1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,480 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court today gave voting rights advocates a pleasant surprise. 2 00:00:03,960 --> 00:00:07,600 Speaker 1: The Court refused to revive North Carolina ballot restrictions, including 3 00:00:07,720 --> 00:00:10,920 Speaker 1: its photo ID requirement, that left intact the federal appeals 4 00:00:10,920 --> 00:00:13,680 Speaker 1: Court ruling that said the provisions target black voters with 5 00:00:13,760 --> 00:00:17,440 Speaker 1: quote almost surgical precision. With us to talk about this 6 00:00:17,520 --> 00:00:20,000 Speaker 1: latest development in the legal wars of our voting laws 7 00:00:20,079 --> 00:00:23,280 Speaker 1: is Nate Personally. He's an election law professor at Stanford 8 00:00:23,320 --> 00:00:26,600 Speaker 1: Law School. Nate, thanks for being here. Um, the Conservatives 9 00:00:26,600 --> 00:00:28,600 Speaker 1: on the Court had the votes to take up this case, 10 00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:31,200 Speaker 1: and before the election for them actually tried to reinstate 11 00:00:31,240 --> 00:00:34,680 Speaker 1: the law, but came up a vote short. So what 12 00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:38,479 Speaker 1: happened here, Well, Chief Justice Roberts is the only one 13 00:00:38,520 --> 00:00:41,920 Speaker 1: who actually spoke out in this case, and he reminded 14 00:00:42,080 --> 00:00:45,320 Speaker 1: everyone that, Um, the fact that the Court was not 15 00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:48,720 Speaker 1: going to intervene in this decision striking down North Carolina's 16 00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:52,640 Speaker 1: restrictive voting law is only indicative of the fact that 17 00:00:52,840 --> 00:00:54,360 Speaker 1: they don't want to take it up at this point, 18 00:00:54,400 --> 00:00:57,560 Speaker 1: in part because, um, now there's a new government in 19 00:00:57,600 --> 00:01:01,080 Speaker 1: North Carolina that does not want to defend this law. 20 00:01:01,160 --> 00:01:03,640 Speaker 1: So there was a lot of confusion as to whether 21 00:01:03,680 --> 00:01:06,120 Speaker 1: the state was really willing to defend this law, and 22 00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:09,199 Speaker 1: so the Court in these circumstances decided to take a pass. 23 00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:13,720 Speaker 1: So then how do you weigh this victory? Well, it's 24 00:01:13,760 --> 00:01:16,319 Speaker 1: still uh, sort of going to come up to the 25 00:01:16,319 --> 00:01:20,880 Speaker 1: Supreme Court the constitutionality and legality of voter I D laws, 26 00:01:20,880 --> 00:01:24,200 Speaker 1: other types of laws restricting voting hours and the like. Uh, 27 00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:25,520 Speaker 1: And it's going to come up to them on the 28 00:01:25,600 --> 00:01:29,880 Speaker 1: question as to whether it is motivated by discriminatory intent? 29 00:01:30,080 --> 00:01:34,840 Speaker 1: Are these laws passed with an intention to reduce turnout 30 00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:38,520 Speaker 1: voter turnout among African American voters in particular. And so 31 00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:41,120 Speaker 1: while they've left that question for another day, there's no 32 00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:44,240 Speaker 1: shortage of these laws that are being challenged in court um, 33 00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:47,800 Speaker 1: both in the South and elsewhere. What what case are 34 00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:50,520 Speaker 1: you looking at as the one since this one is 35 00:01:50,560 --> 00:01:53,280 Speaker 1: not going to get reviewed by the Supreme Court is 36 00:01:53,320 --> 00:01:57,840 Speaker 1: perhaps most likely to ultimately produce a Supreme Court argument 37 00:01:57,920 --> 00:02:02,680 Speaker 1: and decision. Well, it's opplicated because there are different types 38 00:02:02,720 --> 00:02:05,000 Speaker 1: of voting cases that are winding their way to the 39 00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:08,600 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So it looks like the redistricting cases are 40 00:02:08,600 --> 00:02:11,360 Speaker 1: really the ones that are next on the agenda, both 41 00:02:11,400 --> 00:02:15,200 Speaker 1: cases dealing with partisan jerrymandering coming out of Wisconsin, and 42 00:02:15,280 --> 00:02:17,959 Speaker 1: that could prove to be a monumental case if the 43 00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:21,880 Speaker 1: Supreme Court strikes down the Republican jerryman or in Wisconsin 44 00:02:21,960 --> 00:02:25,880 Speaker 1: is unconstitutional, as well as cases dealing with race and 45 00:02:25,960 --> 00:02:29,600 Speaker 1: the redistricting process out of North Carolina, Virginia and elsewhere. 46 00:02:29,919 --> 00:02:31,480 Speaker 1: And so those would be the ones I would look 47 00:02:31,480 --> 00:02:33,840 Speaker 1: at to sort of give a sense as to whether 48 00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:37,320 Speaker 1: the new justice on the Supreme Court, Justice Corsitch, has 49 00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:39,639 Speaker 1: different views than his colleagues, and also what the trend 50 00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:41,800 Speaker 1: is at the Supreme Court. You need. I thought I 51 00:02:41,800 --> 00:02:44,040 Speaker 1: thought you were gonna say Texas. I thought maybe the 52 00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:46,400 Speaker 1: Texas Voter I d Case, which is one the Supreme Court, 53 00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:50,320 Speaker 1: uh said back in January. It wasn't gonna hear uh 54 00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:53,960 Speaker 1: right now? Is? And then that's one unlike North Carolina, 55 00:02:54,040 --> 00:02:56,600 Speaker 1: where you had a district judge was the one who 56 00:02:56,639 --> 00:03:01,120 Speaker 1: found this this law was was designed to have the 57 00:03:01,120 --> 00:03:05,600 Speaker 1: intent of it was to discriminate against racial minorities. If 58 00:03:05,600 --> 00:03:07,800 Speaker 1: that case does come up to the Supreme Court, is 59 00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:09,680 Speaker 1: it does it seem clear to you that they are 60 00:03:10,200 --> 00:03:12,920 Speaker 1: What do you think the prospects are with this relatively 61 00:03:12,960 --> 00:03:16,960 Speaker 1: conservative Supreme Court. Well, I think it, as in many cases, 62 00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:20,880 Speaker 1: comes down to Justice Kennedy, and Justice Kennedy will um uh. 63 00:03:20,919 --> 00:03:25,200 Speaker 1: You know, has actually held in a previous case dealing 64 00:03:25,240 --> 00:03:29,400 Speaker 1: with Texas that their redistricting law was perhaps motivated by 65 00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:33,280 Speaker 1: discriminatory intent. But you know, it's very difficult to um 66 00:03:33,639 --> 00:03:36,000 Speaker 1: improve discriminatory intent, and that's one of the things that 67 00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:39,440 Speaker 1: North Carolina case shows. I mean, you can there's no 68 00:03:39,560 --> 00:03:43,920 Speaker 1: question that um uh, in many states, after the Voting 69 00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:46,600 Speaker 1: Rights Act was strike a critical provision the Voting Rights 70 00:03:46,640 --> 00:03:49,280 Speaker 1: Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. Uh, several 71 00:03:49,280 --> 00:03:51,720 Speaker 1: states that were covered by that law ended up passing 72 00:03:51,760 --> 00:03:54,680 Speaker 1: these type of laws, and so does that fact alone 73 00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:57,640 Speaker 1: suggests that they're motivated by discriminatory intent. I mean a 74 00:03:57,640 --> 00:04:00,960 Speaker 1: lot of the story here is that, um you know, 75 00:04:01,040 --> 00:04:03,840 Speaker 1: these are laws that are passed with partisan intent, and 76 00:04:04,080 --> 00:04:08,080 Speaker 1: how do you disentangle both partisan motivation from racial motivation. 77 00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:10,560 Speaker 1: But I think there's a chance that Justice Kennedy could 78 00:04:10,960 --> 00:04:14,000 Speaker 1: vote to strike down or continue to keep struck down 79 00:04:14,040 --> 00:04:17,680 Speaker 1: the Texas voter I D law Nate, are their legislatures 80 00:04:17,839 --> 00:04:22,680 Speaker 1: now passing tougher voter ID laws. Well, it's hard to 81 00:04:22,760 --> 00:04:25,680 Speaker 1: keep up. But um, there haven't been any in the 82 00:04:25,760 --> 00:04:28,120 Speaker 1: last few months. But but in the run up to 83 00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:30,480 Speaker 1: the two thousand and sixteen election, we saw a flurry 84 00:04:30,640 --> 00:04:34,159 Speaker 1: of laws being passed around the country, both in the 85 00:04:34,200 --> 00:04:38,719 Speaker 1: South and elsewhere. UM. When the Republicans gained control of 86 00:04:38,720 --> 00:04:41,120 Speaker 1: the legislature and the governorship, they find it to be 87 00:04:41,200 --> 00:04:43,960 Speaker 1: much easier to UH, to pass these laws. And so 88 00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:46,920 Speaker 1: we had a trend leading up to two thousand sixteen 89 00:04:46,920 --> 00:04:49,240 Speaker 1: and even the two thousand twelve election with these kind 90 00:04:49,279 --> 00:04:51,640 Speaker 1: of laws. We only have about thirty seconds. But I'm 91 00:04:51,640 --> 00:04:55,000 Speaker 1: wondering about North Carolina in particular. It's a swing state. UH. 92 00:04:55,040 --> 00:04:56,560 Speaker 1: That is the fact that this law is not going 93 00:04:56,600 --> 00:04:58,479 Speaker 1: to be in effects that could then actually have a 94 00:04:58,520 --> 00:05:01,440 Speaker 1: measurable difference on the outcome of elections there. One of 95 00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:05,080 Speaker 1: the difficulties in assessing the political impact of these laws 96 00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:07,760 Speaker 1: is that there's a lot of debate as to how 97 00:05:07,839 --> 00:05:11,080 Speaker 1: much it really does affect turnout UM. And so we 98 00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:13,440 Speaker 1: didn't see it having much of an effect in this 99 00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:17,480 Speaker 1: last election, at least an aggregate turnout UM. But you know, 100 00:05:17,880 --> 00:05:20,159 Speaker 1: certainly the civil rights advocates who come into court say 101 00:05:20,240 --> 00:05:23,440 Speaker 1: that these have real vote suppressive effects. Uh. And so 102 00:05:23,560 --> 00:05:26,080 Speaker 1: perhaps the fact that it wasn't in effect for this 103 00:05:26,160 --> 00:05:30,280 Speaker 1: last election, um UM allowed a certain share of the 104 00:05:30,320 --> 00:05:33,440 Speaker 1: African American population to vote, whereas they otherwise would not 105 00:05:33,480 --> 00:05:36,040 Speaker 1: have been able to When I thank our gate guest 106 00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:39,320 Speaker 1: Nate personally, election law expert at Stanford Law School, one 107 00:05:39,360 --> 00:05:41,040 Speaker 1: of the people we love to turn to when we 108 00:05:41,120 --> 00:05:45,080 Speaker 1: are trying to figure out what an election law development means.