1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:03,240
Speaker 1: Does the Supreme Court have an aversion to math? An

2
00:00:03,400 --> 00:00:05,960
Speaker 1: essay on the website five thirty eight makes a case

3
00:00:06,040 --> 00:00:09,440
Speaker 1: that some Supreme Court justices are reluctant to take math

4
00:00:09,520 --> 00:00:13,480
Speaker 1: and statistics seriously. In a case challenging part as in

5
00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:18,200
Speaker 1: gerrymandering in Wisconsin, gilv. Whitford, Democrats proposed a test, relying

6
00:00:18,239 --> 00:00:21,800
Speaker 1: in part on advanced statistical techniques, including a measure known

7
00:00:21,840 --> 00:00:25,200
Speaker 1: as the efficiency gap, to create a standard to separate

8
00:00:25,320 --> 00:00:29,720
Speaker 1: unconstitutional maps from legitimate ones. Listening to arguments in the

9
00:00:29,760 --> 00:00:32,600
Speaker 1: case in June, it seemed that an aversion to math

10
00:00:32,720 --> 00:00:36,800
Speaker 1: cut across political divides. Here are Chief Justice John Roberts

11
00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:40,680
Speaker 1: and Justice Steven Bryer. It is just not It seems

12
00:00:40,680 --> 00:00:44,239
Speaker 1: a palatable answer to say the ruling was based on

13
00:00:44,320 --> 00:00:46,920
Speaker 1: the fact that e G was greater than seven percent.

14
00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:50,800
Speaker 1: That doesn't sound like language in the Constitution. And it

15
00:00:50,840 --> 00:00:53,800
Speaker 1: may be simply my educational background, but I can only

16
00:00:53,840 --> 00:00:57,880
Speaker 1: describe a sociological compulty book. I think the hard issue

17
00:00:57,880 --> 00:01:01,640
Speaker 1: in this cases are their standards manageable by a court,

18
00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:05,080
Speaker 1: not by some group of social science political x you know,

19
00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:09,160
Speaker 1: computer experts. When I read all that social science stuff

20
00:01:09,360 --> 00:01:11,400
Speaker 1: and the computer stuff, I said, well, what is there

21
00:01:11,440 --> 00:01:14,919
Speaker 1: a way of reducing it to something that's manageable? Joining

22
00:01:14,920 --> 00:01:18,000
Speaker 1: me is Josh Douglas, professor at the University of Kentucky

23
00:01:18,240 --> 00:01:23,600
Speaker 1: Law School. Well, Josh, are the justices allergic to math? Well,

24
00:01:23,640 --> 00:01:26,480
Speaker 1: we'll find out when it comes to this decision, of course,

25
00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:31,240
Speaker 1: But it seems strange that the justices would say they're

26
00:01:31,240 --> 00:01:34,119
Speaker 1: having a version to math in this instance when they

27
00:01:34,160 --> 00:01:37,760
Speaker 1: certainly do use, or at least historically have used social

28
00:01:37,800 --> 00:01:41,920
Speaker 1: science and math formulas in redistioning cases, as well as

29
00:01:42,280 --> 00:01:48,480
Speaker 1: all other sorts of constitutional adjudication. So um, although the

30
00:01:48,520 --> 00:01:51,680
Speaker 1: current crop of justices might feel like in this case

31
00:01:52,080 --> 00:01:55,680
Speaker 1: they the math is going to be complicated, that's historically

32
00:01:56,200 --> 00:02:00,080
Speaker 1: not what the Court has ever really done. Is there

33
00:02:00,120 --> 00:02:02,240
Speaker 1: any way to make a rule in a Gerryman daring

34
00:02:02,320 --> 00:02:07,120
Speaker 1: case without using some kind of formula? I don't think so.

35
00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:09,760
Speaker 1: I mean, because you know, the one of the principal

36
00:02:10,320 --> 00:02:14,040
Speaker 1: areas of redistricting is one person, one vote, this notion

37
00:02:14,080 --> 00:02:17,120
Speaker 1: that everyone's vote is worth the same amount. And the

38
00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:19,360
Speaker 1: way you figure that out is you determine if there's

39
00:02:19,480 --> 00:02:22,880
Speaker 1: the same number of voters in each district. That's math

40
00:02:23,160 --> 00:02:26,360
Speaker 1: that's taking the total number of voters and dividing by

41
00:02:26,400 --> 00:02:30,440
Speaker 1: the number of districts, and that gives you a number

42
00:02:30,639 --> 00:02:33,200
Speaker 1: of how many voters should be in each district to

43
00:02:33,400 --> 00:02:37,160
Speaker 1: ensure that everyone's vote counts the same or roughly. And

44
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:39,679
Speaker 1: the court, you know, for decades has said, well, you

45
00:02:39,720 --> 00:02:43,160
Speaker 1: should be close to mathematical equality in each district, but

46
00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:46,640
Speaker 1: you can have some level of deviation, and some cases

47
00:02:46,680 --> 00:02:49,320
Speaker 1: have gone around a ten percent level where you can

48
00:02:49,639 --> 00:02:54,800
Speaker 1: be ten percent above or below the average size district

49
00:02:54,880 --> 00:02:57,280
Speaker 1: or what you should be. So that's all math. You know.

50
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:01,080
Speaker 1: Entering the political thicket with redistricting case is involves all

51
00:03:01,160 --> 00:03:05,560
Speaker 1: those sorts of calculations. Now there's a breaking news crossing

52
00:03:05,560 --> 00:03:09,280
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg terminal. The Supreme Court has dismissed the remaining

53
00:03:09,360 --> 00:03:12,440
Speaker 1: Trump travel band case. The Supreme Court has dismissed the

54
00:03:12,520 --> 00:03:15,320
Speaker 1: last Trump travel band case. Will have more on that

55
00:03:15,760 --> 00:03:19,840
Speaker 1: coming up, Josh. Justice Roberts seemed to be concerned that

56
00:03:20,120 --> 00:03:23,600
Speaker 1: using a formula makes it seem to the public as

57
00:03:23,639 --> 00:03:27,160
Speaker 1: if the Court isn't relying on legal principles, and that

58
00:03:27,560 --> 00:03:33,080
Speaker 1: something would be based on democrats, democrats or Republicans to

59
00:03:33,160 --> 00:03:39,160
Speaker 1: the public. Yeah, you know, I'm not sure what to

60
00:03:39,200 --> 00:03:42,240
Speaker 1: make of that, because I don't think the ruling would

61
00:03:42,240 --> 00:03:44,840
Speaker 1: be the mass says the Democrats win or of the

62
00:03:44,800 --> 00:03:48,360
Speaker 1: Republicans win. The ruling would be that the equal protection

63
00:03:48,480 --> 00:03:53,280
Speaker 1: cause forbids drawing districts that are so skewed toward one

64
00:03:53,320 --> 00:03:56,000
Speaker 1: side or another. How do we know they're skewed? We

65
00:03:56,080 --> 00:04:01,360
Speaker 1: know because the performance of those districts would uh ensure

66
00:04:01,560 --> 00:04:05,240
Speaker 1: one side wins in an election. Um. But that's not math.

67
00:04:05,360 --> 00:04:10,600
Speaker 1: That's dictating the constitutionists the constitution dictating fairness in our elections.

68
00:04:10,600 --> 00:04:13,840
Speaker 1: So I think what the Chief is not doing is

69
00:04:13,920 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: linking what the math is showing. And it simply the

70
00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:21,479
Speaker 1: mathematical formulas are showing the unfairness, and the unfairness is

71
00:04:21,520 --> 00:04:25,920
Speaker 1: what's apparently unconstitutional. And that's what the public already is

72
00:04:25,960 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 1: relying on. I mean, so many of so much of

73
00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:32,080
Speaker 1: the public already thinks redistarcing is unfair, that that the

74
00:04:32,120 --> 00:04:35,080
Speaker 1: politicians are drawing the lines in order to help themselves win.

75
00:04:35,800 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 1: Uh So the public gets this. The question is will

76
00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:42,479
Speaker 1: the court understand that this particular formula is one way

77
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:45,520
Speaker 1: in which to show that on constitutionality. I admit that

78
00:04:45,560 --> 00:04:48,880
Speaker 1: I'm allergic to math and I think many lawyers say

79
00:04:48,920 --> 00:04:50,960
Speaker 1: that I would have gone to business school, but I'm

80
00:04:51,000 --> 00:04:53,719
Speaker 1: allergic to math. So I went to law school, and

81
00:04:53,760 --> 00:04:57,840
Speaker 1: you're the Chief Justice saying maybe it's my background. So

82
00:04:58,480 --> 00:05:01,840
Speaker 1: is there that as well that as lawyers, unless we're

83
00:05:01,839 --> 00:05:05,400
Speaker 1: in certain fields, we're not you know, looking, we're not

84
00:05:05,600 --> 00:05:09,159
Speaker 1: math geniuses. Let's say, yeah, I think that's part of it.

85
00:05:09,200 --> 00:05:12,920
Speaker 1: I mean, certainly my students at the law school seem

86
00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:15,160
Speaker 1: to have an aversion to math, and you know they

87
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:17,720
Speaker 1: grown when when we have a day on redistricting in

88
00:05:17,839 --> 00:05:20,720
Speaker 1: which I do what I call sixth grade arithmetic, which

89
00:05:20,760 --> 00:05:24,440
Speaker 1: comes from one of these Supreme Court cases on redistricting.

90
00:05:25,000 --> 00:05:28,240
Speaker 1: But the reality is that it's not that complicated the

91
00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:31,520
Speaker 1: math that's involved in these cases. It's fairly simple. You're

92
00:05:31,520 --> 00:05:35,520
Speaker 1: not looking at sovesticated regression now, so you're basically counting

93
00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:39,599
Speaker 1: up vote and doing some division um. And so although

94
00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:42,560
Speaker 1: there may be an initial aversion to the concept of it,

95
00:05:43,040 --> 00:05:45,200
Speaker 1: when you get down into actually doing it, it's not

96
00:05:45,279 --> 00:05:48,279
Speaker 1: that complex. And that's exactly what this efficiency got. It's

97
00:05:48,279 --> 00:05:53,720
Speaker 1: actually not that complex formula. So what about past Supreme courts?

98
00:05:53,760 --> 00:05:58,320
Speaker 1: Have we seen this math aversion in other Supreme courts.

99
00:06:00,200 --> 00:06:03,880
Speaker 1: Certainly there's been some justices who have criticized the Court

100
00:06:03,880 --> 00:06:07,960
Speaker 1: getting involved in redistricting cases. Uh. In in descent, that's

101
00:06:08,040 --> 00:06:11,080
Speaker 1: that's the creat aristhmetic term comes from one of these

102
00:06:11,160 --> 00:06:14,159
Speaker 1: to scents. Um. But I'll say that also, you know,

103
00:06:14,200 --> 00:06:18,000
Speaker 1: a lot of constitutional law has relied on in other areas,

104
00:06:18,120 --> 00:06:21,640
Speaker 1: a lot on social science data or mathematical data. I mean,

105
00:06:21,720 --> 00:06:24,880
Speaker 1: even Brown versus Board of Education. One of the basis

106
00:06:24,920 --> 00:06:29,840
Speaker 1: of that decision saying that separate educational facilities are inherently

107
00:06:29,880 --> 00:06:32,880
Speaker 1: and equal, relying on a lot of social science data. Um.

108
00:06:32,920 --> 00:06:35,320
Speaker 1: And people criticize it at the times as the extent

109
00:06:35,400 --> 00:06:37,880
Speaker 1: of the Court was relying on social science, but that

110
00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:42,240
Speaker 1: was the underlying evidentiary basis for that holding. We look

111
00:06:42,240 --> 00:06:45,919
Speaker 1: at the affirmative action area, and you look at you know,

112
00:06:46,080 --> 00:06:48,640
Speaker 1: admissions for example, a lot of that has to do

113
00:06:48,800 --> 00:06:52,520
Speaker 1: with social science data and uh and compulations about the

114
00:06:52,560 --> 00:06:58,080
Speaker 1: likelihood of admissions, etcetera. So, Um, it's not born for

115
00:06:58,120 --> 00:07:02,560
Speaker 1: the Court to be thinking about social science calculations in

116
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:06,919
Speaker 1: a variety of its constitutional unication. Maybe just a little

117
00:07:06,920 --> 00:07:10,000
Speaker 1: bit uncomfortable when you're used to dealing with ideology and

118
00:07:10,040 --> 00:07:13,200
Speaker 1: words in the Constitution. We'll see what happens when they

119
00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:16,640
Speaker 1: make this decision in this gerrymandering case. Thanks so much

120
00:07:16,680 --> 00:07:19,920
Speaker 1: for being here on Bloomberg Law. That's Josh Douglas. He's

121
00:07:19,920 --> 00:07:23,960
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Kentucky Law School. That's

122
00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:26,080
Speaker 1: it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. Will be back

123
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:29,120
Speaker 1: tomorrow at one pm Wall Street time. We'll have more

124
00:07:29,160 --> 00:07:32,880
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court dismissing the remaining Trump travel band

125
00:07:32,920 --> 00:07:36,720
Speaker 1: case coming up. Thanks to our producer David Suckerman and

126
00:07:36,760 --> 00:07:40,360
Speaker 1: our technical director Chris trike Comy. You can always find

127
00:07:40,400 --> 00:07:42,800
Speaker 1: the latest legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and

128
00:07:42,840 --> 00:07:45,600
Speaker 1: Bloomberg BNA dot com, plus a website for the little

129
00:07:45,640 --> 00:07:48,920
Speaker 1: community at Big Law Business dot com. Coming up next,

130
00:07:48,920 --> 00:07:52,040
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master, and Carol is here to

131
00:07:52,120 --> 00:07:54,040
Speaker 1: tell us what's in store for us in the next

132
00:07:54,120 --> 00:07:56,520
Speaker 1: couple of hours. Soon we are talking a lot about earnings.

133
00:07:56,520 --> 00:07:59,480
Speaker 1: We're seeing shares of Caterpillar GM Rawlings, who are talking

134
00:07:59,520 --> 00:08:03,000
Speaker 1: about those quarters. And also the Weinstein Company's man in

135
00:08:03,160 --> 00:08:06,920
Speaker 1: shining Armor, Tom Barrick. Why he's helping bail out that company.

136
00:08:07,280 --> 00:08:10,760
Speaker 1: That sounds very interesting. We're all stay tuned. That's Coming

137
00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:14,320
Speaker 1: up on Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master. This

138
00:08:14,440 --> 00:08:15,040
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg