1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,960 --> 00:00:13,240
Speaker 2: Welcome to the happiest place on Earth.

3
00:00:13,360 --> 00:00:16,240
Speaker 1: Where you're happy is everywhere anywhere.

4
00:00:17,040 --> 00:00:20,320
Speaker 3: Disney World may be the happiest place on Earth for visitors,

5
00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:24,360
Speaker 3: but the company itself is not so happy with Florida's

6
00:00:24,400 --> 00:00:27,800
Speaker 3: governor ending its ability to govern it's twenty five thousand

7
00:00:27,880 --> 00:00:32,240
Speaker 3: acre resort. So Disney is suing Republican Governor Ron DeSantis,

8
00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:37,600
Speaker 3: alleging he orchestrated a targeted campaign of government retaliation as

9
00:00:37,680 --> 00:00:42,920
Speaker 3: punishment for Disney's protected speech opposing Florida's don't Say Gay law.

10
00:00:43,240 --> 00:00:45,520
Speaker 3: Desanta says, the lawsuit is political.

11
00:00:46,200 --> 00:00:51,319
Speaker 1: They've been treated much different than Universal SeaWorld and all

12
00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:55,760
Speaker 1: these other places, and so they're upset because they're actually

13
00:00:55,760 --> 00:00:58,160
Speaker 1: having to live by the same rules as everybody else.

14
00:00:58,480 --> 00:00:59,920
Speaker 1: They don't want to have to pay the same time

15
00:01:00,520 --> 00:01:01,280
Speaker 1: everybody else.

16
00:01:01,680 --> 00:01:05,040
Speaker 3: But in the lawsuit, Disney points to dessantis his memoir

17
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,520
Speaker 3: where he described the bill against Disney and said quote,

18
00:01:08,560 --> 00:01:12,640
Speaker 3: Disney had clearly crossed a line in supportive indoctrinating very

19
00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:17,399
Speaker 3: young school children in woke politics. And also his many

20
00:01:17,480 --> 00:01:21,240
Speaker 3: public statements against Disney like this on April sixth.

21
00:01:21,720 --> 00:01:25,520
Speaker 4: They are not superior to the people of Florida, and so,

22
00:01:25,680 --> 00:01:28,160
Speaker 4: come hell or high water, we're going to make sure

23
00:01:28,520 --> 00:01:31,920
Speaker 4: that that policy of Florida carries the day, and so

24
00:01:32,200 --> 00:01:35,399
Speaker 4: they can keep trying to do things, but ultimately we're

25
00:01:35,400 --> 00:01:38,640
Speaker 4: going to win on every single issue involving Disney.

26
00:01:38,680 --> 00:01:43,120
Speaker 3: I can tell you that Dessanders has also speculated publicly

27
00:01:43,640 --> 00:01:47,280
Speaker 3: about what other actions he might take to punish Disney.

28
00:01:47,640 --> 00:01:49,080
Speaker 4: And now people are like, what should we do with

29
00:01:49,120 --> 00:01:51,960
Speaker 4: this land. People have said, maybe create a state park,

30
00:01:52,120 --> 00:01:54,880
Speaker 4: Maybe try to do more amusement parks.

31
00:01:54,920 --> 00:01:57,559
Speaker 1: Someone even said like, maybe you need another state prison.

32
00:01:57,600 --> 00:01:58,160
Speaker 3: Who knows.

33
00:01:58,200 --> 00:02:01,720
Speaker 1: I mean, I just think that the positive abilities are endless.

34
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:04,400
Speaker 3: My guest is Leslie Kendrick, director of the Center for

35
00:02:04,440 --> 00:02:08,000
Speaker 3: the First Amendment at the University of Virginia School of Law.

36
00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:11,480
Speaker 3: Tell us a little about Disney's lawsuit against DeSantis.

37
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:16,360
Speaker 2: So, Disney's recently filed suit against DeSantis on a number

38
00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:21,800
Speaker 2: of different grounds, contracts clause, due process, the takings clause,

39
00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:24,760
Speaker 2: and what's gotten the most attention our First Amendment claim

40
00:02:25,160 --> 00:02:29,360
Speaker 2: arguing that Florida laws that were passed that desantisis behs

41
00:02:29,680 --> 00:02:33,880
Speaker 2: violate the company's First Amendment rights because they are essentially

42
00:02:33,960 --> 00:02:38,800
Speaker 2: retaliation for Disney expressing a view about another piece of

43
00:02:38,880 --> 00:02:43,400
Speaker 2: legislation House Billed fifteen fifty seven, which is often known

44
00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:47,400
Speaker 2: as the Don't Say Gay Act, about regulating educators in

45
00:02:47,480 --> 00:02:50,480
Speaker 2: their presentation of material about same sex orientation.

46
00:02:50,960 --> 00:02:51,760
Speaker 5: So this is a.

47
00:02:51,639 --> 00:02:55,519
Speaker 2: Claim that essentially that the steps that DeSantis and the

48
00:02:55,600 --> 00:02:59,200
Speaker 2: legislature have taken since Disney did that amount to a

49
00:02:59,240 --> 00:03:02,040
Speaker 2: First Amendment by violation of Disney's right to pre speech.

50
00:03:03,080 --> 00:03:07,720
Speaker 3: Desantra'ss tough talk talk toward Disney is cited throughout the lawsuit,

51
00:03:07,800 --> 00:03:13,239
Speaker 3: including eighteen quotes referring to some form of woke Disney.

52
00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:16,640
Speaker 3: Is that the strongest part of their lawsuit what he

53
00:03:16,760 --> 00:03:17,560
Speaker 3: said himself.

54
00:03:18,280 --> 00:03:20,799
Speaker 2: So, as you know, all of this started more than

55
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:24,280
Speaker 2: a year ago when Disney first made the statements about

56
00:03:24,760 --> 00:03:28,959
Speaker 2: how Spill fifteen fifty seven, and DeSantis was critical of them,

57
00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:32,880
Speaker 2: saying that they had crossed the line in their criticism

58
00:03:33,240 --> 00:03:38,160
Speaker 2: of the law. And the complaint does include many statements

59
00:03:38,400 --> 00:03:43,400
Speaker 2: by DeSantis and also by legislators in Florida, and just

60
00:03:43,480 --> 00:03:48,600
Speaker 2: to be clear, statements that amounted to just criticism of

61
00:03:48,640 --> 00:03:53,000
Speaker 2: Disney wouldn't create the same issues. The reason the statements

62
00:03:53,040 --> 00:03:56,440
Speaker 2: are important in the context of this lawsuit is that

63
00:03:56,520 --> 00:04:01,720
Speaker 2: they argue to the motive or purpose of the specific

64
00:04:01,800 --> 00:04:06,320
Speaker 2: legal actions that the legislature took with regard to Disney's

65
00:04:06,400 --> 00:04:10,480
Speaker 2: development district there around Orlando. The argument is that these

66
00:04:10,480 --> 00:04:13,920
Speaker 2: statements show that this action was taken not for some

67
00:04:14,040 --> 00:04:18,400
Speaker 2: neutral business reason, but precisely because of and out of

68
00:04:18,440 --> 00:04:22,559
Speaker 2: retaliation for Disney's speech about the Don't Say a bill.

69
00:04:23,240 --> 00:04:27,000
Speaker 3: Randy Fine, a Republican who advanced the bill at that time, said,

70
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:29,599
Speaker 3: you kicked the hornets nest things come up, and I

71
00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:32,080
Speaker 3: will say this. You got me on one thing. This

72
00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:36,640
Speaker 3: bill does target one company. It targets the Walt Disney Company.

73
00:04:37,360 --> 00:04:40,880
Speaker 3: Is it targeting Walt Disney enough or does that targeting

74
00:04:40,960 --> 00:04:44,839
Speaker 3: have to be in retaliation for what Disney said?

75
00:04:45,240 --> 00:04:47,760
Speaker 2: Well, let's books for a larger question in law of

76
00:04:47,800 --> 00:04:51,280
Speaker 2: how we determine what the motivation or reason for a

77
00:04:51,400 --> 00:04:54,400
Speaker 2: law was, particularly in the context of a multi member

78
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:58,000
Speaker 2: body like a legislature, and the Supreme Court has spoken

79
00:04:58,040 --> 00:05:01,960
Speaker 2: to that numerous times. One thing cited in the complaint

80
00:05:02,000 --> 00:05:07,359
Speaker 2: is a precedent from equal protection doctrine that suggests you

81
00:05:07,480 --> 00:05:10,880
Speaker 2: have to look at the structure of the law to

82
00:05:11,040 --> 00:05:15,719
Speaker 2: help to wash out its purpose. And here this law

83
00:05:15,800 --> 00:05:18,919
Speaker 2: has passed under circumstances they are very different from the

84
00:05:18,960 --> 00:05:23,599
Speaker 2: customary way that the Florida legislature addresses development districts like this,

85
00:05:23,760 --> 00:05:27,440
Speaker 2: and of course there are about eighteen hundred development districts

86
00:05:27,480 --> 00:05:30,840
Speaker 2: like this around the state. More recently, in the Masterpiece

87
00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:34,240
Speaker 2: cake Shop case involving another part of the First Amendment,

88
00:05:34,560 --> 00:05:39,040
Speaker 2: the free Exercise clause, the court found that an entire

89
00:05:39,160 --> 00:05:43,840
Speaker 2: process had been painted by basically the remarks of one

90
00:05:44,400 --> 00:05:47,880
Speaker 2: or two members of the first governing body that had

91
00:05:47,880 --> 00:05:51,520
Speaker 2: addressed the problem, and suggested that that was enough to

92
00:05:51,560 --> 00:05:55,000
Speaker 2: discover a discriminatory purpose. So they've said a lot of

93
00:05:55,040 --> 00:05:58,920
Speaker 2: different things about this, and there are cases within the

94
00:05:58,920 --> 00:06:02,239
Speaker 2: free speech doctrine that suggests the timing of an action,

95
00:06:02,440 --> 00:06:06,760
Speaker 2: the circumstances of an action, all goes towards the reason

96
00:06:06,800 --> 00:06:07,679
Speaker 2: that it was done.

97
00:06:07,960 --> 00:06:10,800
Speaker 3: Can you explain what Disney would have to prove in

98
00:06:10,839 --> 00:06:11,640
Speaker 3: its lawsuit.

99
00:06:12,480 --> 00:06:16,280
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, what Disney is alleging is that it has

100
00:06:16,400 --> 00:06:20,000
Speaker 2: enjoyed a special relationship with the state of Florida dating

101
00:06:20,040 --> 00:06:22,960
Speaker 2: back to nineteen sixty seven with the creation of the

102
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:27,320
Speaker 2: Riedy Creek Improvement District, which is the area including the

103
00:06:27,400 --> 00:06:31,039
Speaker 2: Disney Parks, Walt Disney World and all around there that

104
00:06:31,720 --> 00:06:35,360
Speaker 2: enabled Disney to develop that property. But at the same time,

105
00:06:35,400 --> 00:06:39,880
Speaker 2: in post obligations, Disney is responsible for some basic services.

106
00:06:39,880 --> 00:06:43,640
Speaker 2: They are electricity and water so forth, and the improvement

107
00:06:43,680 --> 00:06:46,360
Speaker 2: of it, including you know, hundreds of millions of dollars

108
00:06:46,360 --> 00:06:52,000
Speaker 2: of infrastructure. Disney's argument is that this relationship has been

109
00:06:52,120 --> 00:06:56,600
Speaker 2: changed by the legislature at the santis's behest because of

110
00:06:57,160 --> 00:07:01,080
Speaker 2: Disney's exercise of its First Amendment rights expression of opposition

111
00:07:01,240 --> 00:07:05,160
Speaker 2: to how Spilled fifteen fifty seven. What they need to

112
00:07:05,200 --> 00:07:09,520
Speaker 2: show is that that action was taken because of their

113
00:07:09,720 --> 00:07:12,600
Speaker 2: exercise at First Amendment rights. Essentially, they need to show

114
00:07:12,920 --> 00:07:17,239
Speaker 2: a close enough connection between the actions taken the law's

115
00:07:17,280 --> 00:07:21,840
Speaker 2: pass to dissolve the development district and reincorporate it under

116
00:07:21,880 --> 00:07:25,800
Speaker 2: the power of the Governor's office, between that and the

117
00:07:25,880 --> 00:07:30,480
Speaker 2: reasons that the governor and others had stated contemporaneously in

118
00:07:30,600 --> 00:07:32,840
Speaker 2: lots of different venues for why they were taking that

119
00:07:32,960 --> 00:07:33,480
Speaker 2: kind of action.

120
00:07:34,000 --> 00:07:36,360
Speaker 3: So it seems to a casual observer, and I'll put

121
00:07:36,400 --> 00:07:40,880
Speaker 3: myself in that position that Dissantis has said a lot

122
00:07:41,200 --> 00:07:45,080
Speaker 3: about why he was doing it and about getting back

123
00:07:45,120 --> 00:07:48,720
Speaker 3: at Disney putting disney In's place. Is that enough if

124
00:07:48,720 --> 00:07:50,760
Speaker 3: he wants to put Disney in his place, or does

125
00:07:50,800 --> 00:07:54,600
Speaker 3: it have to be in retaliation for what Disney said?

126
00:07:54,840 --> 00:07:58,120
Speaker 3: I mean, the whole thing started after that law, in

127
00:07:58,200 --> 00:07:59,600
Speaker 3: Disney's opposition to it.

128
00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:00,440
Speaker 5: Yeah.

129
00:08:00,640 --> 00:08:03,480
Speaker 2: So you know, the basic idea in First Amendment law

130
00:08:03,680 --> 00:08:05,760
Speaker 2: is that there are all sorts of reasons that the

131
00:08:05,760 --> 00:08:09,800
Speaker 2: government could reconfigure a special relationship that it has with

132
00:08:09,880 --> 00:08:13,080
Speaker 2: a private citizen. We don't have claims of a right

133
00:08:13,160 --> 00:08:15,840
Speaker 2: to be a public employee or to enjoy a certain

134
00:08:15,880 --> 00:08:19,640
Speaker 2: public benefit, and the government can reconfigure those relationships for

135
00:08:19,680 --> 00:08:22,120
Speaker 2: a lot of different reasons. But what it can't do

136
00:08:22,520 --> 00:08:26,400
Speaker 2: is do that in response to or because of, an

137
00:08:26,440 --> 00:08:30,560
Speaker 2: exercise of protected speech by the beneficiary. So you can't

138
00:08:30,600 --> 00:08:34,280
Speaker 2: take away someone's job as a public university professor because

139
00:08:34,280 --> 00:08:37,800
Speaker 2: they're communists, for example. That's the takeaway from McCarthy era.

140
00:08:38,160 --> 00:08:41,680
Speaker 2: So here we have a much stronger record than we

141
00:08:41,840 --> 00:08:48,000
Speaker 2: usually have of lawmakers taking action in response to an

142
00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:51,720
Speaker 2: exercise of protected expression. A lot of times these sources

143
00:08:51,720 --> 00:08:54,840
Speaker 2: of actions occur kind of sub rosa. You know, a

144
00:08:54,880 --> 00:09:01,000
Speaker 2: government employee expresses support for their bosses political opponent, and

145
00:09:01,040 --> 00:09:04,760
Speaker 2: they're quietly demoted or fired, and the government doesn't want

146
00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:07,120
Speaker 2: to call attention to the fact that that's what it's

147
00:09:07,200 --> 00:09:11,000
Speaker 2: doing here. Part of the reason I think for the

148
00:09:11,040 --> 00:09:13,760
Speaker 2: action was also to be able to tell the action

149
00:09:14,040 --> 00:09:19,360
Speaker 2: to say, we are taking action against woke Disney because

150
00:09:19,360 --> 00:09:22,360
Speaker 2: they're woke Disney. So you know, of cour it's going

151
00:09:22,400 --> 00:09:23,840
Speaker 2: to have to look at all of this, But it's

152
00:09:23,880 --> 00:09:26,560
Speaker 2: a much different kind of record than you often have

153
00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:30,880
Speaker 2: when someone's asserting that adverse action has been taken against

154
00:09:30,880 --> 00:09:33,880
Speaker 2: them because of their exercise of their First Amendment rights.

155
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:38,560
Speaker 3: The governor spokesman said that his office was unaware of

156
00:09:38,600 --> 00:09:41,319
Speaker 3: any legal right that allows a company to operate its

157
00:09:41,360 --> 00:09:46,160
Speaker 3: own government or maintain special privileges. That's a reference to

158
00:09:46,320 --> 00:09:50,520
Speaker 3: the decades old district that's home to Disney World. But

159
00:09:50,679 --> 00:09:53,320
Speaker 3: isn't that beside the point. That's not really the issue here,

160
00:09:53,360 --> 00:09:56,479
Speaker 3: whether or not Disney has a right to that.

161
00:09:56,480 --> 00:09:59,600
Speaker 2: That's right, it's beside the issue in the First Amendment claim.

162
00:09:59,679 --> 00:10:04,240
Speaker 2: Because although the government could revisit the relationship with Disney

163
00:10:04,400 --> 00:10:07,600
Speaker 2: and the existence and conditions of the Ride Creek Improvement

164
00:10:07,679 --> 00:10:11,640
Speaker 2: District for all sorts of different reasons. The First Amendment

165
00:10:11,679 --> 00:10:14,640
Speaker 2: and First Amendment law holds that they can't do it

166
00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:19,359
Speaker 2: out of response to Disney's exercise of their protective expression,

167
00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:22,839
Speaker 2: the same way that you couldn't fire a government employee

168
00:10:22,960 --> 00:10:27,360
Speaker 2: for speech outside of work on a matter of public concern,

169
00:10:28,080 --> 00:10:31,800
Speaker 2: except in very very narrow circumstances. There's going to be

170
00:10:31,840 --> 00:10:34,360
Speaker 2: a very high bar to meet for that, the same

171
00:10:34,440 --> 00:10:37,440
Speaker 2: way that you couldn't revoke a contract with There's a

172
00:10:37,480 --> 00:10:40,920
Speaker 2: case from the nineties involving a truck service that had

173
00:10:40,920 --> 00:10:43,840
Speaker 2: a contract with the city and they're taken off the

174
00:10:43,960 --> 00:10:49,320
Speaker 2: list of contractors of available towing companies in response to

175
00:10:49,520 --> 00:10:52,960
Speaker 2: some protected speech. That's not okay, right, So the law

176
00:10:53,040 --> 00:10:56,040
Speaker 2: is very clear that even if what we're talking about

177
00:10:56,080 --> 00:10:59,640
Speaker 2: is a special relationship, First Amendment law says you can't

178
00:10:59,760 --> 00:11:04,440
Speaker 2: moby that simply in response to protected expression.

179
00:11:05,080 --> 00:11:08,280
Speaker 3: Desanders and his allies have characterized their actions as you know,

180
00:11:08,320 --> 00:11:11,640
Speaker 3: putting Disney on a level playing field with other themed

181
00:11:11,760 --> 00:11:17,160
Speaker 3: park operators. But Universal Orlando, SeaWorld and Bush Gardens and

182
00:11:17,240 --> 00:11:21,160
Speaker 3: Legoland do not have oversight boards controlled by the governor.

183
00:11:21,720 --> 00:11:22,840
Speaker 3: Does that factor in here?

184
00:11:23,920 --> 00:11:24,600
Speaker 5: Right there?

185
00:11:24,600 --> 00:11:27,600
Speaker 2: Are different aspects to this. One is putting them on

186
00:11:27,640 --> 00:11:31,000
Speaker 2: a level playing field is not permissible if the reason

187
00:11:31,040 --> 00:11:34,840
Speaker 2: that it's being done is because of protected speech. Even

188
00:11:34,880 --> 00:11:38,000
Speaker 2: if it reduces Disney to the same status as others,

189
00:11:38,040 --> 00:11:40,760
Speaker 2: that's not okay if the reason their benefits are being

190
00:11:40,800 --> 00:11:44,080
Speaker 2: taken away is because of exercise of protected expression. But

191
00:11:44,240 --> 00:11:47,079
Speaker 2: beyond that, there are factual questions here as to whether

192
00:11:47,520 --> 00:11:51,040
Speaker 2: it's even true that this action puts Disney in the

193
00:11:51,080 --> 00:11:57,439
Speaker 2: same situation as other similar enterprises, And to the extent

194
00:11:57,520 --> 00:12:00,719
Speaker 2: that the actions taken do not do that, that can

195
00:12:00,760 --> 00:12:04,440
Speaker 2: be itself further evidence that this action was punitive and

196
00:12:04,440 --> 00:12:05,280
Speaker 2: retally tory.

197
00:12:06,120 --> 00:12:09,160
Speaker 3: What kind of defense do you think DeSantis would be

198
00:12:09,240 --> 00:12:11,359
Speaker 3: able to raise in the Disney suit.

199
00:12:11,840 --> 00:12:14,480
Speaker 2: Well, I think there'll be a couple different tacts. One

200
00:12:14,480 --> 00:12:17,920
Speaker 2: will be to try to portray this action is neutral.

201
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:19,840
Speaker 2: You already see that in some of the statements that

202
00:12:19,840 --> 00:12:23,480
Speaker 2: have been made, and to try to draw on strands

203
00:12:23,480 --> 00:12:26,960
Speaker 2: within the doctrine that are the most hospitable to claims

204
00:12:27,000 --> 00:12:30,360
Speaker 2: that there's some degree of discretion that government actors have.

205
00:12:30,960 --> 00:12:33,080
Speaker 2: There are a lot of precedents that they would have

206
00:12:33,160 --> 00:12:36,440
Speaker 2: to work around in that regard. You know, The other

207
00:12:36,480 --> 00:12:41,000
Speaker 2: thing is just sometimes big picture issues, high profile issues

208
00:12:41,040 --> 00:12:45,120
Speaker 2: like this cause courts to rethink relationships, and they might

209
00:12:45,160 --> 00:12:49,679
Speaker 2: be arguing that the relationship between government provision of benefits

210
00:12:49,720 --> 00:12:53,520
Speaker 2: and the speech of private actors, it's time to rethink that.

211
00:12:53,520 --> 00:12:56,199
Speaker 2: That would be a huge, a huge move. If they

212
00:12:56,200 --> 00:12:58,520
Speaker 2: were to do that, it may be that they'll stick

213
00:12:58,600 --> 00:13:01,320
Speaker 2: more toward arguing on the facts that this is not

214
00:13:01,400 --> 00:13:02,559
Speaker 2: a First Amendment.

215
00:13:02,240 --> 00:13:08,679
Speaker 3: Violation, which discovery Disney has the opportunity to look for

216
00:13:08,800 --> 00:13:12,240
Speaker 3: more kinds of evidence to build its case, like perhaps

217
00:13:12,559 --> 00:13:16,480
Speaker 3: memos between the governor and his staff, things like that.

218
00:13:16,640 --> 00:13:19,920
Speaker 3: I mean, they could depose the governor, right sure, So you.

219
00:13:19,880 --> 00:13:22,840
Speaker 2: Know, the scope of discovery will be determined by the

220
00:13:22,920 --> 00:13:26,640
Speaker 2: district court as this case starts to win its way

221
00:13:26,679 --> 00:13:31,880
Speaker 2: through the system, but it discovery typically does provide more

222
00:13:31,920 --> 00:13:36,080
Speaker 2: insight into the actions and conversations that were happening behind

223
00:13:36,120 --> 00:13:39,400
Speaker 2: the scenes. And part of what Disney might be trying

224
00:13:39,440 --> 00:13:43,600
Speaker 2: to establish here is that there are two different specific

225
00:13:43,880 --> 00:13:47,000
Speaker 2: acts of the legislature that they're taking issue with that

226
00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:50,760
Speaker 2: this is part of a larger effort to cut Disney

227
00:13:50,800 --> 00:13:53,400
Speaker 2: off at the knees in whatever way possible. Kind of

228
00:13:53,679 --> 00:13:57,320
Speaker 2: a larger attempt to think about how do we get

229
00:13:57,360 --> 00:13:59,720
Speaker 2: back at Disney. You know, that would mean that their

230
00:13:59,720 --> 00:14:03,880
Speaker 2: folks not just on what was said in regard to

231
00:14:03,920 --> 00:14:07,040
Speaker 2: these specific bills, but what was said around the bills

232
00:14:07,080 --> 00:14:11,400
Speaker 2: about how are we going to address this new Disney problem?

233
00:14:11,640 --> 00:14:14,800
Speaker 2: And that could mean discovery that has somewhat of a

234
00:14:14,840 --> 00:14:15,760
Speaker 2: wider scope.

235
00:14:15,920 --> 00:14:17,000
Speaker 3: What is Disney seeking?

236
00:14:17,040 --> 00:14:21,000
Speaker 5: If it wins, Disney would like both of the specific

237
00:14:21,160 --> 00:14:24,880
Speaker 5: laws that were passed that affected it to be declared

238
00:14:25,040 --> 00:14:30,400
Speaker 5: unconstitutional and to enjoy the enforcement of those acts.

239
00:14:30,440 --> 00:14:34,720
Speaker 2: So the first of those back last year provided that

240
00:14:35,040 --> 00:14:41,240
Speaker 2: any development district that had been incorporated before the Florida

241
00:14:41,320 --> 00:14:45,040
Speaker 2: Constitution of nineteen sixty eight and had not been reincorporated

242
00:14:45,160 --> 00:14:49,920
Speaker 2: since then would be dissolved as of June of this

243
00:14:50,000 --> 00:14:53,240
Speaker 2: coming year. June of twenty twenty three, there were six

244
00:14:53,720 --> 00:14:56,240
Speaker 2: districts in all of Florida that that was true, of

245
00:14:56,320 --> 00:14:59,480
Speaker 2: Disney being by far the most prominent one. And then

246
00:14:59,520 --> 00:15:05,880
Speaker 2: the secondville was directed specifically at Disney, asserting control over

247
00:15:05,920 --> 00:15:09,920
Speaker 2: their district. So they would like both of those voided

248
00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:13,760
Speaker 2: and essentially would like to be returned to status quo

249
00:15:13,840 --> 00:15:17,720
Speaker 2: ante to the contract terms that had existed for Riedy

250
00:15:17,760 --> 00:15:19,280
Speaker 2: Creek before all this began.

251
00:15:19,680 --> 00:15:23,000
Speaker 3: In conclusion, how strong a case does Disney have.

252
00:15:23,520 --> 00:15:28,120
Speaker 2: On existing case law? Based on the complaint, it seems

253
00:15:28,120 --> 00:15:31,680
Speaker 2: that Disney has a very strong case that adverse action

254
00:15:31,880 --> 00:15:37,160
Speaker 2: was taken against the corporation in response to protected expressions

255
00:15:37,280 --> 00:15:41,000
Speaker 2: that was critical of the existing government. And Disney seems

256
00:15:41,040 --> 00:15:45,680
Speaker 2: to have an unusually thick record of statements already public

257
00:15:45,760 --> 00:15:47,520
Speaker 2: statements to help establish that.

258
00:15:48,040 --> 00:15:51,280
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Leslie. That's Leslie Kendrick, director of the

259
00:15:51,280 --> 00:15:53,840
Speaker 3: Center for the First Amendment at the University of Virginia

260
00:15:53,920 --> 00:15:59,920
Speaker 3: Law School. An unusual twist, the North Carolina Supreme Court

261
00:16:00,240 --> 00:16:04,360
Speaker 3: reversed itself in a redistricting ruling that could scuttle a

262
00:16:04,480 --> 00:16:09,080
Speaker 3: major US Supreme Court elections case. It's a highly watched

263
00:16:09,160 --> 00:16:13,840
Speaker 3: case involving the so called independent state legislature theory, which

264
00:16:13,880 --> 00:16:17,280
Speaker 3: would ouse state judges and other officials from long standing

265
00:16:17,400 --> 00:16:20,720
Speaker 3: roles in shaping the rules for federal elections. But now

266
00:16:20,760 --> 00:16:24,640
Speaker 3: the North Carolina Supreme Court has overruled its twenty twenty

267
00:16:24,640 --> 00:16:28,160
Speaker 3: two decision that the Supreme Court has been reviewing. Why

268
00:16:28,200 --> 00:16:31,440
Speaker 3: did it reverse itself because in the last year's election,

269
00:16:31,920 --> 00:16:35,920
Speaker 3: Republicans gained control of the state's highest court, and they've

270
00:16:35,960 --> 00:16:40,000
Speaker 3: backed a Republican drawn congressional map, reversing the decision that

271
00:16:40,080 --> 00:16:44,000
Speaker 3: the Democratic majority had made in twenty twenty two. Here

272
00:16:44,080 --> 00:16:46,640
Speaker 3: to help us sort it all out is elections law

273
00:16:46,720 --> 00:16:50,920
Speaker 3: expert Richard Brefalt, a professor at Columbia Law School. How

274
00:16:51,160 --> 00:16:55,280
Speaker 3: rare is it and stunning to see a state supreme

275
00:16:55,360 --> 00:16:59,680
Speaker 3: court reverse itself after an election that changed the political

276
00:16:59,720 --> 00:17:01,400
Speaker 3: mail makeup of the court.

277
00:17:01,600 --> 00:17:04,159
Speaker 6: It is very rare, and it is very stunning for

278
00:17:04,200 --> 00:17:07,639
Speaker 6: a court to do this when nothing else changed. And

279
00:17:07,760 --> 00:17:11,840
Speaker 6: you sometimes see courts changing their positions on something when

280
00:17:11,880 --> 00:17:14,560
Speaker 6: maybe the new facts developed, or maybe a new background

281
00:17:14,640 --> 00:17:17,240
Speaker 6: law changed or something. But this is literally within the

282
00:17:17,240 --> 00:17:20,480
Speaker 6: space of a few months. The North Carolina Supreme Court

283
00:17:20,560 --> 00:17:23,520
Speaker 6: reversed itself on really sort of two major voting issues,

284
00:17:23,560 --> 00:17:26,280
Speaker 6: the Jerrymannering case, but also a case involving a statute

285
00:17:26,320 --> 00:17:29,320
Speaker 6: involving voter id These were decisions that the court had

286
00:17:29,359 --> 00:17:33,760
Speaker 6: basically made or reaffirmed in December of twenty twenty two,

287
00:17:33,800 --> 00:17:36,280
Speaker 6: and now in April of twenty twenty three, they've changed

288
00:17:36,320 --> 00:17:38,520
Speaker 6: their minds because the membership of the court changed.

289
00:17:39,280 --> 00:17:42,680
Speaker 3: Let's talk first about the decision on the congressional maps.

290
00:17:42,840 --> 00:17:46,159
Speaker 3: What did the court say did explain why it was

291
00:17:46,200 --> 00:17:47,200
Speaker 3: reversing itself.

292
00:17:47,400 --> 00:17:50,639
Speaker 6: The Court basically says, as the US Supreme Court had said,

293
00:17:50,800 --> 00:17:54,520
Speaker 6: that partisan jerrymandering is non justiciabal. That is, there's nothing

294
00:17:54,520 --> 00:17:56,679
Speaker 6: in the state constitution that addresses it, and there are

295
00:17:56,720 --> 00:17:59,960
Speaker 6: no standards that the court could develop that would allow

296
00:18:00,160 --> 00:18:04,880
Speaker 6: them to consistently review and strike down plans as jerry

297
00:18:04,960 --> 00:18:09,399
Speaker 6: manders without making policy judgments inappropriate for courts. The Court

298
00:18:09,600 --> 00:18:12,480
Speaker 6: very much modeled itself after what the US Supreme Court

299
00:18:12,480 --> 00:18:14,439
Speaker 6: had done in the case, but also came out of

300
00:18:14,440 --> 00:18:17,280
Speaker 6: North Carolina case called Rucho US Supreme Court decided four

301
00:18:17,359 --> 00:18:19,800
Speaker 6: years ago. Now, this case came up under the North

302
00:18:19,840 --> 00:18:24,080
Speaker 6: Carolina Constitution and its own particular provisions dealing with elections

303
00:18:24,080 --> 00:18:26,840
Speaker 6: and free speech and equal protection. But the Court said,

304
00:18:26,880 --> 00:18:29,600
Speaker 6: we think that the US Supreme Court, in its interpretation

305
00:18:29,640 --> 00:18:32,320
Speaker 6: of the US Constitution, basically said the standard that we

306
00:18:32,320 --> 00:18:35,240
Speaker 6: should follow in interpreting our own constitution on these issues,

307
00:18:35,280 --> 00:18:37,080
Speaker 6: and that the US Supreme Court was right to say

308
00:18:37,160 --> 00:18:40,200
Speaker 6: that they were not standards that a court could enforce. Here,

309
00:18:40,480 --> 00:18:42,560
Speaker 6: we don't think there were standards that a court could

310
00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:44,440
Speaker 6: enforce here under the state Constitution.

311
00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:48,720
Speaker 3: Before we go any further explain the situation with the maps,

312
00:18:48,760 --> 00:18:51,960
Speaker 3: how the court's ruling changed the maps.

313
00:18:52,640 --> 00:18:55,119
Speaker 6: What had happened is, of course, the North Carolina Legislature

314
00:18:55,119 --> 00:18:57,919
Speaker 6: had passed maps that dealt with both the state legislature

315
00:18:58,240 --> 00:19:01,680
Speaker 6: and the congressional delegation for after the twenty twenty census.

316
00:19:01,880 --> 00:19:04,240
Speaker 6: Those were challenged in both federal court and also in

317
00:19:04,320 --> 00:19:08,040
Speaker 6: the North Carolina courts. The North Carolina Courts concluded in

318
00:19:08,160 --> 00:19:11,879
Speaker 6: the first go round that these were partisan gerrymanders in

319
00:19:12,000 --> 00:19:15,119
Speaker 6: violation of the state constitution. They concluded that the state

320
00:19:15,160 --> 00:19:19,040
Speaker 6: constitution prohibited that They basically sent it back to the legislature,

321
00:19:19,040 --> 00:19:21,359
Speaker 6: but they also said that we were appointing judges to

322
00:19:21,400 --> 00:19:24,320
Speaker 6: be special masters to review the plans of the legislature produced.

323
00:19:24,440 --> 00:19:27,840
Speaker 6: The special masters appointed experts, and ultimately, over the course

324
00:19:27,880 --> 00:19:31,160
Speaker 6: of two years twenty twenty one twenty twenty two, new

325
00:19:31,200 --> 00:19:34,520
Speaker 6: maps were approved for the North Carolina Legislature and for

326
00:19:34,600 --> 00:19:38,280
Speaker 6: the North Carolina Congressional Delegation. The North Carolina Legislature was

327
00:19:38,280 --> 00:19:40,919
Speaker 6: still dominated by Republicans under the new mass as well

328
00:19:40,960 --> 00:19:44,000
Speaker 6: as the old maps, but the North Carolina Congressional delegation.

329
00:19:44,400 --> 00:19:46,399
Speaker 6: In the elections that were held in twenty twenty two

330
00:19:46,640 --> 00:19:50,440
Speaker 6: under the court ordered maps, I think basically split evenly.

331
00:19:50,880 --> 00:19:54,119
Speaker 6: I think it was seven Republicans seven Democrats, whereas people

332
00:19:54,280 --> 00:19:58,400
Speaker 6: basically thought that under the map that was initially adopted

333
00:19:58,400 --> 00:20:01,520
Speaker 6: by the legislature likely to be ten Republicans.

334
00:20:02,200 --> 00:20:06,399
Speaker 3: Does this decision give Republican lawmakers basically free reign to

335
00:20:06,520 --> 00:20:10,200
Speaker 3: draw the state legislative and congressional maps as they want to?

336
00:20:10,720 --> 00:20:13,159
Speaker 6: Pretty much. I mean, they would still have to abide

337
00:20:13,200 --> 00:20:15,760
Speaker 6: by one person, one vote, and they would still have

338
00:20:15,920 --> 00:20:19,120
Speaker 6: to avoid anything that could be accused of being intentional

339
00:20:19,200 --> 00:20:23,040
Speaker 6: racial discrimination. But in terms of partisan gerrymandering, yes, there

340
00:20:23,080 --> 00:20:24,080
Speaker 6: would be no constraint.

341
00:20:25,359 --> 00:20:29,760
Speaker 3: Does this case advance that so called independent state legislature theory.

342
00:20:30,800 --> 00:20:34,200
Speaker 6: It kind of eliminates the problem, which is The independent

343
00:20:34,240 --> 00:20:38,600
Speaker 6: state legislature theory was a theory of federal constitutional law,

344
00:20:39,040 --> 00:20:42,600
Speaker 6: with the idea being that under the federal constitution, only

345
00:20:42,720 --> 00:20:47,440
Speaker 6: a state legislature can draw up congressional districts. And the

346
00:20:47,480 --> 00:20:50,320
Speaker 6: North Carolina Supreme Court's decision that said that under the

347
00:20:50,359 --> 00:20:54,960
Speaker 6: state constitution, the legislature had violated the state constitution even

348
00:20:54,960 --> 00:20:57,639
Speaker 6: with respect to the congressional districts that is currently actually

349
00:20:57,720 --> 00:21:00,320
Speaker 6: before the US Supreme Court on a challenge that says

350
00:21:00,359 --> 00:21:04,040
Speaker 6: a court applying its state constitution cannot take this away

351
00:21:04,040 --> 00:21:06,960
Speaker 6: from the state legislature. So I guess you could say

352
00:21:07,080 --> 00:21:10,159
Speaker 6: what the North Carolina Court just did is consistent with

353
00:21:10,200 --> 00:21:13,680
Speaker 6: the independent state legislature theory, but it wasn't required by it,

354
00:21:13,760 --> 00:21:17,520
Speaker 6: because the North Carolina Supreme Court is saying, under our constitution,

355
00:21:18,119 --> 00:21:21,560
Speaker 6: North Carolina's constitution, the courts just have no role here.

356
00:21:22,040 --> 00:21:24,120
Speaker 6: It be interesting to see what the US Supreme Court

357
00:21:24,119 --> 00:21:26,720
Speaker 6: does now, But right now it does not appear that

358
00:21:26,960 --> 00:21:30,199
Speaker 6: they have a case that they can review. They do

359
00:21:30,280 --> 00:21:32,680
Speaker 6: have the case. They did hear oral argument on this

360
00:21:32,800 --> 00:21:36,080
Speaker 6: question of whether or not the North Carolina Supreme Court,

361
00:21:36,359 --> 00:21:40,040
Speaker 6: the old North Carolina Supreme Court violated the US Constitution

362
00:21:40,680 --> 00:21:43,119
Speaker 6: by knocking down the maps of state legislature had drawn.

363
00:21:43,359 --> 00:21:46,320
Speaker 6: But now the current North Carolina stren Court says they've

364
00:21:46,440 --> 00:21:49,000
Speaker 6: vacated that decision, the one that's on review before the

365
00:21:49,000 --> 00:21:51,960
Speaker 6: Supreme Court. So it's not clear what the US Supreme

366
00:21:52,000 --> 00:21:54,359
Speaker 6: Court will do now, whether they will continue to make

367
00:21:54,400 --> 00:21:56,520
Speaker 6: a decision on the theory that this is a question

368
00:21:57,000 --> 00:21:59,720
Speaker 6: that could come up again in another state, or whether

369
00:21:59,720 --> 00:22:02,040
Speaker 6: they will conclude that they really don't have a case

370
00:22:02,040 --> 00:22:03,360
Speaker 6: in front of them anymore.

371
00:22:03,640 --> 00:22:05,680
Speaker 3: If they decide not. If the Supreme Court decides not

372
00:22:05,720 --> 00:22:08,280
Speaker 3: to hear the case, does that send a bad message

373
00:22:08,320 --> 00:22:11,520
Speaker 3: to state courts that you can avoid having the Supreme

374
00:22:11,600 --> 00:22:12,879
Speaker 3: Court review.

375
00:22:13,040 --> 00:22:15,600
Speaker 6: I don't. I don't know that it sends a message

376
00:22:15,600 --> 00:22:18,119
Speaker 6: one way or the other. I think it just postpones

377
00:22:18,280 --> 00:22:21,360
Speaker 6: ultimate decision. There are state courts that continuing to do

378
00:22:21,400 --> 00:22:24,600
Speaker 6: this now. The Alaska Supreme Court just the week before

379
00:22:25,080 --> 00:22:28,880
Speaker 6: concluded that jerry mandering violates the Alaska Constitution. Of course,

380
00:22:28,880 --> 00:22:31,760
Speaker 6: Alaska has only one congressional seat, so there is no

381
00:22:31,960 --> 00:22:35,720
Speaker 6: federal constitutional issue with respect to drawing the congressional line,

382
00:22:35,720 --> 00:22:38,119
Speaker 6: so that's not really a factor. But the Alaska Supreme

383
00:22:38,160 --> 00:22:40,640
Speaker 6: Court now joins a handful of other state supreme courts

384
00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:44,160
Speaker 6: and saying that jerry mandering violates their constitution. North Carolina

385
00:22:44,240 --> 00:22:47,280
Speaker 6: now has just withdrawn from that group and basically says

386
00:22:47,320 --> 00:22:50,320
Speaker 6: that because there is no specific provision in the North

387
00:22:50,359 --> 00:22:54,280
Speaker 6: Carolina Constitution that addresses jerry mandering, courts just simply have

388
00:22:54,359 --> 00:22:55,439
Speaker 6: no right to address it.

389
00:22:56,119 --> 00:22:59,200
Speaker 3: The majority opinion said this case is not a bad

390
00:22:59,240 --> 00:23:02,800
Speaker 3: part is in Paula, but rather about realigning the proper

391
00:23:02,880 --> 00:23:08,040
Speaker 3: roles of the judicial and legislative branches. Did its opinion

392
00:23:08,680 --> 00:23:09,400
Speaker 3: support that?

393
00:23:09,920 --> 00:23:12,639
Speaker 6: The reasoning was pretty straightforward And it's pretty much the

394
00:23:12,680 --> 00:23:16,800
Speaker 6: same reasoning that the US Supreme Court gave in its

395
00:23:16,880 --> 00:23:19,639
Speaker 6: decision not to address partisan juryman ring in a case

396
00:23:19,800 --> 00:23:22,639
Speaker 6: decided four years ago called Rucho. So you know, on

397
00:23:22,680 --> 00:23:25,560
Speaker 6: its face, it's kind of a usual decision. I mean,

398
00:23:25,640 --> 00:23:29,199
Speaker 6: what makes it seem partisan is it was the result

399
00:23:29,240 --> 00:23:32,040
Speaker 6: of a partisan election in which, in fact, two Democratic

400
00:23:32,119 --> 00:23:34,280
Speaker 6: judges on the North Carolina Supreme Court were replaced by

401
00:23:34,320 --> 00:23:37,280
Speaker 6: two Republican judges, and that led to a change in

402
00:23:37,320 --> 00:23:40,200
Speaker 6: the Court's approach to an important constitutional question.

403
00:23:40,680 --> 00:23:44,200
Speaker 3: Morvy Harper, which you mentioned is before the Supreme Court,

404
00:23:44,200 --> 00:23:46,119
Speaker 3: and a lot of people were looking at it, some

405
00:23:46,160 --> 00:23:48,720
Speaker 3: people with fear that the Supreme Court would endorse this

406
00:23:49,000 --> 00:23:52,360
Speaker 3: independent state legislature theory. Do you think that the Supreme

407
00:23:52,400 --> 00:23:56,320
Speaker 3: Court will take this opportunity to avoid deciding that case.

408
00:23:56,680 --> 00:23:58,440
Speaker 6: It's hard to tell, but it's kind of hard to

409
00:23:58,480 --> 00:24:01,040
Speaker 6: see how they were able to go forward with the case.

410
00:24:01,320 --> 00:24:04,760
Speaker 6: The North Carolina Supreme Court says they have vacated the

411
00:24:04,840 --> 00:24:07,840
Speaker 6: decision that is being challenged in the Supreme Court. So

412
00:24:07,880 --> 00:24:09,840
Speaker 6: it's not clear what there is the Supreme Court to do.

413
00:24:10,240 --> 00:24:12,159
Speaker 6: It's possible the Court will say, well, we've heard the

414
00:24:12,240 --> 00:24:15,280
Speaker 6: arguments and this kind of issue make them up in

415
00:24:15,320 --> 00:24:17,879
Speaker 6: another state, and so we will make a decision to

416
00:24:17,920 --> 00:24:21,280
Speaker 6: give guidance in other states. It's also possible that they'll

417
00:24:21,280 --> 00:24:23,520
Speaker 6: wait for a case that will come from another state

418
00:24:23,640 --> 00:24:26,399
Speaker 6: which is still a live case, and you know, holds

419
00:24:26,400 --> 00:24:28,960
Speaker 6: off and deciding this question until it comes back to them.

420
00:24:29,359 --> 00:24:33,399
Speaker 3: Let's talk about the other decisions, and one was about

421
00:24:33,480 --> 00:24:37,320
Speaker 3: the voter ID laws that North Carolina did a reversalon.

422
00:24:38,040 --> 00:24:40,560
Speaker 6: Yeah, so North Carolina has been sort of struggling with

423
00:24:40,600 --> 00:24:43,680
Speaker 6: this question of what kind of voter ID they can

424
00:24:43,760 --> 00:24:46,679
Speaker 6: require voters to have. But I think the question of

425
00:24:46,800 --> 00:24:48,960
Speaker 6: whether or not voters can be required to present ID

426
00:24:49,560 --> 00:24:51,880
Speaker 6: was settled by the US Supreme Court about fifteen years ago.

427
00:24:52,160 --> 00:24:54,160
Speaker 6: But there's been a lot of fighting as to exactly

428
00:24:54,240 --> 00:24:57,280
Speaker 6: what kind of ID they can require, how limited can

429
00:24:57,320 --> 00:25:01,080
Speaker 6: it be if it's a photo Id's forces count? And

430
00:25:01,119 --> 00:25:03,040
Speaker 6: what do you do with people who don't have ID?

431
00:25:03,480 --> 00:25:05,560
Speaker 6: And how do you help you know? What alternatives do

432
00:25:05,560 --> 00:25:07,840
Speaker 6: you provide for people who don't have ID. The North

433
00:25:07,840 --> 00:25:11,440
Speaker 6: Carolina legislature passed a law in the early twenty tens

434
00:25:12,000 --> 00:25:14,760
Speaker 6: that the courts struck down on the theory that it

435
00:25:14,840 --> 00:25:18,080
Speaker 6: was racially motivated, that the law was really purposely designed

436
00:25:18,080 --> 00:25:20,720
Speaker 6: in terms of the specific kinds of IDA that counted

437
00:25:20,760 --> 00:25:24,280
Speaker 6: and didn't count, to have a particular impact on black voters,

438
00:25:24,480 --> 00:25:27,240
Speaker 6: and so that was struck down. The state then went

439
00:25:27,320 --> 00:25:30,080
Speaker 6: back and actually the voters in North Carolina poved a

440
00:25:30,119 --> 00:25:33,760
Speaker 6: const social amendment authorizing voter ideal, although again they didn't

441
00:25:33,800 --> 00:25:36,159
Speaker 6: spell out exactly what kind of voter ID would count.

442
00:25:36,680 --> 00:25:39,880
Speaker 6: The legislature then went and passed another voter ID law,

443
00:25:40,240 --> 00:25:43,600
Speaker 6: which was from the perspective of the legislature more generous,

444
00:25:43,920 --> 00:25:46,080
Speaker 6: you know, had more sources of ID. They wouldcount moral

445
00:25:46,080 --> 00:25:49,600
Speaker 6: alternatives who didn't have ID. It was still challenged as

446
00:25:49,680 --> 00:25:53,160
Speaker 6: having just racial impact. That's the case that was going

447
00:25:53,200 --> 00:25:56,280
Speaker 6: through the North Carolina court system. I think the lowest

448
00:25:56,320 --> 00:25:58,919
Speaker 6: court said it was fine. Each mediate court of appeal

449
00:25:58,920 --> 00:26:01,200
Speaker 6: said no, we think that for a disparate racial impact.

450
00:26:01,440 --> 00:26:04,560
Speaker 6: The North Countina Supreme Court said no, we think it's fine.

451
00:26:04,960 --> 00:26:07,320
Speaker 6: And in the course of doing it, they basically to

452
00:26:07,400 --> 00:26:10,439
Speaker 6: some extent toughened up on the standard, at least in

453
00:26:10,480 --> 00:26:14,640
Speaker 6: North Carolina that voters would have to show actually any

454
00:26:14,640 --> 00:26:16,560
Speaker 6: point that would have to show to show something is

455
00:26:16,640 --> 00:26:19,800
Speaker 6: racially discriminatory, and they really basically kind of heighten the

456
00:26:19,840 --> 00:26:23,720
Speaker 6: standard of proving that something was adopted with discriminatory intent,

457
00:26:24,320 --> 00:26:27,520
Speaker 6: and they basically said, there's just the fact that an

458
00:26:27,520 --> 00:26:30,600
Speaker 6: earlier version of this was adopted for a discriminatory purpose,

459
00:26:31,040 --> 00:26:33,680
Speaker 6: and the fact that North Carolina has had a long

460
00:26:33,760 --> 00:26:37,560
Speaker 6: history of racial discrimination that's kind of irrelevant to reviewing

461
00:26:37,560 --> 00:26:38,560
Speaker 6: this particular law.

462
00:26:39,400 --> 00:26:42,600
Speaker 3: And in a triple really a triple blow here, it

463
00:26:42,720 --> 00:26:46,560
Speaker 3: reversed a lower court ruling about the right to vote

464
00:26:46,640 --> 00:26:49,520
Speaker 3: for those who are convicted of felonies.

465
00:26:50,280 --> 00:26:53,639
Speaker 6: That's right. So again many states deny the right to

466
00:26:53,680 --> 00:26:56,119
Speaker 6: vote if those are of a felony. But there are

467
00:26:56,119 --> 00:26:58,360
Speaker 6: great dations in terms of, you know, who's actually barred

468
00:26:58,400 --> 00:27:01,440
Speaker 6: from voting. Most states would bar somebody who's currently serving

469
00:27:01,440 --> 00:27:03,399
Speaker 6: their sentence, but the question has come up with what

470
00:27:03,440 --> 00:27:06,119
Speaker 6: if somebody is on parole or has been released on

471
00:27:06,160 --> 00:27:10,280
Speaker 6: probation and is actually not is still within you know,

472
00:27:10,320 --> 00:27:12,840
Speaker 6: within the court system, but is not actually in prison.

473
00:27:13,240 --> 00:27:15,960
Speaker 6: And the lower courts in North Carolina had basically said

474
00:27:16,280 --> 00:27:19,240
Speaker 6: that the North Carolina law of banning felons from voting

475
00:27:19,600 --> 00:27:22,600
Speaker 6: did not apply to people who are no longer incarcerated.

476
00:27:22,920 --> 00:27:25,520
Speaker 6: The state Supreme Court reversed that and said it would

477
00:27:25,520 --> 00:27:28,119
Speaker 6: continue to apply to people who are on probation or

478
00:27:28,119 --> 00:27:31,720
Speaker 6: people who are on parole until the endpoint of their sentences.

479
00:27:32,240 --> 00:27:34,359
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, rich It's always a pleasure to have

480
00:27:34,440 --> 00:27:38,400
Speaker 3: you on. That's Professor Richard Brfald of Columbia Law School.

481
00:27:38,720 --> 00:27:41,040
Speaker 3: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

482
00:27:41,440 --> 00:27:43,800
Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

483
00:27:43,840 --> 00:27:46,760
Speaker 3: listening to our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them

484
00:27:46,800 --> 00:27:51,520
Speaker 3: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,

485
00:27:51,560 --> 00:27:55,159
Speaker 3: slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Gralso and you're listening

486
00:27:55,160 --> 00:27:55,800
Speaker 3: to Bloomberg