WEBVTT - Trump Wants to Cut Down Forests & Redistricting Battles

0:00:02.880 --> 0:00:07.120
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:10.720 --> 0:00:13.840
<v Speaker 2>The Trump administration wants to get rid of a rule

0:00:13.880 --> 0:00:17.840
<v Speaker 2>that protects tens of millions of acres of national forest

0:00:18.280 --> 0:00:22.760
<v Speaker 2>from road building and large scale logging, forests that protect

0:00:22.920 --> 0:00:28.600
<v Speaker 2>endangered species, biodiversity, and watersheds used for drinking water from

0:00:28.680 --> 0:00:33.080
<v Speaker 2>Alaska to Puerto Rico. But scrapping the so called Roadless

0:00:33.159 --> 0:00:37.919
<v Speaker 2>Rule will face a reality check from litigation, government downsizing,

0:00:38.120 --> 0:00:41.400
<v Speaker 2>and even a soft timber market. Joining me is an

0:00:41.400 --> 0:00:45.159
<v Speaker 2>expert in environmental law, Pat Parento, a professor at the

0:00:45.240 --> 0:00:49.680
<v Speaker 2>Vermont Law and Graduate School. Pat, just what is the

0:00:49.800 --> 0:00:50.960
<v Speaker 2>Roadless Rule?

0:00:51.840 --> 0:00:56.200
<v Speaker 1>So this was a rule adopted during President Clinton's last

0:00:56.720 --> 0:01:02.040
<v Speaker 1>year in office, literally, and it relates to areas on

0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:06.520
<v Speaker 1>the National Forest which are one hundred and ninety three

0:01:06.760 --> 0:01:11.240
<v Speaker 1>million acres and it comprises about fifty eight thousand acres,

0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:13.840
<v Speaker 1>so it's about thirty percent of all the lands in

0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:18.000
<v Speaker 1>the National Forests. And these are areas that, as the

0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:22.800
<v Speaker 1>name implies, don't have roads. And the reason, by the way,

0:01:23.000 --> 0:01:26.240
<v Speaker 1>they don't have roads and haven't for over one hundred

0:01:26.319 --> 0:01:30.720
<v Speaker 1>years of Forest Service management, which has always emphasized logging.

0:01:30.880 --> 0:01:34.560
<v Speaker 1>That's been the raison detra of the National forests for

0:01:35.000 --> 0:01:36.600
<v Speaker 1>almost its entire existence.

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:36.880
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:01:37.280 --> 0:01:41.800
<v Speaker 1>The reason they're roadless is they're too expensive to build

0:01:41.920 --> 0:01:47.160
<v Speaker 1>and maintain roads in these remote areas, high elevation areas,

0:01:47.319 --> 0:01:51.920
<v Speaker 1>very difficult to access areas. If they were accessible, they

0:01:51.920 --> 0:01:54.840
<v Speaker 1>would have been logged long ago, because the Forest Service

0:01:54.880 --> 0:02:00.840
<v Speaker 1>has been converting native forests wild forests to plantations, plantations

0:02:01.200 --> 0:02:06.520
<v Speaker 1>emphasizing commercially valuable species, eliminating everything else. So that's why

0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:10.800
<v Speaker 1>they're roadless, and that's why they've become such valuable for

0:02:10.919 --> 0:02:16.359
<v Speaker 1>many reasons wildlife and fisheries, conservation, endangered species, but also

0:02:16.840 --> 0:02:23.160
<v Speaker 1>water supply. These are intact watersheds I mean relatively intact, right,

0:02:23.240 --> 0:02:27.160
<v Speaker 1>that haven't been disturbed, that haven't been roaded, and therefore

0:02:27.600 --> 0:02:31.720
<v Speaker 1>the water coming off of that landscape has been filtered

0:02:32.080 --> 0:02:35.000
<v Speaker 1>by all of the trees and vegetation. A healthy forest,

0:02:35.040 --> 0:02:38.320
<v Speaker 1>in other words, produces clean water. This is water you

0:02:38.360 --> 0:02:41.880
<v Speaker 1>can drink. I mean it's not recommended, you know, because

0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:45.720
<v Speaker 1>of you know, bacteria, but in terms of pollution, this

0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:49.840
<v Speaker 1>is water that you don't have to filter and treat extensively.

0:02:50.120 --> 0:02:53.959
<v Speaker 1>So these areas are valuable for all kinds of reasons,

0:02:54.240 --> 0:02:57.399
<v Speaker 1>you know, outdoor recreation, sure, fishing and hunting and all that,

0:02:57.760 --> 0:03:00.720
<v Speaker 1>but also water supply. So that's what at stake here.

0:03:01.480 --> 0:03:04.240
<v Speaker 2>Before I did research for this story, I thought that

0:03:04.280 --> 0:03:09.040
<v Speaker 2>the Forest Service was meant to preserve our forests, not

0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:10.040
<v Speaker 2>to produce timber.

0:03:10.639 --> 0:03:14.440
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, well, I mean their manage under what's called multiple use.

0:03:14.800 --> 0:03:19.200
<v Speaker 1>Some people would you know, say multiple abuse. But still

0:03:19.320 --> 0:03:22.760
<v Speaker 1>the law says there are five different values of the forest,

0:03:22.840 --> 0:03:26.680
<v Speaker 1>including as I mentioned, fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply,

0:03:27.320 --> 0:03:29.799
<v Speaker 1>and lumber. Of course, timber is one of the primary

0:03:29.840 --> 0:03:33.639
<v Speaker 1>reasons for managing national forests, and you know, we've had

0:03:33.760 --> 0:03:36.520
<v Speaker 1>laws that required the Forest Service to come up with

0:03:36.560 --> 0:03:39.640
<v Speaker 1>an annual quota of cuts. Whether or not the market

0:03:39.840 --> 0:03:43.480
<v Speaker 1>needed the amount of timber, the Forest Service was obligated

0:03:43.720 --> 0:03:46.160
<v Speaker 1>to put it on the market sell it for below

0:03:46.320 --> 0:03:49.680
<v Speaker 1>market value in many cases, and a lot of the

0:03:49.720 --> 0:03:53.000
<v Speaker 1>timber that came off national forests, particularly in the West,

0:03:53.080 --> 0:03:57.760
<v Speaker 1>particularly the old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska,

0:03:58.320 --> 0:04:01.760
<v Speaker 1>they were cut for export. They weren't processed in the

0:04:01.880 --> 0:04:04.840
<v Speaker 1>United States. We were operating like a third world country

0:04:05.240 --> 0:04:10.560
<v Speaker 1>in terms of our national forests exporting really high value trees,

0:04:11.120 --> 0:04:14.640
<v Speaker 1>large diameter old growth trees, to send them to Japan,

0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:17.919
<v Speaker 1>send them to Korea, and have to Japan and Korea

0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:24.360
<v Speaker 1>process these into furniture in the musical instruments, pianos, even chapsticks, right,

0:04:24.640 --> 0:04:26.840
<v Speaker 1>and then sell them back to us. It was crazy

0:04:27.320 --> 0:04:31.960
<v Speaker 1>that we were letting other countries benefit from our forest resources.

0:04:32.000 --> 0:04:35.080
<v Speaker 1>So that all came to an end. And Clinton was

0:04:35.160 --> 0:04:39.960
<v Speaker 1>certainly instrumental during the whole spot at Owl God Squad

0:04:40.320 --> 0:04:43.560
<v Speaker 1>proceedings and all of that background. Clinton was the one

0:04:43.560 --> 0:04:46.600
<v Speaker 1>who said, you know, we've got to retain the remainder

0:04:47.040 --> 0:04:50.720
<v Speaker 1>of our intact forest resources for all these reasons. And

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:53.960
<v Speaker 1>so you know, we've turned the corner on how the

0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:57.680
<v Speaker 1>national forests are being managed for multiple uses, not just

0:04:58.040 --> 0:05:02.560
<v Speaker 1>timber production. But now, of course Trump wants to prioritize

0:05:02.800 --> 0:05:06.480
<v Speaker 1>what he's calling you a lumber emergency. Of course, I

0:05:06.480 --> 0:05:08.920
<v Speaker 1>don't know how many You've lost track of the number

0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:12.560
<v Speaker 1>of emergencies he's declared, but we've apparently got a timber

0:05:12.600 --> 0:05:13.679
<v Speaker 1>emergency as well.

0:05:14.040 --> 0:05:19.000
<v Speaker 2>So the Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins, who slammed the roadless

0:05:19.040 --> 0:05:23.640
<v Speaker 2>rule as absurd, said there's a timber emergency and they

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:26.960
<v Speaker 2>have to get more logs on trucks to comply with

0:05:27.040 --> 0:05:30.719
<v Speaker 2>Trump's March order calling for expanded forest cutting to avoid

0:05:30.880 --> 0:05:35.839
<v Speaker 2>importing wood products and reduce wildfire threats. Is there a

0:05:35.880 --> 0:05:36.960
<v Speaker 2>timber emergency.

0:05:37.720 --> 0:05:43.520
<v Speaker 1>No, there is certainly a demand for more timber from

0:05:43.600 --> 0:05:47.360
<v Speaker 1>the forest products industry, from the lumber companies because they

0:05:47.400 --> 0:05:50.640
<v Speaker 1>don't want to have to import lumber from Canada. We

0:05:50.680 --> 0:05:53.040
<v Speaker 1>do import a lot from Canada. I mean, Manada has

0:05:53.040 --> 0:05:55.360
<v Speaker 1>more forests than we do. And of course, now with

0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:59.839
<v Speaker 1>tariffs imposed by Trump on Canadian imports, the cost of

0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:03.440
<v Speaker 1>lumber from Canada is going to becoming more expensive, as

0:06:03.560 --> 0:06:07.360
<v Speaker 1>is everything else from coffee to eggs. Right, So that

0:06:07.520 --> 0:06:11.240
<v Speaker 1>is true. But the reason that there is a shortage

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:15.000
<v Speaker 1>of timber production in the United States is for three reasons.

0:06:15.360 --> 0:06:18.839
<v Speaker 1>Number one, it is the labor shortage. Number two, it's

0:06:19.120 --> 0:06:23.359
<v Speaker 1>the mills that used to process timber have closed. And

0:06:23.480 --> 0:06:28.680
<v Speaker 1>number three is the supply chain for lumber products has

0:06:28.720 --> 0:06:32.960
<v Speaker 1>become more complicated, you know, the transportation of logs and trees,

0:06:33.520 --> 0:06:36.360
<v Speaker 1>you know, between the United States and Canada has become

0:06:36.400 --> 0:06:41.200
<v Speaker 1>more complicated. So the reasons why the domestic production of

0:06:41.320 --> 0:06:45.360
<v Speaker 1>lumber has declined has nothing to do with an emergency.

0:06:45.400 --> 0:06:48.960
<v Speaker 1>We have plenty of timber and lumber. The question is

0:06:49.240 --> 0:06:53.560
<v Speaker 1>at what cost? And if you want to increase us

0:06:53.720 --> 0:06:57.120
<v Speaker 1>production of timber, the way to do that is to

0:06:57.160 --> 0:07:00.200
<v Speaker 1>create a market for it and then create the labor.

0:07:00.760 --> 0:07:03.760
<v Speaker 1>And also, by the way, have an agency, namely the

0:07:03.800 --> 0:07:08.919
<v Speaker 1>Forest Service, with skilled silver culturists, the people that manage

0:07:08.920 --> 0:07:11.920
<v Speaker 1>the forest. And of course Trump is cutting those positions.

0:07:12.080 --> 0:07:16.160
<v Speaker 1>They've cut over two thousand Forest Service positions. When you

0:07:16.240 --> 0:07:20.000
<v Speaker 1>do that, you can't do the planning, the management, the

0:07:20.080 --> 0:07:22.960
<v Speaker 1>timber sales. So those are some of the reasons why

0:07:23.400 --> 0:07:27.120
<v Speaker 1>if there's a shortage of domestic lumber on the market.

0:07:27.400 --> 0:07:30.880
<v Speaker 1>The reasons are not because we're not logging old growth

0:07:31.200 --> 0:07:34.920
<v Speaker 1>and roadless areas. The reasons lie elsewhere.

0:07:35.720 --> 0:07:40.400
<v Speaker 2>And what would be the impact of rescinding this roadless rule.

0:07:41.360 --> 0:07:43.400
<v Speaker 1>By the way, we should say something about what the

0:07:43.520 --> 0:07:47.160
<v Speaker 1>roadless rule is and what it allows, because it addresses

0:07:47.440 --> 0:07:50.840
<v Speaker 1>specifically this business about we need to cut these trees

0:07:50.880 --> 0:07:54.679
<v Speaker 1>to manage wildfire. Right, So what the roadless rule allows

0:07:54.800 --> 0:07:59.280
<v Speaker 1>is thinning of forests fuel reduction, which means you know,

0:07:59.440 --> 0:08:04.240
<v Speaker 1>the small trees in the forest and prescribe burns. That's

0:08:04.320 --> 0:08:08.120
<v Speaker 1>number one. Number two roadless areas have been roadless for

0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:11.440
<v Speaker 1>over one hundred years, as I mentioned, and there hasn't

0:08:11.520 --> 0:08:15.320
<v Speaker 1>been any intensive logging because they're so expensive to build

0:08:15.360 --> 0:08:20.320
<v Speaker 1>and maintain. And the rule also reduces all of the litigation.

0:08:20.480 --> 0:08:24.640
<v Speaker 1>I've been involved in defending the roadless Rule full disclosure

0:08:25.080 --> 0:08:27.680
<v Speaker 1>back in two thousand and two in the Ninth Circuit

0:08:27.680 --> 0:08:32.040
<v Speaker 1>Court of Appeals, and since then there've been over a

0:08:32.160 --> 0:08:35.920
<v Speaker 1>dozen lawsuits. There's been all kinds of conflict in litigation

0:08:36.040 --> 0:08:38.760
<v Speaker 1>over these areas, and so one of the reasons for

0:08:38.840 --> 0:08:41.280
<v Speaker 1>the roadless rule is to say, well, let's put an

0:08:41.440 --> 0:08:45.920
<v Speaker 1>end to these endless lawsuits and conflict over these areas.

0:08:45.920 --> 0:08:48.560
<v Speaker 1>They're very popular with the public, that's why there's so

0:08:48.720 --> 0:08:52.680
<v Speaker 1>much controversy in litigation, and this roadless rule was designed

0:08:52.720 --> 0:08:55.160
<v Speaker 1>to put an end to that and get the Forest

0:08:55.240 --> 0:08:59.480
<v Speaker 1>Service to focus on those areas of the National Forest

0:09:00.120 --> 0:09:04.400
<v Speaker 1>where there is a history of commercial logging and you know,

0:09:04.520 --> 0:09:07.880
<v Speaker 1>focus your efforts on increasing production if that's what we

0:09:08.320 --> 0:09:11.679
<v Speaker 1>nationally think we need to do in those areas that

0:09:11.720 --> 0:09:15.280
<v Speaker 1>are already roaded. And by the way, there are two

0:09:15.679 --> 0:09:21.040
<v Speaker 1>one hundred and sixty five thousand miles of forest roads

0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:24.839
<v Speaker 1>in the National Forest. Think about that. The entire interstate

0:09:24.920 --> 0:09:29.400
<v Speaker 1>highway system is forty seven thousand miles, So you can

0:09:29.400 --> 0:09:32.720
<v Speaker 1>do the math. You're talking about, you know, a huge

0:09:32.880 --> 0:09:37.959
<v Speaker 1>multiple of roads already in the National Forest, and guess

0:09:37.960 --> 0:09:44.080
<v Speaker 1>what the backlog of costs to either decommission as they say,

0:09:44.120 --> 0:09:48.400
<v Speaker 1>these roads in other words, restore them to a natural environment,

0:09:49.080 --> 0:09:52.360
<v Speaker 1>or just simply maintain them. The price tag for that

0:09:52.600 --> 0:09:57.680
<v Speaker 1>is over eight billion dollars in FY twenty twenty three.

0:09:57.960 --> 0:10:00.520
<v Speaker 1>So you know, the Forest Service doesn't eat and begin

0:10:01.240 --> 0:10:04.080
<v Speaker 1>to have enough money to manage the roads they already

0:10:04.120 --> 0:10:08.160
<v Speaker 1>have to either maintain them or decommission them. Right, So

0:10:08.280 --> 0:10:11.400
<v Speaker 1>now you're talking about opening up all these new areas

0:10:11.720 --> 0:10:14.760
<v Speaker 1>to road building with all the expense of that and

0:10:14.800 --> 0:10:17.600
<v Speaker 1>the maintenance of that of those roads once they're built,

0:10:18.040 --> 0:10:20.480
<v Speaker 1>and then you're going to access these areas that haven't

0:10:20.520 --> 0:10:24.280
<v Speaker 1>been logged, haven't been commercially valuable enough to invest the

0:10:24.320 --> 0:10:28.000
<v Speaker 1>money to log them. That's what this order is talking about.

0:10:28.600 --> 0:10:32.200
<v Speaker 2>And the Forest Service is dealing with budget cuts and

0:10:32.400 --> 0:10:36.920
<v Speaker 2>staffing shortages, so it may have problems just keeping up

0:10:36.960 --> 0:10:38.760
<v Speaker 2>with the things it already has to do.

0:10:39.760 --> 0:10:42.560
<v Speaker 1>Right, they don't have a budget. The budget they have

0:10:42.960 --> 0:10:46.520
<v Speaker 1>for managing wildfires is the largest segment of their budget.

0:10:46.520 --> 0:10:50.240
<v Speaker 1>It's over a billion dollars. Wildfires is definitely a problem.

0:10:50.520 --> 0:10:52.520
<v Speaker 1>There's lots of reasons for that. We could have a

0:10:52.559 --> 0:10:55.280
<v Speaker 1>whole program on it. Why there are so many wildfires,

0:10:55.360 --> 0:11:00.160
<v Speaker 1>including of course climate change and global warming driven wildfires,

0:11:00.200 --> 0:11:03.120
<v Speaker 1>but lots of reasons why. Building in the areas close

0:11:03.160 --> 0:11:07.120
<v Speaker 1>to the forest interface is a reason for wildfires. But

0:11:07.200 --> 0:11:10.240
<v Speaker 1>here's the thing about roads. When you build more roads,

0:11:10.320 --> 0:11:13.160
<v Speaker 1>you're going to get more wildfires. The data is crystal

0:11:13.200 --> 0:11:17.360
<v Speaker 1>clear on that. Why. Guess why, Because people are driving

0:11:17.440 --> 0:11:20.520
<v Speaker 1>into these areas, these remote areas, and what are they doing.

0:11:20.720 --> 0:11:23.520
<v Speaker 1>They're building campfires, aren't they And what do they do

0:11:23.600 --> 0:11:25.800
<v Speaker 1>with campfires? Do they always always put them out?

0:11:26.040 --> 0:11:26.199
<v Speaker 3>No?

0:11:26.720 --> 0:11:33.319
<v Speaker 1>Ninety percent of wildfire ignition is human caused, ninety percent.

0:11:33.800 --> 0:11:36.840
<v Speaker 1>That's the data. So you put roads into these areas,

0:11:37.000 --> 0:11:40.600
<v Speaker 1>you're going to get more wildfires. That's clear from our

0:11:40.679 --> 0:11:43.960
<v Speaker 1>history of dealing with wildfires, and the Forest Service would

0:11:43.960 --> 0:11:44.480
<v Speaker 1>tell you that.

0:11:45.400 --> 0:11:49.960
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Forest Service research published during the first Jump administration

0:11:50.440 --> 0:11:55.520
<v Speaker 2>show that more wildfires ignite near roads. Wildfire mitigation efforts

0:11:55.520 --> 0:11:58.360
<v Speaker 2>have been more common in roadless areas than in the

0:11:58.400 --> 0:12:02.400
<v Speaker 2>rest of the national forests. And roadless areas have no

0:12:02.480 --> 0:12:06.199
<v Speaker 2>effect on wildfire burn rates. Coming up next on the

0:12:06.200 --> 0:12:09.680
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue this conversation with Professor Pat

0:12:09.720 --> 0:12:13.480
<v Speaker 2>Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School. We'll talk

0:12:13.520 --> 0:12:16.400
<v Speaker 2>about some of the litigation that can be expected if

0:12:16.480 --> 0:12:19.880
<v Speaker 2>the roadless Rule is rescinded. I'm June Grosso. When you're

0:12:19.920 --> 0:12:25.440
<v Speaker 2>listening to Bloomberg. The Trump administration wants to get rid

0:12:25.520 --> 0:12:28.439
<v Speaker 2>of a rule that protects tens of millions of acres

0:12:28.440 --> 0:12:32.600
<v Speaker 2>of national forest from road building and large scale logging,

0:12:33.320 --> 0:12:36.080
<v Speaker 2>but its zealed to log will face a reality check

0:12:36.160 --> 0:12:41.480
<v Speaker 2>from government downsizing, possible litigation, and even a soft timber market.

0:12:42.040 --> 0:12:46.559
<v Speaker 2>The US Forest Service, which manages roadless areas, is grappling

0:12:46.600 --> 0:12:50.400
<v Speaker 2>with budget cuts and staffing shortages. At the same time,

0:12:50.559 --> 0:12:54.480
<v Speaker 2>environmental groups are gearing up for legal battles arguing the

0:12:54.520 --> 0:12:59.640
<v Speaker 2>so called roadless Rule safeguards endangered species, clean water, and

0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:03.800
<v Speaker 2>buy diversity. President Bill Clinton implemented the rule in the

0:13:03.840 --> 0:13:06.920
<v Speaker 2>final weeks of his term, envisioning it as a way

0:13:06.960 --> 0:13:11.240
<v Speaker 2>to protect endangered species and three hundred and fifty watersheds

0:13:11.280 --> 0:13:15.040
<v Speaker 2>within national forests used for drinking water. From Alaska to

0:13:15.080 --> 0:13:18.560
<v Speaker 2>Puerto Rico. Among the places the rule has preserved are

0:13:18.640 --> 0:13:23.479
<v Speaker 2>parts of the world's largest coastal temperate rainforest in Alaska's

0:13:23.520 --> 0:13:28.400
<v Speaker 2>Tongus National Forest, vast mountain ranges in central Idaho, the

0:13:28.440 --> 0:13:33.760
<v Speaker 2>peaks and plateaus above Utah's Contested Barriers National Monument, and

0:13:33.800 --> 0:13:39.640
<v Speaker 2>the Appalachian Forest in Virginia. But Agricultural Secretary Brook Rawlins

0:13:40.000 --> 0:13:44.200
<v Speaker 2>has slammed the roadless rule as absurd and declared a

0:13:44.320 --> 0:13:48.560
<v Speaker 2>timber emergency to get more logs on trucks and comply

0:13:48.760 --> 0:13:53.080
<v Speaker 2>with Trump's March order calling for expanded forest cutting to

0:13:53.200 --> 0:13:57.880
<v Speaker 2>avoid importing wood products and reduced wildfire threats. I've been

0:13:57.880 --> 0:14:01.600
<v Speaker 2>talking to Professor Pat Parento of the Law and Graduate School.

0:14:02.200 --> 0:14:04.720
<v Speaker 2>If they do rescind the rule, I mean, do you

0:14:04.760 --> 0:14:07.920
<v Speaker 2>think that nothing much would happen at the beginning because

0:14:07.960 --> 0:14:11.360
<v Speaker 2>the Forest Service doesn't have the money or the staff

0:14:11.520 --> 0:14:13.319
<v Speaker 2>to start building roads.

0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:16.720
<v Speaker 1>Well, first of all, I mean an attempt to repeal

0:14:16.720 --> 0:14:19.280
<v Speaker 1>this roadless rule that, as I said, there's been over

0:14:19.320 --> 0:14:22.400
<v Speaker 1>a dozen lawsuits. There'll be another one, several in fact,

0:14:22.840 --> 0:14:24.800
<v Speaker 1>So the first thing you're going to have is another

0:14:24.920 --> 0:14:29.080
<v Speaker 1>round of litigation over repealing the rule, and that'll involve

0:14:29.120 --> 0:14:32.320
<v Speaker 1>the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the

0:14:32.360 --> 0:14:36.840
<v Speaker 1>Administrative Procedure Act, the whole panoply of federal law will

0:14:36.840 --> 0:14:40.080
<v Speaker 1>come into play, and it'll be litigated in many district

0:14:40.080 --> 0:14:43.360
<v Speaker 1>courts around the country. Because everybody's got a favorite for us,

0:14:43.360 --> 0:14:45.800
<v Speaker 1>they're going to defend to the death, not to the death,

0:14:45.840 --> 0:14:49.000
<v Speaker 1>but they're going to defend vigorously. Right, So we're going

0:14:49.040 --> 0:14:50.920
<v Speaker 1>to have a whole bunch of litigation over whether the

0:14:51.000 --> 0:14:54.640
<v Speaker 1>repeal of the roadless rule is legitimate. And I predict

0:14:54.680 --> 0:14:57.280
<v Speaker 1>they're going to be injunctions levied against the Forest Service

0:14:57.280 --> 0:15:00.240
<v Speaker 1>when they try to sell timber from these areas. And

0:15:00.280 --> 0:15:02.800
<v Speaker 1>then of course is the question of market so you know,

0:15:03.120 --> 0:15:05.920
<v Speaker 1>if the companies have to build these roads, I don't

0:15:05.920 --> 0:15:07.920
<v Speaker 1>think there's going to be very many of these areas

0:15:07.920 --> 0:15:10.120
<v Speaker 1>that will be logged. One of the biggest ones that's

0:15:10.120 --> 0:15:14.000
<v Speaker 1>been contentious is the Tongas National Forest in Alaska, and

0:15:14.040 --> 0:15:16.960
<v Speaker 1>that's been back and forth between it's either exempt from

0:15:16.960 --> 0:15:19.640
<v Speaker 1>the roadless rule or it's in the roadless rule. Currently

0:15:20.000 --> 0:15:22.920
<v Speaker 1>it is in the roadless rule. So there's certainly part

0:15:22.960 --> 0:15:25.840
<v Speaker 1>of the forests where the value of the timber in question.

0:15:25.920 --> 0:15:31.120
<v Speaker 1>These old growth large trees is sufficient enough that the

0:15:31.160 --> 0:15:33.000
<v Speaker 1>timber industry is going to want to fight over that

0:15:33.080 --> 0:15:35.480
<v Speaker 1>and try to get access to those areas. But in

0:15:35.560 --> 0:15:38.400
<v Speaker 1>terms of the fifty eight thousand acres around the country,

0:15:38.640 --> 0:15:42.400
<v Speaker 1>including forests in the east right here in our own Vermont,

0:15:42.440 --> 0:15:46.240
<v Speaker 1>the Green Mountain National Forests, or across the river in

0:15:46.280 --> 0:15:49.240
<v Speaker 1>nor Hampshire the White Mountain National Forests. You know, these

0:15:49.240 --> 0:15:52.960
<v Speaker 1>are areas that have roadless areas, and the timber in

0:15:53.000 --> 0:15:57.480
<v Speaker 1>those areas just isn't going to be economically feasible. It's

0:15:57.520 --> 0:16:01.200
<v Speaker 1>a log But some of these big western forest, yeah,

0:16:01.320 --> 0:16:04.680
<v Speaker 1>there's probably going to be significant fights to get access

0:16:04.720 --> 0:16:05.560
<v Speaker 1>to those areas.

0:16:06.080 --> 0:16:09.160
<v Speaker 2>So you litigated this, as you mentioned. If they do

0:16:09.240 --> 0:16:12.320
<v Speaker 2>rescind the roadless rule, what would some of the challenges

0:16:12.680 --> 0:16:14.080
<v Speaker 2>be League.

0:16:14.160 --> 0:16:18.560
<v Speaker 1>One, Well, you know, the National Forest Management Act requires

0:16:18.600 --> 0:16:22.080
<v Speaker 1>that every forest have a plan, and because the roadless

0:16:22.120 --> 0:16:24.640
<v Speaker 1>Rule has been in effect, you know, it's gone through

0:16:24.640 --> 0:16:28.840
<v Speaker 1>as I say, different iterations, shall we say, as different

0:16:28.880 --> 0:16:33.600
<v Speaker 1>administrations come and go. You know, the Clinton administration, then

0:16:33.640 --> 0:16:36.720
<v Speaker 1>the Bush one administration, and then you had Bush two,

0:16:36.880 --> 0:16:39.920
<v Speaker 1>and so you know it's gone back and forth in

0:16:40.040 --> 0:16:42.600
<v Speaker 1>terms of the extent of the roadless rule and what

0:16:42.760 --> 0:16:45.960
<v Speaker 1>forests we're in and out. But right now all of

0:16:46.000 --> 0:16:50.440
<v Speaker 1>these areas are are protected as roadless and so the

0:16:50.600 --> 0:16:53.120
<v Speaker 1>National Forest Management Act will be one of the principal

0:16:53.200 --> 0:16:57.560
<v Speaker 1>laws because you have to comply with forest plans. And

0:16:57.600 --> 0:17:00.120
<v Speaker 1>if the forest plan says there's no logging in these

0:17:00.200 --> 0:17:03.200
<v Speaker 1>roadless areas, then there can't be any logging until you

0:17:03.400 --> 0:17:07.080
<v Speaker 1>change the forest plan. That would be step number one. Well,

0:17:07.119 --> 0:17:09.520
<v Speaker 1>to do that, you have to go through NEPA. You

0:17:09.600 --> 0:17:12.679
<v Speaker 1>have to do another environmental assessment at least, if not

0:17:12.800 --> 0:17:16.000
<v Speaker 1>an environmental impact statement. We've talked a lot about what's

0:17:16.040 --> 0:17:19.280
<v Speaker 1>happening with NEFA. And even though you know the Trump

0:17:19.359 --> 0:17:22.800
<v Speaker 1>administration is trying to limit the scope of NIPA and

0:17:22.840 --> 0:17:26.080
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court as well, it still exists. It's still

0:17:26.080 --> 0:17:28.840
<v Speaker 1>a law. It has to be complied with, and you

0:17:28.880 --> 0:17:30.720
<v Speaker 1>can't just snap your fingers and say we're going to

0:17:30.800 --> 0:17:33.000
<v Speaker 1>change a forest plan and we're going to write a

0:17:33.040 --> 0:17:36.159
<v Speaker 1>two page environmental impact statement to do it. That's going

0:17:36.240 --> 0:17:39.440
<v Speaker 1>to get challenged and overturned in court. Most of these

0:17:39.480 --> 0:17:43.960
<v Speaker 1>areas contain really important critical habitat of a number of

0:17:44.000 --> 0:17:50.520
<v Speaker 1>endangered species. Think Canada Links, think wolverine, Think grizzly bears.

0:17:50.920 --> 0:17:55.119
<v Speaker 1>Think marbl mural ass think spotted owls. I could go

0:17:55.160 --> 0:17:58.679
<v Speaker 1>on and on. These old girls, for uts are the

0:17:58.760 --> 0:18:03.480
<v Speaker 1>last stronghold of many of our most high profile in

0:18:03.560 --> 0:18:07.280
<v Speaker 1>endangered species, right, not just insects and butterflies, but you know,

0:18:07.760 --> 0:18:11.160
<v Speaker 1>animals that people really care about and will fight for.

0:18:11.600 --> 0:18:13.920
<v Speaker 1>So you know that's what you're looking at when you

0:18:14.040 --> 0:18:17.679
<v Speaker 1>go after these areas, You're going to involve a whole

0:18:17.880 --> 0:18:21.680
<v Speaker 1>splate of environmental laws, including, by the way, the Clean

0:18:21.720 --> 0:18:25.480
<v Speaker 1>Water Act. Because when you road these areas, rode them,

0:18:25.600 --> 0:18:29.400
<v Speaker 1>build roads in them, they erode, right, and sediment comes off,

0:18:29.440 --> 0:18:32.639
<v Speaker 1>and sediment carries all kinds of other pollutants. If you

0:18:32.680 --> 0:18:35.879
<v Speaker 1>think about, you know, the way we fight fires, We

0:18:36.080 --> 0:18:39.840
<v Speaker 1>flood the landscape with not only pesticides, but herbicides and

0:18:39.920 --> 0:18:44.160
<v Speaker 1>other fire retardant chemicals that are toxic. And there's all

0:18:44.240 --> 0:18:47.359
<v Speaker 1>kinds of data about the fact that forests now have

0:18:47.880 --> 0:18:52.679
<v Speaker 1>all kinds of these chemicals saturated into the sediment of

0:18:52.720 --> 0:18:55.520
<v Speaker 1>these rivers coming out of the streams that are coming

0:18:55.560 --> 0:18:58.480
<v Speaker 1>off these national forests and again down into the water

0:18:58.560 --> 0:19:03.680
<v Speaker 1>supply systems for communities. So all kinds of laws come

0:19:03.720 --> 0:19:06.840
<v Speaker 1>into play when you go after these roadless areas.

0:19:06.960 --> 0:19:12.200
<v Speaker 2>The Agricultural Secretary made this announcement in June, and nothing's

0:19:12.280 --> 0:19:16.240
<v Speaker 2>been done yet where edging into late August. Is it

0:19:16.359 --> 0:19:20.560
<v Speaker 2>something that might just be put aside, although you also

0:19:20.600 --> 0:19:23.159
<v Speaker 2>have the fact that the so called Big Beautiful Bill

0:19:23.960 --> 0:19:28.320
<v Speaker 2>mandates that the Forest Service increased US timber sales by

0:19:28.359 --> 0:19:31.560
<v Speaker 2>two hundred and fifty million board feet each year through

0:19:31.640 --> 0:19:37.280
<v Speaker 2>twenty thirty four. That's an eight percent annual increase over

0:19:37.359 --> 0:19:41.840
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty three and a roughly seventy five percent cumulative

0:19:41.960 --> 0:19:44.840
<v Speaker 2>spike in logging over the next nine years.

0:19:45.680 --> 0:19:49.280
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Well, you know, you can put those kinds of

0:19:49.320 --> 0:19:52.399
<v Speaker 1>goals out there, the same thing with how many people

0:19:52.400 --> 0:19:55.520
<v Speaker 1>were going to deport every year, And the truth is,

0:19:55.640 --> 0:19:59.280
<v Speaker 1>the reality is you're not going to meet those quotas,

0:20:00.000 --> 0:20:03.000
<v Speaker 1>the market isn't going to be there to meet those quotas,

0:20:03.200 --> 0:20:06.359
<v Speaker 1>or the amount of litigation I'm describing is going to

0:20:06.400 --> 0:20:10.240
<v Speaker 1>stretch out for years into whatever the next administration is

0:20:10.280 --> 0:20:12.760
<v Speaker 1>going to be. And as I've said, you know, this

0:20:12.920 --> 0:20:16.679
<v Speaker 1>roadless rule has been a bone of contention of political

0:20:16.720 --> 0:20:20.920
<v Speaker 1>football for over twenty years, well over almost twenty five years.

0:20:21.320 --> 0:20:23.800
<v Speaker 1>And so if it's not going to end. It's not

0:20:23.840 --> 0:20:26.720
<v Speaker 1>going to stop with the Trump administration. They're not going

0:20:26.760 --> 0:20:29.360
<v Speaker 1>to be able to road all these areas and get

0:20:29.400 --> 0:20:31.359
<v Speaker 1>all the timber out of these areas. It's just not

0:20:31.480 --> 0:20:35.280
<v Speaker 1>going to happen until there's another administration in power, maybe

0:20:35.320 --> 0:20:38.600
<v Speaker 1>a different Congress in power. Who knows. But the point is,

0:20:38.920 --> 0:20:41.800
<v Speaker 1>we don't know what the future of these areas are.

0:20:41.920 --> 0:20:46.000
<v Speaker 1>Just because the Agriculture Secretary is making these sweeping pronouncements

0:20:46.280 --> 0:20:47.600
<v Speaker 1>doesn't mean it's going to happen.

0:20:48.040 --> 0:20:51.000
<v Speaker 2>Looking at this broader and as far as what steps

0:20:51.000 --> 0:20:54.159
<v Speaker 2>the Trump administration has taken so far with regard to

0:20:54.240 --> 0:20:59.080
<v Speaker 2>the environment, are they focusing on one area in particular

0:20:59.400 --> 0:21:00.720
<v Speaker 2>or broader than that.

0:21:01.240 --> 0:21:03.720
<v Speaker 1>We thought the focus was going to be climate and energy,

0:21:03.720 --> 0:21:06.879
<v Speaker 1>and of course it certainly has been. But frankly, from

0:21:06.920 --> 0:21:09.560
<v Speaker 1>what I see, it's across the board. There is no

0:21:09.720 --> 0:21:13.000
<v Speaker 1>law that's safe from this administration, no environmental law, and

0:21:13.040 --> 0:21:15.600
<v Speaker 1>you could broaden it beyond that the civil rights laws.

0:21:15.920 --> 0:21:19.720
<v Speaker 1>But certainly, from my expertise, I've never seen anything like this.

0:21:19.760 --> 0:21:23.159
<v Speaker 1>I've been doing this for fifty five years. I've seen conservative,

0:21:23.480 --> 0:21:27.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, Republican administrations come and go, including the Reagan administration,

0:21:27.440 --> 0:21:30.520
<v Speaker 1>and James Watt. I've never seen anything like this. They're

0:21:30.640 --> 0:21:36.160
<v Speaker 1>leaving no stone unturned to deregulate and cripple the ability

0:21:36.560 --> 0:21:40.439
<v Speaker 1>of federal agencies across the board to manage either public

0:21:40.520 --> 0:21:44.040
<v Speaker 1>lands as we're talking about today, or public health with EPA,

0:21:44.840 --> 0:21:49.199
<v Speaker 1>or energy supply with the Department of Energy. Nothing that

0:21:49.280 --> 0:21:54.879
<v Speaker 1>this administration is doing is designed to strengthen programs that

0:21:54.960 --> 0:21:59.280
<v Speaker 1>we have had now for many decades, to manage natural resources,

0:22:00.000 --> 0:22:03.600
<v Speaker 1>manage our energy supply and energy demand, to you know,

0:22:03.920 --> 0:22:08.560
<v Speaker 1>create affordable sources of either timber as we're talking about today,

0:22:08.920 --> 0:22:11.720
<v Speaker 1>or energy if we wanted to talk about that. The

0:22:11.800 --> 0:22:18.520
<v Speaker 1>market and the technology is pointing towards cleaner, greener systems

0:22:18.560 --> 0:22:22.240
<v Speaker 1>of producing whatever goods and services we need. This administration

0:22:22.560 --> 0:22:25.760
<v Speaker 1>is rolling the clock back across the board.

0:22:25.920 --> 0:22:30.200
<v Speaker 2>That's what I see, and that usually means even more litigation.

0:22:30.640 --> 0:22:33.240
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much for joining me today, Pat, that's professor

0:22:33.240 --> 0:22:36.200
<v Speaker 2>Pat Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School.

0:22:36.560 --> 0:22:42.520
<v Speaker 1>This is what democracy look side. This is what democracy

0:22:42.600 --> 0:22:43.280
<v Speaker 1>looks side.

0:22:43.520 --> 0:22:47.960
<v Speaker 2>There were redistricting rallies in Chicago, Illinois, and Austin, Texas

0:22:48.080 --> 0:22:53.040
<v Speaker 2>over the weekend. Protests against Texas Republicans Plan to redraw

0:22:53.160 --> 0:22:57.600
<v Speaker 2>the state's congressional maps to create five new Republican seats,

0:22:58.040 --> 0:23:01.760
<v Speaker 2>and in support of Texas Democrat who disrupted a special

0:23:01.880 --> 0:23:06.240
<v Speaker 2>session in the legislature and fled to Chicago to oppose

0:23:06.320 --> 0:23:11.000
<v Speaker 2>the unusual mid decade registricting called for by President Trump.

0:23:11.400 --> 0:23:13.760
<v Speaker 3>It's important for us to show up because we kind

0:23:13.760 --> 0:23:14.840
<v Speaker 3>of started this battle.

0:23:14.880 --> 0:23:19.119
<v Speaker 2>I guess trying to wake America up. Everybody needs to

0:23:19.160 --> 0:23:21.760
<v Speaker 2>know what's happening. Everyone needs to see what we're fighting for.

0:23:22.200 --> 0:23:26.560
<v Speaker 2>Texas Democrats ran out the clock in the special legislative session,

0:23:26.920 --> 0:23:30.440
<v Speaker 2>but two hours later Governor Greg Abbott called a second

0:23:30.520 --> 0:23:34.800
<v Speaker 2>session to redraw the maps, which would target key districts

0:23:34.840 --> 0:23:37.080
<v Speaker 2>represented by Latino Democrats.

0:23:37.800 --> 0:23:42.440
<v Speaker 3>We hold a lot more bullets in our belt that

0:23:42.440 --> 0:23:44.399
<v Speaker 3>we will be ready to use if we need to.

0:23:44.960 --> 0:23:49.200
<v Speaker 2>So after two weeks, the Democratic lawmakers returned to Texas

0:23:49.560 --> 0:23:52.200
<v Speaker 2>and say the next fight will be in the courts,

0:23:52.359 --> 0:23:56.560
<v Speaker 2>where they will challenge the new maps as being racially gerrymandered.

0:23:56.960 --> 0:24:01.600
<v Speaker 2>Onny Blair is with the Texas ACLU. Governor Abbott and

0:24:01.720 --> 0:24:06.240
<v Speaker 2>Attorney General Ken Paxton are following the President's agenda to

0:24:06.359 --> 0:24:10.159
<v Speaker 2>dilute the electoral power of black and Brown Texans. The

0:24:10.240 --> 0:24:14.600
<v Speaker 2>redistricting standoff has led to a national fight for control

0:24:14.640 --> 0:24:18.800
<v Speaker 2>of Congress ahead of the twenty twenty six midterms, and today,

0:24:18.880 --> 0:24:23.800
<v Speaker 2>as Texas Republicans restarted the plan to give themselves five

0:24:23.880 --> 0:24:28.800
<v Speaker 2>more seats, California Democrats took their first official steps to

0:24:28.880 --> 0:24:32.800
<v Speaker 2>create five new House seats for their party by adopting

0:24:32.840 --> 0:24:36.399
<v Speaker 2>a measure asking voters to approve new boundaries for twenty

0:24:36.440 --> 0:24:40.679
<v Speaker 2>twenty six, twenty twenty eight, and twenty thirty, an aggressive

0:24:40.760 --> 0:24:44.160
<v Speaker 2>move maneuvered by California Governor Gavin Newsom.

0:24:44.680 --> 0:24:45.760
<v Speaker 1>It's not complicated.

0:24:45.760 --> 0:24:48.320
<v Speaker 2>We're doing this in reaction to a president of United

0:24:48.320 --> 0:24:51.000
<v Speaker 2>States that called a sitting governor of the state of

0:24:51.000 --> 0:24:54.480
<v Speaker 2>Texas and said, find me five seats. My guest is

0:24:54.520 --> 0:24:58.959
<v Speaker 2>elections law expert Richard Brefalt, a professor at Columbia Law School.

0:24:59.480 --> 0:25:03.560
<v Speaker 2>Rich does seem like there are any other impediments to

0:25:03.960 --> 0:25:06.800
<v Speaker 2>Texas Republicans passing the new maps.

0:25:07.359 --> 0:25:09.800
<v Speaker 3>I mean, I think that after it gets enacted, they'll

0:25:09.880 --> 0:25:12.119
<v Speaker 3>likely be some lawsuits challenge at least some of the

0:25:12.200 --> 0:25:14.399
<v Speaker 3>district changes under the voting rights Sack, because I think

0:25:14.440 --> 0:25:16.560
<v Speaker 3>some of them are going to be impacted what had

0:25:16.600 --> 0:25:19.320
<v Speaker 3>been either majority of minority districts or districts that were

0:25:19.359 --> 0:25:22.680
<v Speaker 3>electing minority elected Congress members. So I think there might

0:25:22.720 --> 0:25:25.960
<v Speaker 3>conceivably be some challenges to the map under the Voting

0:25:26.040 --> 0:25:29.400
<v Speaker 3>Rights Actor, under the Constitution for racial bias. Not clear

0:25:29.440 --> 0:25:31.080
<v Speaker 3>what would happen with those, not clear how quickly they

0:25:31.119 --> 0:25:33.720
<v Speaker 3>would go forward, whether they would go forward fast enough

0:25:33.720 --> 0:25:36.680
<v Speaker 3>in order to stop these changes from going into effect

0:25:37.000 --> 0:25:40.000
<v Speaker 3>next year. I don't think there's much else that can happen.

0:25:40.840 --> 0:25:43.080
<v Speaker 3>If the Democrats, I guess they've been back in one

0:25:43.080 --> 0:25:45.159
<v Speaker 3>House already, or noough of them. I think it passed

0:25:45.160 --> 0:25:46.840
<v Speaker 3>one house now. I think it's the question about the

0:25:46.840 --> 0:25:47.280
<v Speaker 3>other House.

0:25:47.640 --> 0:25:51.200
<v Speaker 2>In order to challenge a map under the Voting Rights Act,

0:25:51.560 --> 0:25:54.800
<v Speaker 2>what has to be shown? Because the Democrats have said

0:25:54.800 --> 0:25:58.920
<v Speaker 2>that some of the districts being targeted by Republicans are

0:25:59.000 --> 0:26:03.560
<v Speaker 2>those with a high percentage of Latinos or other minority.

0:26:03.080 --> 0:26:05.840
<v Speaker 3>Groups, they'd have to show that there was a pattern

0:26:05.880 --> 0:26:09.240
<v Speaker 3>of racially polarized voting and that under the new map,

0:26:09.520 --> 0:26:13.119
<v Speaker 3>minorities in this case, Latinos would be underrepresented relative to

0:26:13.560 --> 0:26:16.280
<v Speaker 3>what they would be or what they are now under

0:26:16.280 --> 0:26:18.240
<v Speaker 3>the current map. And then you'd have to tie that

0:26:18.280 --> 0:26:22.080
<v Speaker 3>into other aspects of social and economic and political life

0:26:22.080 --> 0:26:25.720
<v Speaker 3>in Texas to stay that Latinos are under represented politically

0:26:25.800 --> 0:26:29.200
<v Speaker 3>and need to have the seats in order to get

0:26:29.240 --> 0:26:31.879
<v Speaker 3>fair representation. But the main things they would have to

0:26:31.920 --> 0:26:35.480
<v Speaker 3>show is the existence of racially polarized voting, that Anglos

0:26:35.480 --> 0:26:38.119
<v Speaker 3>and Latinos vote differently, and that changing the map this

0:26:38.240 --> 0:26:41.520
<v Speaker 3>way would make it harder for Latino voters to get

0:26:41.560 --> 0:26:42.359
<v Speaker 3>fair representation.

0:26:42.800 --> 0:26:45.400
<v Speaker 2>And how does it fit in that their last map

0:26:45.600 --> 0:26:47.880
<v Speaker 2>is still being litigated.

0:26:48.880 --> 0:26:51.080
<v Speaker 3>Well, it's weird because of course that map was being

0:26:51.119 --> 0:26:53.879
<v Speaker 3>challenged as unfair and the state was defending it. I mean,

0:26:53.920 --> 0:26:57.159
<v Speaker 3>you could conceivably have made more majority minority districts. Actually,

0:26:57.200 --> 0:26:59.879
<v Speaker 3>even the map that's about to be replaced has a

0:27:00.040 --> 0:27:03.359
<v Speaker 3>pretty strong Republican tilt. I mean, Texas is a Republican state,

0:27:03.400 --> 0:27:05.760
<v Speaker 3>but it's like a three to two Republican state, and

0:27:05.800 --> 0:27:08.480
<v Speaker 3>the current map is two to one, and I think

0:27:08.520 --> 0:27:10.879
<v Speaker 3>the resulting map would make it more like five to

0:27:10.920 --> 0:27:13.320
<v Speaker 3>one or four to one. So I think that would

0:27:13.359 --> 0:27:16.199
<v Speaker 3>be the argument, and it might not affect every district.

0:27:16.200 --> 0:27:19.760
<v Speaker 3>In other words, the districts which are primarily affecting white Democrats,

0:27:19.880 --> 0:27:22.000
<v Speaker 3>they probably would not have a voting right sect claim.

0:27:22.200 --> 0:27:25.040
<v Speaker 3>But the districts they make it harder for Latino Democratic

0:27:25.040 --> 0:27:27.200
<v Speaker 3>representatives to be relected. I think they would be able

0:27:27.240 --> 0:27:28.760
<v Speaker 3>to make the claim, whether they win or not.

0:27:28.800 --> 0:27:32.399
<v Speaker 2>A separate question, do courts put the new maps on

0:27:32.520 --> 0:27:34.520
<v Speaker 2>hole while the litigation is going on.

0:27:35.320 --> 0:27:37.800
<v Speaker 3>That's a great question, because the Supreme Court has this

0:27:38.000 --> 0:27:42.879
<v Speaker 3>doctrine that basically says that courts should not change things

0:27:42.920 --> 0:27:45.240
<v Speaker 3>too close to an election. You know, and we don't

0:27:45.280 --> 0:27:46.720
<v Speaker 3>know what too close to an election is, but I

0:27:46.720 --> 0:27:49.600
<v Speaker 3>guess maybe it'll be primaries in March. So we're beginning

0:27:49.600 --> 0:27:52.280
<v Speaker 3>to get close to the election. But the question is

0:27:52.320 --> 0:27:55.320
<v Speaker 3>what's the status quo. Is the status quo whether the

0:27:55.400 --> 0:27:59.520
<v Speaker 3>legislature passes, in which case, if you apply that principle,

0:28:00.080 --> 0:28:03.159
<v Speaker 3>courts should not intervene. Or is the status quo the

0:28:03.200 --> 0:28:05.760
<v Speaker 3>maps that are currently in existence, in which case it

0:28:05.800 --> 0:28:07.840
<v Speaker 3>would be appropriate to put the new maps on home

0:28:08.119 --> 0:28:10.760
<v Speaker 3>so called the Percell principle. After a Supreme Court case

0:28:10.760 --> 0:28:13.520
<v Speaker 3>of about twenty years ago, again the Supreme Court said

0:28:13.560 --> 0:28:17.200
<v Speaker 3>lower federal courts should not intervene in election disputes too

0:28:17.240 --> 0:28:19.800
<v Speaker 3>close to an election. There's a general question of what's

0:28:19.840 --> 0:28:22.480
<v Speaker 3>too close to an election, and they've kind of moved

0:28:22.520 --> 0:28:25.160
<v Speaker 3>that up and up. But the question that you're asking about,

0:28:25.320 --> 0:28:29.480
<v Speaker 3>what does the intervention. Is the intervention stopping a now

0:28:29.960 --> 0:28:34.080
<v Speaker 3>legally adopted map or is the intervention preventing the disruption

0:28:34.160 --> 0:28:36.440
<v Speaker 3>of the pre existing map? And that's a great question.

0:28:36.560 --> 0:28:37.600
<v Speaker 3>I don't know the answer to that.

0:28:38.200 --> 0:28:41.440
<v Speaker 2>Texas Republicans said, well, there are a lot of states,

0:28:41.480 --> 0:28:45.840
<v Speaker 2>and I think Massachusetts was one that are more Gerrymander

0:28:46.000 --> 0:28:48.760
<v Speaker 2>than Texas is where there are so many Republicans and

0:28:48.920 --> 0:28:52.000
<v Speaker 2>they don't have any representation. I mean, is that true?

0:28:52.240 --> 0:28:56.640
<v Speaker 3>Massachusetts is the largest state which has a single party delegation.

0:28:56.720 --> 0:28:59.840
<v Speaker 3>That is said, all the representatives in Massachusetts are Democrats.

0:28:59.880 --> 0:29:02.760
<v Speaker 3>Like think that's ten out of ten. The difference is

0:29:02.920 --> 0:29:07.040
<v Speaker 3>that in Massachusetts the Democrats and Republicans are fairly evenly spread,

0:29:07.280 --> 0:29:10.320
<v Speaker 3>in other words, the Democratic majority throughout the state. There

0:29:10.320 --> 0:29:13.240
<v Speaker 3>are not big Republican pockets that would be able to

0:29:13.280 --> 0:29:16.920
<v Speaker 3>win a district under differently drawn maps. That's different from

0:29:16.960 --> 0:29:20.760
<v Speaker 3>places like Texas or Ohio or Indiana where they're talking

0:29:20.760 --> 0:29:25.080
<v Speaker 3>about redistricting and re redistricting, where there are Democratic pockets

0:29:25.440 --> 0:29:30.120
<v Speaker 3>big enough to hold multiple seats, but if they get fragmented, fractured,

0:29:30.160 --> 0:29:33.440
<v Speaker 3>and divided up into Republican areas, then they get no representation.

0:29:33.600 --> 0:29:37.320
<v Speaker 3>So it is true. If Massachusetts was done I don't

0:29:37.360 --> 0:29:40.480
<v Speaker 3>know on a proportional representation basis, they probably could be

0:29:40.520 --> 0:29:43.120
<v Speaker 3>two or three Republican seats out of ten. But because

0:29:43.160 --> 0:29:45.600
<v Speaker 3>it's done on as all of our districts have done

0:29:45.640 --> 0:29:50.080
<v Speaker 3>single mean re districts, there is no Republican area left

0:29:50.120 --> 0:29:56.160
<v Speaker 3>in Massachusetts, which I think explains why without gerrymandering, Massachusetts

0:29:56.160 --> 0:29:58.000
<v Speaker 3>has an entirely democratic delegation.

0:29:58.320 --> 0:30:00.680
<v Speaker 2>You mentioned some other states, I mean, do we know

0:30:00.840 --> 0:30:04.640
<v Speaker 2>if their maps make it possible for them to redistrict

0:30:04.680 --> 0:30:05.920
<v Speaker 2>in a way that Texas is.

0:30:06.200 --> 0:30:08.040
<v Speaker 3>I mean, I think in Indiana and in Missouri, we're

0:30:08.120 --> 0:30:10.360
<v Speaker 3>they talking about there's only like one Democrat or two

0:30:10.400 --> 0:30:13.040
<v Speaker 3>Democrats left in the state, and I think in Missouri

0:30:13.200 --> 0:30:16.360
<v Speaker 3>they would basically be either wiping out or merely wiping

0:30:16.360 --> 0:30:19.160
<v Speaker 3>out entirely democratic representation. And the way you do it

0:30:19.200 --> 0:30:21.920
<v Speaker 3>is you begin to fragment it and you like draw

0:30:22.120 --> 0:30:25.040
<v Speaker 3>slices of the pie. There's those district in Saint Louis

0:30:25.160 --> 0:30:28.240
<v Speaker 3>and attach it to suburban districts which are a majority Republican.

0:30:28.520 --> 0:30:31.400
<v Speaker 3>I'm not sure, it's just targeting. And similarly in Indiana,

0:30:31.440 --> 0:30:34.280
<v Speaker 3>I think there's a district in northern Indiana which is

0:30:34.320 --> 0:30:37.360
<v Speaker 3>in a more democratic area. If you fragmented enough people

0:30:37.560 --> 0:30:40.360
<v Speaker 3>do this call it cracking. If you crack the democratic

0:30:40.400 --> 0:30:43.000
<v Speaker 3>population and you put the little slices of it in

0:30:43.040 --> 0:30:45.360
<v Speaker 3>the different districts, you can get rid of a democratic

0:30:45.360 --> 0:30:48.360
<v Speaker 3>district which would otherwise be kind of a normally.

0:30:48.000 --> 0:30:53.640
<v Speaker 2>Shaped California Democrats are moving forward with their attempt to

0:30:53.800 --> 0:30:59.000
<v Speaker 2>redraw congressional maps. Are there any foreseeable legal problems there?

0:30:59.560 --> 0:31:02.479
<v Speaker 3>I think the problem with their maps, of course, is

0:31:02.560 --> 0:31:05.000
<v Speaker 3>getting them adopted. I mean I haven't looked at the

0:31:05.000 --> 0:31:07.160
<v Speaker 3>maps in terms of whether there would be any legal

0:31:07.240 --> 0:31:10.480
<v Speaker 3>challenges to them under federal law. I mean, they're obviously

0:31:10.520 --> 0:31:13.880
<v Speaker 3>a federal law. There are no gerrymandering challenges, and I

0:31:13.880 --> 0:31:16.440
<v Speaker 3>wouldn't expect there would be any voting right fact or

0:31:16.600 --> 0:31:20.680
<v Speaker 3>racial discrimination challenges. Now the problem is that California adopted

0:31:20.640 --> 0:31:24.479
<v Speaker 3>a constitucial amendment that created an independent districting process. In

0:31:24.560 --> 0:31:26.400
<v Speaker 3>order to adopt this map, they and effect have to

0:31:26.400 --> 0:31:28.680
<v Speaker 3>go back to the voters and then then their constitution.

0:31:29.440 --> 0:31:32.640
<v Speaker 3>My sense is that the real issue in California is

0:31:33.400 --> 0:31:35.680
<v Speaker 3>how much are the voters really willing to do this?

0:31:36.280 --> 0:31:38.720
<v Speaker 3>You know, are the voters going to be as part

0:31:38.760 --> 0:31:41.719
<v Speaker 3>as in as their elected officials, or the voters going

0:31:41.760 --> 0:31:43.760
<v Speaker 3>to say, you know, we like the idea of an

0:31:43.800 --> 0:31:45.600
<v Speaker 3>independent system and we want.

0:31:45.400 --> 0:31:48.360
<v Speaker 2>To keep it, but it's a temporary fix. It will

0:31:48.400 --> 0:31:51.360
<v Speaker 2>go back to an independent system. Right.

0:31:51.760 --> 0:31:53.760
<v Speaker 3>There's supposed to be a one shot, and I think

0:31:53.800 --> 0:31:56.360
<v Speaker 3>the way the governor phrases it, it's like it's entirely a

0:31:56.440 --> 0:31:59.440
<v Speaker 3>different tat for what Texas is doing. And it does

0:31:59.520 --> 0:32:02.480
<v Speaker 3>get to kind of a deeper problem with reform political

0:32:02.560 --> 0:32:04.680
<v Speaker 3>form of the United States is that we're doing a

0:32:04.680 --> 0:32:06.480
<v Speaker 3>lot of this on a state by state basis, but

0:32:06.640 --> 0:32:09.840
<v Speaker 3>Congress is a national legislature, and that a lot of

0:32:09.840 --> 0:32:12.680
<v Speaker 3>the states that have reformed their processes are democratic states.

0:32:13.040 --> 0:32:16.280
<v Speaker 3>Those republican states that reform their processes, one set of

0:32:16.280 --> 0:32:18.600
<v Speaker 3>states that are gerrymandering, and one set of states don't,

0:32:18.960 --> 0:32:22.320
<v Speaker 3>and that that just helps the jerrymanderers. It does kind

0:32:22.320 --> 0:32:25.080
<v Speaker 3>of underscore the difficulty of doing reform one state at

0:32:25.120 --> 0:32:25.520
<v Speaker 3>a time.

0:32:26.080 --> 0:32:29.600
<v Speaker 2>New York the governor keeps talking or has talked about it,

0:32:29.640 --> 0:32:32.680
<v Speaker 2>and the Illinois governor has talked about it, but I

0:32:32.720 --> 0:32:34.800
<v Speaker 2>haven't heard of any movement actually do.

0:32:34.920 --> 0:32:37.760
<v Speaker 3>Honestly, I don't. I think in New York this state

0:32:37.920 --> 0:32:41.240
<v Speaker 3>constitution is different from the California one in that you

0:32:41.400 --> 0:32:44.320
<v Speaker 3>can't put an amendment on the ballot unless it's been

0:32:44.360 --> 0:32:49.120
<v Speaker 3>passed by two separately elected legislatures, and so basically it's

0:32:49.120 --> 0:32:51.760
<v Speaker 3>a slow down of the process. This could not be

0:32:51.840 --> 0:32:55.040
<v Speaker 3>done even if the legislature this year passes it in

0:32:55.640 --> 0:32:58.040
<v Speaker 3>the fall of twenty twenty five, you would have to

0:32:58.040 --> 0:33:01.080
<v Speaker 3>wait until after the twenty twenty six elect for the

0:33:01.160 --> 0:33:04.160
<v Speaker 3>legislature in the beginning of twenty twenty seven to pass

0:33:04.200 --> 0:33:06.960
<v Speaker 3>an amendment or to pass a new map or something,

0:33:07.320 --> 0:33:08.600
<v Speaker 3>and then it would go to the voters, but it

0:33:08.600 --> 0:33:11.160
<v Speaker 3>wouldn't be effective until the twenty twenty eight elections.

0:33:11.280 --> 0:33:13.800
<v Speaker 2>Well, then, it seems like Democrats in New York have

0:33:14.360 --> 0:33:18.920
<v Speaker 2>no options before the twenty twenty six midterms. I'm not

0:33:18.960 --> 0:33:23.280
<v Speaker 2>sure what's happening in Illinois, and even Maryland has been

0:33:23.360 --> 0:33:28.360
<v Speaker 2>mentioned by Democrats as a possibility. So we'll see. Thanks

0:33:28.400 --> 0:33:32.760
<v Speaker 2>so much, rich that's Professor Richard Brfault of Columbia Law School,

0:33:33.440 --> 0:33:35.800
<v Speaker 2>And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:33:36.120 --> 0:33:38.479
<v Speaker 2>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:33:38.520 --> 0:33:42.800
<v Speaker 2>our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:33:43.000 --> 0:33:48.040
<v Speaker 2>and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,

0:33:48.440 --> 0:33:51.000
<v Speaker 2>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:33:51.040 --> 0:33:54.960
<v Speaker 2>weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

0:33:55.120 --> 0:33:56.720
<v Speaker 2>and you're listening to Bloomberg