1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight an analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:19,720
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. Greg this was

6
00:00:19,760 --> 00:00:23,000
Speaker 1: what I would call a brazen jerrymander in North Carolina.

7
00:00:23,280 --> 00:00:26,320
Speaker 1: The redistricting committee included part as an advantage as one

8
00:00:26,360 --> 00:00:29,480
Speaker 1: of the criteria for the map. What was the focus

9
00:00:29,520 --> 00:00:32,760
Speaker 1: of the Justice's questions, Well, part of it was what

10
00:00:32,800 --> 00:00:36,040
Speaker 1: you just talked about, the fact that this was an

11
00:00:36,040 --> 00:00:39,479
Speaker 1: extreme jerrymander, both in terms of the intent explicit by

12
00:00:39,560 --> 00:00:42,560
Speaker 1: Republicans that they were trying to get as many GOP

13
00:00:42,680 --> 00:00:45,520
Speaker 1: seats as they could uh and the effect of it.

14
00:00:45,520 --> 00:00:48,960
Speaker 1: It basically worked. Republicans in the first election got ten

15
00:00:49,040 --> 00:00:51,640
Speaker 1: out of the thirteen seats. On the second election they

16
00:00:51,720 --> 00:00:54,840
Speaker 1: got at least nine. There's one district that's being revoted,

17
00:00:55,040 --> 00:00:58,400
Speaker 1: and that even though in both cases the vote overall

18
00:00:58,520 --> 00:01:00,560
Speaker 1: was pretty much fifty fifty. So that was a big

19
00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 1: That was one focus of the case, and then the

20
00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:05,240
Speaker 1: second focus was how are we going to handle this

21
00:01:05,400 --> 00:01:07,759
Speaker 1: as courts if we say that this map is too

22
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:09,840
Speaker 1: PARTI said, how are we going to draw a line

23
00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:11,679
Speaker 1: that will let us judge all these other maps we

24
00:01:11,720 --> 00:01:14,560
Speaker 1: may be called upon to rule on. So the Court

25
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:19,039
Speaker 1: has been willing to restrict gerrymandering based on race, why

26
00:01:19,080 --> 00:01:23,319
Speaker 1: not so for those based on politics? That that's another

27
00:01:23,600 --> 00:01:28,720
Speaker 1: good question. The Court has in the past explicitly said

28
00:01:29,160 --> 00:01:33,319
Speaker 1: taking partisanship into account is okay, at least to some degree.

29
00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:35,960
Speaker 1: They said, that's a legitimate consideration. You also have to

30
00:01:35,959 --> 00:01:39,480
Speaker 1: look at other things like keeping counties together and you know,

31
00:01:39,560 --> 00:01:44,160
Speaker 1: not having lines that look too ridiculous with race. On

32
00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:47,600
Speaker 1: the other hand, there is this this notion that that

33
00:01:47,680 --> 00:01:49,760
Speaker 1: is something we really don't want to do unless we

34
00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:52,400
Speaker 1: have a strong reason for it. We don't like classifying

35
00:01:52,480 --> 00:01:57,200
Speaker 1: people according to their race, even when we're drawing congressional districts. Now,

36
00:01:57,200 --> 00:02:00,240
Speaker 1: the Court has allowed some consideration of race, and part

37
00:02:00,240 --> 00:02:03,760
Speaker 1: of the Voting Rights Act there the primary ideas to

38
00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:07,280
Speaker 1: make sure that racial minorities are able to elect somebody

39
00:02:07,440 --> 00:02:11,760
Speaker 1: of their choice, to prevent districts from being drawn so that, say,

40
00:02:11,800 --> 00:02:15,400
Speaker 1: a heavily black city is unable to elect a black

41
00:02:15,440 --> 00:02:18,760
Speaker 1: representative if that's what the people want. So race and

42
00:02:18,840 --> 00:02:22,000
Speaker 1: politics sort of start from different places in the minds

43
00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:26,400
Speaker 1: of the justices. What is the defense given to maps

44
00:02:26,440 --> 00:02:29,600
Speaker 1: that are clearly out of whack? Well, part of the

45
00:02:29,680 --> 00:02:32,560
Speaker 1: part of the defense is that this is just not

46
00:02:32,720 --> 00:02:35,760
Speaker 1: something courts are competent to resolve. And this was a

47
00:02:35,800 --> 00:02:38,919
Speaker 1: concern that Chief Justice Roberts Ray's last term when the

48
00:02:38,960 --> 00:02:41,799
Speaker 1: Court considered these issues, and the lawyer defending the North

49
00:02:41,840 --> 00:02:44,960
Speaker 1: Carolina map raised the issue again, which is that in

50
00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:47,560
Speaker 1: every case, the Supreme Court is going to be called

51
00:02:47,600 --> 00:02:51,400
Speaker 1: upon to decide whether Republicans win or Democrats win, and

52
00:02:51,440 --> 00:02:54,480
Speaker 1: that is something that could cast a cloud on the

53
00:02:54,520 --> 00:02:58,600
Speaker 1: Court's legitimacy as a nonpartisan actor. Now, the counter argument

54
00:02:58,680 --> 00:03:01,560
Speaker 1: to that, which lawyers a acking the map put forward

55
00:03:01,639 --> 00:03:03,960
Speaker 1: is that the Court, you know, will look like it

56
00:03:04,080 --> 00:03:07,680
Speaker 1: is making a political decision if it does not get involved.

57
00:03:07,720 --> 00:03:10,239
Speaker 1: So it may be that the Court can't really win here.

58
00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:13,480
Speaker 1: The question will be whether they think there's any way

59
00:03:13,520 --> 00:03:18,120
Speaker 1: they can separate out extreme partisan jurymandering from cases where

60
00:03:18,400 --> 00:03:21,480
Speaker 1: politics are considered, but but not too much. Do any

61
00:03:21,560 --> 00:03:25,359
Speaker 1: of the justices appear to you to have key votes? Yes,

62
00:03:25,400 --> 00:03:28,280
Speaker 1: so the key votes are almost certainly coming from John Roberts,

63
00:03:28,320 --> 00:03:30,880
Speaker 1: which is something we're getting used to, and the new

64
00:03:30,960 --> 00:03:33,880
Speaker 1: Justice Brett Kavanaugh on both of them asked questions of

65
00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:35,840
Speaker 1: both sides, and by the end of the two arguments

66
00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:38,000
Speaker 1: today the Court also heard arguments in the Maryland case,

67
00:03:38,440 --> 00:03:40,720
Speaker 1: it wasn't obvious which way they were going to come out,

68
00:03:40,840 --> 00:03:45,880
Speaker 1: especially Kavanaugh. He did essay during the North Carolina case

69
00:03:46,040 --> 00:03:50,760
Speaker 1: that the notion of proportional representation, this idea that you know,

70
00:03:50,760 --> 00:03:52,880
Speaker 1: if a state of split fifty fifty, each party should

71
00:03:52,880 --> 00:03:56,840
Speaker 1: get roughly the representatives, that that was at least something

72
00:03:56,880 --> 00:04:00,360
Speaker 1: that was pretty easy to apply judicially manageable. But he

73
00:04:00,440 --> 00:04:04,000
Speaker 1: also pointed to Supreme Court precedents and key opinions by

74
00:04:04,160 --> 00:04:07,960
Speaker 1: swing justices like Sandrada O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy that in

75
00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:10,160
Speaker 1: the past have been clear that the Court didn't want

76
00:04:10,200 --> 00:04:13,360
Speaker 1: to try to mandate proportional representation, that that is not

77
00:04:13,520 --> 00:04:17,159
Speaker 1: something that's in the Constitution. So based on the argument,

78
00:04:17,279 --> 00:04:19,880
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh's vote is up in the air at this point.

79
00:04:20,279 --> 00:04:23,680
Speaker 1: So last time the Court sort of skipped the main

80
00:04:23,760 --> 00:04:26,720
Speaker 1: issue and went to the details. Could that happen again?

81
00:04:27,320 --> 00:04:30,400
Speaker 1: It could, but it seems harder to the last time around.

82
00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:33,640
Speaker 1: In this case involving Wisconsin, the Court said that the

83
00:04:33,720 --> 00:04:37,120
Speaker 1: voters suing there didn't have standing. They hadn't shown or

84
00:04:37,120 --> 00:04:38,960
Speaker 1: at least they hadn't shown that they have standing. They

85
00:04:38,960 --> 00:04:41,440
Speaker 1: hadn't shown that they were injured in a way that

86
00:04:41,480 --> 00:04:44,520
Speaker 1: would let them sue, And the court strongly suggested that

87
00:04:44,560 --> 00:04:47,599
Speaker 1: any suits should happen not on a statewide basis, but

88
00:04:47,640 --> 00:04:50,960
Speaker 1: on a district by district basis. A voter saying, hey,

89
00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:54,799
Speaker 1: my particular vote didn't count the way it should because

90
00:04:55,120 --> 00:04:57,279
Speaker 1: the Republican their Democrats who were in charge of joining

91
00:04:57,320 --> 00:05:01,120
Speaker 1: the maps, discriminated against me because I don't re with them.

92
00:05:01,240 --> 00:05:04,919
Speaker 1: The cases before the Court today did not seem like

93
00:05:05,040 --> 00:05:08,360
Speaker 1: they had that same sort of problem. In North Carolina's case,

94
00:05:08,360 --> 00:05:11,360
Speaker 1: for example, they have voters from every congressional district who

95
00:05:11,480 --> 00:05:15,719
Speaker 1: who are suing, and they are generally saying, my district,

96
00:05:16,160 --> 00:05:18,520
Speaker 1: not the state wide map, but my district was drawn

97
00:05:18,600 --> 00:05:21,880
Speaker 1: in an unconstitutional way. And in general, there wasn't a

98
00:05:21,880 --> 00:05:24,799
Speaker 1: whole lot of discussion about that standing issue in the court.

99
00:05:25,080 --> 00:05:26,960
Speaker 1: So it seems like the Court is going to get

100
00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:30,000
Speaker 1: to the merits and beside the bigger questions about whether

101
00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:33,039
Speaker 1: maps like these can ever be challenged, So then what

102
00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:37,040
Speaker 1: are the implications here? Will have wide effects as new

103
00:05:37,160 --> 00:05:41,080
Speaker 1: maps are drawn, certainly will have wide effects, both potentially

104
00:05:41,080 --> 00:05:43,159
Speaker 1: for some maps that are in place right now, but

105
00:05:43,279 --> 00:05:45,360
Speaker 1: also for the next round of map drawing, which will

106
00:05:45,400 --> 00:05:49,400
Speaker 1: happen after the is And you know, these are really

107
00:05:49,520 --> 00:05:53,200
Speaker 1: fundamental questions about, you know, how how our democracy is

108
00:05:53,200 --> 00:05:56,120
Speaker 1: supposed to work. I mean, the people who criticized jerrymandering

109
00:05:56,200 --> 00:05:59,320
Speaker 1: say we end up with uncompetitive elections that don't reflect

110
00:05:59,320 --> 00:06:01,760
Speaker 1: the will of the vote. And people on the other

111
00:06:01,800 --> 00:06:05,719
Speaker 1: side say that the judiciary really needs to stay out

112
00:06:05,720 --> 00:06:08,520
Speaker 1: of something that is so deeply political, and that the

113
00:06:08,600 --> 00:06:12,479
Speaker 1: system can correct itself. Ultimately, the voters, if they're fed

114
00:06:12,520 --> 00:06:16,120
Speaker 1: up enough with gerrymandering, can elect different people, maybe not

115
00:06:16,160 --> 00:06:18,120
Speaker 1: in their particular district, at least they can elect a

116
00:06:18,120 --> 00:06:20,600
Speaker 1: different governor in a state, or perhaps they can put

117
00:06:20,600 --> 00:06:23,280
Speaker 1: in place a commission to draw the lines so that

118
00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:25,840
Speaker 1: there are other tools, is the argument, and the Court

119
00:06:25,880 --> 00:06:27,800
Speaker 1: is going to have to decide which one of those

120
00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:30,800
Speaker 1: two viewpoints is correct. I noticed in your story that

121
00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:35,039
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh asked questions about independent commissions. Could the Court

122
00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:38,520
Speaker 1: simply say independent commissions are the way to go. It could,

123
00:06:38,520 --> 00:06:40,560
Speaker 1: and that would be really interesting. A few years ago,

124
00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:43,960
Speaker 1: the Court upheld independent commissions, but it did it on

125
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:46,880
Speaker 1: a five to four vote, and it had seemed like

126
00:06:47,120 --> 00:06:50,440
Speaker 1: there was a possibility that this more conservative court might

127
00:06:50,839 --> 00:06:54,000
Speaker 1: reverse that decision at some point, overturn it. But both

128
00:06:54,080 --> 00:06:58,320
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh and especially just As Gorset's use those commissions as

129
00:06:58,640 --> 00:07:01,599
Speaker 1: one reason why they or at least anything that the

130
00:07:01,640 --> 00:07:05,120
Speaker 1: Court shouldn't get involved. If that's part of the rationale here,

131
00:07:05,120 --> 00:07:07,200
Speaker 1: it's really hard to see how the Court could later

132
00:07:07,200 --> 00:07:11,200
Speaker 1: turn around and say no, those commissions are unconstitutional as well.

133
00:07:11,360 --> 00:07:14,240
Speaker 1: Thanks Greg, I know you have more interesting arguments coming up.

134
00:07:14,280 --> 00:07:19,920
Speaker 1: That's Greg Star, Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter. Thanks for

135
00:07:20,000 --> 00:07:23,240
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

136
00:07:23,320 --> 00:07:26,560
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on

137
00:07:26,640 --> 00:07:35,680
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is Bloomberg. Yeah,