1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,200 Speaker 1: On the second day of its term, the Supreme Court 2 00:00:02,240 --> 00:00:04,360 Speaker 1: heard a case that has the potential to change the 3 00:00:04,400 --> 00:00:08,720 Speaker 1: American political landscape. The Justice is considered whether judges can 4 00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:11,960 Speaker 1: throw out legislative maps for being so partisan they violate 5 00:00:12,000 --> 00:00:15,840 Speaker 1: the Constitution. The case could put a new check on jerrymandering, 6 00:00:15,960 --> 00:00:19,319 Speaker 1: or drawing election districts for political advantage. It would be 7 00:00:19,320 --> 00:00:21,800 Speaker 1: a first if the Court rules that voting maps can 8 00:00:21,840 --> 00:00:26,200 Speaker 1: be so one sided they violate the Constitution. In oral arguments, today, 9 00:00:26,280 --> 00:00:29,920 Speaker 1: the conservative and liberal justices appear to appear divided on 10 00:00:29,960 --> 00:00:33,000 Speaker 1: the issue, with Justice Anthony Kennedy in the middle as 11 00:00:33,000 --> 00:00:37,000 Speaker 1: the swing vote. Joining me our elections law experts Michael Lee, 12 00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:40,159 Speaker 1: senior counsel at the Brennan Center, and Richard Brafault, professor 13 00:00:40,200 --> 00:00:44,160 Speaker 1: at Columbia Law School. Rich Last year, a divided three 14 00:00:44,240 --> 00:00:49,000 Speaker 1: judge Federal Court panel ruled that Republicans in Wisconsin had 15 00:00:49,000 --> 00:00:51,680 Speaker 1: gone too far in drawing maps, and that was the 16 00:00:51,720 --> 00:00:54,120 Speaker 1: first time that a federal court in more than thirty 17 00:00:54,240 --> 00:00:57,800 Speaker 1: years rejected a voting map as part as in jerrymandering. 18 00:00:58,200 --> 00:01:00,880 Speaker 1: Tell us a little bit about the case before we 19 00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:04,600 Speaker 1: discussed the Supreme Court arguments. Sure, the case deals with 20 00:01:04,680 --> 00:01:07,440 Speaker 1: the map that the Republicans, and that that state of Wisconsin, 21 00:01:07,520 --> 00:01:10,320 Speaker 1: which at that point had a Republican governor and lopsided 22 00:01:10,400 --> 00:01:13,920 Speaker 1: majorities in both houses of the state legislature, Republican majorities 23 00:01:14,400 --> 00:01:17,039 Speaker 1: drew for the state legislature going forward. I think the 24 00:01:17,080 --> 00:01:19,920 Speaker 1: challenges particularly to this um to the maps in the 25 00:01:19,959 --> 00:01:23,880 Speaker 1: state Senate and the State Assembly. Uh, the plaintiffs were 26 00:01:24,440 --> 00:01:27,959 Speaker 1: argued that the entire state map was was unconstitutional nop. 27 00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:31,040 Speaker 1: They didn't challenge specific districts, they challenged the map as 28 00:01:31,080 --> 00:01:34,760 Speaker 1: a whole of them. In elections in which the Democrats 29 00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:37,160 Speaker 1: got actually slightly more votes than Republicans, I think in 30 00:01:37,200 --> 00:01:40,200 Speaker 1: two thousand and twelve they won my forty of the vote, 31 00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:43,280 Speaker 1: the Republicans slightly less. The Republicans won sixty out of 32 00:01:43,319 --> 00:01:47,720 Speaker 1: ninety nine seats, and the election the Republicans got of 33 00:01:47,760 --> 00:01:50,040 Speaker 1: the two party vote and one sixty three out of 34 00:01:50,440 --> 00:01:53,000 Speaker 1: out of ninety nine seats, so they got lopsided majorities 35 00:01:53,360 --> 00:01:56,360 Speaker 1: even when they Republicans did, even when they had less 36 00:01:56,360 --> 00:01:58,560 Speaker 1: than a majority or just slightly more than a majority. 37 00:01:59,480 --> 00:02:03,680 Speaker 1: The Democratic claim was that some combination of discriminatory in 38 00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:07,560 Speaker 1: Tampa plan was written. It's hardly by Republicans with an 39 00:02:07,560 --> 00:02:12,639 Speaker 1: effort to maximize Republican advantage, and this this enormous steward 40 00:02:12,720 --> 00:02:17,040 Speaker 1: favorite Republicans headed up to an unconstitutional gerrymander. All right, Michael, 41 00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:20,320 Speaker 1: you were at the Supreme Court arguments today. Tell us 42 00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:25,040 Speaker 1: your impressions. Well, I think it was overall a really 43 00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:29,600 Speaker 1: strong argument on behalf of the Wisconsin plaintiffs. UM. The 44 00:02:29,680 --> 00:02:32,720 Speaker 1: Court was very engaged, and they ask a lot of questions, 45 00:02:32,760 --> 00:02:36,880 Speaker 1: and they were clearly clearly wrestling with some of these issues, 46 00:02:36,880 --> 00:02:40,400 Speaker 1: but they also seemed like they clearly wanted to to 47 00:02:40,639 --> 00:02:44,440 Speaker 1: sort of do something, and they seemed increasingly comfortable with 48 00:02:44,440 --> 00:02:46,560 Speaker 1: the idea that they could do so, not only because 49 00:02:46,600 --> 00:02:49,480 Speaker 1: they are all of these statistical measures, but because they're 50 00:02:50,000 --> 00:02:55,160 Speaker 1: um focusing on defining a clear statement of the problem, UM, 51 00:02:55,200 --> 00:02:57,840 Speaker 1: and that that that will help get to a point 52 00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:00,920 Speaker 1: where they can actually solve at least this form of 53 00:03:00,960 --> 00:03:05,320 Speaker 1: extreme gerrymandering. Does that include some of the conservative justices, 54 00:03:05,560 --> 00:03:09,560 Speaker 1: like Justice Roberts said that we'd have to decide in 55 00:03:09,639 --> 00:03:13,160 Speaker 1: every case whether the Democrats or the Republicans win, and 56 00:03:13,200 --> 00:03:15,960 Speaker 1: that it would affect the integrity of the Court's decision. 57 00:03:16,160 --> 00:03:19,919 Speaker 1: Did you feel any of that from the conservatives concerns, well, 58 00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:23,919 Speaker 1: some of the conservatives who are skeptical, both for legal reasons. 59 00:03:24,120 --> 00:03:27,040 Speaker 1: Justice Corsage in particular had sort of an originalist view 60 00:03:27,080 --> 00:03:30,600 Speaker 1: of this UM and you know, other people sort of 61 00:03:30,639 --> 00:03:32,680 Speaker 1: wondered about how you would sort of make these measures 62 00:03:32,720 --> 00:03:35,920 Speaker 1: work and whether they were reliable. UM. But I think 63 00:03:35,960 --> 00:03:38,920 Speaker 1: that the Paul Smith, who argued the case on behalf 64 00:03:38,960 --> 00:03:42,040 Speaker 1: of the Wisconsin plaintiffs, did a good job of putting 65 00:03:42,080 --> 00:03:45,320 Speaker 1: everything in context and explaining that you know, you know, 66 00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:47,440 Speaker 1: these measures are just one part of what the court 67 00:03:47,440 --> 00:03:50,680 Speaker 1: would have to have to look at UM and UM. 68 00:03:50,720 --> 00:03:54,560 Speaker 1: You know, they could divide it a formulation that you 69 00:03:54,600 --> 00:03:58,560 Speaker 1: know would work really well. And Justice Briar offered one 70 00:03:58,640 --> 00:04:01,560 Speaker 1: that that focus on, you know, whether there was a 71 00:04:01,600 --> 00:04:04,840 Speaker 1: single party control and then whether there was an asymmetry 72 00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:07,320 Speaker 1: and you prove it through one or multiple tests, and 73 00:04:07,400 --> 00:04:10,360 Speaker 1: Invulsements suggested that multiple tests might actually be useful, and 74 00:04:10,400 --> 00:04:13,880 Speaker 1: then whether it was durable UM and you know, uh, 75 00:04:13,960 --> 00:04:16,560 Speaker 1: there was some back and forth about whether durability was 76 00:04:16,600 --> 00:04:19,240 Speaker 1: something that the court could really sort of know. But 77 00:04:19,720 --> 00:04:23,279 Speaker 1: as one of the justices pointed out, UM, I believe 78 00:04:23,320 --> 00:04:25,800 Speaker 1: it was Justice Kagan like this, Uh, you know, this 79 00:04:25,880 --> 00:04:28,159 Speaker 1: is something that already is being done like map for ours, 80 00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:30,360 Speaker 1: and when they draw these maps are actually trying to 81 00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:32,640 Speaker 1: project how they will perform for the course of a decade. 82 00:04:33,000 --> 00:04:34,600 Speaker 1: So if you can do it for evil, you can 83 00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:38,159 Speaker 1: certainly do it for good. Um in terms of you know, 84 00:04:38,200 --> 00:04:40,760 Speaker 1: policing Jerry mannering. And then you know there's there's also 85 00:04:40,880 --> 00:04:44,600 Speaker 1: room for um a justification. So arguing that it's the 86 00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:49,000 Speaker 1: geography of the state, the residential patterns, or the voting 87 00:04:49,080 --> 00:04:51,880 Speaker 1: right fact that the causes a skew. Um. You know 88 00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:54,799 Speaker 1: that that works out to be a pretty manageable test. 89 00:04:54,880 --> 00:04:56,920 Speaker 1: And at the end of the day, it really about 90 00:04:56,920 --> 00:04:59,159 Speaker 1: the test. It's about sort of a clear articulation of 91 00:04:59,200 --> 00:05:02,960 Speaker 1: a constitution standard. And um you know that that seemed 92 00:05:02,960 --> 00:05:04,360 Speaker 1: to get a lot of buy in from a lot 93 00:05:04,400 --> 00:05:08,120 Speaker 1: of the justices. And um rich in about forty five 94 00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:12,320 Speaker 1: seconds here can you explain briefly how Justice Kennedy has 95 00:05:12,360 --> 00:05:16,760 Speaker 1: been seen as the Court's pivotal point in this Why 96 00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:20,719 Speaker 1: sure it derives from the last time the Court grappled 97 00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:22,800 Speaker 1: with this, which is in two thousand and four with 98 00:05:22,960 --> 00:05:25,880 Speaker 1: the Court in Effects split four one four where four 99 00:05:25,960 --> 00:05:28,960 Speaker 1: justices led by Justice Scholey or the Conservatives essentially saying, 100 00:05:29,360 --> 00:05:31,880 Speaker 1: we just Jerryman recently nothing, and the Court can take 101 00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:35,400 Speaker 1: up the other four justices the liberals in effect saying yes, 102 00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:38,160 Speaker 1: we can, although they all had different tests for it. 103 00:05:38,200 --> 00:05:41,159 Speaker 1: Justice Kennedy in the middle sided with the Conservatives and 104 00:05:41,200 --> 00:05:44,080 Speaker 1: saying and throwing out the challenge in that case is 105 00:05:44,080 --> 00:05:47,320 Speaker 1: that I haven't seen a standard yet, but I'm hopeful 106 00:05:47,360 --> 00:05:50,600 Speaker 1: that we might on in particularly focused on the First Amendment, 107 00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:52,680 Speaker 1: doesn't think to think about and he focused on the 108 00:05:52,720 --> 00:05:57,159 Speaker 1: possibilities of new technology. Alright, thought, rich We've been talking 109 00:05:57,200 --> 00:06:00,400 Speaker 1: about a Jerryman during case that has reached the Preme 110 00:06:00,440 --> 00:06:05,880 Speaker 1: Court that could have implications for the American political landscape. 111 00:06:06,000 --> 00:06:08,920 Speaker 1: My guests are Richard Bruffall, he's a professor at Columbia 112 00:06:09,000 --> 00:06:11,960 Speaker 1: Law School, and Michael Lee. He's a senior counsel at 113 00:06:12,000 --> 00:06:15,719 Speaker 1: the Brennan Center. And Michael was at the Supreme Court 114 00:06:15,920 --> 00:06:21,480 Speaker 1: arguments today. Michael, you heard rich talking about Justice Kennedy 115 00:06:21,520 --> 00:06:25,240 Speaker 1: in this two thousand four ruling is looking for a 116 00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:29,280 Speaker 1: better plan or you know, way to do this, and 117 00:06:29,760 --> 00:06:32,800 Speaker 1: the Democrats here were ready to give him that plan. 118 00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:35,600 Speaker 1: But I understand he didn't ask any direct questions about it, 119 00:06:37,400 --> 00:06:40,599 Speaker 1: all right, he um. Most of his questions were aimed 120 00:06:40,640 --> 00:06:45,000 Speaker 1: at Wisconsin and the State of Wisconsin's lawyers, the two 121 00:06:45,040 --> 00:06:47,320 Speaker 1: sets who argued today, Um, and he had a lot 122 00:06:47,320 --> 00:06:50,560 Speaker 1: of tough questions for them. Um. So it's a little 123 00:06:50,600 --> 00:06:53,919 Speaker 1: bit hard to sort of read where exactly he is. Um, 124 00:06:53,960 --> 00:06:57,719 Speaker 1: although you know, you know, what the plaintiffs offered in 125 00:06:57,760 --> 00:07:01,080 Speaker 1: the way of a test was built up on things 126 00:07:01,120 --> 00:07:03,480 Speaker 1: that justice can he said both in two thousand four 127 00:07:03,480 --> 00:07:05,920 Speaker 1: and then in a later two thousand six case, and 128 00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:09,400 Speaker 1: so um, perhaps that's a signal that he's um comfortable 129 00:07:09,400 --> 00:07:12,560 Speaker 1: with what they have done, or perhaps comfortable that justice 130 00:07:12,600 --> 00:07:14,880 Speaker 1: taken and all of the other justices asking the questions 131 00:07:14,880 --> 00:07:17,320 Speaker 1: sort of really got it all of the things that 132 00:07:17,400 --> 00:07:23,200 Speaker 1: needed to be asked rich Wisconsin is among the majority 133 00:07:23,240 --> 00:07:26,600 Speaker 1: of states where the state legislature has the primary role 134 00:07:26,720 --> 00:07:31,360 Speaker 1: in redistricting. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of 135 00:07:31,400 --> 00:07:34,400 Speaker 1: the plaintiffs, will a plan Will they have to have 136 00:07:34,480 --> 00:07:38,920 Speaker 1: a plan for how this how these redistricting maps will 137 00:07:38,960 --> 00:07:42,760 Speaker 1: be done, or will they just reverse what will happen? Well, 138 00:07:42,800 --> 00:07:45,160 Speaker 1: but pite effectually one below. So if the Supreme Court, 139 00:07:45,240 --> 00:07:47,360 Speaker 1: the Spreme Court could actually affirm what the pre judge 140 00:07:47,400 --> 00:07:51,840 Speaker 1: court found, which that the current plan is unconstitutional. More 141 00:07:51,880 --> 00:07:55,040 Speaker 1: going forward, though, um, one of the challenges for the 142 00:07:55,080 --> 00:07:58,520 Speaker 1: Court is to come up with a standard which deals 143 00:07:58,560 --> 00:08:02,400 Speaker 1: with Wisconsin but doesn't necessarily exposed every plan on the 144 00:08:02,400 --> 00:08:05,679 Speaker 1: country to litigation. That's one of their concerns. One approach 145 00:08:05,720 --> 00:08:07,360 Speaker 1: the number of states have taken. I think you were 146 00:08:07,400 --> 00:08:10,280 Speaker 1: hinting at that a number of states have adopted independent 147 00:08:10,320 --> 00:08:14,320 Speaker 1: redistricting commissions. It's extremely unlikely the Sprint Court ever mandate 148 00:08:14,360 --> 00:08:17,360 Speaker 1: anything like that. It's hard impossible to imagine. One could 149 00:08:17,400 --> 00:08:20,520 Speaker 1: imagine that this that if the Court finds that that 150 00:08:20,680 --> 00:08:23,880 Speaker 1: gerryman ery is unconstitutional, that might give a boost efforts 151 00:08:23,880 --> 00:08:27,440 Speaker 1: at the state levels to create such independent districting commissions. 152 00:08:28,920 --> 00:08:32,880 Speaker 1: And Michael, you said that the Justice seemed very positive 153 00:08:33,080 --> 00:08:40,160 Speaker 1: about possibly um getting rid of this gerrymandering. But is 154 00:08:40,200 --> 00:08:42,720 Speaker 1: it What kind of a step would that be? It 155 00:08:42,960 --> 00:08:46,040 Speaker 1: describe how momentous a step that would be if the 156 00:08:46,120 --> 00:08:51,520 Speaker 1: Court decides in favor of the Democrats here, Well, it 157 00:08:51,559 --> 00:08:54,200 Speaker 1: would be huge because right now the Supreme Court has 158 00:08:54,240 --> 00:08:57,040 Speaker 1: never put partisan jerrymandering out of bounds in the same 159 00:08:57,040 --> 00:08:59,559 Speaker 1: way that it's put racial gerrymandering, out of bounds, and 160 00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:03,440 Speaker 1: other sorts of discrimination. And as a result, many states 161 00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:05,160 Speaker 1: have felt that they can go to town when it 162 00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:07,760 Speaker 1: comes to partisanship, UM, as long as I can sort 163 00:09:07,800 --> 00:09:10,040 Speaker 1: of justify it on the basis of politics. And and 164 00:09:10,120 --> 00:09:13,040 Speaker 1: that includes in many places in the South, in particular, 165 00:09:13,360 --> 00:09:16,320 Speaker 1: things that are very disadvantageous to African Americans are Latinos. 166 00:09:16,360 --> 00:09:19,040 Speaker 1: And you've heard throughout this decade in the South, uh, 167 00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:22,880 Speaker 1: states defend maps that are disadvantageous to minorities by saying, no, no, no, 168 00:09:22,920 --> 00:09:25,600 Speaker 1: we weren't trying to hurt African Americans or Latinos. We 169 00:09:25,600 --> 00:09:27,920 Speaker 1: were trying to target democrats and lo and behold, they 170 00:09:27,960 --> 00:09:31,280 Speaker 1: just happened to be African American and Latinos. And that's 171 00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:34,920 Speaker 1: a that's a um, you know opening that's still available 172 00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:36,680 Speaker 1: right now, because if you fit in the politics bucket, 173 00:09:36,679 --> 00:09:39,719 Speaker 1: you're out of bound, your inbounds. But if you fit 174 00:09:39,800 --> 00:09:41,720 Speaker 1: in the race boocket, you're out of bounds, and the 175 00:09:41,720 --> 00:09:44,920 Speaker 1: court could close that and UM, you know, help um 176 00:09:45,360 --> 00:09:47,920 Speaker 1: not only sure political fairness, but fairness for communities of 177 00:09:48,000 --> 00:09:53,520 Speaker 1: color and rich. As Michael said, I've also been reading 178 00:09:54,200 --> 00:09:57,280 Speaker 1: from other political experts who say that this could be 179 00:09:57,720 --> 00:10:01,920 Speaker 1: practically revolutionary, could change the American political scene. Do you 180 00:10:01,960 --> 00:10:05,040 Speaker 1: agree with that? It's hard to it would have a 181 00:10:05,080 --> 00:10:08,160 Speaker 1: big impact. There are right now a significant number a 182 00:10:08,240 --> 00:10:11,840 Speaker 1: number of states which have gerrymandrid congressional delegations and gerry 183 00:10:11,880 --> 00:10:15,600 Speaker 1: mandrid state legislatures. Much return on exactly what the court says. 184 00:10:15,840 --> 00:10:18,080 Speaker 1: Part of the proof that the plaintiffs in Wisconsin we're 185 00:10:18,080 --> 00:10:20,920 Speaker 1: able to make was that wis constant is really extreme, 186 00:10:21,280 --> 00:10:24,520 Speaker 1: and it's a really extreme gerrymander, more than almost any 187 00:10:25,040 --> 00:10:27,760 Speaker 1: plan in the country over the last forty years. If 188 00:10:27,760 --> 00:10:31,120 Speaker 1: the opinion has limited to something extreme, it's not clear 189 00:10:31,160 --> 00:10:32,920 Speaker 1: how far it will go. I mean we I think 190 00:10:32,920 --> 00:10:35,480 Speaker 1: we need to see exactly what they say. But certainly 191 00:10:36,040 --> 00:10:39,679 Speaker 1: Michael suggesting gerry mandering has been normal, has been increasing 192 00:10:39,920 --> 00:10:42,400 Speaker 1: and has gotten worse, that it would the increased use 193 00:10:42,440 --> 00:10:46,160 Speaker 1: of computerization to develop plans. If, if, if the Court 194 00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:48,160 Speaker 1: doesn't act on this, I think we're going to see 195 00:10:48,480 --> 00:10:53,199 Speaker 1: even more extreme jerrymandering going forward. Michael, did the justices 196 00:10:53,280 --> 00:10:59,200 Speaker 1: ask questions about the sophisticated technology that now allows digital 197 00:10:59,240 --> 00:11:03,400 Speaker 1: precision in devising these voting maps? They did, and and 198 00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:07,440 Speaker 1: Paul Smith really was almost apocalyptic and talking about what 199 00:11:07,520 --> 00:11:11,080 Speaker 1: the cycle would look like. UM one, the maps are 200 00:11:11,080 --> 00:11:14,760 Speaker 1: next redrawn based on all of the sophistic headed technology. 201 00:11:14,760 --> 00:11:16,200 Speaker 1: And he pointed to one of the briefs that was 202 00:11:16,240 --> 00:11:18,400 Speaker 1: filed by a number of political scientists which does a 203 00:11:18,440 --> 00:11:21,400 Speaker 1: good job of laying that out. But the justices also 204 00:11:21,800 --> 00:11:23,600 Speaker 1: um on the plus. But they also seem to think 205 00:11:23,600 --> 00:11:27,199 Speaker 1: that technology could help solve this problem and make this manageable. 206 00:11:27,240 --> 00:11:29,440 Speaker 1: You know, they struggled to think that they could manage 207 00:11:29,440 --> 00:11:31,600 Speaker 1: this problem and not have to get into everything. But 208 00:11:31,679 --> 00:11:34,800 Speaker 1: now you can draw thousands of millions even of computer 209 00:11:34,880 --> 00:11:38,480 Speaker 1: simulated maps and and test out the actual maps against 210 00:11:38,480 --> 00:11:41,640 Speaker 1: those and and you know, decide whether they're likely to 211 00:11:41,679 --> 00:11:44,840 Speaker 1: be random or not. So technology is both um you know, 212 00:11:44,880 --> 00:11:47,280 Speaker 1: a really a real danger but perhaps something that makes 213 00:11:47,320 --> 00:11:50,040 Speaker 1: us much more uh comfortable for the court to feel 214 00:11:50,040 --> 00:11:51,679 Speaker 1: like they can get involved and not have to make 215 00:11:51,720 --> 00:11:54,600 Speaker 1: lots of complicated decisions about where lines go. Were with 216 00:11:54,720 --> 00:11:57,240 Speaker 1: about thirty seconds left, Michael, And since you were there, 217 00:11:57,280 --> 00:12:01,440 Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you in your opinion after hearing 218 00:12:01,480 --> 00:12:05,120 Speaker 1: the arguments, do you believe that the court is going 219 00:12:05,240 --> 00:12:10,440 Speaker 1: to um rule in favor of the Democrats here? Well, 220 00:12:10,600 --> 00:12:14,200 Speaker 1: you know, I've always famously misguessed the court on any 221 00:12:14,240 --> 00:12:15,720 Speaker 1: number of occasions, so I don't want to start of 222 00:12:15,800 --> 00:12:18,320 Speaker 1: like hazards. I guess you know the case that was 223 00:12:18,360 --> 00:12:21,640 Speaker 1: presented by the Wisconsin plantiffs challenging the maps, it was 224 00:12:21,679 --> 00:12:23,840 Speaker 1: really strong. Alright, I'll have to we'll have to leave 225 00:12:23,840 --> 00:12:25,959 Speaker 1: it there. Thank you both. That's Michael Leese and your 226 00:12:26,000 --> 00:12:29,280 Speaker 1: counsel at the Brennan Center and Richard Ruffal, Professor, Columbia 227 00:12:29,360 --> 00:12:29,920 Speaker 1: Law School.