1 00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bressel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:13,360 Speaker 1: Damian Williams, who is expected to be nominated as the 3 00:00:13,400 --> 00:00:16,759 Speaker 1: next U S Attorney in Manhattan, shares a credential with 4 00:00:16,880 --> 00:00:20,840 Speaker 1: several other New York power players associated with the Biden administration. 5 00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:24,280 Speaker 1: He's been a lawyer at the elite firm Paul Weiss, Rifkin, 6 00:00:24,360 --> 00:00:27,280 Speaker 1: Wharton and Garrison, the New York based law firm that 7 00:00:27,320 --> 00:00:30,600 Speaker 1: has ties to the Democratic Party in liberal causes dating 8 00:00:30,640 --> 00:00:34,280 Speaker 1: back to the Roosevelt administration, and one that helped Thurgood 9 00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:38,080 Speaker 1: Marshall develop the legal strategy for Brown versus Board of Education. 10 00:00:38,800 --> 00:00:42,120 Speaker 1: The firm of more than one thousand lawyers also represents 11 00:00:42,120 --> 00:00:45,640 Speaker 1: Wall Street banks, private equity funds, oil companies, and other 12 00:00:45,720 --> 00:00:49,600 Speaker 1: large corporations, and generates more than one billion dollars a 13 00:00:49,680 --> 00:00:53,640 Speaker 1: year in revenue, according to The American Lawyer magazine. Joining 14 00:00:53,680 --> 00:00:56,560 Speaker 1: me is Gregg Farrell, Bloomberg Legal reporter tell us a 15 00:00:56,560 --> 00:01:00,560 Speaker 1: little bit about Paul Weiss. They're big corporate law firm, 16 00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:04,319 Speaker 1: so they actually do a range of things, not just 17 00:01:04,480 --> 00:01:09,440 Speaker 1: representing large corporations, particularly banks, Wall Street banks and investigations, 18 00:01:09,480 --> 00:01:13,440 Speaker 1: but also you know, prominent individuals, They go to court 19 00:01:13,480 --> 00:01:18,280 Speaker 1: and defend individuals who've been charged with wrongdoing, and over 20 00:01:18,280 --> 00:01:21,280 Speaker 1: and above that in an era when I think most 21 00:01:21,319 --> 00:01:24,360 Speaker 1: big firms like to play both sides of the streets. Uh, 22 00:01:24,360 --> 00:01:27,279 Speaker 1: they are very much a aligned with the Democratic Party 23 00:01:27,720 --> 00:01:31,759 Speaker 1: in terms of the pro bono issues that they espouse 24 00:01:32,120 --> 00:01:35,240 Speaker 1: and the positions they take. They're not, you know, trying 25 00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:37,600 Speaker 1: to sort of play down the middle and not show 26 00:01:37,640 --> 00:01:41,760 Speaker 1: their hands. They're quite unabashedly a firm that embraces the 27 00:01:41,880 --> 00:01:47,040 Speaker 1: liberal democratic spectrum of causes, etcetera. At the same time, 28 00:01:47,280 --> 00:01:51,000 Speaker 1: you know, they're hugely profitable, they're very large, they're big business, 29 00:01:51,000 --> 00:01:53,400 Speaker 1: and they handle a lot of you know what people 30 00:01:53,400 --> 00:01:57,000 Speaker 1: in the progressive side of politics would consider like you know, 31 00:01:57,240 --> 00:02:00,960 Speaker 1: bad actors, you know, oil companies, Wall Street banks, etcetera, etcetera. 32 00:02:01,040 --> 00:02:04,200 Speaker 1: So there are an interesting animal that way. Do they 33 00:02:04,240 --> 00:02:09,680 Speaker 1: have any trouble navigating that divide between their causes and 34 00:02:09,919 --> 00:02:12,959 Speaker 1: their clients? I mean, have they gotten any blow back 35 00:02:13,080 --> 00:02:16,119 Speaker 1: for that? No. I was looking for that to see 36 00:02:16,120 --> 00:02:18,440 Speaker 1: if there are any voices at least among the progressive 37 00:02:18,480 --> 00:02:21,000 Speaker 1: wing of the Democratic Party who you know, did not 38 00:02:21,120 --> 00:02:23,200 Speaker 1: like this, The fact that this was such a this 39 00:02:23,320 --> 00:02:25,960 Speaker 1: firm is such a big supporter of democratic causes and 40 00:02:26,280 --> 00:02:29,840 Speaker 1: Democratic candidates, but they make so much money off of 41 00:02:30,480 --> 00:02:33,640 Speaker 1: companies that that, let's just say, Center Elizabeth Warren might 42 00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:36,800 Speaker 1: not consider to be good actors, you know. So, but no, 43 00:02:36,880 --> 00:02:40,079 Speaker 1: I cannot find anyone who had had that position. It's 44 00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:42,920 Speaker 1: like this is, you know, a wing of the Democratic 45 00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:46,000 Speaker 1: Party which is you know, deeply tied into big business 46 00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:49,120 Speaker 1: in corporate America and proud of it. That's their client base, 47 00:02:49,200 --> 00:02:51,360 Speaker 1: you know, big you know, the biggest banks and the 48 00:02:51,360 --> 00:02:56,680 Speaker 1: biggest companies. They did represent Carlos Gone, the former chief 49 00:02:56,680 --> 00:02:59,799 Speaker 1: executive Nissan, you know, during his you know, good time 50 00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:02,560 Speaker 1: he was being held in Japan. Uh. You know, they 51 00:03:02,639 --> 00:03:05,400 Speaker 1: dropped that after he escaped. But that's sort of an 52 00:03:05,400 --> 00:03:08,040 Speaker 1: example of the type of big hitter you know that 53 00:03:08,280 --> 00:03:11,320 Speaker 1: individuals that they would also take on as clients. Their 54 00:03:11,360 --> 00:03:15,680 Speaker 1: ties go back to the Roosevelt administration. Yes, so some 55 00:03:15,720 --> 00:03:18,320 Speaker 1: of the founders of the Paul Wise firm, Randolph Paul 56 00:03:18,560 --> 00:03:21,320 Speaker 1: you know, Judge Rifkins, uh, you know, goes back to 57 00:03:21,400 --> 00:03:24,239 Speaker 1: that era in the nineteen thirties and they were close ties, 58 00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:28,440 Speaker 1: you know, with the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration. Uh, and 59 00:03:28,480 --> 00:03:31,359 Speaker 1: they were fully supportive of you know, what was then 60 00:03:31,360 --> 00:03:33,880 Speaker 1: seemed like a revolutionary turn to the left back in 61 00:03:33,919 --> 00:03:37,400 Speaker 1: that era. And it's continued through jfk Era, one of 62 00:03:37,440 --> 00:03:41,000 Speaker 1: the most prominent partners of the past generation with Ted Sorenson, 63 00:03:41,280 --> 00:03:43,720 Speaker 1: who of course was you know, a council for an 64 00:03:43,720 --> 00:03:47,360 Speaker 1: advisor to President John F. Kennedy and his speech writer, 65 00:03:47,640 --> 00:03:51,200 Speaker 1: a very talented speech writer. So that continues through you know, 66 00:03:51,240 --> 00:03:54,400 Speaker 1: the Clinicon administration and more recently the Obama administration and 67 00:03:54,440 --> 00:03:57,640 Speaker 1: now the new administration that they've had people who have 68 00:03:57,760 --> 00:04:00,480 Speaker 1: gone from the firm to the White House sort to 69 00:04:00,640 --> 00:04:03,640 Speaker 1: the administration. Uh. And right now, I think we mentioned 70 00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:06,200 Speaker 1: in the story a couple of prominent partners that J. Johnson, 71 00:04:06,480 --> 00:04:09,600 Speaker 1: who was you know, among other things, Secretary Department of 72 00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:13,400 Speaker 1: Homeland Security under President Obama, and Loretta Lynch who was 73 00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:17,520 Speaker 1: famously Attorney General at the end of the Obama administration. 74 00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:22,960 Speaker 1: How much does being at Paul Weiss help people get 75 00:04:23,160 --> 00:04:28,280 Speaker 1: jobs in the Democratic administrations. Well, you know, it's I'm 76 00:04:28,279 --> 00:04:30,320 Speaker 1: not sure, it's just that I think it's you know, 77 00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:35,000 Speaker 1: Paul White's attracts certain types of lawyers who are probably 78 00:04:35,040 --> 00:04:38,120 Speaker 1: more in the liberal progressive. There are a lot of 79 00:04:38,200 --> 00:04:40,719 Speaker 1: lawyers who, you know, go to very expensive law schools 80 00:04:40,720 --> 00:04:42,440 Speaker 1: and want to join firms where they can make a 81 00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:46,000 Speaker 1: lot of money, but nevertheless hold you know, blue values 82 00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:49,279 Speaker 1: as opposed to red values in terms of economics, and 83 00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:53,599 Speaker 1: so Paul White's gets a cream of the crop selection frequently. 84 00:04:53,920 --> 00:04:56,160 Speaker 1: But there are people who are clearly on board with 85 00:04:56,160 --> 00:04:58,800 Speaker 1: what Paul Weiss does pro bonal work and with its 86 00:04:58,800 --> 00:05:02,000 Speaker 1: political contribution, et cetera. It's very much a blue state 87 00:05:02,360 --> 00:05:05,839 Speaker 1: firm that way. So it's more that they attract that's 88 00:05:05,839 --> 00:05:08,920 Speaker 1: not the best and brightest among the best future law partners, 89 00:05:09,200 --> 00:05:12,680 Speaker 1: and those people get involved and engaged, and you know, 90 00:05:12,760 --> 00:05:16,559 Speaker 1: he'd move into government service or having served in government service, 91 00:05:16,640 --> 00:05:18,520 Speaker 1: when they're looking to go to a law firm, they 92 00:05:18,520 --> 00:05:20,400 Speaker 1: find Paul White to be an attractive place. Because it 93 00:05:20,400 --> 00:05:22,760 Speaker 1: would be the case with Loretta Lynch, who came to 94 00:05:22,800 --> 00:05:25,520 Speaker 1: Paul White even though she was with a different firm 95 00:05:25,800 --> 00:05:27,440 Speaker 1: in the period between when she was the U. S 96 00:05:27,440 --> 00:05:30,800 Speaker 1: Attorney in Brooklyn in the Clinton administration and then you know, 97 00:05:30,839 --> 00:05:33,640 Speaker 1: eight years later Obama was elected. During those eight years 98 00:05:33,640 --> 00:05:35,479 Speaker 1: she was in the private sector, I think with a 99 00:05:35,560 --> 00:05:37,880 Speaker 1: smaller law firm and then she was in the Obama 100 00:05:37,920 --> 00:05:41,680 Speaker 1: administration vacuous attorney in Brooklyn and then ultimately Attorney General. 101 00:05:42,080 --> 00:05:44,960 Speaker 1: And when she decided to get back into private practice, 102 00:05:45,080 --> 00:05:47,640 Speaker 1: she joined Paul White. So that's a certain kind of 103 00:05:47,640 --> 00:05:49,760 Speaker 1: track as well. They bring in people who are already 104 00:05:49,800 --> 00:05:53,279 Speaker 1: established names, who are, you know, finding a good convenial 105 00:05:53,279 --> 00:05:56,159 Speaker 1: place to go. So the next Manhattan US attorney was 106 00:05:56,200 --> 00:05:59,520 Speaker 1: a lawyer at Paul Weiss. Yes, that's right, Damian Williams, 107 00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:02,200 Speaker 1: who I'm not sure it's been formally nominated or clearly 108 00:06:02,200 --> 00:06:04,599 Speaker 1: the by the administration has given the signal that he's 109 00:06:04,640 --> 00:06:07,640 Speaker 1: the guy that, of course comes to Chuck Schumer. Rarely 110 00:06:07,760 --> 00:06:10,800 Speaker 1: does a new president like actually get involved in the 111 00:06:10,800 --> 00:06:16,320 Speaker 1: granular details of these selections. It's almost always basically something 112 00:06:16,360 --> 00:06:19,280 Speaker 1: that is deferred to the senior senator in the same 113 00:06:19,320 --> 00:06:21,800 Speaker 1: party to stay where this state. And in this case, 114 00:06:21,880 --> 00:06:24,960 Speaker 1: this is Chuck Schumer who has an outsized role, and 115 00:06:25,040 --> 00:06:28,240 Speaker 1: that's an important element of this story. Chuck Schumer is 116 00:06:28,279 --> 00:06:30,600 Speaker 1: the decider in this case for who the U S 117 00:06:30,640 --> 00:06:32,960 Speaker 1: attorneys are going to be in Manhattan and in Brooklyn. 118 00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:37,480 Speaker 1: And here's where another connection. Chuck Schumer's younger brother, Robert 119 00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:40,440 Speaker 1: is a partner and very successful partner in the mergers 120 00:06:40,480 --> 00:06:44,160 Speaker 1: and acquisitions practice at Paul White. So he sits on 121 00:06:44,200 --> 00:06:46,880 Speaker 1: the screening committee. You know, that doesn't mean he decides 122 00:06:46,920 --> 00:06:48,800 Speaker 1: who the candidates are going to be, but you know, 123 00:06:48,880 --> 00:06:51,400 Speaker 1: he's Chuck's brother and he's on screen committee. He's at 124 00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:54,479 Speaker 1: Paul White. It's just further evidence of ties between the 125 00:06:54,560 --> 00:06:58,800 Speaker 1: law firm and the Democratic Party. There's nothing ethically wrong 126 00:06:58,920 --> 00:07:02,440 Speaker 1: with Schumer's brother sitting on the committee, But has it 127 00:07:02,560 --> 00:07:06,760 Speaker 1: caused any problems? Has it raised any questions? Well, it's 128 00:07:06,760 --> 00:07:09,000 Speaker 1: the guy you trust. And I thought that this might 129 00:07:09,040 --> 00:07:11,200 Speaker 1: be a problem, you know, because I don't think this 130 00:07:11,240 --> 00:07:13,480 Speaker 1: has been top secret, But no one's ever reported on 131 00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:16,480 Speaker 1: this before until our story that the role could have 132 00:07:16,560 --> 00:07:19,120 Speaker 1: cause like problems, Not so much from the brother of 133 00:07:19,200 --> 00:07:22,000 Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer as much as well, if if a guy 134 00:07:22,040 --> 00:07:24,720 Speaker 1: who's a partner at Paul Weiss is involved in the 135 00:07:24,760 --> 00:07:27,560 Speaker 1: selection committee for a very important job the U S 136 00:07:27,560 --> 00:07:30,280 Speaker 1: attorney in Manhattan, is that going to create a problem 137 00:07:30,360 --> 00:07:33,040 Speaker 1: where the new U S Attorney feels like he owes 138 00:07:33,480 --> 00:07:36,800 Speaker 1: some allegiance to his former law firms. And because perception 139 00:07:36,880 --> 00:07:39,600 Speaker 1: wise Chuck Schumer's brother maybe one of many on the 140 00:07:39,640 --> 00:07:42,840 Speaker 1: screening committee. But because he's Chuck Schumer's brother, you could 141 00:07:42,880 --> 00:07:45,120 Speaker 1: infer that he's the most important member of the committee. 142 00:07:45,320 --> 00:07:47,640 Speaker 1: So I think of that, and then someone told me 143 00:07:47,720 --> 00:07:51,160 Speaker 1: that like nine years ago, after Obama was elected, and 144 00:07:51,200 --> 00:07:53,320 Speaker 1: it was similar, Chuck Schumer is going to basically make 145 00:07:53,360 --> 00:07:56,960 Speaker 1: the call on this similar screening committee also which UH 146 00:07:57,080 --> 00:07:59,920 Speaker 1: had Chuck Schumer's brother on it recommended a Paul why 147 00:08:00,040 --> 00:08:04,000 Speaker 1: his partner named Mark Pomerantz, and Chuck Schumer decided no, 148 00:08:04,200 --> 00:08:06,400 Speaker 1: he wanted to go with his former chief staff freest 149 00:08:06,400 --> 00:08:10,360 Speaker 1: for Harra. So that actually undercut the argument that either 150 00:08:10,440 --> 00:08:13,160 Speaker 1: this is in the bag or the senator's brother has 151 00:08:13,160 --> 00:08:15,440 Speaker 1: too much power. You know, more than a decade ago, 152 00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:19,640 Speaker 1: a Senator Schumer disregarded the advice of the committee which 153 00:08:19,640 --> 00:08:22,720 Speaker 1: his brother sat. So you know, it's not a guarantee. 154 00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:28,360 Speaker 1: It's generally expected that investigations and you know, scrutiny of 155 00:08:28,400 --> 00:08:32,120 Speaker 1: Wall Street is going to pick up in a Biden administration. 156 00:08:32,760 --> 00:08:36,240 Speaker 1: Will that help Paul Weiss with its clients? Well, I 157 00:08:36,240 --> 00:08:39,360 Speaker 1: think it's going to help. First of all, Yes, there 158 00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:42,080 Speaker 1: is a perception and I think it's partly accurate that 159 00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:46,320 Speaker 1: will be more aggressive enforcement of white collar crime under 160 00:08:46,360 --> 00:08:49,319 Speaker 1: the Biden administration and it was under the Trump administration. 161 00:08:49,800 --> 00:08:52,640 Speaker 1: UM Trump's priorities were different. He's very focused on illegal 162 00:08:52,640 --> 00:08:55,679 Speaker 1: immigration and MS thir team violence if that was sort 163 00:08:55,720 --> 00:08:59,439 Speaker 1: of his whole campaign plank was violent crime, and it 164 00:08:59,600 --> 00:09:02,680 Speaker 1: just was as much effort, you know, throughout the Justice Department. 165 00:09:02,679 --> 00:09:06,560 Speaker 1: I'm correcting now white collar crime to that extent during 166 00:09:06,559 --> 00:09:09,800 Speaker 1: the Trump years. A lot of smaller firms that rely 167 00:09:09,920 --> 00:09:15,120 Speaker 1: on white collar practices had trouble. Were not good years 168 00:09:15,200 --> 00:09:18,280 Speaker 1: for the smaller fish. Paul Weiss was fine, and so 169 00:09:18,360 --> 00:09:20,560 Speaker 1: we're a number of other large firms that you know 170 00:09:20,640 --> 00:09:23,520 Speaker 1: had enough other businesses to keep going, but it was 171 00:09:23,559 --> 00:09:26,120 Speaker 1: a difficult time. Assuming this is correct, that there will 172 00:09:26,160 --> 00:09:28,720 Speaker 1: be a you know, a pickup in white collar criminal enforcement, 173 00:09:29,040 --> 00:09:31,120 Speaker 1: like all the big firms, all the firms that have 174 00:09:31,679 --> 00:09:34,760 Speaker 1: you know, white collar criminal practices will benefit from this. 175 00:09:35,120 --> 00:09:37,120 Speaker 1: Paul White as one of the biggest, you know, maybe 176 00:09:37,120 --> 00:09:39,520 Speaker 1: stands board game. It's sort of like, you know, when 177 00:09:39,600 --> 00:09:42,200 Speaker 1: trading is good on Wall Street, golden tax benefits, but 178 00:09:42,440 --> 00:09:44,640 Speaker 1: so do a bunch of other investment banks. You know, 179 00:09:44,679 --> 00:09:46,920 Speaker 1: but everybody thinks of golden back. So if you want 180 00:09:46,920 --> 00:09:50,079 Speaker 1: to use that metaphor. Yes, Paul Whites would benefit from 181 00:09:50,280 --> 00:09:53,360 Speaker 1: an uptick in in white collar criminal investigations, but so 182 00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:55,480 Speaker 1: will a lot of other firms, particularly smaller ones that 183 00:09:55,600 --> 00:09:59,160 Speaker 1: suffered more than the big firms did during the Trump administration. 184 00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:02,720 Speaker 1: As far as judges are, there a lot of judges 185 00:10:02,880 --> 00:10:06,440 Speaker 1: from Paul Weiss, a number of them, I think, Judge 186 00:10:06,480 --> 00:10:10,160 Speaker 1: Colin McMahon, Judge Lewis Kaplan, a number of other you know, 187 00:10:10,200 --> 00:10:15,480 Speaker 1: Paul White's partners has been elevated to the bench. Um so, yes, 188 00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:19,120 Speaker 1: a lot, I'm not sure, but enough um and right. 189 00:10:19,240 --> 00:10:23,800 Speaker 1: That's another component of Robert Schumer, the Senator's brother, being 190 00:10:23,800 --> 00:10:26,920 Speaker 1: on the Screen committee is that Chuck Schumer's also and 191 00:10:26,960 --> 00:10:29,480 Speaker 1: now as the majority leader of the Senate, will play 192 00:10:29,480 --> 00:10:32,960 Speaker 1: an outsize role in the selection of nominees for the 193 00:10:32,960 --> 00:10:35,400 Speaker 1: federal bench here in the New York area. And there's 194 00:10:35,480 --> 00:10:37,600 Speaker 1: likely to be a lot of vacancies in the next 195 00:10:37,640 --> 00:10:41,400 Speaker 1: few years. So you know, once again, you know, uh, 196 00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:44,600 Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer's a hugely important guy in terms of who 197 00:10:44,720 --> 00:10:47,280 Speaker 1: the new you know, judicial nominees will be in the 198 00:10:47,720 --> 00:10:50,560 Speaker 1: in the second Circuit in New York. And you know 199 00:10:50,640 --> 00:10:53,120 Speaker 1: his brother, Robert, you know at Paul White will be 200 00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:56,640 Speaker 1: playing a large role in the screening committee for that. Justice. 201 00:10:56,960 --> 00:11:02,959 Speaker 1: Sonya Mayor was summer associate there the firm. You know, 202 00:11:03,160 --> 00:11:05,320 Speaker 1: I think they still do boasts that they had when 203 00:11:05,600 --> 00:11:07,640 Speaker 1: Ruth bad of Ginsburg was alive and serving on the 204 00:11:07,679 --> 00:11:10,319 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. That you know, the three women on the 205 00:11:10,320 --> 00:11:14,760 Speaker 1: Supreme Court, Atlanta Kagan, RBG, and Sonia Soto are all 206 00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:19,520 Speaker 1: had served as summer associates at Paul Weisse. But in biography, 207 00:11:19,800 --> 00:11:22,360 Speaker 1: like from almost a decade ago, she wrote that, you know, 208 00:11:22,480 --> 00:11:24,719 Speaker 1: she when she did not get an offer of a 209 00:11:24,800 --> 00:11:28,120 Speaker 1: job at Paul Wise at the end of her term there, um, 210 00:11:28,160 --> 00:11:31,240 Speaker 1: she was crushed. She was just absolutely devastated, and this 211 00:11:31,480 --> 00:11:33,480 Speaker 1: hung over her. She thought it was like a failure 212 00:11:33,559 --> 00:11:37,720 Speaker 1: that you know, overhyd her career until she eventually made 213 00:11:37,720 --> 00:11:39,240 Speaker 1: it to the federal bench and she was able to 214 00:11:39,240 --> 00:11:42,800 Speaker 1: move beyond it. She writes in her autobiography that in fact, 215 00:11:43,160 --> 00:11:45,280 Speaker 1: it was probably the correct decision. She was probably not 216 00:11:45,520 --> 00:11:49,120 Speaker 1: right or ready for a firm like that at that time. 217 00:11:49,600 --> 00:11:52,520 Speaker 1: She didn't think she was treated unfairly about it. But 218 00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:54,120 Speaker 1: but of course, sort of like not getting into the 219 00:11:54,120 --> 00:11:57,280 Speaker 1: college of your choice or something, you know, a crushing thing. 220 00:11:57,720 --> 00:12:00,800 Speaker 1: The head of the firm. So John Cough, he's a 221 00:12:00,880 --> 00:12:04,880 Speaker 1: famous professor at Columbia, said he's the the most well 222 00:12:04,920 --> 00:12:08,199 Speaker 1: connected man in New York. Yeah, I think dead man, 223 00:12:08,240 --> 00:12:10,120 Speaker 1: but he met lawyer. He's the best connected lawyer in 224 00:12:10,120 --> 00:12:13,240 Speaker 1: New York in Washington because Brad carp is the chairman 225 00:12:13,280 --> 00:12:15,960 Speaker 1: of Paul Weiss, and Brad carp is just this super 226 00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:20,480 Speaker 1: connected guy who's very active and supportive of the Democratic Party. Um, 227 00:12:20,720 --> 00:12:22,920 Speaker 1: he is kind of the you know, the secret sauce 228 00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:25,400 Speaker 1: you know, is he's got just such a wide range 229 00:12:25,400 --> 00:12:29,040 Speaker 1: of relationships in business and in politics. He's like a 230 00:12:29,040 --> 00:12:32,840 Speaker 1: super connector you know, he's just an extremely well connected guy, 231 00:12:33,280 --> 00:12:36,080 Speaker 1: you know, particularly in New York and in DC. And 232 00:12:36,120 --> 00:12:38,760 Speaker 1: how has business been? The firm had a great year, 233 00:12:39,080 --> 00:12:43,120 Speaker 1: and we focused on the whole role of Paul Wits 234 00:12:43,120 --> 00:12:45,240 Speaker 1: in the selection of us starneys or at least Senator 235 00:12:45,240 --> 00:12:48,680 Speaker 1: Schumer's brother, and just how many top people and connected 236 00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:51,559 Speaker 1: people Paul White has at the firm. Flat to day's 237 00:12:51,640 --> 00:12:54,480 Speaker 1: doing really well business wise in the last couple of 238 00:12:54,520 --> 00:12:57,360 Speaker 1: years as well. It's an extremely profitable firm. The partners 239 00:12:57,400 --> 00:12:59,800 Speaker 1: get paid really well and they're at the center of 240 00:13:00,000 --> 00:13:02,320 Speaker 1: a number of the biggest lawsuits in the biggest legal 241 00:13:02,320 --> 00:13:04,880 Speaker 1: actions going on. For example, there's a big suit coming 242 00:13:04,880 --> 00:13:08,040 Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court I think this week Goldman SAX 243 00:13:08,520 --> 00:13:11,599 Speaker 1: is defending itself against basically kind of complicated but the 244 00:13:11,679 --> 00:13:14,840 Speaker 1: securities broad case dating back to Avocus more than a 245 00:13:14,920 --> 00:13:18,360 Speaker 1: decade ago. And Paul White is going to be defending 246 00:13:18,360 --> 00:13:21,080 Speaker 1: Goldman tax before the Supreme Court in a decision that's 247 00:13:21,080 --> 00:13:24,560 Speaker 1: going to basically impact Wall Street and the investment banks 248 00:13:24,600 --> 00:13:28,000 Speaker 1: for many years going forward. The biggest legal case that 249 00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:30,640 Speaker 1: you know of Wall Street is paying attention to right now. 250 00:13:31,000 --> 00:13:36,199 Speaker 1: Thanks Greg. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Greg Farrell. Lawsuits are 251 00:13:36,240 --> 00:13:39,920 Speaker 1: piling up against Georgia's restrictive new voting law, which reigns 252 00:13:39,960 --> 00:13:42,719 Speaker 1: in absentee voting and makes it a crime to give 253 00:13:42,800 --> 00:13:46,959 Speaker 1: water to voters waiting in line. President Biden has denounced 254 00:13:46,960 --> 00:13:51,040 Speaker 1: the law. I'm convinced that we'll be able to stop 255 00:13:51,080 --> 00:13:54,360 Speaker 1: this because it is the most pernicious thing. This makes 256 00:13:54,440 --> 00:13:58,520 Speaker 1: Jim Crowe look like Jim Eagle. Joining me is elections 257 00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:01,360 Speaker 1: law expert Derek Muller, a professor at the University of 258 00:14:01,400 --> 00:14:07,160 Speaker 1: Iowa Law School. President Biden compared the Georgia election changes 259 00:14:07,240 --> 00:14:11,080 Speaker 1: to Jim Crow in the twenty one century. Would you 260 00:14:11,120 --> 00:14:14,800 Speaker 1: say that that's accurate? That might be a little too far. 261 00:14:15,080 --> 00:14:18,040 Speaker 1: I think one of the big challenges about how to 262 00:14:18,080 --> 00:14:21,120 Speaker 1: evaluate Georgia's law is that, for the most part, what 263 00:14:21,240 --> 00:14:24,560 Speaker 1: Georgia has enacted is things that are already happening in 264 00:14:24,640 --> 00:14:26,880 Speaker 1: other states. And so you can look at it in 265 00:14:26,880 --> 00:14:29,320 Speaker 1: one of two ways. You can say, this is sort 266 00:14:29,320 --> 00:14:32,120 Speaker 1: of something comparable to what's already happening in a lot 267 00:14:32,120 --> 00:14:35,360 Speaker 1: of other states, or you know, it's designed to clamp 268 00:14:35,400 --> 00:14:39,240 Speaker 1: down and restrict a series of opportunities that have been 269 00:14:39,400 --> 00:14:44,600 Speaker 1: previously available, and therefore that change is sufficient as an 270 00:14:44,640 --> 00:14:47,280 Speaker 1: outlier to make it troublesome. So again, it kind of 271 00:14:47,280 --> 00:14:49,440 Speaker 1: depends on your perspective. If you're sort of looking at 272 00:14:49,440 --> 00:14:51,880 Speaker 1: the baseline of what things were last year, you know, 273 00:14:51,920 --> 00:14:53,960 Speaker 1: it restricts the number of things. If you're looking at 274 00:14:54,160 --> 00:14:57,760 Speaker 1: how voting looks in the rest of the country, in 275 00:14:57,840 --> 00:15:00,160 Speaker 1: many respects, a number of the provisions of george Just 276 00:15:00,240 --> 00:15:02,960 Speaker 1: statute are going to look a lot like what happens 277 00:15:02,960 --> 00:15:05,160 Speaker 1: in the rest of the country. So I think that's 278 00:15:05,200 --> 00:15:08,720 Speaker 1: the that's the challenge moving forward. We've heard a lot 279 00:15:08,840 --> 00:15:12,840 Speaker 1: about the provision that restricts people from handing food or 280 00:15:12,840 --> 00:15:15,400 Speaker 1: water to people waiting in line. But what do you 281 00:15:15,440 --> 00:15:18,400 Speaker 1: think is the most restrictive part of the law, the 282 00:15:18,440 --> 00:15:21,400 Speaker 1: one that let's say Democrats have been most concerned about. 283 00:15:22,240 --> 00:15:24,120 Speaker 1: A couple of them, you know, that came to the 284 00:15:24,160 --> 00:15:28,280 Speaker 1: four last election, include opportunities from the states sending absentee 285 00:15:28,280 --> 00:15:32,120 Speaker 1: ballot requests that are unsolicited by voters, allowing them to 286 00:15:32,120 --> 00:15:36,720 Speaker 1: fill them out, or allowing voter registration groups from collecting 287 00:15:36,760 --> 00:15:40,880 Speaker 1: and returning absentee ballot applications. And again those are things 288 00:15:40,920 --> 00:15:42,920 Speaker 1: that are are fairly common in a number of states. 289 00:15:42,920 --> 00:15:44,880 Speaker 1: But when you look at the pandemic, you looked at 290 00:15:44,920 --> 00:15:49,960 Speaker 1: the opportunities to open up and make available absentee voting opportunities. 291 00:15:50,040 --> 00:15:54,280 Speaker 1: These are a couple of rules designed to limit those opportunities, 292 00:15:54,440 --> 00:15:56,800 Speaker 1: and a related one about requiring a copy of an 293 00:15:56,840 --> 00:16:00,880 Speaker 1: identification if you're making an absentee ballot asked. So all 294 00:16:00,920 --> 00:16:03,880 Speaker 1: of these are getting around sort of absentee ballots generally 295 00:16:04,280 --> 00:16:07,720 Speaker 1: encouraging driving people to voting early in person, and that 296 00:16:07,840 --> 00:16:09,680 Speaker 1: the bill does expand a little bit some of the 297 00:16:09,680 --> 00:16:12,840 Speaker 1: early in person voting options and voting in person on 298 00:16:12,920 --> 00:16:15,800 Speaker 1: election day, you know, for challengers, for opponents of the law, 299 00:16:15,840 --> 00:16:19,320 Speaker 1: they would say, look, absentee voting was essential during the pandemic. 300 00:16:19,520 --> 00:16:22,400 Speaker 1: Absent d voting is a way of providing more opportunities 301 00:16:22,440 --> 00:16:26,320 Speaker 1: to voters. So thinking about that suite of absentee ballot challenges, 302 00:16:26,360 --> 00:16:29,600 Speaker 1: as I think one of the bigger, bigger targets, what 303 00:16:29,720 --> 00:16:33,240 Speaker 1: about the state Board of Elections being able to take 304 00:16:33,320 --> 00:16:39,040 Speaker 1: over county elections because of the danger that that might 305 00:16:39,120 --> 00:16:43,120 Speaker 1: affect places like Fulton County. It'll be interesting to see 306 00:16:43,160 --> 00:16:46,560 Speaker 1: how that works in practice. Right in a number of states, 307 00:16:46,880 --> 00:16:49,400 Speaker 1: there is a dispute about whether or not there should 308 00:16:49,400 --> 00:16:52,040 Speaker 1: be more what we described as home rule, more county 309 00:16:52,240 --> 00:16:57,200 Speaker 1: or local administration of elections, or more sort of statewide 310 00:16:57,320 --> 00:17:01,560 Speaker 1: uniform elections, more uniform decision happening at the state level. 311 00:17:01,920 --> 00:17:04,440 Speaker 1: And so in one sense you might say, well, it's 312 00:17:04,440 --> 00:17:09,399 Speaker 1: actually good to have some greater uniformity, to have the 313 00:17:09,480 --> 00:17:12,440 Speaker 1: state making some of these decisions. If we're electing a senator, 314 00:17:13,000 --> 00:17:16,040 Speaker 1: we're electing the president, we're electing a governor, it doesn't 315 00:17:16,040 --> 00:17:18,920 Speaker 1: make sense that the counties might be running these elections 316 00:17:18,960 --> 00:17:21,600 Speaker 1: a little bit differently, administering them in different ways. But 317 00:17:21,640 --> 00:17:24,200 Speaker 1: I think the real challenge is that the board now 318 00:17:24,440 --> 00:17:27,800 Speaker 1: it's you know, it's a five member board and the 319 00:17:27,920 --> 00:17:31,520 Speaker 1: legislature gets to choose the chair in addition to two 320 00:17:31,560 --> 00:17:36,240 Speaker 1: members sort of chosen with potentially some bipartisan support or 321 00:17:36,280 --> 00:17:39,320 Speaker 1: you know, a Democratic nominee, a Republican nominee, things like that. 322 00:17:39,800 --> 00:17:41,960 Speaker 1: So there is I think the increased risk of a 323 00:17:42,040 --> 00:17:45,840 Speaker 1: partisan state board overseeing what's happening at the county And 324 00:17:45,880 --> 00:17:48,240 Speaker 1: I think that composition is now going to be sort 325 00:17:48,240 --> 00:17:50,320 Speaker 1: of a question. Are they going to come in in 326 00:17:50,400 --> 00:17:54,000 Speaker 1: a partisan fashion and alter what's happening at the county 327 00:17:54,080 --> 00:17:57,200 Speaker 1: level or is there goal to provide that greater uniformity. 328 00:17:57,320 --> 00:17:59,879 Speaker 1: So I think we'll see. I'm a little less interested 329 00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:02,400 Speaker 1: just the fact that they're moving some of these decisions 330 00:18:02,440 --> 00:18:05,400 Speaker 1: potentially at the state level, and more how an increased 331 00:18:05,400 --> 00:18:11,280 Speaker 1: partisan or increased legislature controlled board chooses to intervene. Is 332 00:18:11,320 --> 00:18:14,800 Speaker 1: there a scenario where let's say a Democratic candidate wins 333 00:18:14,920 --> 00:18:20,359 Speaker 1: Fulton County and the board comes in and discounts the votes. 334 00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:22,800 Speaker 1: That'd be very hard. I mean, I think, you know, 335 00:18:22,880 --> 00:18:25,720 Speaker 1: if there's a problem in terms of the canvas, in 336 00:18:25,840 --> 00:18:28,520 Speaker 1: terms of the counting of the ballots. I'd have to 337 00:18:28,520 --> 00:18:30,119 Speaker 1: go back and look again at the long bail. I 338 00:18:30,320 --> 00:18:32,520 Speaker 1: don't know how much is happening there. I think there's 339 00:18:32,560 --> 00:18:35,800 Speaker 1: some things about certifying of the results and sort of 340 00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:38,240 Speaker 1: disputes about that. But you know, if if a county 341 00:18:38,280 --> 00:18:40,720 Speaker 1: has said, you know, here's it's ten thou votes for 342 00:18:40,760 --> 00:18:43,960 Speaker 1: this candidate, nine thousand votes for that candidate, the law 343 00:18:44,040 --> 00:18:46,600 Speaker 1: sets up what voter intent is. The law defines the 344 00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:49,960 Speaker 1: classification of eligible voters. Boards of elections are doing what 345 00:18:50,000 --> 00:18:53,160 Speaker 1: they can to sort of ensure that they've counted all 346 00:18:53,200 --> 00:18:55,800 Speaker 1: of the ballots in the canvas. So in my judgment, 347 00:18:55,840 --> 00:18:59,280 Speaker 1: I don't know how many kinds of opportunities there would 348 00:18:59,280 --> 00:19:02,520 Speaker 1: be for the sort of state board to step in 349 00:19:02,720 --> 00:19:05,840 Speaker 1: and alter the results like that. Um My guess is, 350 00:19:05,880 --> 00:19:08,359 Speaker 1: then even if it were to do something like that, 351 00:19:08,359 --> 00:19:11,639 Speaker 1: that is ripe for legal challenge because asking who won 352 00:19:11,680 --> 00:19:14,119 Speaker 1: our loss under existing law is not just sort of 353 00:19:14,119 --> 00:19:18,080 Speaker 1: a discretionary function of the county boards in administering elections. 354 00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:20,919 Speaker 1: It's you know, defined by statute. And I think there 355 00:19:20,960 --> 00:19:23,720 Speaker 1: would be much more ripe opportunities in the events that 356 00:19:24,200 --> 00:19:26,280 Speaker 1: the board tried to do something like that. How will 357 00:19:26,320 --> 00:19:30,960 Speaker 1: the challenges to this Georgia law be reviewed by the courts. 358 00:19:30,960 --> 00:19:35,480 Speaker 1: So a number of challenges in federal law really focus 359 00:19:35,720 --> 00:19:37,960 Speaker 1: on what we describe the sort of this freedom of 360 00:19:37,960 --> 00:19:40,960 Speaker 1: association claims. That is, the Supreme Court for a long 361 00:19:41,000 --> 00:19:43,960 Speaker 1: time has recognized that the sort of nuts and bolts 362 00:19:44,000 --> 00:19:47,840 Speaker 1: of voting statutes are subject to a balancing past where 363 00:19:47,880 --> 00:19:51,359 Speaker 1: we examine the severity of the burden place upon voters 364 00:19:51,480 --> 00:19:53,840 Speaker 1: up against the state's interest, and so a more severe 365 00:19:53,880 --> 00:19:57,520 Speaker 1: burden requires a more compelling justification from the state. So 366 00:19:57,640 --> 00:19:59,960 Speaker 1: that's one of the grounds the courts have used the 367 00:20:00,119 --> 00:20:01,840 Speaker 1: for all kinds of things. It used to be a 368 00:20:01,840 --> 00:20:05,600 Speaker 1: lot for, you know, getting libertarian or Green Party candidates 369 00:20:05,600 --> 00:20:09,480 Speaker 1: on the ballot. It's also used for voter identification laws, 370 00:20:09,600 --> 00:20:12,359 Speaker 1: used for early voting rules, is used for a little 371 00:20:12,359 --> 00:20:15,200 Speaker 1: bit of everything, just examining the bounds. And so democrats 372 00:20:15,280 --> 00:20:17,520 Speaker 1: challenging the law will try to say this presents a 373 00:20:17,560 --> 00:20:20,280 Speaker 1: severe burden in the state doesn't have a justification for it. 374 00:20:20,560 --> 00:20:23,040 Speaker 1: On the flip side, defenders of the law will say, no, 375 00:20:23,040 --> 00:20:25,640 Speaker 1: no, no no, this place is sort of a normal, nondiscriminatory 376 00:20:25,760 --> 00:20:29,119 Speaker 1: burden that we have a legitimate interest in voter integrity 377 00:20:29,160 --> 00:20:32,920 Speaker 1: and protecting the public and ensuring confidence in elections. There's 378 00:20:32,960 --> 00:20:35,960 Speaker 1: also a challenge under section two of the Voting Rights Act, 379 00:20:36,200 --> 00:20:38,160 Speaker 1: which you know, we might be able to talk about 380 00:20:38,160 --> 00:20:39,840 Speaker 1: what the standard looks like today. But there's the Freme 381 00:20:39,880 --> 00:20:42,119 Speaker 1: Court is considering a decision. It's this case at this 382 00:20:42,240 --> 00:20:46,119 Speaker 1: very moment from Arizona about how to look at these 383 00:20:46,240 --> 00:20:50,399 Speaker 1: kinds of Voting Rights Act claims Undersection two of the 384 00:20:50,480 --> 00:20:53,360 Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act about whether or not a racial minority 385 00:20:53,359 --> 00:20:57,119 Speaker 1: group has less opportunity to elect the preferred candidate of 386 00:20:57,200 --> 00:21:00,280 Speaker 1: their choice. So we'll see if these mechanisms are signed 387 00:21:00,320 --> 00:21:02,040 Speaker 1: to do that, if they have that effect. But the 388 00:21:02,040 --> 00:21:04,520 Speaker 1: Court is considering a challenge at this moment to decide 389 00:21:04,520 --> 00:21:07,159 Speaker 1: whether or not that part of this complaint it's going 390 00:21:07,200 --> 00:21:10,639 Speaker 1: to be more or less viable going forward. Suppose this 391 00:21:10,720 --> 00:21:13,760 Speaker 1: case gets up to the Supreme Court. Described the Supreme 392 00:21:13,840 --> 00:21:18,480 Speaker 1: Court on election rights. Have they been more restrictive or 393 00:21:18,560 --> 00:21:22,080 Speaker 1: less restrictive? Yeah. One of the things is the Court 394 00:21:22,119 --> 00:21:26,360 Speaker 1: has mostly not weighed in. It's just is there were 395 00:21:26,400 --> 00:21:29,879 Speaker 1: so many cases that came up in and many of 396 00:21:29,920 --> 00:21:33,520 Speaker 1: them they either punted or they granted sort of temperary relief, 397 00:21:33,760 --> 00:21:36,960 Speaker 1: and most of the time what the temporary relief would 398 00:21:37,000 --> 00:21:39,960 Speaker 1: be is to say, if if a state court had 399 00:21:40,000 --> 00:21:42,920 Speaker 1: sort of enjoined or prevented a law from going into effect, 400 00:21:43,040 --> 00:21:46,160 Speaker 1: the court tended not to intervene, Whereas if the federal 401 00:21:46,200 --> 00:21:49,800 Speaker 1: court enjoined or prevented a law from going into effect, um, 402 00:21:49,840 --> 00:21:51,760 Speaker 1: it would tend to reverse that decision and say the 403 00:21:51,840 --> 00:21:54,760 Speaker 1: law should remain in effect. And so the court has 404 00:21:54,840 --> 00:21:57,639 Speaker 1: for the most part been pretty hands off. So there 405 00:21:57,680 --> 00:21:59,399 Speaker 1: was a time in the sixties and seventies where the 406 00:21:59,440 --> 00:22:02,119 Speaker 1: court was very hands on and reviewing these cases, and 407 00:22:02,160 --> 00:22:03,720 Speaker 1: now I would say it's very hands off. So on 408 00:22:03,760 --> 00:22:06,000 Speaker 1: the one hand, you might look and say, well, you know, 409 00:22:06,040 --> 00:22:08,280 Speaker 1: it is the court being sort of hostile to or 410 00:22:08,320 --> 00:22:11,240 Speaker 1: protective of voting rights of states, interests and so on. 411 00:22:11,560 --> 00:22:13,919 Speaker 1: But in many respects, the election showed us that it 412 00:22:13,920 --> 00:22:17,280 Speaker 1: has sort of very little interest waiting into these cases. Again, 413 00:22:17,400 --> 00:22:19,200 Speaker 1: it waited in a couple and in sort of a 414 00:22:19,240 --> 00:22:23,520 Speaker 1: temporary emergency fashion, saying these last second decisions, you know, 415 00:22:23,560 --> 00:22:26,920 Speaker 1: federal courts shouldn't be involved, and therefore allowing the state 416 00:22:27,000 --> 00:22:29,560 Speaker 1: rule to remain in place. But for the most part 417 00:22:29,600 --> 00:22:31,840 Speaker 1: it hasn't really been interesting and getting into the merits 418 00:22:31,840 --> 00:22:35,080 Speaker 1: of these cases. So my guess is, whatever happens with 419 00:22:35,119 --> 00:22:37,600 Speaker 1: this case, uh, you know, whether or not it's upheld 420 00:22:37,680 --> 00:22:40,520 Speaker 1: or struck down, because it's this sort of balancing test. 421 00:22:40,600 --> 00:22:43,160 Speaker 1: It's the sort of series of factors that lower courts 422 00:22:43,240 --> 00:22:45,320 Speaker 1: look at about the severity of the burdens and the like. 423 00:22:45,680 --> 00:22:47,480 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has for the most part, has not 424 00:22:47,520 --> 00:22:51,040 Speaker 1: been interested in delving into cases like that. Um, so 425 00:22:51,760 --> 00:22:54,080 Speaker 1: you know, it sort of waiting the approach. If that's 426 00:22:54,119 --> 00:22:56,560 Speaker 1: the case, they we're going to take out the souls 427 00:22:56,600 --> 00:22:59,480 Speaker 1: to the polls, the Sunday voting, and they didn't take 428 00:22:59,520 --> 00:23:02,280 Speaker 1: all the the weekend voting at they expanded it in 429 00:23:02,359 --> 00:23:05,719 Speaker 1: some respects. Was that done? Do you think because they 430 00:23:05,720 --> 00:23:08,800 Speaker 1: were afraid of a challenge that would look like it 431 00:23:08,880 --> 00:23:13,240 Speaker 1: was discriminating against black voters. I think there's no question 432 00:23:13,359 --> 00:23:16,320 Speaker 1: that you know, um, you know, prohibiting Sunday voting, you know, 433 00:23:16,320 --> 00:23:20,000 Speaker 1: it has widely been regarded as sort of targeting an 434 00:23:20,040 --> 00:23:23,720 Speaker 1: opportunity that black voters in particular have taken advantage of 435 00:23:23,800 --> 00:23:26,760 Speaker 1: in recent years. Um. And you know that there might 436 00:23:26,800 --> 00:23:29,000 Speaker 1: be debates about whether or not the state can ever 437 00:23:29,160 --> 00:23:32,720 Speaker 1: undo an opportunity that's been previously made available. There's no 438 00:23:32,800 --> 00:23:37,160 Speaker 1: question that bakes into the record more of a racial 439 00:23:37,160 --> 00:23:40,520 Speaker 1: dichotomy and how the statute sort of builds that out. 440 00:23:40,800 --> 00:23:43,159 Speaker 1: So I think there's no question that, you know, Georgia 441 00:23:43,200 --> 00:23:46,560 Speaker 1: Republicans did they amended the statute, I think pretty significantly 442 00:23:46,640 --> 00:23:49,240 Speaker 1: from the way it was first introduced, uh to scale 443 00:23:49,240 --> 00:23:52,000 Speaker 1: back some of those sorts of components. So I do 444 00:23:52,080 --> 00:23:53,960 Speaker 1: think it's it's a it's not just a bad look 445 00:23:54,040 --> 00:23:55,919 Speaker 1: that they were worried about, but also worrying that it 446 00:23:55,920 --> 00:23:58,160 Speaker 1: would be sort of further evidence that a court might 447 00:23:58,200 --> 00:24:01,080 Speaker 1: cite to say, Aha, look at these components of the 448 00:24:01,080 --> 00:24:04,360 Speaker 1: bill that really are targeting black voters. We therefore think 449 00:24:04,400 --> 00:24:06,680 Speaker 1: the whole bill falls for that reason, or all of 450 00:24:06,760 --> 00:24:10,080 Speaker 1: these components that are interwoven fall. So I think the 451 00:24:10,200 --> 00:24:12,399 Speaker 1: you know, the statute that does extend some early voting 452 00:24:12,480 --> 00:24:17,920 Speaker 1: provides optional Saturday Sunday voting hours not prohibiting them, does 453 00:24:18,200 --> 00:24:20,560 Speaker 1: sort of help try to insulate the bill from from 454 00:24:20,560 --> 00:24:23,600 Speaker 1: a legal challenge. Is there any way this bill could 455 00:24:23,640 --> 00:24:27,080 Speaker 1: backfire against Republicans? Has that happened in the past, where 456 00:24:27,119 --> 00:24:30,679 Speaker 1: you know, a restrictive bill ends up bringing more people 457 00:24:30,680 --> 00:24:32,720 Speaker 1: out or perhaps in this instance, maybe a lot of 458 00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:37,640 Speaker 1: Republican voters are not who they were before. Absolutely. I mean, 459 00:24:38,040 --> 00:24:40,880 Speaker 1: we've seen a dramatic demographic shift in the last five 460 00:24:40,960 --> 00:24:44,240 Speaker 1: or six years, UM, in terms of you know, rural, 461 00:24:44,280 --> 00:24:48,080 Speaker 1: lower class white voters moving into the Republican camp. You know, 462 00:24:48,480 --> 00:24:52,440 Speaker 1: upper middle class white voters in suburbs moving towards Democrats. 463 00:24:52,720 --> 00:24:54,560 Speaker 1: You never know those things are going to change. But 464 00:24:54,600 --> 00:24:57,440 Speaker 1: you know, the first point you raise is an important one. 465 00:24:57,800 --> 00:25:01,600 Speaker 1: There has been sort of backlash in certain areas where, um, 466 00:25:01,800 --> 00:25:05,000 Speaker 1: someone comes forward with a particular voting bill as deemed 467 00:25:05,080 --> 00:25:07,560 Speaker 1: sort of restrictive and in the court of public opinion, 468 00:25:07,800 --> 00:25:09,960 Speaker 1: even if not in the court of law, sort of 469 00:25:10,000 --> 00:25:12,639 Speaker 1: inspires the number of people to turn out, to fight 470 00:25:12,760 --> 00:25:15,200 Speaker 1: and to show up that said their voice will be heard. 471 00:25:15,480 --> 00:25:17,920 Speaker 1: A second related one is, you know, for a long time, 472 00:25:17,960 --> 00:25:20,760 Speaker 1: absentee voting, for instance, had been thought as a as 473 00:25:20,760 --> 00:25:26,240 Speaker 1: a Republican advantage. It was elderly voters, it was military voters, um. 474 00:25:26,320 --> 00:25:30,600 Speaker 1: And so it's strange to me that after the election, UM, 475 00:25:30,800 --> 00:25:33,320 Speaker 1: the sort of lesson for Republicans is, well, let's let's 476 00:25:33,400 --> 00:25:36,680 Speaker 1: trind some of these absentee ballot opportunities so that more 477 00:25:36,720 --> 00:25:39,880 Speaker 1: people will show up in person, which again maybe as 478 00:25:39,920 --> 00:25:42,520 Speaker 1: maybe as the right call of the merits. I suppose 479 00:25:42,520 --> 00:25:44,679 Speaker 1: there could be debased about that, but again it's not 480 00:25:44,720 --> 00:25:48,040 Speaker 1: clear to me that that was the Republican strategy thirty 481 00:25:48,119 --> 00:25:50,840 Speaker 1: or forty years ago. So it's uh, it's I think 482 00:25:50,880 --> 00:25:53,760 Speaker 1: it's certainly the case that that laws like this can 483 00:25:53,800 --> 00:25:58,040 Speaker 1: backfire in terms of any partisan intended effect. It might 484 00:25:58,119 --> 00:26:02,439 Speaker 1: have HR one before the People act. What does it 485 00:26:02,560 --> 00:26:05,520 Speaker 1: do and how would it solve some of these problems 486 00:26:05,600 --> 00:26:09,399 Speaker 1: in Georgia. Yeah, well, I mean nine hundred pages that 487 00:26:09,520 --> 00:26:11,920 Speaker 1: has a lot aboot. No, but some of the things 488 00:26:11,920 --> 00:26:15,199 Speaker 1: it does do you know, It does specifically require absentee 489 00:26:15,200 --> 00:26:18,000 Speaker 1: ballots to be mailed out in an extended period of time. 490 00:26:18,040 --> 00:26:21,000 Speaker 1: It provides for no excuse absintee ballots. It does have 491 00:26:21,040 --> 00:26:23,879 Speaker 1: a number of sort of floors that it puts in 492 00:26:23,960 --> 00:26:27,199 Speaker 1: place that would override the rules in Georgia or in 493 00:26:27,200 --> 00:26:30,159 Speaker 1: a number of states, both new rules like George's and 494 00:26:30,280 --> 00:26:31,879 Speaker 1: old rules that have been on the book for a 495 00:26:31,920 --> 00:26:35,800 Speaker 1: long time. Um. So it does sweep into it effectively 496 00:26:35,840 --> 00:26:39,000 Speaker 1: reverse most of the absentee ballot rules that are happening 497 00:26:39,000 --> 00:26:41,240 Speaker 1: here in Georgia. Um, so, in the event it did 498 00:26:41,320 --> 00:26:44,720 Speaker 1: become law, you would see sort of a very generous 499 00:26:44,760 --> 00:26:47,440 Speaker 1: absentee ballot sort of set of provisions that there's some 500 00:26:47,520 --> 00:26:51,520 Speaker 1: other things about early voting and um, you know, other 501 00:26:51,560 --> 00:26:53,760 Speaker 1: sorts of related rules. But I think when we're thinking 502 00:26:53,760 --> 00:26:58,600 Speaker 1: about absentee of that ballots, voter identification laws, the earliness 503 00:26:58,600 --> 00:27:01,560 Speaker 1: of sending out those ballots, and things like that, all 504 00:27:01,600 --> 00:27:03,240 Speaker 1: of those things are going to be swept up in 505 00:27:03,440 --> 00:27:05,400 Speaker 1: HR one in the event it were to become law 506 00:27:05,440 --> 00:27:09,880 Speaker 1: and effectively moot this now, I say moved that technically 507 00:27:10,080 --> 00:27:13,159 Speaker 1: HR one only applies for the most part of federal elections, 508 00:27:13,320 --> 00:27:17,640 Speaker 1: because congressional regulations of state elections are a little bit 509 00:27:17,760 --> 00:27:21,480 Speaker 1: dicier in terms of the authority and power to do so. 510 00:27:21,920 --> 00:27:24,680 Speaker 1: And so for the most part, states run their elections 511 00:27:24,720 --> 00:27:27,040 Speaker 1: like federal elections because they have both on the ballot. 512 00:27:27,119 --> 00:27:30,920 Speaker 1: But there's always the more remote possibility that Georgia, uh, 513 00:27:30,960 --> 00:27:33,639 Speaker 1: you know, would want to continue to to use some 514 00:27:33,720 --> 00:27:36,960 Speaker 1: of these rules for state elections and not for federal elections, 515 00:27:36,960 --> 00:27:40,480 Speaker 1: in which case we're back to the litigation side of things. 516 00:27:40,520 --> 00:27:43,119 Speaker 1: So across the country, there are about two or fifty 517 00:27:43,119 --> 00:27:47,120 Speaker 1: bills and forty three states. Has there been a time 518 00:27:47,200 --> 00:27:53,160 Speaker 1: before when Republicans have moved so quickly and so across 519 00:27:53,200 --> 00:27:59,159 Speaker 1: such a wide span to a restrict voting rights? You know, 520 00:27:59,280 --> 00:28:02,480 Speaker 1: I have to think historically about some of the analogs. Right. 521 00:28:02,520 --> 00:28:05,640 Speaker 1: There's no question that after two thousand, it's not just Florida, 522 00:28:05,720 --> 00:28:08,360 Speaker 1: but a number of states started to wonder, you know 523 00:28:08,400 --> 00:28:11,240 Speaker 1: about a voice, you know, what our our recount procedures 524 00:28:11,320 --> 00:28:14,399 Speaker 1: look like? Or or after the election, a number of 525 00:28:14,440 --> 00:28:19,120 Speaker 1: states moved to to enact statutes about requiring presidential candis 526 00:28:19,119 --> 00:28:22,119 Speaker 1: disclosed tax returns as a condition of appearing in the 527 00:28:22,160 --> 00:28:24,760 Speaker 1: valid and sort of response to Donald Trump. But again, 528 00:28:24,840 --> 00:28:27,840 Speaker 1: like the first the sort of a narrow class of cases, 529 00:28:27,920 --> 00:28:31,040 Speaker 1: the second is really targeted at one particular person. It 530 00:28:31,080 --> 00:28:32,960 Speaker 1: only became law in one state and even then was 531 00:28:33,000 --> 00:28:36,680 Speaker 1: struck down. Um. So, you know, and after every election, 532 00:28:36,800 --> 00:28:39,600 Speaker 1: I think every legislature wants to do something or make 533 00:28:39,680 --> 00:28:41,600 Speaker 1: some sort of tweak to the laws, and when it 534 00:28:41,600 --> 00:28:44,320 Speaker 1: comes to the elections. Um. But I think there's no 535 00:28:44,440 --> 00:28:47,280 Speaker 1: question that we're seeing sort of a wave. And it's 536 00:28:47,280 --> 00:28:49,560 Speaker 1: hard for me to stay it's unprecedented, but certainly nearly 537 00:28:49,640 --> 00:28:53,960 Speaker 1: unprecedented sort of a wave of regulations addressing the kinds 538 00:28:54,000 --> 00:28:57,840 Speaker 1: of concerns that Republicans or some Republicans, I should say, 539 00:28:57,920 --> 00:29:01,520 Speaker 1: especially supporters of Donald Trump. We're raising in December and 540 00:29:01,560 --> 00:29:05,160 Speaker 1: early January about the election. Um. And if that's the case, 541 00:29:05,320 --> 00:29:07,480 Speaker 1: you know, it is something that we haven't seen before, 542 00:29:07,640 --> 00:29:10,719 Speaker 1: especially in states where we think the election is. You know, 543 00:29:10,800 --> 00:29:13,360 Speaker 1: that there was no evidence of mouth seasons, no evidence 544 00:29:13,400 --> 00:29:17,600 Speaker 1: of widespread fraud, uh, you know, and for the most 545 00:29:17,600 --> 00:29:20,720 Speaker 1: part any problems were relatively isolated in nature. So seeing 546 00:29:20,760 --> 00:29:25,200 Speaker 1: a response to what has been mostly a smooth election 547 00:29:25,360 --> 00:29:29,400 Speaker 1: in is I think along line of the more unprecedented 548 00:29:29,440 --> 00:29:31,640 Speaker 1: things that we've seen. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg 549 00:29:31,720 --> 00:29:35,160 Speaker 1: Law Show, Derek. That's Professor Derek Muller of the University 550 00:29:35,160 --> 00:29:37,960 Speaker 1: of Iowa Law School. And that's it for the edition 551 00:29:38,000 --> 00:29:40,600 Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get 552 00:29:40,640 --> 00:29:43,440 Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You 553 00:29:43,480 --> 00:29:47,360 Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www 554 00:29:47,560 --> 00:29:52,200 Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grasso. 555 00:29:52,400 --> 00:29:54,720 Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and please tune into the 556 00:29:54,720 --> 00:29:57,520 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every week and attend PM thest Journal, 557 00:29:57,720 --> 00:30:00,720 Speaker 1: Right here on Bloomberg Radio