Speaker 1: Does the Supreme Court have an aversion to math? An
Speaker 1: essay on the website five thirty eight makes a case
Speaker 1: that some Supreme Court justices are reluctant to take math
Speaker 1: and statistics seriously. In a case challenging part as in
Speaker 1: gerrymandering in Wisconsin, gilv. Whitford, Democrats proposed a test, relying
Speaker 1: in part on advanced statistical techniques, including a measure known
Speaker 1: as the efficiency gap, to create a standard to separate
Speaker 1: unconstitutional maps from legitimate ones. Listening to arguments in the
Speaker 1: case in June, it seemed that an aversion to math
Speaker 1: cut across political divides. Here are Chief Justice John Roberts
Speaker 1: and Justice Steven Bryer. It is just not It seems
Speaker 1: a palatable answer to say the ruling was based on
Speaker 1: the fact that e G was greater than seven percent.
Speaker 1: That doesn't sound like language in the Constitution. And it
Speaker 1: may be simply my educational background, but I can only
Speaker 1: describe a sociological compulty book. I think the hard issue
Speaker 1: in this cases are their standards manageable by a court,
Speaker 1: not by some group of social science political x you know,
Speaker 1: computer experts. When I read all that social science stuff
Speaker 1: and the computer stuff, I said, well, what is there
Speaker 1: a way of reducing it to something that's manageable? Joining
Speaker 1: me is Josh Douglas, professor at the University of Kentucky
Speaker 1: Law School. Well, Josh, are the justices allergic to math? Well,
Speaker 1: we'll find out when it comes to this decision, of course,
Speaker 1: But it seems strange that the justices would say they're
Speaker 1: having a version to math in this instance when they
Speaker 1: certainly do use, or at least historically have used social
Speaker 1: science and math formulas in redistioning cases, as well as
Speaker 1: all other sorts of constitutional adjudication. So um, although the
Speaker 1: current crop of justices might feel like in this case
Speaker 1: they the math is going to be complicated, that's historically
Speaker 1: not what the Court has ever really done. Is there
Speaker 1: any way to make a rule in a Gerryman daring
Speaker 1: case without using some kind of formula? I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I mean, because you know, the one of the principal
Speaker 1: areas of redistricting is one person, one vote, this notion
Speaker 1: that everyone's vote is worth the same amount. And the
Speaker 1: way you figure that out is you determine if there's
Speaker 1: the same number of voters in each district. That's math
Speaker 1: that's taking the total number of voters and dividing by
Speaker 1: the number of districts, and that gives you a number
Speaker 1: of how many voters should be in each district to
Speaker 1: ensure that everyone's vote counts the same or roughly. And
Speaker 1: the court, you know, for decades has said, well, you
Speaker 1: should be close to mathematical equality in each district, but
Speaker 1: you can have some level of deviation, and some cases
Speaker 1: have gone around a ten percent level where you can
Speaker 1: be ten percent above or below the average size district
Speaker 1: or what you should be. So that's all math. You know.
Speaker 1: Entering the political thicket with redistricting case is involves all
Speaker 1: those sorts of calculations. Now there's a breaking news crossing
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg terminal. The Supreme Court has dismissed the remaining
Speaker 1: Trump travel band case. The Supreme Court has dismissed the
Speaker 1: last Trump travel band case. Will have more on that
Speaker 1: coming up, Josh. Justice Roberts seemed to be concerned that
Speaker 1: using a formula makes it seem to the public as
Speaker 1: if the Court isn't relying on legal principles, and that
Speaker 1: something would be based on democrats, democrats or Republicans to
Speaker 1: the public. Yeah, you know, I'm not sure what to
Speaker 1: make of that, because I don't think the ruling would
Speaker 1: be the mass says the Democrats win or of the
Speaker 1: Republicans win. The ruling would be that the equal protection
Speaker 1: cause forbids drawing districts that are so skewed toward one
Speaker 1: side or another. How do we know they're skewed? We
Speaker 1: know because the performance of those districts would uh ensure
Speaker 1: one side wins in an election. Um. But that's not math.
Speaker 1: That's dictating the constitutionists the constitution dictating fairness in our elections.
Speaker 1: So I think what the Chief is not doing is
Speaker 1: linking what the math is showing. And it simply the
Speaker 1: mathematical formulas are showing the unfairness, and the unfairness is
Speaker 1: what's apparently unconstitutional. And that's what the public already is
Speaker 1: relying on. I mean, so many of so much of
Speaker 1: the public already thinks redistarcing is unfair, that that the
Speaker 1: politicians are drawing the lines in order to help themselves win.
Speaker 1: Uh So the public gets this. The question is will
Speaker 1: the court understand that this particular formula is one way
Speaker 1: in which to show that on constitutionality. I admit that
Speaker 1: I'm allergic to math and I think many lawyers say
Speaker 1: that I would have gone to business school, but I'm
Speaker 1: allergic to math. So I went to law school, and
Speaker 1: you're the Chief Justice saying maybe it's my background. So
Speaker 1: is there that as well that as lawyers, unless we're
Speaker 1: in certain fields, we're not you know, looking, we're not
Speaker 1: math geniuses. Let's say, yeah, I think that's part of it.
Speaker 1: I mean, certainly my students at the law school seem
Speaker 1: to have an aversion to math, and you know they
Speaker 1: grown when when we have a day on redistricting in
Speaker 1: which I do what I call sixth grade arithmetic, which
Speaker 1: comes from one of these Supreme Court cases on redistricting.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that it's not that complicated the
Speaker 1: math that's involved in these cases. It's fairly simple. You're
Speaker 1: not looking at sovesticated regression now, so you're basically counting
Speaker 1: up vote and doing some division um. And so although
Speaker 1: there may be an initial aversion to the concept of it,
Speaker 1: when you get down into actually doing it, it's not
Speaker 1: that complex. And that's exactly what this efficiency got. It's
Speaker 1: actually not that complex formula. So what about past Supreme courts?
Speaker 1: Have we seen this math aversion in other Supreme courts.
Speaker 1: Certainly there's been some justices who have criticized the Court
Speaker 1: getting involved in redistricting cases. Uh. In in descent, that's
Speaker 1: that's the creat aristhmetic term comes from one of these
Speaker 1: to scents. Um. But I'll say that also, you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of constitutional law has relied on in other areas,
Speaker 1: a lot on social science data or mathematical data. I mean,
Speaker 1: even Brown versus Board of Education. One of the basis
Speaker 1: of that decision saying that separate educational facilities are inherently
Speaker 1: and equal, relying on a lot of social science data. Um.
Speaker 1: And people criticize it at the times as the extent
Speaker 1: of the Court was relying on social science, but that
Speaker 1: was the underlying evidentiary basis for that holding. We look
Speaker 1: at the affirmative action area, and you look at you know,
Speaker 1: admissions for example, a lot of that has to do
Speaker 1: with social science data and uh and compulations about the
Speaker 1: likelihood of admissions, etcetera. So, Um, it's not born for
Speaker 1: the Court to be thinking about social science calculations in
Speaker 1: a variety of its constitutional unication. Maybe just a little
Speaker 1: bit uncomfortable when you're used to dealing with ideology and
Speaker 1: words in the Constitution. We'll see what happens when they
Speaker 1: make this decision in this gerrymandering case. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for being here on Bloomberg Law. That's Josh Douglas. He's
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Kentucky Law School. That's
Speaker 1: it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. Will be back
Speaker 1: tomorrow at one pm Wall Street time. We'll have more
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court dismissing the remaining Trump travel band
Speaker 1: case coming up. Thanks to our producer David Suckerman and
Speaker 1: our technical director Chris trike Comy. You can always find
Speaker 1: the latest legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and
Speaker 1: Bloomberg BNA dot com, plus a website for the little
Speaker 1: community at Big Law Business dot com. Coming up next,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master, and Carol is here to
Speaker 1: tell us what's in store for us in the next
Speaker 1: couple of hours. Soon we are talking a lot about earnings.
Speaker 1: We're seeing shares of Caterpillar GM Rawlings, who are talking
Speaker 1: about those quarters. And also the Weinstein Company's man in
Speaker 1: shining Armor, Tom Barrick. Why he's helping bail out that company.
Speaker 1: That sounds very interesting. We're all stay tuned. That's Coming
Speaker 1: up on Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg