1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,480
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,960 --> 00:00:14,160
Speaker 2: Donald Trump has unleashed this unprecedented jerry mandering on the country.

3
00:00:14,200 --> 00:00:15,960
Speaker 2: We've never seen anything like this.

4
00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:21,160
Speaker 3: President Donald Trump's push for Republicans to redraw US House

5
00:00:21,200 --> 00:00:26,320
Speaker 3: districts ahead of next year's midterm elections has triggered unprecedented

6
00:00:26,440 --> 00:00:31,280
Speaker 3: mid decade gerrymandering, starting with the states of Texas, Missouri,

7
00:00:31,400 --> 00:00:36,080
Speaker 3: and North Carolina, where Republicans have already drawn seven new

8
00:00:36,240 --> 00:00:41,640
Speaker 3: GOP leaning House seats, but Democratic states, led by California,

9
00:00:41,760 --> 00:00:46,960
Speaker 3: are fighting back or trying to because redistricting in many

10
00:00:47,000 --> 00:00:52,600
Speaker 3: Blue states is hampered by independent redistricting commissions or state

11
00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:57,760
Speaker 3: bans on mid decade redistricting. House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries

12
00:00:58,120 --> 00:01:01,640
Speaker 3: went to Illinois this week to try to convince Democrats

13
00:01:01,720 --> 00:01:03,760
Speaker 3: there to redraw their maps.

14
00:01:04,959 --> 00:01:07,680
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and Republicans have decided that they were going

15
00:01:07,720 --> 00:01:11,000
Speaker 2: to try to gerrymander congressional maps all across the country

16
00:01:11,480 --> 00:01:14,000
Speaker 2: as part of their effort to rig the midterm elections

17
00:01:15,640 --> 00:01:20,160
Speaker 2: and deny the American people the ability to decide who

18
00:01:20,200 --> 00:01:25,400
Speaker 2: should hold the gavels. In the aftermath of the elections

19
00:01:25,400 --> 00:01:27,720
Speaker 2: that will take place in November of twenty twenty six.

20
00:01:28,920 --> 00:01:32,440
Speaker 2: Democrats have made clear that we are going to respond

21
00:01:32,920 --> 00:01:39,080
Speaker 2: as is being done in California right now, appropriately, immediately,

22
00:01:39,840 --> 00:01:40,640
Speaker 2: and forcefully.

23
00:01:41,840 --> 00:01:46,000
Speaker 3: The latest salvo in the national gerrymandering battle comes from

24
00:01:46,120 --> 00:01:49,000
Speaker 3: New York City. In a lawsuit by a group of

25
00:01:49,080 --> 00:01:51,880
Speaker 3: New York voters against the New York State Board of

26
00:01:51,920 --> 00:01:56,360
Speaker 3: Elections and top state officials. It claims that the congressional

27
00:01:56,400 --> 00:02:00,400
Speaker 3: district held by New York City's only Republican represent native

28
00:02:01,040 --> 00:02:05,240
Speaker 3: is impermissibly drawn to shut out black and Latino voters.

29
00:02:06,200 --> 00:02:09,000
Speaker 3: My guest is Jeffrey Weiss, a professor at New York

30
00:02:09,080 --> 00:02:13,200
Speaker 3: Law School who directs the school's New York Elections, Census

31
00:02:13,240 --> 00:02:18,320
Speaker 3: and Redistricting Institute. Jeff tell us about this lawsuit that's

32
00:02:18,639 --> 00:02:21,799
Speaker 3: challenging New York's eleventh congressional district.

33
00:02:22,400 --> 00:02:25,960
Speaker 4: Well, we have a new lawsuit filed earlier this week

34
00:02:26,040 --> 00:02:29,359
Speaker 4: by a group of New York voters who are arguing

35
00:02:29,639 --> 00:02:35,160
Speaker 4: that the current congressional district that includes Staten Island and

36
00:02:35,240 --> 00:02:39,440
Speaker 4: parts of Brooklyn di loots a minority voting strength, that

37
00:02:39,520 --> 00:02:44,200
Speaker 4: the black and Hispanic voters' power is diminished by the

38
00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:47,080
Speaker 4: way the district is drawn now, and that they would

39
00:02:47,080 --> 00:02:50,440
Speaker 4: have a much more effective voice in the ability to

40
00:02:50,480 --> 00:02:55,399
Speaker 4: elect a preferred candidate if parts of Manhattan were appended

41
00:02:55,440 --> 00:02:58,840
Speaker 4: to the district instead of Brooklyn. That, in essence, is

42
00:02:58,880 --> 00:03:00,920
Speaker 4: what the lawsuit is is looking for.

43
00:03:01,639 --> 00:03:03,280
Speaker 3: Is this an unusual lawsuit.

44
00:03:03,919 --> 00:03:08,160
Speaker 4: It's unusual in the sense that's being brought mid decade. Obviously,

45
00:03:08,200 --> 00:03:12,200
Speaker 4: it's got political connotations that it would change the dynamic

46
00:03:12,320 --> 00:03:15,000
Speaker 4: of who's running for re election in New York, that

47
00:03:15,480 --> 00:03:20,480
Speaker 4: current Republican congress Member Nicole Meliotacus would find herself no

48
00:03:20,560 --> 00:03:25,320
Speaker 4: longer in conservative white areas in Brooklyn, but rather parts

49
00:03:25,320 --> 00:03:28,239
Speaker 4: of Lower Manhattan. That it would be a district where

50
00:03:28,560 --> 00:03:31,520
Speaker 4: the Democrats are expected to do a lot better. It's

51
00:03:31,680 --> 00:03:35,400
Speaker 4: also a district where Dan Goldman, who is the incumbent

52
00:03:35,520 --> 00:03:40,000
Speaker 4: now in a district that includes Manhattan and Brooklyn, we

53
00:03:40,240 --> 00:03:45,200
Speaker 4: probably find himself in better territory and also probably stave

54
00:03:45,280 --> 00:03:49,600
Speaker 4: off a primary challenge within the Democratic Party from several

55
00:03:49,760 --> 00:03:54,240
Speaker 4: Brooklyn elected officials who have indicated their intent to run

56
00:03:54,280 --> 00:03:55,480
Speaker 4: against him in a primary.

57
00:03:56,120 --> 00:03:58,240
Speaker 3: Is the Democratic Party behind this lawsuit?

58
00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:01,720
Speaker 4: Well, the case is being brought by two law firms.

59
00:04:02,000 --> 00:04:05,240
Speaker 4: The lead firm is the Elias Law Group based in Washington,

60
00:04:05,320 --> 00:04:08,640
Speaker 4: d C. And that firm has been in existence for

61
00:04:08,720 --> 00:04:11,880
Speaker 4: about a decade or less, but their work is primarily

62
00:04:11,880 --> 00:04:15,840
Speaker 4: on behalf of Democrats and the National Democratic Party committees.

63
00:04:16,400 --> 00:04:19,200
Speaker 4: There's also a New York law firm involved as Local

64
00:04:19,279 --> 00:04:23,960
Speaker 4: Council and they've been involved with political campaign litigation for

65
00:04:24,040 --> 00:04:25,240
Speaker 4: quite some time as well.

66
00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:29,240
Speaker 3: Is this lawsuit different because it's based on the New

67
00:04:29,320 --> 00:04:33,760
Speaker 3: York State Constitution so well test how protective the state

68
00:04:33,839 --> 00:04:40,520
Speaker 3: constitution is of minority voting rights rather than the US Constitution.

69
00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:45,800
Speaker 4: Well, this claim is based on the state constitutional protections

70
00:04:45,839 --> 00:04:50,400
Speaker 4: that redistricting maps have to honor minority voting strain that

71
00:04:50,440 --> 00:04:55,440
Speaker 4: you cannot dilute minority voters from their ability to elect

72
00:04:55,520 --> 00:05:00,640
Speaker 4: preferred candidates, and the state constitution uses very similar language

73
00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:03,920
Speaker 4: to the Federal Voting Rights Act, which happens to be

74
00:05:04,279 --> 00:05:08,600
Speaker 4: subject to a challenge now from the Louisiana Congressional redistricting

75
00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:13,039
Speaker 4: before the US Supreme Court. The validity the future of

76
00:05:13,080 --> 00:05:16,200
Speaker 4: the Federal Voting Rights Act was heard in a case

77
00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:19,599
Speaker 4: two weeks ago, and we expect any time from the

78
00:05:19,680 --> 00:05:22,560
Speaker 4: end of this year, but more likely by the end

79
00:05:22,560 --> 00:05:25,200
Speaker 4: of June, for the Supreme Court to hand down a

80
00:05:25,240 --> 00:05:28,680
Speaker 4: decision where most of us think they're going to do

81
00:05:28,760 --> 00:05:31,920
Speaker 4: something to change the dynamic of the Voting Rights Act,

82
00:05:31,920 --> 00:05:35,919
Speaker 4: but not eliminated entirely. But that's reading the tea leaves

83
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:36,440
Speaker 4: too much.

84
00:05:37,040 --> 00:05:40,680
Speaker 3: Well, your prediction there fits in with the predictions of

85
00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:45,279
Speaker 3: other election law experts. So let's say the Supreme Court

86
00:05:45,480 --> 00:05:49,240
Speaker 3: does change the Voting Rights Act in some way. Will

87
00:05:49,240 --> 00:05:51,240
Speaker 3: that affect the New York Constitution?

88
00:05:52,040 --> 00:05:55,479
Speaker 4: Well, it could affect the state Constitution to the extent

89
00:05:55,600 --> 00:05:59,120
Speaker 4: of what the Supreme Court might limit. Right now. The

90
00:05:59,400 --> 00:06:04,360
Speaker 4: gold stand in vote dilution is Section two of the

91
00:06:04,440 --> 00:06:08,680
Speaker 4: Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court adopted a test

92
00:06:09,760 --> 00:06:12,880
Speaker 4: in the mid nineteen eighties in a North Carolina case

93
00:06:12,960 --> 00:06:18,400
Speaker 4: called Thornberg versus Jingles, where a challenging minority group has

94
00:06:18,440 --> 00:06:21,279
Speaker 4: to demonstrate to a court that, if it claims it

95
00:06:21,320 --> 00:06:25,280
Speaker 4: should have an effective minority district, you've got to have

96
00:06:25,560 --> 00:06:29,440
Speaker 4: fifty percent or more of a district being comprised of

97
00:06:29,600 --> 00:06:32,560
Speaker 4: a minority voters. Second, you have to show that the

98
00:06:32,600 --> 00:06:36,680
Speaker 4: minority voters vote cohesively pretty much the same way for

99
00:06:36,760 --> 00:06:41,440
Speaker 4: similar candidates. And third, most importantly, you've got to show

100
00:06:41,480 --> 00:06:44,880
Speaker 4: that there is a high level of racially polarized voting,

101
00:06:45,240 --> 00:06:50,839
Speaker 4: where white voters constantly outvote minority voters' abilities to elect

102
00:06:51,320 --> 00:06:54,840
Speaker 4: preferred candidates in primaries or general elections. So if you

103
00:06:54,920 --> 00:07:00,920
Speaker 4: meet those three prongs, size, cohesiveness, and polarized votvoting, then

104
00:07:00,960 --> 00:07:04,920
Speaker 4: you have a Voting Rights Act violation situation. And the

105
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:08,039
Speaker 4: Supreme Court is now being asked whether that test is

106
00:07:08,080 --> 00:07:11,440
Speaker 4: still a cojuent one to use now in the twenty

107
00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:12,280
Speaker 4: first century.

108
00:07:13,000 --> 00:07:17,600
Speaker 3: So, in this case, the black and Latino voters constitute

109
00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:23,800
Speaker 3: nearly a quarter of the voting population in that congressional district.

110
00:07:24,040 --> 00:07:25,080
Speaker 3: Is that enough? Then?

111
00:07:25,400 --> 00:07:28,680
Speaker 4: Well, what the plaintiffs are doing here. They're challenging the

112
00:07:29,120 --> 00:07:31,920
Speaker 4: map based on the state constitution, but they're trying to

113
00:07:31,960 --> 00:07:35,280
Speaker 4: incorperate the New York State Voting Rights Act, which was

114
00:07:35,400 --> 00:07:39,520
Speaker 4: enacted by the legislature in twenty twenty two. The State

115
00:07:39,600 --> 00:07:43,840
Speaker 4: Voting Rights Act does not apply to congressional districts, but

116
00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:47,840
Speaker 4: it does lay out different kinds of criteria and standards

117
00:07:47,880 --> 00:07:52,000
Speaker 4: that courts should look to when looking at vote dilution

118
00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:56,800
Speaker 4: claims in counties, towns, cities, and villages. So they're saying

119
00:07:56,880 --> 00:08:00,720
Speaker 4: that there is similar preamble language in vote the state

120
00:08:00,800 --> 00:08:04,360
Speaker 4: constitution and the state Voting Rights Ack, that it makes

121
00:08:04,400 --> 00:08:09,000
Speaker 4: a lot of sense to also incorporate the state statue

122
00:08:09,120 --> 00:08:14,920
Speaker 4: standards into the state constitutional situation. And that will probably

123
00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:17,960
Speaker 4: be one of the first arguments that I think intervening

124
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:21,240
Speaker 4: Republicans will make to dismiss this case is that the

125
00:08:21,320 --> 00:08:25,119
Speaker 4: state voting rightsack doesn't apply. What the plaintiffs are doing

126
00:08:25,160 --> 00:08:28,480
Speaker 4: here is using these state voting rights SACK criteria that

127
00:08:28,920 --> 00:08:31,800
Speaker 4: unlike federal law, where you need to have a district

128
00:08:31,840 --> 00:08:36,880
Speaker 4: of at least fifty percent plus minority voter population that

129
00:08:37,000 --> 00:08:41,600
Speaker 4: you can combine let's say fifteen or twenty percent of

130
00:08:42,080 --> 00:08:46,280
Speaker 4: combined voters let's say black and Hispanic, the federal voting

131
00:08:46,360 --> 00:08:49,840
Speaker 4: right sack requires the fifty percent pretty much of one

132
00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:53,520
Speaker 4: racial group, be the black or Hispanic oraasion. But the

133
00:08:53,559 --> 00:08:57,880
Speaker 4: state law permits you to aggregate or put together smaller

134
00:08:57,880 --> 00:09:02,440
Speaker 4: communities of let's say Black populations, And that, in essence

135
00:09:02,559 --> 00:09:05,959
Speaker 4: is what they're looking to do by adding a part

136
00:09:06,040 --> 00:09:11,000
Speaker 4: of Manhattan to the Staten Island based district. And I'll

137
00:09:11,040 --> 00:09:16,120
Speaker 4: just mention also that the Hispanic population in Lower Manhattan

138
00:09:16,600 --> 00:09:19,360
Speaker 4: is not adjacent to South ferry right at the foot

139
00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:23,280
Speaker 4: of Manhattan Island by the New York Harbor. It's considerably

140
00:09:23,840 --> 00:09:27,640
Speaker 4: north there, so you'd have to take Staten Island, take

141
00:09:27,679 --> 00:09:31,280
Speaker 4: the Staten Island ferry over to Manhattan and drive up

142
00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:34,719
Speaker 4: aways basically up to the Brooklyn Bridge, where you have

143
00:09:34,760 --> 00:09:38,120
Speaker 4: an Hispanic population in the lower east side up to

144
00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:41,560
Speaker 4: about fourteenth Street. And that raises the question of whether

145
00:09:41,679 --> 00:09:46,560
Speaker 4: race is the predominant factor in creating this district, because

146
00:09:46,600 --> 00:09:49,720
Speaker 4: that runs against what the Supreme Court has said about

147
00:09:49,840 --> 00:09:54,520
Speaker 4: racial garry mandering, which is subject to strict scrutiny and

148
00:09:54,880 --> 00:09:58,840
Speaker 4: has to be narrowly tailored to remedy specific problems. So

149
00:09:58,920 --> 00:10:02,400
Speaker 4: the plaintiffstrict have to demonstrate to the court why a

150
00:10:02,520 --> 00:10:06,840
Speaker 4: district that constitutes Staten Island and parts of over Manhattan

151
00:10:07,120 --> 00:10:09,360
Speaker 4: makes sense, as if a lot.

152
00:10:09,240 --> 00:10:13,720
Speaker 3: Of these new districts make sense. So Melia Takis said,

153
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:18,559
Speaker 3: it's a frivolous lawsuit trying to upend our congressional district.

154
00:10:18,920 --> 00:10:21,559
Speaker 3: And she noted that the current map was approved by

155
00:10:21,640 --> 00:10:27,559
Speaker 3: New York's Democratic controlled state legislature and democratic governor. Does

156
00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:30,440
Speaker 3: she have the advantage here? In other words, is this

157
00:10:30,600 --> 00:10:32,920
Speaker 3: an uphill battle for the Democrats.

158
00:10:33,320 --> 00:10:36,960
Speaker 4: Yeah, the clock is ticking. The State Supreme Court only

159
00:10:36,960 --> 00:10:40,280
Speaker 4: has two months to render a decision, which would take

160
00:10:40,360 --> 00:10:44,160
Speaker 4: us to mid to late December. Petitioning for the twenty

161
00:10:44,280 --> 00:10:48,520
Speaker 4: twenty sixth election cycle right now gets underway in late February,

162
00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:52,240
Speaker 4: so that leaves very little time for New York's midle

163
00:10:52,280 --> 00:10:55,960
Speaker 4: level appeals court, the Appellate Division, and then finally the

164
00:10:56,040 --> 00:10:59,120
Speaker 4: State Court of Appeals and already to hear this case.

165
00:10:59,320 --> 00:11:02,640
Speaker 4: And you can pretty much be sure that whoever objects

166
00:11:02,640 --> 00:11:06,960
Speaker 4: to this case, and I'm anticipating Republican interveners will strenuously

167
00:11:07,040 --> 00:11:10,880
Speaker 4: try to slow this case down and prevented from impacting

168
00:11:10,920 --> 00:11:12,640
Speaker 4: the twenty twenty six elections.

169
00:11:13,120 --> 00:11:15,640
Speaker 3: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue

170
00:11:15,640 --> 00:11:20,080
Speaker 3: this conversation with New York law professor Jeffrey Weiss. We'll

171
00:11:20,120 --> 00:11:24,520
Speaker 3: take a look at the national redistricting picture. I'm June Grosso,

172
00:11:24,760 --> 00:11:26,319
Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg.

173
00:11:28,880 --> 00:11:32,480
Speaker 2: Democrats have made claire that we are going to respond

174
00:11:32,880 --> 00:11:39,080
Speaker 2: as is being done in California right now, appropriately, immediately

175
00:11:39,760 --> 00:11:46,000
Speaker 2: and forcefully to ensure that the national congressional map is

176
00:11:46,040 --> 00:11:48,680
Speaker 2: as fair as it can possibly be.

177
00:11:49,679 --> 00:11:54,000
Speaker 3: House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries was in Illinois this week

178
00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:58,240
Speaker 3: to try to convince Democratic lawmakers there to redraw the

179
00:11:58,280 --> 00:12:03,800
Speaker 3: state's maps. Comes as Democratic states, led by California, are

180
00:12:03,880 --> 00:12:08,520
Speaker 3: fighting against President Trump's push for Republicans to redraw US

181
00:12:08,559 --> 00:12:13,160
Speaker 3: House districts ahead of next year's midterm elections. But the

182
00:12:13,240 --> 00:12:17,199
Speaker 3: latest salvo in the national gerrymanderin battle comes from New

183
00:12:17,320 --> 00:12:20,440
Speaker 3: York City, in a lawsuit by a group of voters

184
00:12:20,720 --> 00:12:24,200
Speaker 3: claiming that the congressional district held by New York City's

185
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:29,720
Speaker 3: only Republican representative is impermissibly drawn to shut out black

186
00:12:29,760 --> 00:12:33,600
Speaker 3: and Latino voters. I've been talking to Jeffrey Weiss, a

187
00:12:33,679 --> 00:12:37,240
Speaker 3: professor at New York Law School. Jeff, there was litigation

188
00:12:37,440 --> 00:12:40,960
Speaker 3: around the New York map for years. Tell us how

189
00:12:41,000 --> 00:12:42,199
Speaker 3: we got to this point.

190
00:12:43,080 --> 00:12:45,520
Speaker 4: Well, I think by twenty twenty four you know, after

191
00:12:45,559 --> 00:12:48,920
Speaker 4: a failed process in twenty twenty two where a state

192
00:12:48,960 --> 00:12:53,280
Speaker 4: commission that was approved by the voters twenty fourteen basically

193
00:12:53,320 --> 00:12:56,560
Speaker 4: imploded and subject to a court order, went back to

194
00:12:56,640 --> 00:13:00,000
Speaker 4: work and finished the job by January twenty twenty five.

195
00:13:00,080 --> 00:13:03,920
Speaker 4: For the legislature wanted to end this process, have a

196
00:13:03,960 --> 00:13:07,360
Speaker 4: new map for twenty twenty four actually a bipartisan map

197
00:13:07,400 --> 00:13:12,920
Speaker 4: with Republican support. So the map that was agreed to took

198
00:13:12,080 --> 00:13:16,440
Speaker 4: some strenuous effort early last year, and the case that's

199
00:13:16,480 --> 00:13:20,840
Speaker 4: been brought now you can consider somewhat Democrats challenging democrats.

200
00:13:21,400 --> 00:13:24,160
Speaker 3: I mean, is there any other effort underway in New

201
00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:27,800
Speaker 3: York State to redistrict.

202
00:13:27,880 --> 00:13:31,760
Speaker 4: Well, there is another approach. Earlier in the summer, the

203
00:13:31,800 --> 00:13:34,840
Speaker 4: Senate Deputy majority Leader and a member of the Assembly

204
00:13:34,880 --> 00:13:39,559
Speaker 4: introduced a resolution in the legislature that would permit New

205
00:13:39,640 --> 00:13:44,200
Speaker 4: York to rejow the district lines mid decade if and

206
00:13:44,240 --> 00:13:47,960
Speaker 4: only after any other state does the same thing in

207
00:13:48,040 --> 00:13:52,760
Speaker 4: mid decades. So since Texas already went ahead and mid

208
00:13:52,760 --> 00:13:57,120
Speaker 4: decade redistricted, this amendment would let New York also redistrict

209
00:13:57,480 --> 00:14:00,920
Speaker 4: mid decade. The state constitution right now prohibit that. But

210
00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:04,239
Speaker 4: the barrier to that is that, since the state constitution

211
00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:08,560
Speaker 4: now currently does bar mid decade redistricting, you have to

212
00:14:08,640 --> 00:14:11,360
Speaker 4: change the constitution, and to do that you need to

213
00:14:11,400 --> 00:14:16,079
Speaker 4: have an amendment go through two separately elected legislatures. So

214
00:14:16,760 --> 00:14:20,160
Speaker 4: the plan now is to pass something, whether it's the

215
00:14:20,200 --> 00:14:24,040
Speaker 4: amendment that was introduced earlier this summer or possibly a

216
00:14:24,160 --> 00:14:27,960
Speaker 4: more expansive amendment, but to do that next year and

217
00:14:28,000 --> 00:14:31,160
Speaker 4: then pass it again with the new legislature in twenty

218
00:14:31,280 --> 00:14:34,760
Speaker 4: twenty seven, so that the voters can then approve the

219
00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:38,640
Speaker 4: question and then enable the legislature to redraw a new

220
00:14:38,640 --> 00:14:41,240
Speaker 4: map for twenty twenty eight. This is similar to the

221
00:14:41,280 --> 00:14:44,720
Speaker 4: process that's getting underway this week in Virginia. The New

222
00:14:44,840 --> 00:14:50,040
Speaker 4: York situation is complicated in that we've got politics, personalities,

223
00:14:50,240 --> 00:14:54,520
Speaker 4: competing lawsuits, and the calendar all running against each other

224
00:14:54,560 --> 00:14:55,400
Speaker 4: at the same time.

225
00:14:56,120 --> 00:14:59,600
Speaker 3: How many seats has Trump already gotten through.

226
00:14:59,360 --> 00:15:03,240
Speaker 4: The rediscd well, I mean, the ballpark claims are that

227
00:15:03,720 --> 00:15:07,560
Speaker 4: there are five Democrats who were targeted in Texas, that

228
00:15:07,640 --> 00:15:11,120
Speaker 4: there was one Democrat targeted in Missouri, that there are

229
00:15:11,200 --> 00:15:15,360
Speaker 4: up to two Democrats targeted in Indiana, there is one

230
00:15:15,400 --> 00:15:19,280
Speaker 4: Democrat in Kansas, so that you know, they're really fighting

231
00:15:19,280 --> 00:15:23,440
Speaker 4: a state by state trench warfare, picking off one district

232
00:15:23,440 --> 00:15:27,400
Speaker 4: here or one district there. So it's really getting down

233
00:15:27,440 --> 00:15:30,480
Speaker 4: to a micro targeting that when you have a two

234
00:15:30,640 --> 00:15:34,840
Speaker 4: three four seat Republican majority that you're trying to overcome,

235
00:15:35,400 --> 00:15:40,520
Speaker 4: every single seat matters. In California, you've got another situation

236
00:15:40,600 --> 00:15:44,800
Speaker 4: where Democrats can possibly pick up five districts by weakening

237
00:15:45,280 --> 00:15:48,960
Speaker 4: or eliminating districts of five current Republicans, but that has

238
00:15:49,000 --> 00:15:52,920
Speaker 4: to go through two votes by the republic this year.

239
00:15:52,960 --> 00:15:56,000
Speaker 4: One is to amend the state constitution to get around

240
00:15:56,280 --> 00:16:00,640
Speaker 4: the state's own ban on mid decade districting and using

241
00:16:00,680 --> 00:16:04,040
Speaker 4: a commission to join the maps. Then secondly requesting the

242
00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:08,200
Speaker 4: voters actually approve a map that the legislature itself voted

243
00:16:08,240 --> 00:16:09,640
Speaker 4: on over the summer.

244
00:16:10,160 --> 00:16:14,440
Speaker 3: Is the redistricting done in Texas? Is it being challenged?

245
00:16:15,040 --> 00:16:19,000
Speaker 4: There are court cases challenging the Texas maps. There were

246
00:16:19,120 --> 00:16:22,360
Speaker 4: challenges filed almost the next day, but they may.

247
00:16:22,240 --> 00:16:24,400
Speaker 3: Not settle out before the election.

248
00:16:24,960 --> 00:16:28,200
Speaker 4: Texas and North Carolina have been in court over redistricting

249
00:16:28,240 --> 00:16:32,120
Speaker 4: for almost thirty years, consistently, always in court over this.

250
00:16:32,760 --> 00:16:34,160
Speaker 4: It's not one map, it's another.

251
00:16:34,560 --> 00:16:37,640
Speaker 3: Got to be a better way. So you mentioned Virginia.

252
00:16:37,720 --> 00:16:39,080
Speaker 3: What's happening in Virginia.

253
00:16:39,240 --> 00:16:43,200
Speaker 4: Well, in Virginia the Democrats control of the state legislature

254
00:16:43,920 --> 00:16:48,120
Speaker 4: with a Republican governor. But what's happening there is that Virginia,

255
00:16:48,400 --> 00:16:52,720
Speaker 4: like New York and like California, have bans on mid

256
00:16:52,760 --> 00:16:57,800
Speaker 4: decade redistricting. So Virginia is beginning today to consider a

257
00:16:57,840 --> 00:17:01,040
Speaker 4: state constitutional amendment to do the same thing I talked

258
00:17:01,040 --> 00:17:04,320
Speaker 4: about in New York, to allow the legislature itself to

259
00:17:04,440 --> 00:17:07,680
Speaker 4: draw a new map, subjects to approval by the voters.

260
00:17:08,119 --> 00:17:12,600
Speaker 4: That amendment also has to go through two separately elected legislatures,

261
00:17:12,600 --> 00:17:14,160
Speaker 4: so that you know, it's going to take at least

262
00:17:14,160 --> 00:17:17,119
Speaker 4: two years or three years in Virginia to do the

263
00:17:17,160 --> 00:17:19,920
Speaker 4: same thing that Democrats are trying to do in New York.

264
00:17:20,600 --> 00:17:23,399
Speaker 3: So that's not going to help the midterms what happens

265
00:17:23,440 --> 00:17:24,000
Speaker 3: in Virginia.

266
00:17:24,880 --> 00:17:27,800
Speaker 4: That's why the lawsuit that was filed earlier this week,

267
00:17:27,920 --> 00:17:30,439
Speaker 4: you know, it was aimed to impact the twenty twenty

268
00:17:30,480 --> 00:17:34,080
Speaker 4: six elections, but there's no guarantee if the case survives

269
00:17:34,119 --> 00:17:37,080
Speaker 4: through all of the trial levels, that will get resolved

270
00:17:37,119 --> 00:17:40,040
Speaker 4: before the twenty twenty six elections, and you know, may

271
00:17:40,080 --> 00:17:43,560
Speaker 4: stretch towards twenty twenty eight. But you know, it looks

272
00:17:43,640 --> 00:17:46,320
Speaker 4: now as if this battle isn't going to end until

273
00:17:46,359 --> 00:17:47,119
Speaker 4: twenty thirty.

274
00:17:47,560 --> 00:17:51,120
Speaker 3: Why is it that the Blue states have all these

275
00:17:51,240 --> 00:17:56,400
Speaker 3: restrictions like no mid decade redistricting, and the red states

276
00:17:56,440 --> 00:17:57,399
Speaker 3: don't seem to have it.

277
00:17:57,760 --> 00:18:01,320
Speaker 4: Well, two reasons. First is that there simply are more

278
00:18:01,680 --> 00:18:06,119
Speaker 4: states under Republican control than democratic and the second is

279
00:18:06,160 --> 00:18:08,600
Speaker 4: that a number of states passed new laws in the

280
00:18:08,680 --> 00:18:13,120
Speaker 4: last ten twenty years to create a more independent, transparent,

281
00:18:13,240 --> 00:18:23,960
Speaker 4: and open, voter involved redistricting process through commissions New York, California, Michigan, Colorado, Virginia,

282
00:18:24,000 --> 00:18:26,960
Speaker 4: just to name a few. The Republican states where we've

283
00:18:27,000 --> 00:18:32,680
Speaker 4: seen mid decade district things such as Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Kansas,

284
00:18:33,040 --> 00:18:37,959
Speaker 4: they don't have commissions or processes like the Blue states have.

285
00:18:38,480 --> 00:18:42,000
Speaker 4: And Democrats are now realizing that some of the reforms

286
00:18:42,040 --> 00:18:45,520
Speaker 4: they enacted over the years to make redistricting more transparent

287
00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:49,200
Speaker 4: haven't worked the way they should have, especially when you've

288
00:18:49,200 --> 00:18:52,080
Speaker 4: got a president who is looking at his victories and

289
00:18:52,160 --> 00:18:55,200
Speaker 4: states is a mandate to control their congressional delegations and

290
00:18:55,280 --> 00:19:01,119
Speaker 4: demand that the delegations represent his victory last year. This

291
00:19:01,240 --> 00:19:05,280
Speaker 4: is unprecedented in American history for presidents to get involved

292
00:19:05,440 --> 00:19:07,359
Speaker 4: in this minute power picking grab.

293
00:19:07,680 --> 00:19:11,399
Speaker 3: I use the word unprecedented nearly every day in this show.

294
00:19:11,840 --> 00:19:15,000
Speaker 3: So you have, you know, Republicans pushing, and then you

295
00:19:15,080 --> 00:19:18,879
Speaker 3: have like Democrats. The leader of the Maryland Senate is

296
00:19:18,960 --> 00:19:21,879
Speaker 3: rejecting the effort to redistrict there.

297
00:19:22,440 --> 00:19:25,800
Speaker 4: Well, you know, you also have Republicans in the Indiana

298
00:19:25,880 --> 00:19:30,040
Speaker 4: Senate pushing back. So in some states you've got Democrats

299
00:19:30,359 --> 00:19:33,600
Speaker 4: who are fighting back. In states you've got Republicans who

300
00:19:33,600 --> 00:19:36,480
Speaker 4: want to do what Donald Trump tells them to do

301
00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:39,639
Speaker 4: and believe this is in his best interest. And then

302
00:19:39,680 --> 00:19:42,320
Speaker 4: you have some Democrats and Republicans to are other states

303
00:19:42,320 --> 00:19:45,000
Speaker 4: who just say this is going too far, this is

304
00:19:45,040 --> 00:19:47,199
Speaker 4: not what we were elected to do, and we're not

305
00:19:47,280 --> 00:19:48,479
Speaker 4: going to go along with this.

306
00:19:49,440 --> 00:19:54,679
Speaker 3: Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries went to Illinois to try to

307
00:19:54,760 --> 00:19:57,080
Speaker 3: convince them there to redistrict.

308
00:19:58,160 --> 00:20:00,359
Speaker 4: Well, that's a state where democrats too can all the

309
00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:03,720
Speaker 4: governorship in both chambers of the legislature. But the map

310
00:20:03,760 --> 00:20:08,000
Speaker 4: that they enacted there after the twenty twenty census arguably

311
00:20:08,080 --> 00:20:11,639
Speaker 4: max is out democratic strength that you really can't draw

312
00:20:12,119 --> 00:20:16,359
Speaker 4: more democratic districts. But I don't think the ballgame is

313
00:20:16,359 --> 00:20:18,920
Speaker 4: over there yet. We have to wait and see, Yeah,

314
00:20:18,960 --> 00:20:19,359
Speaker 4: because you.

315
00:20:19,359 --> 00:20:21,840
Speaker 3: Think that you can't do it until they find some

316
00:20:22,320 --> 00:20:23,440
Speaker 3: strange way of.

317
00:20:23,640 --> 00:20:26,720
Speaker 4: Doing it, Like in Texas. In twenty nineteen, the US

318
00:20:26,760 --> 00:20:29,919
Speaker 4: Supreme Court held in a case called Route Show versus

319
00:20:29,920 --> 00:20:33,720
Speaker 4: common cause, that federal courts are not the place to

320
00:20:33,800 --> 00:20:40,439
Speaker 4: bring partisan garry mandering redistricting allegations, that there's no judicially

321
00:20:40,800 --> 00:20:44,960
Speaker 4: manageable standard by which to determine how much is too much,

322
00:20:45,520 --> 00:20:47,720
Speaker 4: and that it's best left to the states or Congress

323
00:20:47,720 --> 00:20:51,320
Speaker 4: to deal with it. So you've got states now. In particular,

324
00:20:51,400 --> 00:20:55,800
Speaker 4: we've seen the North Carolina and Pennsylvania state courts reject

325
00:20:55,840 --> 00:21:00,440
Speaker 4: partisan gerry manders, and ironically, in North Carolina, the state

326
00:21:00,520 --> 00:21:03,600
Speaker 4: Supreme Court went from a Democratic court to a Republican court.

327
00:21:04,000 --> 00:21:08,440
Speaker 4: They flipped there and now said that redistricting is perrymandering,

328
00:21:08,520 --> 00:21:11,560
Speaker 4: you know, is permissible in that state. So a lot

329
00:21:11,600 --> 00:21:15,000
Speaker 4: of this is determined, sadly by politics, not by law

330
00:21:15,320 --> 00:21:18,280
Speaker 4: or precedent. The North Carolina Supreme Court just did a

331
00:21:18,320 --> 00:21:22,720
Speaker 4: total flip on rejecting a congressional map and now accepting

332
00:21:22,720 --> 00:21:24,840
Speaker 4: it all in the last several years.

333
00:21:25,320 --> 00:21:27,680
Speaker 3: Is Colorado coming into the picture as well?

334
00:21:28,200 --> 00:21:33,760
Speaker 4: Colorado also has a commission in Bars on bid decay districting,

335
00:21:33,840 --> 00:21:37,040
Speaker 4: and I just haven't seen any action in Colorado yet,

336
00:21:37,440 --> 00:21:40,440
Speaker 4: But I think with national pressure on states one by one,

337
00:21:40,600 --> 00:21:42,520
Speaker 4: we just have to wait and see what happens. As

338
00:21:42,880 --> 00:21:45,919
Speaker 4: twenty twenty six approaches after.

339
00:21:45,680 --> 00:21:48,359
Speaker 3: The midterms, what are these, you know, states going to

340
00:21:48,400 --> 00:21:50,840
Speaker 3: look like. It's going to be all Republican states and

341
00:21:50,880 --> 00:21:52,560
Speaker 3: all Democratic states.

342
00:21:52,200 --> 00:21:54,480
Speaker 4: It seems, and that's why I think this will continue

343
00:21:54,560 --> 00:21:58,119
Speaker 4: till twenty thirty. Twenty twenty eight. Then we have twenty

344
00:21:58,200 --> 00:22:01,200
Speaker 4: thirty ahead of us, where the White House is already

345
00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:04,600
Speaker 4: trying to manipulate the way the census is conducted to

346
00:22:05,320 --> 00:22:09,400
Speaker 4: base the numbers on citizens and not on the whole

347
00:22:09,480 --> 00:22:13,359
Speaker 4: number of persons as the Constitution requires. So this is

348
00:22:13,400 --> 00:22:14,800
Speaker 4: a multifaceted battle.

349
00:22:15,440 --> 00:22:19,920
Speaker 3: We'll find out more about the situation in California after

350
00:22:20,000 --> 00:22:26,159
Speaker 3: election day. Voting concludes on Proposition fifty, which would create

351
00:22:26,320 --> 00:22:30,879
Speaker 3: parties in US House maps outside of normal once a

352
00:22:30,960 --> 00:22:36,919
Speaker 3: decade redistricting handled by an independent commission. Jeff thanks so

353
00:22:37,000 --> 00:22:40,280
Speaker 3: much for bringing to light all the different concerns and

354
00:22:40,440 --> 00:22:45,920
Speaker 3: permutations with redistricting. That's Professor Jeffrey Weiss of New York

355
00:22:46,000 --> 00:22:49,080
Speaker 3: Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show,

356
00:22:49,600 --> 00:22:52,280
Speaker 3: We'll tell you what's in Donald Trump's appeal of his

357
00:22:52,480 --> 00:22:56,040
Speaker 3: New York hush money conviction. I'm June Grosso and you're

358
00:22:56,119 --> 00:23:04,600
Speaker 3: listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump formally appealed his conviction

359
00:23:04,800 --> 00:23:08,480
Speaker 3: in New York state so called hush money case this week,

360
00:23:09,119 --> 00:23:11,920
Speaker 3: arguing that the verdict was the result of a flawed

361
00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:16,480
Speaker 3: trial and a politically charged prosecution that sought to derail

362
00:23:16,600 --> 00:23:21,480
Speaker 3: his twenty twenty four presidential campaign. Trump's attorney said the

363
00:23:21,520 --> 00:23:26,160
Speaker 3: felony charges by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in April

364
00:23:26,200 --> 00:23:31,560
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty three were manufactured under a convoluted legal theory.

365
00:23:31,960 --> 00:23:35,080
Speaker 3: A jury of twelve New Yorkers found Trump guilty of

366
00:23:35,280 --> 00:23:39,520
Speaker 3: thirty four counts of falsifying business records to conceal a

367
00:23:39,600 --> 00:23:42,680
Speaker 3: hush money payment to a porn star on the eve

368
00:23:42,760 --> 00:23:46,359
Speaker 3: of the twenty sixteen election. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal

369
00:23:46,400 --> 00:23:50,320
Speaker 3: reporter Eric Larson. Eric, before we get to the appeal,

370
00:23:50,760 --> 00:23:55,360
Speaker 3: just remind us about the trial itself, right.

371
00:23:55,440 --> 00:23:58,560
Speaker 1: So, this was the so called hush money case that

372
00:23:58,760 --> 00:24:01,720
Speaker 1: was brought against Trump in twenty twenty three by the

373
00:24:01,760 --> 00:24:07,640
Speaker 1: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bradd. It accused him of falsifying

374
00:24:07,720 --> 00:24:12,840
Speaker 1: business records dozens of times to essentially conceal a payment

375
00:24:13,280 --> 00:24:16,280
Speaker 1: that was made to a porn star before the twenty

376
00:24:16,400 --> 00:24:20,200
Speaker 1: sixteen election in order to keep her quiet and keep

377
00:24:20,240 --> 00:24:25,959
Speaker 1: voters in the darkabouts that alleged conduct, and at a trial,

378
00:24:26,040 --> 00:24:30,040
Speaker 1: a jury of New Yorkers found Trump guilty on all

379
00:24:30,240 --> 00:24:34,040
Speaker 1: thirty four counts last year, that was just about six

380
00:24:34,040 --> 00:24:35,719
Speaker 1: months or so before the election.

381
00:24:36,359 --> 00:24:40,280
Speaker 3: There are several grounds in the appeal. Let's start with

382
00:24:40,600 --> 00:24:44,960
Speaker 3: the claim that the charges were manufactured under a convoluted

383
00:24:45,040 --> 00:24:45,760
Speaker 3: legal theory.

384
00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:49,240
Speaker 1: Right, So this is one of the arguments that Trump's

385
00:24:49,280 --> 00:24:51,840
Speaker 1: lawyers sort of that had been making all along, which

386
00:24:51,880 --> 00:24:55,360
Speaker 1: is that they didn't think that the alleged conducts well.

387
00:24:55,359 --> 00:24:58,040
Speaker 1: First of all, that they denied any at has been broken,

388
00:24:58,359 --> 00:25:03,720
Speaker 1: but they argued that the the business record violations were

389
00:25:04,480 --> 00:25:08,800
Speaker 1: just misdemeanors under New York law, and that the district

390
00:25:08,800 --> 00:25:12,359
Speaker 1: attorney had gone out of his way to sort of

391
00:25:12,880 --> 00:25:17,720
Speaker 1: create a felony by stacking all these these violations in

392
00:25:17,760 --> 00:25:20,920
Speaker 1: a way that then tied them to the furtherance of

393
00:25:21,160 --> 00:25:25,680
Speaker 1: violating another law, an election law. So they argue that

394
00:25:25,680 --> 00:25:28,879
Speaker 1: that sort of, you know, transformation of misdemeanors into a

395
00:25:28,920 --> 00:25:32,000
Speaker 1: felony through that legal theory was never done before that

396
00:25:32,080 --> 00:25:34,720
Speaker 1: they were really stretching their arguments to try to find

397
00:25:34,720 --> 00:25:36,840
Speaker 1: a way to make it a felony, And according to

398
00:25:36,880 --> 00:25:39,919
Speaker 1: this appeal brief that they filed this week, you know,

399
00:25:39,960 --> 00:25:44,080
Speaker 1: they said that all along the District Attorney's office had

400
00:25:44,080 --> 00:25:48,160
Speaker 1: struggled to find a case and initially couldn't build one

401
00:25:48,520 --> 00:25:50,760
Speaker 1: that was a felony, and that they really sort of,

402
00:25:50,920 --> 00:25:53,960
Speaker 1: you know, worked their way backwards to try to create

403
00:25:54,080 --> 00:25:57,399
Speaker 1: a felony case. According to to Trump's lawyers.

404
00:25:57,000 --> 00:26:00,159
Speaker 3: Well, another argument, which is about did you we are

405
00:26:00,280 --> 00:26:04,320
Speaker 3: hearing improper evidence uses a new term, I think presidential

406
00:26:04,520 --> 00:26:08,760
Speaker 3: evidentiary immunity. Right, I've never heard it before.

407
00:26:09,600 --> 00:26:12,800
Speaker 1: Well, that's because they're attributing that to the Supreme Court

408
00:26:13,000 --> 00:26:16,760
Speaker 1: ruling that had come out regarding presidential immunity. We all

409
00:26:16,800 --> 00:26:21,640
Speaker 1: remember this big ruling that said that presidents are immune

410
00:26:21,720 --> 00:26:27,119
Speaker 1: from criminal charges are related to conduct in office. So

411
00:26:27,400 --> 00:26:32,040
Speaker 1: they pointed to that president and said that because Trump

412
00:26:32,160 --> 00:26:36,280
Speaker 1: has immunity from official acts in office, that all of

413
00:26:36,280 --> 00:26:40,399
Speaker 1: his conduct around that is evidence that also can't be

414
00:26:40,520 --> 00:26:44,119
Speaker 1: used against him in court. So they argue that the

415
00:26:44,200 --> 00:26:47,720
Speaker 1: jury improperly heard as evidence in the hush money case

416
00:26:48,160 --> 00:26:50,640
Speaker 1: about some things he did while he was in office,

417
00:26:50,640 --> 00:26:54,960
Speaker 1: which he argues were official presidential acts related to how

418
00:26:55,080 --> 00:27:00,439
Speaker 1: back in twenty seventeen, he responded to the porn star's

419
00:27:00,480 --> 00:27:05,040
Speaker 1: allegations Doormy Daniels and denied those allegations and rather how

420
00:27:05,080 --> 00:27:07,159
Speaker 1: he worked with his lawyer at one of his lawyers

421
00:27:07,160 --> 00:27:08,879
Speaker 1: at the time, Michael Cohen, who went on to be

422
00:27:08,920 --> 00:27:13,480
Speaker 1: one of the witnesses against him. So basically, Trump argues

423
00:27:13,520 --> 00:27:15,080
Speaker 1: there was a lot of stuff going on while he

424
00:27:15,200 --> 00:27:17,600
Speaker 1: was president and that the jury should not have heard

425
00:27:17,640 --> 00:27:18,080
Speaker 1: about it.

426
00:27:18,520 --> 00:27:21,119
Speaker 3: He also, and we heard this over and over during

427
00:27:21,160 --> 00:27:24,720
Speaker 3: the case about the judge, him complaining about the judge

428
00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:28,800
Speaker 3: that the judge should have recused himself from the case.

429
00:27:29,760 --> 00:27:33,600
Speaker 1: Right right. Trump did not hide his feelings about this judge.

430
00:27:34,440 --> 00:27:36,879
Speaker 1: He really thought that the judge was biased, made that

431
00:27:37,200 --> 00:27:40,840
Speaker 1: allegation plenty of times all along, and of course pointed

432
00:27:40,880 --> 00:27:46,399
Speaker 1: to the judge allegedly making donations Democrats and to an

433
00:27:46,440 --> 00:27:52,000
Speaker 1: anti GOP pack also that his daughter works for an

434
00:27:52,040 --> 00:27:57,040
Speaker 1: advertising firm that did business with Kamala Harris's campaign. So

435
00:27:57,160 --> 00:28:02,200
Speaker 1: because of these ties and these nations, Trump argued that

436
00:28:02,320 --> 00:28:06,520
Speaker 1: the judge could not be fair. And that argument also,

437
00:28:06,600 --> 00:28:09,199
Speaker 1: of course was made before trial and during trial, and

438
00:28:09,359 --> 00:28:13,919
Speaker 1: was repeatedly rejected. The judge, pointing to the strength of

439
00:28:13,920 --> 00:28:18,000
Speaker 1: the evidence and things like that to illustrate that his

440
00:28:18,200 --> 00:28:21,320
Speaker 1: arguments or his decisions and opinions were based on the

441
00:28:21,359 --> 00:28:24,200
Speaker 1: facts and not on any of his own opinions. So

442
00:28:24,800 --> 00:28:27,840
Speaker 1: again that was rejected repeatedly. But now we'll see what

443
00:28:27,880 --> 00:28:29,199
Speaker 1: an appeals court things.

444
00:28:29,680 --> 00:28:35,280
Speaker 3: So this is state court. He's also appealing in federal court, right.

445
00:28:35,359 --> 00:28:39,280
Speaker 1: So you might recall that there were some appeal filings

446
00:28:39,280 --> 00:28:44,000
Speaker 1: in regards to this verdict in federal court because Trump

447
00:28:44,040 --> 00:28:46,959
Speaker 1: had tried to move the case to federal court all along,

448
00:28:47,200 --> 00:28:50,240
Speaker 1: and tried to do so again after the verdict because

449
00:28:50,640 --> 00:28:52,480
Speaker 1: he argues that it never should have been in state

450
00:28:52,480 --> 00:28:56,080
Speaker 1: court because of the different federal questions that were raised.

451
00:28:56,400 --> 00:28:59,600
Speaker 1: That was repeatedly rejected by a federal judge in Manhattan,

452
00:28:59,640 --> 00:29:02,959
Speaker 1: by the way, but he has asked the Second Circuit

453
00:29:03,000 --> 00:29:07,280
Speaker 1: Appeals Court in Manhattan to revisit this issue. That was

454
00:29:07,320 --> 00:29:10,960
Speaker 1: an appeal track that was started earlier. So that clearly

455
00:29:10,960 --> 00:29:15,680
Speaker 1: Trump's defense team is prioritizing that that's appeal route, which

456
00:29:15,720 --> 00:29:18,280
Speaker 1: would get him faster to the Supreme Court as well.

457
00:29:18,880 --> 00:29:21,480
Speaker 1: So he's he's got a two track appeal going here.

458
00:29:21,520 --> 00:29:21,760
Speaker 4: Now.

459
00:29:22,600 --> 00:29:28,680
Speaker 3: Trump was successful in appealing the civil fraud conviction in

460
00:29:28,720 --> 00:29:32,280
Speaker 3: the case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

461
00:29:33,560 --> 00:29:35,760
Speaker 1: Right, you know, he he did get a big win

462
00:29:35,840 --> 00:29:38,840
Speaker 1: there the president when that that massive nearly half billion

463
00:29:38,880 --> 00:29:42,160
Speaker 1: dollar penalty was overturned in then in New York States

464
00:29:42,400 --> 00:29:47,760
Speaker 1: civil fraud case. But courts that appeals court decision also

465
00:29:47,920 --> 00:29:51,640
Speaker 1: left and taxed the liability finding that Trump and his

466
00:29:51,680 --> 00:29:55,120
Speaker 1: company and his two adult sons had engaged in fraud.

467
00:29:55,760 --> 00:29:59,760
Speaker 1: So both sides of that case have appealed. We don't

468
00:29:59,760 --> 00:30:02,520
Speaker 1: know exactly how long that is going to take to

469
00:30:02,520 --> 00:30:05,000
Speaker 1: work its way through the courts. That they've appelled it

470
00:30:05,080 --> 00:30:07,240
Speaker 1: to New York State's highest court, so it's already a

471
00:30:07,240 --> 00:30:09,360
Speaker 1: little further along than this criminal case.

472
00:30:09,760 --> 00:30:14,000
Speaker 3: But now he hasn't been as successful against Egene Carroll.

473
00:30:15,200 --> 00:30:15,440
Speaker 4: Right.

474
00:30:15,560 --> 00:30:20,760
Speaker 1: He appealed the verdict in two cases that Egen Carroll filed.

475
00:30:21,720 --> 00:30:25,040
Speaker 1: She won both. One was the defamation case with an

476
00:30:25,040 --> 00:30:27,680
Speaker 1: eighty three million dollar penalty. The other was a defamation

477
00:30:27,800 --> 00:30:31,240
Speaker 1: and sexual abuse lawsuits file in her New York state

478
00:30:31,320 --> 00:30:35,080
Speaker 1: law with a five million dollar penalty. He appealed both

479
00:30:35,120 --> 00:30:38,360
Speaker 1: of those to the federal appeals court, and those verdicts

480
00:30:38,400 --> 00:30:40,200
Speaker 1: were both upheld.

481
00:30:40,680 --> 00:30:44,440
Speaker 3: These cases all seem like they happened a lifetime ago.

482
00:30:44,840 --> 00:30:48,840
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Eric. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson,

483
00:30:49,440 --> 00:30:51,760
Speaker 3: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

484
00:30:52,120 --> 00:30:54,479
Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

485
00:30:54,520 --> 00:30:58,800
Speaker 3: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

486
00:30:58,960 --> 00:31:04,000
Speaker 3: and at ww dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

487
00:31:04,400 --> 00:31:07,000
Speaker 3: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

488
00:31:07,040 --> 00:31:10,960
Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

489
00:31:11,080 --> 00:31:12,680
Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg