1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,440
Speaker 1: Well, now is time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,

2
00:00:02,520 --> 00:00:05,520
Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news. And Today, Bloomberg Law

3
00:00:05,559 --> 00:00:08,680
Speaker 1: host June Grosso and Greg Stewart discussed the Supreme Court

4
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:11,479
Speaker 1: decision to pass a voting district case back down to

5
00:00:11,520 --> 00:00:14,560
Speaker 1: the lower court that originally ruled on the case, ordering

6
00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:19,160
Speaker 1: it to consider whether Virginia's Republican lawmakers unconstitutionally drew state

7
00:00:19,320 --> 00:00:23,119
Speaker 1: legislative districts along racial lines. They speak with Nate percilly, Or,

8
00:00:23,160 --> 00:00:29,840
Speaker 1: professor at Stanford University Law School, Nate um Justice Kennedy Welcome.

9
00:00:30,160 --> 00:00:33,479
Speaker 1: Justice Kennedy wrote the court's opinion. What specifically did he

10
00:00:33,560 --> 00:00:37,839
Speaker 1: say the lower court did wrong in upholding these districts. Well,

11
00:00:37,840 --> 00:00:40,559
Speaker 1: what he said was that the Voting Rights Act may

12
00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:47,200
Speaker 1: require the consideration of race, but that sometimes a state

13
00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:50,760
Speaker 1: can go too far, and he remanded to the lower

14
00:00:51,040 --> 00:00:53,920
Speaker 1: The court remanded to the lower court to figure out

15
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:59,200
Speaker 1: whether in in UH eleven of these districts, the state

16
00:00:59,400 --> 00:01:02,800
Speaker 1: nevertheless UH used race more than is required under the

17
00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:06,080
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act. And in particular, what the Court had

18
00:01:06,120 --> 00:01:10,240
Speaker 1: said below is that look, uh, these districts were relatively square.

19
00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:12,920
Speaker 1: They were they were not as misshapen as a kind

20
00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:16,160
Speaker 1: of your average Gerrymander district and so therefore I don't

21
00:01:16,200 --> 00:01:19,000
Speaker 1: have to think about whether race was the predominant factor

22
00:01:19,040 --> 00:01:21,440
Speaker 1: in the construction of these districts. And the court said, no, no, no,

23
00:01:21,959 --> 00:01:23,760
Speaker 1: you still have to think about it. Even if it

24
00:01:23,800 --> 00:01:27,040
Speaker 1: doesn't look like they violated traditional districting principles. You have

25
00:01:27,120 --> 00:01:30,080
Speaker 1: to ask the question whether the reason that they were

26
00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:34,119
Speaker 1: drawn was to create majority minority districts. Nate, is this

27
00:01:34,240 --> 00:01:37,480
Speaker 1: ruling a victory for Democrats who formed a group, the

28
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:43,640
Speaker 1: National Democratic Redistricting Committee, to tackle their disadvantage in Jerrymander districts.

29
00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:46,480
Speaker 1: I mean it is a victory, but it's not a

30
00:01:46,520 --> 00:01:49,360
Speaker 1: complete victory. I think that they would have liked the

31
00:01:49,400 --> 00:01:52,400
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to really decide the issue instead of remanding

32
00:01:52,400 --> 00:01:54,880
Speaker 1: to the lower courts. And so this case will come

33
00:01:54,960 --> 00:01:58,000
Speaker 1: right back up to them, UH once and they will

34
00:01:58,040 --> 00:02:00,160
Speaker 1: have nine justices at that point, and maybe they will

35
00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:02,560
Speaker 1: be a different outcome. I think right now this is

36
00:02:02,560 --> 00:02:05,200
Speaker 1: in some ways that kind of placeholder decision, which is

37
00:02:05,320 --> 00:02:08,240
Speaker 1: giving the district court time to focus on the question

38
00:02:08,320 --> 00:02:10,280
Speaker 1: as to the role of that race played in the

39
00:02:10,320 --> 00:02:15,040
Speaker 1: construction these districts, and UH, the Court really didn't wrestle

40
00:02:15,160 --> 00:02:17,600
Speaker 1: with what is one of the thorniest issues here, which

41
00:02:17,720 --> 00:02:20,639
Speaker 1: is sort of the collision between provisions of the Voting

42
00:02:20,720 --> 00:02:23,800
Speaker 1: Rights Act that require the use of race and the

43
00:02:23,800 --> 00:02:26,280
Speaker 1: provisions of the Constitution that's say, sometimes you could use

44
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:28,920
Speaker 1: race too much in the construction of the district. As

45
00:02:29,000 --> 00:02:32,400
Speaker 1: Napor Sillier, Professor at Stanford University Law School, speaking with

46
00:02:32,440 --> 00:02:35,440
Speaker 1: Bloomberg La, Hoos stun Grosso and Greg Sture. You can

47
00:02:35,440 --> 00:02:38,160
Speaker 1: listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street

48
00:02:38,200 --> 00:02:41,560
Speaker 1: Time here on Bloomberg Radio, and the Bloomberg Law Brief

49
00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:45,480
Speaker 1: has brought to you by American Arbitration Association. Business disputes

50
00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:49,680
Speaker 1: are inevitable resolved faster with the American Arbitration Association, the

51
00:02:49,680 --> 00:02:53,520
Speaker 1: global leader in alternative dispute resolution for over ninety years.

52
00:02:53,840 --> 00:02:56,640
Speaker 1: More at a d R dot org. And that's this

53
00:02:56,720 --> 00:02:59,080
Speaker 1: morning is Bloomberg Lab Brief. You can find more legal

54
00:02:59,120 --> 00:03:01,760
Speaker 1: news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg b NA

55
00:03:01,880 --> 00:03:05,440
Speaker 1: dot com. Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business

56
00:03:05,440 --> 00:03:08,520
Speaker 1: development tools there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com

57
00:03:08,800 --> 00:03:12,080
Speaker 1: and Bloomberg b n A dot com for more information