way that it had before. the only real question was exactly what the court was going to do. so what the court wound up doing was they upheld section 5 of the voting rights act which requires state and local governments with a history of diskrings to go to the federal government and get approval before they can make any changes to the voting procedures. even things like moving a polling place across the street. so the court left that intact. it said you can still have that. but you need to change the criteria that you use to figure out who's covered. it sent the ball back across the street to congress to come up with a new coverage formula. but nobody expects that to happen anytime soon. >> yeah. it left the voting rights pretty much intact but it was just a part of it that changed. andrew, in the fisher case the court could have torn down the policy of affirmative action but it didn't do it. are you surprised the court gave us that decision? >> i am surprised.