to mobilize this decision and get a new law passed. >> obviously it's the day of the decision. >> not only is it the day of the decision. it's a day that we didn't know when the decision was coming. we didn't know if it was going to be yesterday or thursday of louisiana week, so i don't think that's fair. if he wants to see mobilization -- >> let's talk about the politics. i think he is right about it being unbelievably tough.

some came out and said there's no motivation for us to pass laws in the driks. buzz they know 70%, 80%. 90% of hispanics are not going to vote for them. they're going to vote for democrats. so you have in many ways the same -- >> no, the difference is last year when they changed a lot of the laws, we showed an unusual turnout. blacks outvoted whited last year, even though we cut back in early states. what they may have done is give the idea that it's going to change the congress next year because we're going to vote with a passion because it's not about obama now. it is literally about our right to vote. you didn't have the supreme court say there's more race schism. oh, yeah, there's still a problem. but we're going to take back the

medicine. the patient is still sick. we're going to take what made the patient do a little better until you can heal the patient totally. which in many cays is a a schizophrenic ruling as far as i'm concerned. >> the logic is torture that you use the success of civil rights in changing the south. and now you say let us take away that tool. let us take away the preclearance decision, which the court criticizeses, has operated efficiently. it's cost effective to the states. it means that preclearance clears out. many may enact without the necessity of costly, timely and expensive litigation, and i think it's important that one might say, you still have the remedy to go to court if there's discrimination. how expensive it is. how timely it is and how

difficult it is. u also for the states. >> we need to make this really quick. >> it's a mistake for politicians. be they republicans or democrats to simply look at legislation through the lens of whether it impacts me in a political basis on a positive way. it's time for people to think a little bit higher. we need to do what's best for democracy, what's best for the nation and not be so narrow minded in how we may look at the the issue. >> mark morial, reverend sharpon the. thank you for joining us on a critical day. we are learning the rest of the decisions will come down tomorrow. so prop 8 and the defensive marriage act, we will get those from the supreme court tomorrow. more of jansing & company right after this. come here, boy.

♪ there you go. come on, let's play! [ male announcer ] there's an easier way to protect your dog from dangerous parasites. good boy. fetch! trifexis is the monthly, beef-flavored tablet that prevents heartworm disease, kills fleas and prevents infestations, and treats hook-, round-, and whipworm infections. treatment with fewer than 3 monthly doses after exposure to mosquitoes may not provide complete heartworm prevention. the most common adverse reactions were vomiting, itching and lethargy. serious adverse reactions have been reported following concomitant extra-label use of ivermectin with spinosad alone, one of the components of trifexis. prior to administration, dogs should be tested for existing heartworm infection. to learn more about trifexis, talk to your veterinarian,

call 888-545-5973 or visit trifexis.com. you don't have to go to extremes to protect your dog from parasites. you need trifexis. visit our website to save up to $25. available by prescription from your veterinarian.

on a usually consequential day, that's going to wrap up this hour of jansing and

company. thomas robert is up next. >> we have lot on the agenda on the next hour. key parts of the most important civil rights law in the country struck down. we will bring you a live report and also more from chris hayes, al sharpton and julia bond. plus, these details for the associated press and vladimir putin saying edward snowden is at the moscow airport and russia will not be extraditing him back to the u.s. and then the showdown on the george zimmerman trial on his previous calls to 911 before the deadly shooting the night that trayvon martin was shot. and then paula deen's empire. can it survive the charges that the southern cooking queen is racist. her sons rise to her defense. she is on the "today show" tomorrow. that and much more at the top of the hour.

we do a ton of research projects on angie's list.home... at angie's list, you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. with angie's list, i save time, money, and i avoid frustration. you'll find great companies and great angie's list discounts. you want to be sure the money you're about to spend is money well spent. before you have any work done on your home... go to angie's list. go to angie's list. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. you stole my line.

... you thought wrong. seize the summer with up to 50% off hotels at travelocity. energy efficient appliances. you can get a tax write off for those. a programmable thermostat, very smart, saves money. ♪ cash money sorry. i see you have allstate claim free rewards, for every year you don't have a claim, you'll get money off your home insurance policy. put it towards... [ glass shatters ] [ girl ] dad! dad! [ girl screams ] noise canceling headphones? [ nicole ] that's a great idea. [ male announcer ] home insurance that saves you money for not having a claim? that's allstate home insurance with claim free rewards. talk to an allstate agent... [ doorbell rings ] and let the good life in.

good morning, everybody. i'm thomas roberts. on the supreme court news. the court's 5-4 ruling in shelby county versus holder. free states and municipalities with a history of racial discrimination from having to clear changes in voting procedures from the federal government, effectively ending the practice. the so-called preclearance provision has stopped in nine states. today's decision does not invalidate the preclearance requirement. out right instead, the conservative majority ruled they failed to take account of changing circumstances in the south. i would like to bring in tom goldstein. tom, as we talk about the decision, as we examine it does not make the voting