WEBVTT - Court Reinstates Controversial Texas Voting Districts (Audio)

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:02.920
<v Speaker 1>Three weeks ago, a federal court in Texas invalidated to

0:00:03.120 --> 0:00:07.480
<v Speaker 1>Republican drawn congressional districts, saying they were unconstitutionally designed to

0:00:07.520 --> 0:00:11.440
<v Speaker 1>dilute the cloud of minority voters. But this week the U. S.

0:00:11.440 --> 0:00:15.840
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court intervened. Splitting along ideological lines, the justices voted

0:00:15.880 --> 0:00:17.800
<v Speaker 1>five to four to put the lower court ruling on

0:00:17.880 --> 0:00:21.479
<v Speaker 1>hold and in all likelihood ensure that the disputed districts

0:00:21.480 --> 0:00:24.840
<v Speaker 1>will be used for the elections. The High Court issued

0:00:24.880 --> 0:00:27.600
<v Speaker 1>a similar order in a separate case over Texas state

0:00:27.680 --> 0:00:31.120
<v Speaker 1>legislative districts. The court didn't provide any explanation, but the

0:00:31.240 --> 0:00:34.680
<v Speaker 1>order is nonetheless alarm some voting rights advocates, underscoring the

0:00:34.680 --> 0:00:37.599
<v Speaker 1>power of the Supreme courts conservative majority as we head

0:00:37.640 --> 0:00:41.280
<v Speaker 1>toward next year's mid term elections. With us to talk

0:00:41.280 --> 0:00:44.199
<v Speaker 1>about all this is Richard Berfalt. He's a professor at

0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:47.640
<v Speaker 1>Columbia Law School, and Nate personally, who teaches at Stanford

0:00:47.680 --> 0:00:51.520
<v Speaker 1>Law School. Both are election law experts and regular guests

0:00:51.520 --> 0:00:56.600
<v Speaker 1>here on Bloomberg Law. Um, Nate, this is really complicated litigation.

0:00:56.600 --> 0:00:59.560
<v Speaker 1>It's been up and down the court system. UM, let's

0:00:59.600 --> 0:01:02.600
<v Speaker 1>just try to start simply if we could with the

0:01:02.600 --> 0:01:05.840
<v Speaker 1>the issue with the congressional districts, can you tell me

0:01:05.880 --> 0:01:09.039
<v Speaker 1>what it was that the lower court found that was

0:01:09.080 --> 0:01:12.840
<v Speaker 1>wrong with the way those districts were put together. So

0:01:12.959 --> 0:01:15.759
<v Speaker 1>in both of these cases, the question is whether the

0:01:15.840 --> 0:01:19.720
<v Speaker 1>state has either used race successively in the drawing of

0:01:19.760 --> 0:01:24.840
<v Speaker 1>these lines or diluted the votes of African Americans and Latinos,

0:01:24.880 --> 0:01:29.240
<v Speaker 1>either intentionally or in effect with Section two of the

0:01:29.280 --> 0:01:32.880
<v Speaker 1>Voting Rights Act. And so here in the congressional districts,

0:01:32.920 --> 0:01:39.000
<v Speaker 1>which have by implication, these districts and every election that

0:01:39.080 --> 0:01:42.839
<v Speaker 1>has been run under them since two thousands have been

0:01:43.600 --> 0:01:48.840
<v Speaker 1>unconstitutional because race was you know, that they were dilutive

0:01:49.000 --> 0:01:52.919
<v Speaker 1>or intentionally discriminatory in the way that they constructed several

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:56.000
<v Speaker 1>of these districts. And so the district court three judge

0:01:56.000 --> 0:01:58.680
<v Speaker 1>court wanted them to be redrawn. That's been stayed, and

0:01:58.720 --> 0:02:01.280
<v Speaker 1>as you said, it's we don't know whether than they'd

0:02:01.440 --> 0:02:03.280
<v Speaker 1>have have a chance to redraw them before the two

0:02:03.280 --> 0:02:06.840
<v Speaker 1>thousand and eighteen elections. Rich tell us what the various

0:02:07.000 --> 0:02:12.000
<v Speaker 1>arguments the state made to the Supreme Court. Well, the

0:02:12.040 --> 0:02:15.200
<v Speaker 1>most recent thing that the state was able to argue

0:02:15.240 --> 0:02:19.200
<v Speaker 1>with the unsuccessfully in the lower Court. Excuse me, was that,

0:02:19.400 --> 0:02:23.040
<v Speaker 1>um whatever, that these districts had been through the litigation

0:02:23.080 --> 0:02:26.080
<v Speaker 1>nell several times, that the most recent round because they

0:02:26.080 --> 0:02:29.920
<v Speaker 1>were adopted the most recent round reflected a certain interim

0:02:29.919 --> 0:02:32.600
<v Speaker 1>plans that were adopted by a court, and the legislature

0:02:32.680 --> 0:02:35.720
<v Speaker 1>essentially adopted the court's interim plans, So that would have

0:02:35.960 --> 0:02:38.560
<v Speaker 1>purged the taint that may have been put in from

0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:42.080
<v Speaker 1>the earlier plans which were found to be discriminatory. In addition,

0:02:42.120 --> 0:02:46.240
<v Speaker 1>I think the the state argues to the Supreme Court

0:02:46.639 --> 0:02:50.040
<v Speaker 1>that frankly they should be given time to uh. Any

0:02:50.280 --> 0:02:53.640
<v Speaker 1>interim remedies should be blocked UH, and that the that

0:02:53.760 --> 0:02:56.520
<v Speaker 1>the common plans should continue to be used pending a

0:02:56.600 --> 0:03:00.520
<v Speaker 1>full of discussion by the court. And what's the counter

0:03:00.600 --> 0:03:03.400
<v Speaker 1>to that argument by the state. So, if indeed these

0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:07.480
<v Speaker 1>disputed districts are basically just the same districts that UH

0:03:07.760 --> 0:03:11.040
<v Speaker 1>court had ordered as as an interim remedy a few

0:03:11.120 --> 0:03:15.639
<v Speaker 1>years ago, how could they not be acceptable now? Well,

0:03:15.639 --> 0:03:18.360
<v Speaker 1>this is a familiar argument and one that's actually playing

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:21.720
<v Speaker 1>out with the Texas motor ide law as well. UH,

0:03:22.120 --> 0:03:25.400
<v Speaker 1>Because there was an intim sort of plan that the

0:03:25.440 --> 0:03:29.120
<v Speaker 1>court had accepted and then Nevertheless, they later found that

0:03:29.160 --> 0:03:33.760
<v Speaker 1>it was unconstitutional. And with these interim emergency remedies, the

0:03:33.880 --> 0:03:36.880
<v Speaker 1>argument is, well, uh, this is just what the court

0:03:36.920 --> 0:03:40.880
<v Speaker 1>adopts to have something in place for an election. Uh.

0:03:40.880 --> 0:03:44.480
<v Speaker 1>It is not saying that it's definitely legal or constitutional

0:03:45.120 --> 0:03:47.520
<v Speaker 1>that requires full litigation. But you you know the thing

0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:50.720
<v Speaker 1>about elections is you've got to have districts in place

0:03:50.880 --> 0:03:53.120
<v Speaker 1>in order to know who can run from where. And

0:03:53.160 --> 0:03:55.680
<v Speaker 1>so these were sort of emergency procedures to put in place,

0:03:55.720 --> 0:03:58.520
<v Speaker 1>but they hadn't sort of fully aired all the constitutional questions.

0:03:59.320 --> 0:04:04.960
<v Speaker 1>So rich the courts brief Tuesday order just just let

0:04:05.080 --> 0:04:08.200
<v Speaker 1>us know who is on which side of letting this

0:04:08.360 --> 0:04:12.720
<v Speaker 1>go forward. Do we have any reason to know how

0:04:12.760 --> 0:04:17.000
<v Speaker 1>the court desired or why they desired the way they did? Well,

0:04:17.080 --> 0:04:20.719
<v Speaker 1>the courts career said nothing. It just literally a stay. Uh.

0:04:20.760 --> 0:04:23.120
<v Speaker 1>And the justices who would have denied this day just

0:04:23.240 --> 0:04:25.600
<v Speaker 1>said they would have denied to stay. So there's no

0:04:26.040 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 1>substantive opinion either for the majority or for I'll call

0:04:30.080 --> 0:04:34.040
<v Speaker 1>them a descent although it's not technically a descent um.

0:04:34.080 --> 0:04:36.840
<v Speaker 1>So we don't really know what the reasoning is. Um.

0:04:36.880 --> 0:04:39.760
<v Speaker 1>If we don't know whether I mean, there's There's really

0:04:39.760 --> 0:04:43.080
<v Speaker 1>two big possibilities. One is that they disagree with the

0:04:43.120 --> 0:04:46.720
<v Speaker 1>lower courts reading of the evidence of the on on

0:04:46.880 --> 0:04:51.840
<v Speaker 1>the facts of intentional or official discrimination or the discriminatory impact.

0:04:52.240 --> 0:04:54.440
<v Speaker 1>That's a little hard because they court really has not

0:04:54.520 --> 0:04:57.080
<v Speaker 1>had much time to assess the evidence. Uh. The other

0:04:57.120 --> 0:04:59.920
<v Speaker 1>possibility is that it reflects the philosophy that's the jet

0:05:00.160 --> 0:05:03.200
<v Speaker 1>that uh, they would rather have the existing plans remain

0:05:03.279 --> 0:05:07.760
<v Speaker 1>in place, uh, pending full review. That because the Court

0:05:07.760 --> 0:05:10.080
<v Speaker 1>has traditionally allowed districting to be a matter haven up

0:05:10.120 --> 0:05:14.359
<v Speaker 1>by legislatures. Rather than having the lower court begin a

0:05:14.440 --> 0:05:17.960
<v Speaker 1>redistricting process, they would want to whole continue to use

0:05:18.040 --> 0:05:21.760
<v Speaker 1>the currently in valid maps, keep them in place while

0:05:21.800 --> 0:05:24.760
<v Speaker 1>the appeals process works its way through. Nate, let me

0:05:24.800 --> 0:05:28.200
<v Speaker 1>ask you the same question, to what extent can we

0:05:28.320 --> 0:05:32.159
<v Speaker 1>take this five to four vote as a reflection that

0:05:32.400 --> 0:05:36.120
<v Speaker 1>the of what the Supreme Court thinks about the merits

0:05:36.160 --> 0:05:39.919
<v Speaker 1>of the lower court ruling, Well, it means that five

0:05:39.960 --> 0:05:44.000
<v Speaker 1>of them at least are somewhat unsure as to whether

0:05:44.480 --> 0:05:47.240
<v Speaker 1>it should be codified immediately. I mean, that's that's all

0:05:47.240 --> 0:05:49.360
<v Speaker 1>we can sort of say. But I agree with Richard's

0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:51.839
<v Speaker 1>basic thing. But let's just abstract it out for a second,

0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:54.839
<v Speaker 1>which is that this these cases dealing with race and

0:05:54.880 --> 0:05:58.960
<v Speaker 1>redistricting are extremely naughty. In fact intensive We've had cases

0:05:59.000 --> 0:06:01.600
<v Speaker 1>of the Supreme Court and last few years from Alabama,

0:06:01.680 --> 0:06:04.719
<v Speaker 1>North Carolina, and Virginia, all raising very similar issues to

0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:07.520
<v Speaker 1>what we see here. Um. And what what what you

0:06:07.560 --> 0:06:09.599
<v Speaker 1>see is that the jurisdictions field, they're put in a

0:06:09.640 --> 0:06:13.000
<v Speaker 1>box where they have to use race in order to

0:06:13.040 --> 0:06:14.840
<v Speaker 1>comply with the Voting Rights Act. But if they use

0:06:14.960 --> 0:06:18.080
<v Speaker 1>race too much, then it's going to violate the Constitution.

0:06:18.160 --> 0:06:20.800
<v Speaker 1>And in the background of all of this is the

0:06:20.880 --> 0:06:22.880
<v Speaker 1>part of an interest that are are the part of

0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:26.159
<v Speaker 1>an interest that are at stake because um, most of

0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:29.000
<v Speaker 1>these districts and these dilution claims are happening in the

0:06:29.040 --> 0:06:33.360
<v Speaker 1>context of partisan gerrymanders. We're talking about the Supreme Court

0:06:33.360 --> 0:06:38.039
<v Speaker 1>action this week reinstating to Republican drawing congressional districts that

0:06:38.120 --> 0:06:41.559
<v Speaker 1>had been ordered redrawn by a lower court. Our guests

0:06:41.600 --> 0:06:44.440
<v Speaker 1>are Nate Personally of Stanford Law School, in Richard Brafault

0:06:44.560 --> 0:06:48.719
<v Speaker 1>of Columbia Law School, rich When this when this order

0:06:48.760 --> 0:06:50.920
<v Speaker 1>came out from the Supreme Court, are these orders two

0:06:51.000 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 1>of them in two separate cases. Um. I sensed a

0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:59.960
<v Speaker 1>lot of uh worrying on the left about the implications

0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:02.039
<v Speaker 1>of this, and it sort of went along the lines

0:07:02.080 --> 0:07:05.240
<v Speaker 1>of if you thought we had Anthony Kennedy, who's kind

0:07:05.240 --> 0:07:06.920
<v Speaker 1>of the swing vote on the court and these issues,

0:07:07.240 --> 0:07:09.119
<v Speaker 1>if you thought we thought we had him on voting

0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:13.000
<v Speaker 1>rights issues, UM, this is evidence that we're mistaken. Do

0:07:13.040 --> 0:07:15.760
<v Speaker 1>you think that concern is warranted in light of what

0:07:15.800 --> 0:07:18.840
<v Speaker 1>the court did this week? Well, that's hard to answer.

0:07:19.080 --> 0:07:23.200
<v Speaker 1>These are stays of a lower court decisions. It's not

0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:26.040
<v Speaker 1>happy news. I mean short, he did go along with

0:07:26.120 --> 0:07:30.040
<v Speaker 1>the stays, but I think the rulings on stays like

0:07:30.200 --> 0:07:34.120
<v Speaker 1>this or just not quite enough, uh to hang your

0:07:34.120 --> 0:07:36.720
<v Speaker 1>hat on or to be to be fully depressed. On

0:07:36.800 --> 0:07:39.360
<v Speaker 1>the other hand, it is more negative than a positive

0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:41.920
<v Speaker 1>sign that it's the sign of anything. Nate, I want

0:07:41.920 --> 0:07:44.440
<v Speaker 1>to go back forward to UH for a moment to

0:07:44.720 --> 0:07:47.120
<v Speaker 1>what the state was arguing that. You know, it was

0:07:47.160 --> 0:07:50.400
<v Speaker 1>such a short time for them to go redraw the maps.

0:07:50.600 --> 0:07:54.600
<v Speaker 1>You've drawn legislative maps and been involved in that. Would

0:07:54.640 --> 0:07:57.680
<v Speaker 1>it have been too difficult for them to redraw these

0:07:57.720 --> 0:08:01.080
<v Speaker 1>maps before the midterm elections? Know they can draw them

0:08:01.160 --> 0:08:03.800
<v Speaker 1>right now. It would take really a day to do it.

0:08:03.840 --> 0:08:06.360
<v Speaker 1>I mean the actual process of drawing it to remedy

0:08:06.400 --> 0:08:09.920
<v Speaker 1>these constitutional problems, because it's not the whole plan, it's

0:08:09.960 --> 0:08:12.360
<v Speaker 1>just a few districts. And then frankly, there have always

0:08:12.440 --> 0:08:15.080
<v Speaker 1>already been proposed remedial maps. It would just be up

0:08:15.120 --> 0:08:18.840
<v Speaker 1>to the court to decide on them. Right now. I mean,

0:08:18.960 --> 0:08:22.200
<v Speaker 1>what's happened, and this is what always happens to rediscing litigation,

0:08:22.440 --> 0:08:25.200
<v Speaker 1>is that the state is trying to just have more

0:08:25.200 --> 0:08:28.160
<v Speaker 1>and more process so it gets closer and closer to

0:08:28.200 --> 0:08:30.880
<v Speaker 1>the two thousand eighteen elections, so that then it will

0:08:30.920 --> 0:08:34.400
<v Speaker 1>be impossible to redraw the maps. And so the consequence

0:08:34.440 --> 0:08:36.680
<v Speaker 1>of this is that the primaries I believe are for

0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:40.680
<v Speaker 1>the Congress Congression elections in Texas are March two, eighteen.

0:08:40.960 --> 0:08:43.959
<v Speaker 1>If the Supreme Court order is full hearing on this UH,

0:08:44.000 --> 0:08:47.440
<v Speaker 1>they will probably consider whether to grant hearing UH in

0:08:47.520 --> 0:08:51.400
<v Speaker 1>November or how to resolve the case, and then UH

0:08:51.520 --> 0:08:54.560
<v Speaker 1>a decision is likely to come after those primary elections,

0:08:54.600 --> 0:08:57.199
<v Speaker 1>and so then it may very well be too late.

0:08:57.240 --> 0:09:00.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you could redraw the elections and rerun primary actions.

0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:03.600
<v Speaker 1>That's happened before, but more likely they'll let them go

0:09:03.640 --> 0:09:06.760
<v Speaker 1>into place for yet one more election. Rich. One of

0:09:06.760 --> 0:09:08.800
<v Speaker 1>the arguments the voting rights side made in this case

0:09:09.040 --> 0:09:12.960
<v Speaker 1>was this lower court order is not a final one.

0:09:13.360 --> 0:09:16.880
<v Speaker 1>It's not a final judgment until they order a new

0:09:17.160 --> 0:09:20.079
<v Speaker 1>new map. Uh. In light of that argument, is it's

0:09:20.120 --> 0:09:22.480
<v Speaker 1>surprising to you that the Supreme Court chose to jump

0:09:22.520 --> 0:09:26.240
<v Speaker 1>in now as opposed to waiting again, It's it's hard

0:09:26.280 --> 0:09:29.040
<v Speaker 1>to say. I mean the court there is a feeling,

0:09:29.679 --> 0:09:33.720
<v Speaker 1>as Nate indicates, by jumping in now, they've effectively barred

0:09:33.760 --> 0:09:37.160
<v Speaker 1>any remedy off if if the Court will conclude that

0:09:37.280 --> 0:09:39.480
<v Speaker 1>these plans were either run, consumual and violent of voting

0:09:39.559 --> 0:09:42.320
<v Speaker 1>right sec, they've effectively barred any remedy for another couple

0:09:42.360 --> 0:09:45.160
<v Speaker 1>of years. So you do wonder what ex On the

0:09:45.160 --> 0:09:48.120
<v Speaker 1>one hand, there was the argument for not for allowing

0:09:48.120 --> 0:09:50.880
<v Speaker 1>a full review before forcing a repidy. But you do

0:09:51.000 --> 0:09:55.000
<v Speaker 1>wonder whether to what extent the Court may have at

0:09:55.080 --> 0:09:58.840
<v Speaker 1>least tendatively preach to the ultimate decision. And Nate, as

0:09:58.920 --> 0:10:02.800
<v Speaker 1>far as the question of whether this is a bad

0:10:02.920 --> 0:10:07.840
<v Speaker 1>sign for voting discrimination cases in the future, do you

0:10:07.880 --> 0:10:09.760
<v Speaker 1>see it, Do you see it as a bad sign

0:10:09.800 --> 0:10:12.840
<v Speaker 1>or any sign? Well, I think sort of the area

0:10:12.920 --> 0:10:15.760
<v Speaker 1>of race and redistricting right now is sort of characterized

0:10:15.760 --> 0:10:18.640
<v Speaker 1>by chaos, which is that the rules are in flux

0:10:18.800 --> 0:10:22.560
<v Speaker 1>and jurisdictions don't have clear direction and they're afraid they're

0:10:22.559 --> 0:10:24.760
<v Speaker 1>going to get sued. No matter what. I think, it

0:10:24.880 --> 0:10:27.680
<v Speaker 1>is possible that the Court here, by just preserving the

0:10:27.760 --> 0:10:31.640
<v Speaker 1>status quo, is saying, look, we want to uh deal

0:10:31.720 --> 0:10:34.199
<v Speaker 1>with the array of cases that are coming before us.

0:10:34.520 --> 0:10:38.520
<v Speaker 1>Most significant one is the Wisconsin partisan jurymandering case that

0:10:38.520 --> 0:10:41.280
<v Speaker 1>they're gonna hear this year. UH. And if they have

0:10:41.480 --> 0:10:44.520
<v Speaker 1>a kind of pro voting rights opinion there, that will

0:10:44.559 --> 0:10:47.520
<v Speaker 1>throw not only this case but all cases dealing with

0:10:47.600 --> 0:10:51.920
<v Speaker 1>partisanship and redistricting the race into flux, and so that

0:10:51.960 --> 0:10:55.199
<v Speaker 1>then the courts maybe redrawing a lot of planned rich

0:10:55.240 --> 0:10:58.760
<v Speaker 1>One issue that is lurking is in various cases. I'm

0:10:58.760 --> 0:11:00.880
<v Speaker 1>actually not sure if it's in this one, but the

0:11:00.679 --> 0:11:04.640
<v Speaker 1>the the notion of putting Texas back under a preclearance

0:11:04.960 --> 0:11:06.800
<v Speaker 1>regime where they would have to get approval from the

0:11:06.800 --> 0:11:09.600
<v Speaker 1>federal government, either the Justice Department or a court UH

0:11:09.720 --> 0:11:13.160
<v Speaker 1>to change their voting rules. Um, what's the status of

0:11:13.200 --> 0:11:15.320
<v Speaker 1>that effort and does does what happened this week have

0:11:15.360 --> 0:11:18.400
<v Speaker 1>any effect on it. Well, it certainly does, so as

0:11:18.440 --> 0:11:21.080
<v Speaker 1>you as you, as your question indicates. As we all know,

0:11:21.160 --> 0:11:24.400
<v Speaker 1>there was a time when Texas with subject to preclearancidus

0:11:24.440 --> 0:11:27.119
<v Speaker 1>to say, any changes in its voting practices or procedures,

0:11:27.400 --> 0:11:31.000
<v Speaker 1>including its mass, would require Justice Department approval before they

0:11:31.000 --> 0:11:34.720
<v Speaker 1>could take effect. The Supreme Court decision in Shelby County

0:11:35.280 --> 0:11:37.719
<v Speaker 1>eliminated that requirement. But there is a provision of the

0:11:37.760 --> 0:11:39.600
<v Speaker 1>Voting Right sex hasn't been used that much. It has

0:11:39.600 --> 0:11:41.640
<v Speaker 1>been used sometimes, and not a lot, called the so

0:11:41.760 --> 0:11:44.680
<v Speaker 1>called bail in provision, that says that a court could

0:11:44.720 --> 0:11:49.480
<v Speaker 1>decide that if a jurisdiction commits serious and repeated Voting

0:11:49.559 --> 0:11:53.520
<v Speaker 1>Rights Act violations, the court would create a preclearance requirement

0:11:53.840 --> 0:11:57.240
<v Speaker 1>for future legal changes in that jurisdiction or some were

0:11:57.320 --> 0:12:00.520
<v Speaker 1>all potentially a voting right voting a change in that

0:12:00.600 --> 0:12:03.960
<v Speaker 1>jurisdiction going forward. Texas has now had to at least

0:12:04.000 --> 0:12:07.880
<v Speaker 1>two different sets of litigations where there has been, these

0:12:07.920 --> 0:12:11.280
<v Speaker 1>involving the redistricting maps and also another one involving their

0:12:11.320 --> 0:12:15.320
<v Speaker 1>voter I D Law, in which courts have found intentional discrimination.

0:12:15.360 --> 0:12:17.120
<v Speaker 1>So rich, I'm afraid we're gonna have to We're gonna

0:12:17.120 --> 0:12:18.880
<v Speaker 1>have to leave it there. I want to thank Richard

0:12:18.840 --> 0:12:20.800
<v Speaker 1>Brafault and Nate personally for talking to us about the

0:12:20.800 --> 0:12:24.040
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Courts action this week on voting districts in Texas