WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: High Court Takes on Voting Case (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.040
<v Speaker 1>And now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,

0:00:03.080 --> 0:00:06.560
<v Speaker 1>exploring legal issues in the news. Today, Bloomberg Law host

0:00:06.640 --> 0:00:09.920
<v Speaker 1>Un Grosso and Greg Sture discussed the Supreme Court taking

0:00:10.000 --> 0:00:14.480
<v Speaker 1>up a case on partisan jerrymandering in the American electoral system.

0:00:14.520 --> 0:00:17.720
<v Speaker 1>They speak to Rick Hessen, founder of the Election Law

0:00:17.760 --> 0:00:21.320
<v Speaker 1>Blog and professor at U c Irvine, and Josh Douglas,

0:00:21.320 --> 0:00:24.720
<v Speaker 1>a professor at the University of Kentucky Law School. Rick,

0:00:24.760 --> 0:00:27.800
<v Speaker 1>will you start by describing the case from Wisconsin that

0:00:27.880 --> 0:00:30.520
<v Speaker 1>the justices will be considering. This is one of a

0:00:30.640 --> 0:00:35.920
<v Speaker 1>number of cases involving partisan jerrymandering that has been working

0:00:35.960 --> 0:00:38.040
<v Speaker 1>his way up the courts. The claim here is that

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:42.920
<v Speaker 1>Wisconsin is basically a fifty fifty state between Democrats and Republicans,

0:00:43.280 --> 0:00:45.879
<v Speaker 1>but the Republican state legislature drew the lines for their

0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:48.760
<v Speaker 1>General Assembly in such a skewed way to help Republicans

0:00:48.800 --> 0:00:52.280
<v Speaker 1>that Republicans are able to capture many more seats than

0:00:52.880 --> 0:00:56.600
<v Speaker 1>would be done if it were a fairly drawn district. Josh,

0:00:56.720 --> 0:00:59.000
<v Speaker 1>the last time the Supreme Court really dealt with this

0:00:59.040 --> 0:01:02.680
<v Speaker 1>issue was back in twenty four. Can you describe where

0:01:02.680 --> 0:01:05.959
<v Speaker 1>the court left us after that case? Yeah? Well, the

0:01:06.000 --> 0:01:10.960
<v Speaker 1>Court didn't answer questions as much as provided more of them. Uh.

0:01:11.080 --> 0:01:15.520
<v Speaker 1>For justices UH said that there was no standard by

0:01:15.520 --> 0:01:19.000
<v Speaker 1>which to test a partisan jymander. That is, courts basically

0:01:19.000 --> 0:01:22.039
<v Speaker 1>shouldn't be involved in resolving these kinds of cases because

0:01:22.080 --> 0:01:24.520
<v Speaker 1>it was not of a judicial nature and esteat as

0:01:24.560 --> 0:01:28.440
<v Speaker 1>a political question. The four other justices, the four so

0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:31.640
<v Speaker 1>called liberal justice each came up with a standard. Uh.

0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:33.960
<v Speaker 1>They said, here's a good standard for courts to use,

0:01:34.000 --> 0:01:36.480
<v Speaker 1>and we think it's susceptible. And Justice Kennedy was in

0:01:36.560 --> 0:01:39.560
<v Speaker 1>the middle, and he said, I don't like any of

0:01:39.560 --> 0:01:43.039
<v Speaker 1>the standards that anyone has proposed so far, but I'm

0:01:43.080 --> 0:01:45.360
<v Speaker 1>not going to close the door to any future standard emerging.

0:01:45.440 --> 0:01:47.240
<v Speaker 1>So you had with kind of a four one four

0:01:47.319 --> 0:01:51.840
<v Speaker 1>decision in which Justice Kennedy holds all the keys to power.

0:01:51.880 --> 0:01:54.160
<v Speaker 1>If he likes the standards, then maybe we'll have the

0:01:54.240 --> 0:01:57.240
<v Speaker 1>ability to police partisan darrymandering. If he doesn't, then there'll

0:01:57.280 --> 0:01:59.920
<v Speaker 1>be no way for course to do so. So Rick,

0:02:00.240 --> 0:02:03.600
<v Speaker 1>the Court has been reluctant to take up partisan jerrymandering

0:02:03.720 --> 0:02:07.120
<v Speaker 1>since that case. Why did they take up this case?

0:02:07.680 --> 0:02:11.760
<v Speaker 1>This case came up directly from a three judge appeals Court.

0:02:12.080 --> 0:02:15.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm sorry, three judge district court directly on appeal to

0:02:15.040 --> 0:02:17.240
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court. And when cases come up in this

0:02:17.320 --> 0:02:20.440
<v Speaker 1>unusual way, when the Supreme Court decides not to hear

0:02:20.480 --> 0:02:23.880
<v Speaker 1>that case, it means the lower court got the ruling right.

0:02:24.560 --> 0:02:26.440
<v Speaker 1>And so this was a rare case where a lower

0:02:26.440 --> 0:02:29.280
<v Speaker 1>court said, yes, this is a partisan gerrymander. And so

0:02:29.320 --> 0:02:31.840
<v Speaker 1>if the court decided not to hear that case, it

0:02:31.880 --> 0:02:34.760
<v Speaker 1>would have sent the signal that yes, courts are in

0:02:34.760 --> 0:02:36.720
<v Speaker 1>the business of policing these things, but we're not going

0:02:36.800 --> 0:02:40.040
<v Speaker 1>to tell you what the standard is. And that is

0:02:40.240 --> 0:02:43.720
<v Speaker 1>Rick Hessen, a professor at u c Irvine, and Josh Douglas,

0:02:43.760 --> 0:02:46.640
<v Speaker 1>a professor at the University of Kentucky Law School, speaking

0:02:46.720 --> 0:02:49.960
<v Speaker 1>to Bloomberg Law host June Grosso and Greg Store. You

0:02:49.960 --> 0:02:53.200
<v Speaker 1>can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm while

0:02:53.240 --> 0:02:56.959
<v Speaker 1>Street time here on Bloomberg Radio and in Germany, Adidas

0:02:57.120 --> 0:03:00.720
<v Speaker 1>or if you prefer the European pronunciation, Audied Us has

0:03:00.800 --> 0:03:03.360
<v Speaker 1>dodged a legal threat to one of its best selling

0:03:03.360 --> 0:03:07.720
<v Speaker 1>tennis shoes. The company's longtime nemesis, Puma, has pulled off

0:03:07.760 --> 0:03:10.080
<v Speaker 1>a lawsuit seeking a ban on the sale of a

0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:13.400
<v Speaker 1>new version of the Stan Smith tennis shoe. Puma had

0:03:13.440 --> 0:03:16.239
<v Speaker 1>contended the shoe violated one of its patents for the

0:03:16.280 --> 0:03:19.840
<v Speaker 1>company backed off after judges indicated that the Audi Das

0:03:19.960 --> 0:03:23.320
<v Speaker 1>shoe differs from the Puma design and that is This

0:03:23.360 --> 0:03:25.560
<v Speaker 1>morning is Bloomberg Lawbrary. If you can find more legal

0:03:25.600 --> 0:03:29.160
<v Speaker 1>news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com.

0:03:29.240 --> 0:03:33.239
<v Speaker 1>Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business development tools

0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:36.800
<v Speaker 1>there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg

0:03:36.920 --> 0:03:39.200
<v Speaker 1>BNA dot com for more information.