1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:02,920
Speaker 1: Three weeks ago, a federal court in Texas invalidated to

2
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:07,480
Speaker 1: Republican drawn congressional districts, saying they were unconstitutionally designed to

3
00:00:07,520 --> 00:00:11,440
Speaker 1: dilute the cloud of minority voters. But this week the U. S.

4
00:00:11,440 --> 00:00:15,840
Speaker 1: Supreme Court intervened. Splitting along ideological lines, the justices voted

5
00:00:15,880 --> 00:00:17,800
Speaker 1: five to four to put the lower court ruling on

6
00:00:17,880 --> 00:00:21,479
Speaker 1: hold and in all likelihood ensure that the disputed districts

7
00:00:21,480 --> 00:00:24,840
Speaker 1: will be used for the elections. The High Court issued

8
00:00:24,880 --> 00:00:27,600
Speaker 1: a similar order in a separate case over Texas state

9
00:00:27,680 --> 00:00:31,120
Speaker 1: legislative districts. The court didn't provide any explanation, but the

10
00:00:31,240 --> 00:00:34,680
Speaker 1: order is nonetheless alarm some voting rights advocates, underscoring the

11
00:00:34,680 --> 00:00:37,599
Speaker 1: power of the Supreme courts conservative majority as we head

12
00:00:37,640 --> 00:00:41,280
Speaker 1: toward next year's mid term elections. With us to talk

13
00:00:41,280 --> 00:00:44,199
Speaker 1: about all this is Richard Berfalt. He's a professor at

14
00:00:44,200 --> 00:00:47,640
Speaker 1: Columbia Law School, and Nate personally, who teaches at Stanford

15
00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:51,520
Speaker 1: Law School. Both are election law experts and regular guests

16
00:00:51,520 --> 00:00:56,600
Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Law. Um, Nate, this is really complicated litigation.

17
00:00:56,600 --> 00:00:59,560
Speaker 1: It's been up and down the court system. UM, let's

18
00:00:59,600 --> 00:01:02,600
Speaker 1: just try to start simply if we could with the

19
00:01:02,600 --> 00:01:05,840
Speaker 1: the issue with the congressional districts, can you tell me

20
00:01:05,880 --> 00:01:09,039
Speaker 1: what it was that the lower court found that was

21
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:12,840
Speaker 1: wrong with the way those districts were put together. So

22
00:01:12,959 --> 00:01:15,759
Speaker 1: in both of these cases, the question is whether the

23
00:01:15,840 --> 00:01:19,720
Speaker 1: state has either used race successively in the drawing of

24
00:01:19,760 --> 00:01:24,840
Speaker 1: these lines or diluted the votes of African Americans and Latinos,

25
00:01:24,880 --> 00:01:29,240
Speaker 1: either intentionally or in effect with Section two of the

26
00:01:29,280 --> 00:01:32,880
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act. And so here in the congressional districts,

27
00:01:32,920 --> 00:01:39,000
Speaker 1: which have by implication, these districts and every election that

28
00:01:39,080 --> 00:01:42,839
Speaker 1: has been run under them since two thousands have been

29
00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:48,840
Speaker 1: unconstitutional because race was you know, that they were dilutive

30
00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:52,919
Speaker 1: or intentionally discriminatory in the way that they constructed several

31
00:01:52,960 --> 00:01:56,000
Speaker 1: of these districts. And so the district court three judge

32
00:01:56,000 --> 00:01:58,680
Speaker 1: court wanted them to be redrawn. That's been stayed, and

33
00:01:58,720 --> 00:02:01,280
Speaker 1: as you said, it's we don't know whether than they'd

34
00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:03,280
Speaker 1: have have a chance to redraw them before the two

35
00:02:03,280 --> 00:02:06,840
Speaker 1: thousand and eighteen elections. Rich tell us what the various

36
00:02:07,000 --> 00:02:12,000
Speaker 1: arguments the state made to the Supreme Court. Well, the

37
00:02:12,040 --> 00:02:15,200
Speaker 1: most recent thing that the state was able to argue

38
00:02:15,240 --> 00:02:19,200
Speaker 1: with the unsuccessfully in the lower Court. Excuse me, was that,

39
00:02:19,400 --> 00:02:23,040
Speaker 1: um whatever, that these districts had been through the litigation

40
00:02:23,080 --> 00:02:26,080
Speaker 1: nell several times, that the most recent round because they

41
00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:29,920
Speaker 1: were adopted the most recent round reflected a certain interim

42
00:02:29,919 --> 00:02:32,600
Speaker 1: plans that were adopted by a court, and the legislature

43
00:02:32,680 --> 00:02:35,720
Speaker 1: essentially adopted the court's interim plans, So that would have

44
00:02:35,960 --> 00:02:38,560
Speaker 1: purged the taint that may have been put in from

45
00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:42,080
Speaker 1: the earlier plans which were found to be discriminatory. In addition,

46
00:02:42,120 --> 00:02:46,240
Speaker 1: I think the the state argues to the Supreme Court

47
00:02:46,639 --> 00:02:50,040
Speaker 1: that frankly they should be given time to uh. Any

48
00:02:50,280 --> 00:02:53,640
Speaker 1: interim remedies should be blocked UH, and that the that

49
00:02:53,760 --> 00:02:56,520
Speaker 1: the common plans should continue to be used pending a

50
00:02:56,600 --> 00:03:00,520
Speaker 1: full of discussion by the court. And what's the counter

51
00:03:00,600 --> 00:03:03,400
Speaker 1: to that argument by the state. So, if indeed these

52
00:03:03,440 --> 00:03:07,480
Speaker 1: disputed districts are basically just the same districts that UH

53
00:03:07,760 --> 00:03:11,040
Speaker 1: court had ordered as as an interim remedy a few

54
00:03:11,120 --> 00:03:15,639
Speaker 1: years ago, how could they not be acceptable now? Well,

55
00:03:15,639 --> 00:03:18,360
Speaker 1: this is a familiar argument and one that's actually playing

56
00:03:18,360 --> 00:03:21,720
Speaker 1: out with the Texas motor ide law as well. UH,

57
00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:25,400
Speaker 1: Because there was an intim sort of plan that the

58
00:03:25,440 --> 00:03:29,120
Speaker 1: court had accepted and then Nevertheless, they later found that

59
00:03:29,160 --> 00:03:33,760
Speaker 1: it was unconstitutional. And with these interim emergency remedies, the

60
00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:36,880
Speaker 1: argument is, well, uh, this is just what the court

61
00:03:36,920 --> 00:03:40,880
Speaker 1: adopts to have something in place for an election. Uh.

62
00:03:40,880 --> 00:03:44,480
Speaker 1: It is not saying that it's definitely legal or constitutional

63
00:03:45,120 --> 00:03:47,520
Speaker 1: that requires full litigation. But you you know the thing

64
00:03:47,600 --> 00:03:50,720
Speaker 1: about elections is you've got to have districts in place

65
00:03:50,880 --> 00:03:53,120
Speaker 1: in order to know who can run from where. And

66
00:03:53,160 --> 00:03:55,680
Speaker 1: so these were sort of emergency procedures to put in place,

67
00:03:55,720 --> 00:03:58,520
Speaker 1: but they hadn't sort of fully aired all the constitutional questions.

68
00:03:59,320 --> 00:04:04,960
Speaker 1: So rich the courts brief Tuesday order just just let

69
00:04:05,080 --> 00:04:08,200
Speaker 1: us know who is on which side of letting this

70
00:04:08,360 --> 00:04:12,720
Speaker 1: go forward. Do we have any reason to know how

71
00:04:12,760 --> 00:04:17,000
Speaker 1: the court desired or why they desired the way they did? Well,

72
00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:20,719
Speaker 1: the courts career said nothing. It just literally a stay. Uh.

73
00:04:20,760 --> 00:04:23,120
Speaker 1: And the justices who would have denied this day just

74
00:04:23,240 --> 00:04:25,600
Speaker 1: said they would have denied to stay. So there's no

75
00:04:26,040 --> 00:04:30,000
Speaker 1: substantive opinion either for the majority or for I'll call

76
00:04:30,080 --> 00:04:34,040
Speaker 1: them a descent although it's not technically a descent um.

77
00:04:34,080 --> 00:04:36,840
Speaker 1: So we don't really know what the reasoning is. Um.

78
00:04:36,880 --> 00:04:39,760
Speaker 1: If we don't know whether I mean, there's There's really

79
00:04:39,760 --> 00:04:43,080
Speaker 1: two big possibilities. One is that they disagree with the

80
00:04:43,120 --> 00:04:46,720
Speaker 1: lower courts reading of the evidence of the on on

81
00:04:46,880 --> 00:04:51,840
Speaker 1: the facts of intentional or official discrimination or the discriminatory impact.

82
00:04:52,240 --> 00:04:54,440
Speaker 1: That's a little hard because they court really has not

83
00:04:54,520 --> 00:04:57,080
Speaker 1: had much time to assess the evidence. Uh. The other

84
00:04:57,120 --> 00:04:59,920
Speaker 1: possibility is that it reflects the philosophy that's the jet

85
00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:03,200
Speaker 1: that uh, they would rather have the existing plans remain

86
00:05:03,279 --> 00:05:07,760
Speaker 1: in place, uh, pending full review. That because the Court

87
00:05:07,760 --> 00:05:10,080
Speaker 1: has traditionally allowed districting to be a matter haven up

88
00:05:10,120 --> 00:05:14,359
Speaker 1: by legislatures. Rather than having the lower court begin a

89
00:05:14,440 --> 00:05:17,960
Speaker 1: redistricting process, they would want to whole continue to use

90
00:05:18,040 --> 00:05:21,760
Speaker 1: the currently in valid maps, keep them in place while

91
00:05:21,800 --> 00:05:24,760
Speaker 1: the appeals process works its way through. Nate, let me

92
00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:28,200
Speaker 1: ask you the same question, to what extent can we

93
00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:32,159
Speaker 1: take this five to four vote as a reflection that

94
00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:36,120
Speaker 1: the of what the Supreme Court thinks about the merits

95
00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:39,919
Speaker 1: of the lower court ruling, Well, it means that five

96
00:05:39,960 --> 00:05:44,000
Speaker 1: of them at least are somewhat unsure as to whether

97
00:05:44,480 --> 00:05:47,240
Speaker 1: it should be codified immediately. I mean, that's that's all

98
00:05:47,240 --> 00:05:49,360
Speaker 1: we can sort of say. But I agree with Richard's

99
00:05:49,360 --> 00:05:51,839
Speaker 1: basic thing. But let's just abstract it out for a second,

100
00:05:51,839 --> 00:05:54,839
Speaker 1: which is that this these cases dealing with race and

101
00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:58,960
Speaker 1: redistricting are extremely naughty. In fact intensive We've had cases

102
00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:01,600
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court and last few years from Alabama,

103
00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:04,719
Speaker 1: North Carolina, and Virginia, all raising very similar issues to

104
00:06:04,760 --> 00:06:07,520
Speaker 1: what we see here. Um. And what what what you

105
00:06:07,560 --> 00:06:09,599
Speaker 1: see is that the jurisdictions field, they're put in a

106
00:06:09,640 --> 00:06:13,000
Speaker 1: box where they have to use race in order to

107
00:06:13,040 --> 00:06:14,840
Speaker 1: comply with the Voting Rights Act. But if they use

108
00:06:14,960 --> 00:06:18,080
Speaker 1: race too much, then it's going to violate the Constitution.

109
00:06:18,160 --> 00:06:20,800
Speaker 1: And in the background of all of this is the

110
00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:22,880
Speaker 1: part of an interest that are are the part of

111
00:06:22,920 --> 00:06:26,159
Speaker 1: an interest that are at stake because um, most of

112
00:06:26,200 --> 00:06:29,000
Speaker 1: these districts and these dilution claims are happening in the

113
00:06:29,040 --> 00:06:33,360
Speaker 1: context of partisan gerrymanders. We're talking about the Supreme Court

114
00:06:33,360 --> 00:06:38,039
Speaker 1: action this week reinstating to Republican drawing congressional districts that

115
00:06:38,120 --> 00:06:41,559
Speaker 1: had been ordered redrawn by a lower court. Our guests

116
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:44,440
Speaker 1: are Nate Personally of Stanford Law School, in Richard Brafault

117
00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:48,719
Speaker 1: of Columbia Law School, rich When this when this order

118
00:06:48,760 --> 00:06:50,920
Speaker 1: came out from the Supreme Court, are these orders two

119
00:06:51,000 --> 00:06:54,520
Speaker 1: of them in two separate cases. Um. I sensed a

120
00:06:54,520 --> 00:06:59,960
Speaker 1: lot of uh worrying on the left about the implications

121
00:07:00,160 --> 00:07:02,039
Speaker 1: of this, and it sort of went along the lines

122
00:07:02,080 --> 00:07:05,240
Speaker 1: of if you thought we had Anthony Kennedy, who's kind

123
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:06,920
Speaker 1: of the swing vote on the court and these issues,

124
00:07:07,240 --> 00:07:09,119
Speaker 1: if you thought we thought we had him on voting

125
00:07:09,200 --> 00:07:13,000
Speaker 1: rights issues, UM, this is evidence that we're mistaken. Do

126
00:07:13,040 --> 00:07:15,760
Speaker 1: you think that concern is warranted in light of what

127
00:07:15,800 --> 00:07:18,840
Speaker 1: the court did this week? Well, that's hard to answer.

128
00:07:19,080 --> 00:07:23,200
Speaker 1: These are stays of a lower court decisions. It's not

129
00:07:23,560 --> 00:07:26,040
Speaker 1: happy news. I mean short, he did go along with

130
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:30,040
Speaker 1: the stays, but I think the rulings on stays like

131
00:07:30,200 --> 00:07:34,120
Speaker 1: this or just not quite enough, uh to hang your

132
00:07:34,120 --> 00:07:36,720
Speaker 1: hat on or to be to be fully depressed. On

133
00:07:36,800 --> 00:07:39,360
Speaker 1: the other hand, it is more negative than a positive

134
00:07:39,400 --> 00:07:41,920
Speaker 1: sign that it's the sign of anything. Nate, I want

135
00:07:41,920 --> 00:07:44,440
Speaker 1: to go back forward to UH for a moment to

136
00:07:44,720 --> 00:07:47,120
Speaker 1: what the state was arguing that. You know, it was

137
00:07:47,160 --> 00:07:50,400
Speaker 1: such a short time for them to go redraw the maps.

138
00:07:50,600 --> 00:07:54,600
Speaker 1: You've drawn legislative maps and been involved in that. Would

139
00:07:54,640 --> 00:07:57,680
Speaker 1: it have been too difficult for them to redraw these

140
00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:01,080
Speaker 1: maps before the midterm elections? Know they can draw them

141
00:08:01,160 --> 00:08:03,800
Speaker 1: right now. It would take really a day to do it.

142
00:08:03,840 --> 00:08:06,360
Speaker 1: I mean the actual process of drawing it to remedy

143
00:08:06,400 --> 00:08:09,920
Speaker 1: these constitutional problems, because it's not the whole plan, it's

144
00:08:09,960 --> 00:08:12,360
Speaker 1: just a few districts. And then frankly, there have always

145
00:08:12,440 --> 00:08:15,080
Speaker 1: already been proposed remedial maps. It would just be up

146
00:08:15,120 --> 00:08:18,840
Speaker 1: to the court to decide on them. Right now. I mean,

147
00:08:18,960 --> 00:08:22,200
Speaker 1: what's happened, and this is what always happens to rediscing litigation,

148
00:08:22,440 --> 00:08:25,200
Speaker 1: is that the state is trying to just have more

149
00:08:25,200 --> 00:08:28,160
Speaker 1: and more process so it gets closer and closer to

150
00:08:28,200 --> 00:08:30,880
Speaker 1: the two thousand eighteen elections, so that then it will

151
00:08:30,920 --> 00:08:34,400
Speaker 1: be impossible to redraw the maps. And so the consequence

152
00:08:34,440 --> 00:08:36,680
Speaker 1: of this is that the primaries I believe are for

153
00:08:36,760 --> 00:08:40,680
Speaker 1: the Congress Congression elections in Texas are March two, eighteen.

154
00:08:40,960 --> 00:08:43,959
Speaker 1: If the Supreme Court order is full hearing on this UH,

155
00:08:44,000 --> 00:08:47,440
Speaker 1: they will probably consider whether to grant hearing UH in

156
00:08:47,520 --> 00:08:51,400
Speaker 1: November or how to resolve the case, and then UH

157
00:08:51,520 --> 00:08:54,560
Speaker 1: a decision is likely to come after those primary elections,

158
00:08:54,600 --> 00:08:57,199
Speaker 1: and so then it may very well be too late.

159
00:08:57,240 --> 00:09:00,280
Speaker 1: I mean, you could redraw the elections and rerun primary actions.

160
00:09:00,280 --> 00:09:03,600
Speaker 1: That's happened before, but more likely they'll let them go

161
00:09:03,640 --> 00:09:06,760
Speaker 1: into place for yet one more election. Rich. One of

162
00:09:06,760 --> 00:09:08,800
Speaker 1: the arguments the voting rights side made in this case

163
00:09:09,040 --> 00:09:12,960
Speaker 1: was this lower court order is not a final one.

164
00:09:13,360 --> 00:09:16,880
Speaker 1: It's not a final judgment until they order a new

165
00:09:17,160 --> 00:09:20,079
Speaker 1: new map. Uh. In light of that argument, is it's

166
00:09:20,120 --> 00:09:22,480
Speaker 1: surprising to you that the Supreme Court chose to jump

167
00:09:22,520 --> 00:09:26,240
Speaker 1: in now as opposed to waiting again, It's it's hard

168
00:09:26,280 --> 00:09:29,040
Speaker 1: to say. I mean the court there is a feeling,

169
00:09:29,679 --> 00:09:33,720
Speaker 1: as Nate indicates, by jumping in now, they've effectively barred

170
00:09:33,760 --> 00:09:37,160
Speaker 1: any remedy off if if the Court will conclude that

171
00:09:37,280 --> 00:09:39,480
Speaker 1: these plans were either run, consumual and violent of voting

172
00:09:39,559 --> 00:09:42,320
Speaker 1: right sec, they've effectively barred any remedy for another couple

173
00:09:42,360 --> 00:09:45,160
Speaker 1: of years. So you do wonder what ex On the

174
00:09:45,160 --> 00:09:48,120
Speaker 1: one hand, there was the argument for not for allowing

175
00:09:48,120 --> 00:09:50,880
Speaker 1: a full review before forcing a repidy. But you do

176
00:09:51,000 --> 00:09:55,000
Speaker 1: wonder whether to what extent the Court may have at

177
00:09:55,080 --> 00:09:58,840
Speaker 1: least tendatively preach to the ultimate decision. And Nate, as

178
00:09:58,920 --> 00:10:02,800
Speaker 1: far as the question of whether this is a bad

179
00:10:02,920 --> 00:10:07,840
Speaker 1: sign for voting discrimination cases in the future, do you

180
00:10:07,880 --> 00:10:09,760
Speaker 1: see it, Do you see it as a bad sign

181
00:10:09,800 --> 00:10:12,840
Speaker 1: or any sign? Well, I think sort of the area

182
00:10:12,920 --> 00:10:15,760
Speaker 1: of race and redistricting right now is sort of characterized

183
00:10:15,760 --> 00:10:18,640
Speaker 1: by chaos, which is that the rules are in flux

184
00:10:18,800 --> 00:10:22,560
Speaker 1: and jurisdictions don't have clear direction and they're afraid they're

185
00:10:22,559 --> 00:10:24,760
Speaker 1: going to get sued. No matter what. I think, it

186
00:10:24,880 --> 00:10:27,680
Speaker 1: is possible that the Court here, by just preserving the

187
00:10:27,760 --> 00:10:31,640
Speaker 1: status quo, is saying, look, we want to uh deal

188
00:10:31,720 --> 00:10:34,199
Speaker 1: with the array of cases that are coming before us.

189
00:10:34,520 --> 00:10:38,520
Speaker 1: Most significant one is the Wisconsin partisan jurymandering case that

190
00:10:38,520 --> 00:10:41,280
Speaker 1: they're gonna hear this year. UH. And if they have

191
00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:44,520
Speaker 1: a kind of pro voting rights opinion there, that will

192
00:10:44,559 --> 00:10:47,520
Speaker 1: throw not only this case but all cases dealing with

193
00:10:47,600 --> 00:10:51,920
Speaker 1: partisanship and redistricting the race into flux, and so that

194
00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:55,199
Speaker 1: then the courts maybe redrawing a lot of planned rich

195
00:10:55,240 --> 00:10:58,760
Speaker 1: One issue that is lurking is in various cases. I'm

196
00:10:58,760 --> 00:11:00,880
Speaker 1: actually not sure if it's in this one, but the

197
00:11:00,679 --> 00:11:04,640
Speaker 1: the the notion of putting Texas back under a preclearance

198
00:11:04,960 --> 00:11:06,800
Speaker 1: regime where they would have to get approval from the

199
00:11:06,800 --> 00:11:09,600
Speaker 1: federal government, either the Justice Department or a court UH

200
00:11:09,720 --> 00:11:13,160
Speaker 1: to change their voting rules. Um, what's the status of

201
00:11:13,200 --> 00:11:15,320
Speaker 1: that effort and does does what happened this week have

202
00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:18,400
Speaker 1: any effect on it. Well, it certainly does, so as

203
00:11:18,440 --> 00:11:21,080
Speaker 1: you as you, as your question indicates. As we all know,

204
00:11:21,160 --> 00:11:24,400
Speaker 1: there was a time when Texas with subject to preclearancidus

205
00:11:24,440 --> 00:11:27,119
Speaker 1: to say, any changes in its voting practices or procedures,

206
00:11:27,400 --> 00:11:31,000
Speaker 1: including its mass, would require Justice Department approval before they

207
00:11:31,000 --> 00:11:34,720
Speaker 1: could take effect. The Supreme Court decision in Shelby County

208
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:37,719
Speaker 1: eliminated that requirement. But there is a provision of the

209
00:11:37,760 --> 00:11:39,600
Speaker 1: Voting Right sex hasn't been used that much. It has

210
00:11:39,600 --> 00:11:41,640
Speaker 1: been used sometimes, and not a lot, called the so

211
00:11:41,760 --> 00:11:44,680
Speaker 1: called bail in provision, that says that a court could

212
00:11:44,720 --> 00:11:49,480
Speaker 1: decide that if a jurisdiction commits serious and repeated Voting

213
00:11:49,559 --> 00:11:53,520
Speaker 1: Rights Act violations, the court would create a preclearance requirement

214
00:11:53,840 --> 00:11:57,240
Speaker 1: for future legal changes in that jurisdiction or some were

215
00:11:57,320 --> 00:12:00,520
Speaker 1: all potentially a voting right voting a change in that

216
00:12:00,600 --> 00:12:03,960
Speaker 1: jurisdiction going forward. Texas has now had to at least

217
00:12:04,000 --> 00:12:07,880
Speaker 1: two different sets of litigations where there has been, these

218
00:12:07,920 --> 00:12:11,280
Speaker 1: involving the redistricting maps and also another one involving their

219
00:12:11,320 --> 00:12:15,320
Speaker 1: voter I D Law, in which courts have found intentional discrimination.

220
00:12:15,360 --> 00:12:17,120
Speaker 1: So rich, I'm afraid we're gonna have to We're gonna

221
00:12:17,120 --> 00:12:18,880
Speaker 1: have to leave it there. I want to thank Richard

222
00:12:18,840 --> 00:12:20,800
Speaker 1: Brafault and Nate personally for talking to us about the

223
00:12:20,800 --> 00:12:24,040
Speaker 1: Supreme Courts action this week on voting districts in Texas