WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: Court Turns Down NC Districts (Audio)

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:02.320
<v Speaker 1>And now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,

0:00:02.360 --> 0:00:05.240
<v Speaker 1>exploring legal issues in the news. And today Bloomberg lahst

0:00:05.280 --> 0:00:08.959
<v Speaker 1>Greg's store discusses a Supreme Court ruling and North Carolina

0:00:09.000 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 1>Republicans relied to heavily on race when they drew two

0:00:12.640 --> 0:00:16.000
<v Speaker 1>oddly shaped congressional voting districts in the state. He speaks

0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:19.239
<v Speaker 1>in Napor silly Or, professor at Stanford University Law School,

0:00:20.000 --> 0:00:22.320
<v Speaker 1>want you just start by giving us a brief explanation

0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:24.840
<v Speaker 1>of what the court held. There were two different two

0:00:24.840 --> 0:00:27.760
<v Speaker 1>districts and in two different rationales for for what the

0:00:27.760 --> 0:00:30.960
<v Speaker 1>court did well. The Court once again is reviewing the

0:00:30.960 --> 0:00:33.720
<v Speaker 1>North Carolina every districting plan. And I said once again

0:00:33.800 --> 0:00:36.440
<v Speaker 1>because over the last twenty years it has looked at

0:00:36.479 --> 0:00:39.400
<v Speaker 1>these districts five or six times. And what they said

0:00:39.560 --> 0:00:42.320
<v Speaker 1>was that the first district, but the but the first

0:00:42.360 --> 0:00:46.479
<v Speaker 1>district and the twelfth district were unconstitutional because they excessively

0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:51.960
<v Speaker 1>used race. And the first district was unconstitutional because you

0:00:52.120 --> 0:00:55.560
<v Speaker 1>could not blame the district on the Voting Rights Act,

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:57.560
<v Speaker 1>which is what the state attempted to do. They said,

0:00:57.920 --> 0:01:01.160
<v Speaker 1>you had to draw an over fifty percent African American

0:01:01.200 --> 0:01:03.240
<v Speaker 1>district to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme

0:01:03.240 --> 0:01:06.440
<v Speaker 1>Court said, no, you did not, uh, and so because

0:01:06.440 --> 0:01:10.600
<v Speaker 1>you've used race so extensively, that district unconstitutional. With respect

0:01:10.600 --> 0:01:13.160
<v Speaker 1>of the twelve district, North Carolina defended it as part

0:01:13.160 --> 0:01:15.479
<v Speaker 1>of its partisan jerrymander, saying it was drawing a very

0:01:15.520 --> 0:01:18.720
<v Speaker 1>safe democratic district. The Court here, in a five to

0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:22.759
<v Speaker 1>three vote, said that the district was an unconstitutional racial

0:01:22.800 --> 0:01:26.800
<v Speaker 1>jerrymander because you're essentially using race as a proxy for partisanship.

0:01:27.319 --> 0:01:31.759
<v Speaker 1>And so, just because you are drawing districts that might

0:01:31.840 --> 0:01:35.000
<v Speaker 1>harm Democrats by packing them together doesn't get you out

0:01:35.000 --> 0:01:37.279
<v Speaker 1>of the fact that race and party are so highly

0:01:37.319 --> 0:01:40.600
<v Speaker 1>correlated in North Carolina in that district that it still

0:01:40.680 --> 0:01:43.440
<v Speaker 1>runs a file of the constance. And what in all that, Nate,

0:01:43.520 --> 0:01:47.160
<v Speaker 1>would you pick out as the most important or most

0:01:47.240 --> 0:01:51.360
<v Speaker 1>surprising part of this ruling? As you suggested, one of

0:01:51.400 --> 0:01:53.960
<v Speaker 1>the more interesting UH facts of this case is the

0:01:54.080 --> 0:01:57.480
<v Speaker 1>final vote on District twelve. That just Justice Laurence Thomas,

0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:01.880
<v Speaker 1>is generally pretty conservative on constitutional questions, joined with the

0:02:02.000 --> 0:02:05.480
<v Speaker 1>four more liberal justices to strike down District twelve. And

0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:08.720
<v Speaker 1>it shows you a kind of strange bedfellows in cases

0:02:08.760 --> 0:02:12.399
<v Speaker 1>like this, we're Justice Thomas, who advocates a color blindness

0:02:12.440 --> 0:02:15.600
<v Speaker 1>approach to redistricting and other kinds of government action, whereas

0:02:15.639 --> 0:02:19.160
<v Speaker 1>the Democrats are the more liberal justices on the on

0:02:19.240 --> 0:02:24.840
<v Speaker 1>the Court were um offended by the district because it's

0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:28.600
<v Speaker 1>sort of discriminated against African Americans by packing them uh

0:02:28.919 --> 0:02:32.480
<v Speaker 1>in too high concentrations. And so that was I think

0:02:32.480 --> 0:02:35.400
<v Speaker 1>the most significant sort of fact about this case was

0:02:35.440 --> 0:02:39.040
<v Speaker 1>that you had the strange confluence of liberals and conservatives.

0:02:39.600 --> 0:02:42.400
<v Speaker 1>That name for Silly a professor at Stanford University Law

0:02:42.440 --> 0:02:45.040
<v Speaker 1>School speaking with Bloomberg Law host Greg Store and you

0:02:45.040 --> 0:02:47.320
<v Speaker 1>can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall

0:02:47.360 --> 0:02:50.239
<v Speaker 1>Street time here on Bloomberg Radio. And you can find

0:02:50.280 --> 0:02:53.000
<v Speaker 1>more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg

0:02:53.040 --> 0:02:56.120
<v Speaker 1>BNA dot com. Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and

0:02:56.200 --> 0:02:59.400
<v Speaker 1>business development tools there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot

0:02:59.480 --> 0:03:03.040
<v Speaker 1>com and Lemberg b NA dot com for more information