1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,120
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg.

2
00:00:06,680 --> 00:00:11,200
Speaker 2: Radio mean eighty five eyes and six nays.

3
00:00:11,240 --> 00:00:14,480
Speaker 3: The motion prevails. The Sergeant at Arms and any officers

4
00:00:14,480 --> 00:00:17,680
Speaker 3: appointed by her are directed to send for all absentees

5
00:00:17,840 --> 00:00:18,880
Speaker 3: whose attendance is not.

6
00:00:18,880 --> 00:00:22,320
Speaker 2: Excused for the purposes of securing and maintaining their attendants

7
00:00:22,560 --> 00:00:24,560
Speaker 2: under warrant of arrest if necessary.

8
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:29,600
Speaker 1: Arrest warrants, threats of prosecution and removal from office, and

9
00:00:29,800 --> 00:00:34,600
Speaker 1: possible federal involvement. The all out war over an unusual

10
00:00:34,880 --> 00:00:40,159
Speaker 1: mid decade redistricting in Texas is escalating and spreading across

11
00:00:40,159 --> 00:00:43,839
Speaker 1: the country. Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered the arrest of

12
00:00:43,960 --> 00:00:47,680
Speaker 1: Democratic lawmakers who left the state to block a vote

13
00:00:47,720 --> 00:00:51,760
Speaker 1: on new congressional maps, and President Trump hasn't ruled out

14
00:00:51,920 --> 00:00:52,960
Speaker 1: federal involvement.

15
00:00:53,479 --> 00:00:55,080
Speaker 2: Well, I think they've abandoned the state.

16
00:00:56,440 --> 00:00:59,440
Speaker 1: Well, they may have to, but the Democratic lawmakers, like

17
00:00:59,520 --> 00:01:03,800
Speaker 1: state Representative James tallerco say they're not budging.

18
00:01:04,280 --> 00:01:07,560
Speaker 2: We're not very worried about the consequences we may face,

19
00:01:07,600 --> 00:01:12,680
Speaker 2: whether they are arrest or financial fines or even removal

20
00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:15,520
Speaker 2: from office, because we have right on our side. We

21
00:01:15,560 --> 00:01:18,800
Speaker 2: are part of a long American tradition of looking bullies

22
00:01:18,840 --> 00:01:22,480
Speaker 2: in the eye, of speaking truth to power, of civil disobedience,

23
00:01:22,480 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 2: of good trouble. That is how this democracy was forged.

24
00:01:25,720 --> 00:01:28,320
Speaker 2: And we are participating in that tradition and we're proud

25
00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:28,760
Speaker 2: to do it.

26
00:01:29,120 --> 00:01:35,160
Speaker 1: And several democratic states are threatening retaliatory redistricting. My guest

27
00:01:35,240 --> 00:01:38,800
Speaker 1: is elections law expert Rick Hassen, a professor at UCLA

28
00:01:38,880 --> 00:01:44,120
Speaker 1: Law School. So, Rick, Texas already jerrymandered it's maps in

29
00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:47,600
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, and that's still in the courts. Is

30
00:01:47,640 --> 00:01:51,840
Speaker 1: what it's doing now, trying to redistrict again to get

31
00:01:51,880 --> 00:01:55,120
Speaker 1: five extra Republican seats. Is that constitutional?

32
00:01:55,960 --> 00:01:59,960
Speaker 3: Well, that remains to be seen. What's going to happen

33
00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:03,960
Speaker 3: and if Texas draws its districts again is they will

34
00:02:04,040 --> 00:02:08,120
Speaker 3: almost certainly be challenged as violating either the Voting Rights

35
00:02:08,160 --> 00:02:12,960
Speaker 3: Act or as violating the Constitution's prohibition on racial jerrymanagering.

36
00:02:13,400 --> 00:02:16,040
Speaker 3: And that'll get tied up in the courts, just as

37
00:02:16,120 --> 00:02:18,320
Speaker 3: the current round of redistricting is going to get tied

38
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:20,280
Speaker 3: up in the courts. What the federal courts are not

39
00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:24,760
Speaker 3: going to do is say it's unconstitutional as a partisan

40
00:02:24,960 --> 00:02:28,600
Speaker 3: gerrymander that is, drawing the district lines to favor Republicans

41
00:02:28,600 --> 00:02:32,280
Speaker 3: over Democrats, because back in twenty nineteen, the Supreme Court

42
00:02:32,320 --> 00:02:35,640
Speaker 3: decided a case called Rusho versus Common Cause, where the

43
00:02:35,639 --> 00:02:38,360
Speaker 3: Court said that there are no standards to judge under

44
00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:42,320
Speaker 3: the Constitution whether partisan jerry managering goes too far.

45
00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:49,840
Speaker 1: Several Blue states have threatened retaliatory redistricting, but two key states,

46
00:02:50,080 --> 00:02:54,680
Speaker 1: New York and California, have commissions drawing up the maps.

47
00:02:55,000 --> 00:02:57,640
Speaker 1: So would they be able to retaliate in time for

48
00:02:57,680 --> 00:02:58,480
Speaker 1: the midterms.

49
00:02:59,040 --> 00:03:01,320
Speaker 3: Well, as far as the California case goes, which is

50
00:03:01,360 --> 00:03:04,720
Speaker 3: one I'm most familiar with living here in California, the

51
00:03:04,760 --> 00:03:09,040
Speaker 3: way that registring could be done consistent with state law

52
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:11,200
Speaker 3: in the middle of the decade would have to be

53
00:03:11,280 --> 00:03:15,359
Speaker 3: through a voter passed measure, because voters earlier passed to

54
00:03:15,440 --> 00:03:20,800
Speaker 3: measure actually two ballot measures, establishing a non partisan or

55
00:03:20,880 --> 00:03:25,600
Speaker 3: multi partisan commission and then extending that commission's job to

56
00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:30,600
Speaker 3: include drawing congressional district To overturn a ballot measure in California,

57
00:03:30,639 --> 00:03:33,200
Speaker 3: you need a new ballot measure. So what the legislature

58
00:03:33,200 --> 00:03:35,480
Speaker 3: and the governor are talking about doing now is drafting

59
00:03:35,480 --> 00:03:37,760
Speaker 3: a new registioning plan and putting it before voters in

60
00:03:37,840 --> 00:03:41,119
Speaker 3: a special election. If it passes, the new registing plan

61
00:03:41,160 --> 00:03:44,040
Speaker 3: would be in effect, and then that could be challenged

62
00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:46,920
Speaker 3: in court. But I think that again, because partisan jerry

63
00:03:47,000 --> 00:03:50,120
Speaker 3: managering is not something that federal courts will police, there

64
00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:52,160
Speaker 3: wouldn't be much of a federal basis unless you can

65
00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:54,840
Speaker 3: make an argument, again like the voting rights actor, as

66
00:03:54,840 --> 00:03:58,240
Speaker 3: a racial ferry manager, the district somehow are illegal.

67
00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:02,960
Speaker 1: If there is an all out redistricting war red states

68
00:04:03,040 --> 00:04:06,960
Speaker 1: versus blue states, would the red states or the Republicans

69
00:04:07,200 --> 00:04:10,640
Speaker 1: ultimately win because they're in control of more states.

70
00:04:11,400 --> 00:04:13,640
Speaker 3: Well, so to answer that question, you need to know

71
00:04:13,720 --> 00:04:16,480
Speaker 3: not just how many states to Republicans control, but how

72
00:04:16,560 --> 00:04:20,599
Speaker 3: much more redistricting on partisan grounds could they squeeze out

73
00:04:20,600 --> 00:04:24,280
Speaker 3: of their already existing plan. I'm not an expert on

74
00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:27,000
Speaker 3: the politics of all of this, but what I understand

75
00:04:27,080 --> 00:04:29,960
Speaker 3: is if all the states that could do more did

76
00:04:30,040 --> 00:04:33,520
Speaker 3: do more, it would probably end up benefiting Republicans more

77
00:04:33,560 --> 00:04:37,599
Speaker 3: than Democrats. But in each state, as our discussions already shown,

78
00:04:37,839 --> 00:04:40,120
Speaker 3: the particulars of state law and the particulars of the

79
00:04:40,120 --> 00:04:42,720
Speaker 3: state map, that's already in existence are going to dictate

80
00:04:42,760 --> 00:04:44,840
Speaker 3: some of that. I do think though, that it's very

81
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:48,400
Speaker 3: bad for our politics. If everyone is trying to maximize

82
00:04:48,440 --> 00:04:51,800
Speaker 3: their congressional districts for you know, the most they can

83
00:04:51,839 --> 00:04:54,800
Speaker 3: squeeze out. I mean, it just creates more of a

84
00:04:54,839 --> 00:04:59,200
Speaker 3: winner take all, no holds barred, all out war kind

85
00:04:59,200 --> 00:05:02,200
Speaker 3: of mentality, which I think just further polarizes everyone in

86
00:05:02,240 --> 00:05:02,800
Speaker 3: the country.

87
00:05:03,400 --> 00:05:07,320
Speaker 1: It's sort of startling to hear the Republicans in Texas

88
00:05:07,400 --> 00:05:09,680
Speaker 1: and the presidents say, you know, we're doing this to

89
00:05:09,720 --> 00:05:12,680
Speaker 1: get more seats, But I mean, this is something, as

90
00:05:12,680 --> 00:05:14,880
Speaker 1: you've written, that Congress could cure.

91
00:05:15,200 --> 00:05:17,320
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, let me go back first to why are

92
00:05:17,320 --> 00:05:21,159
Speaker 3: they saying this. Well, one reason why we've seen legislators

93
00:05:21,240 --> 00:05:24,440
Speaker 3: in Texas and earlier in North Carolina say we are

94
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:27,599
Speaker 3: doing a partisan jerimander like proudly admitting it, it's because

95
00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:30,839
Speaker 3: they're trying to deflect the argument, No, you're doing this

96
00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:33,400
Speaker 3: on racial grounds. You're doing this to make it harder

97
00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:36,760
Speaker 3: for black and Latino and Native American voters to elect

98
00:05:36,800 --> 00:05:40,000
Speaker 3: their candidates of choice, which could raise a Voting Rights

99
00:05:40,080 --> 00:05:43,160
Speaker 3: Act question or could raise a racial gerymander in question

100
00:05:43,160 --> 00:05:46,360
Speaker 3: on the protection close. So if the Supreme Court says

101
00:05:46,480 --> 00:05:48,919
Speaker 3: we're not going to police politics, but we are going

102
00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:52,520
Speaker 3: to police race, then of course they want to say,

103
00:05:52,760 --> 00:05:55,000
Speaker 3: if they're trying to defend it, we're just doing politics.

104
00:05:55,320 --> 00:05:57,080
Speaker 3: And so the courts have to try and sort that out,

105
00:05:57,080 --> 00:05:59,200
Speaker 3: which is a very difficult thing to do when in

106
00:05:59,240 --> 00:06:02,280
Speaker 3: a place like Texas, minority voters are much more likely

107
00:06:02,320 --> 00:06:05,600
Speaker 3: to vote for Democrats and white voters for Republicans. You're

108
00:06:05,680 --> 00:06:09,720
Speaker 3: right that Congress could do something. Article won. The Constitution

109
00:06:10,000 --> 00:06:13,160
Speaker 3: tells states they can set their rules for running congressional elections,

110
00:06:13,520 --> 00:06:16,279
Speaker 3: but Congress anytime can make new rules or alter those

111
00:06:16,320 --> 00:06:19,479
Speaker 3: state rules. And so if Congress wanted to say no

112
00:06:19,600 --> 00:06:22,760
Speaker 3: mid decade registering or established commissions, or set a standard

113
00:06:22,839 --> 00:06:25,960
Speaker 3: for when partisan jerry mandarin goes too far, Congress would

114
00:06:25,960 --> 00:06:28,520
Speaker 3: have the power to do that under this provision of

115
00:06:28,640 --> 00:06:31,039
Speaker 3: Article one, known as the Elections Clause. I just don't

116
00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:34,719
Speaker 3: think there's the political will in Congress, given our polarization,

117
00:06:34,920 --> 00:06:38,240
Speaker 3: given this all out war, there's no reason to expect

118
00:06:38,240 --> 00:06:40,640
Speaker 3: that Congress is going to do it anytime soon.

119
00:06:41,400 --> 00:06:45,200
Speaker 1: You mentioned racial jerry mandering, and the Supreme Court is

120
00:06:45,520 --> 00:06:49,760
Speaker 1: ordering reargument of a case that was argued last March

121
00:06:50,360 --> 00:06:55,200
Speaker 1: involving a Louisiana congressional map that created an additional majority

122
00:06:55,240 --> 00:06:58,000
Speaker 1: black district. Explain what's happening there.

123
00:06:58,480 --> 00:07:01,200
Speaker 3: So, what we're talking about here is a case called

124
00:07:01,240 --> 00:07:05,480
Speaker 3: Louisiana versus Calais, and it was already argued last March,

125
00:07:06,279 --> 00:07:10,280
Speaker 3: and it was one of these cases where the Louisiana legislature,

126
00:07:10,560 --> 00:07:14,280
Speaker 3: thanks to an earlier lawsuit, drew a second congressional district

127
00:07:14,880 --> 00:07:18,000
Speaker 3: where black voters could elect their cad of choice to

128
00:07:18,040 --> 00:07:21,360
Speaker 3: a congressional district. And the argument in the earlier case

129
00:07:21,520 --> 00:07:23,800
Speaker 3: was you had to draw the second district to comply

130
00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:26,320
Speaker 3: with Section two of the Voting Right sect. Well, then

131
00:07:26,320 --> 00:07:28,680
Speaker 3: a new group of voters came in and they said, hey,

132
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:31,720
Speaker 3: when you drew that second district, you made race the

133
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:35,600
Speaker 3: predominant factor in drawing those lines, and you don't have

134
00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:38,600
Speaker 3: up a compelling reason to do so, and therefore you

135
00:07:38,640 --> 00:07:42,000
Speaker 3: were committing a racial gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth

136
00:07:42,000 --> 00:07:45,160
Speaker 3: Amendments Equal Protection Clause. Back in March, the court heard

137
00:07:45,240 --> 00:07:48,040
Speaker 3: argument in that case where the main issue was was

138
00:07:48,200 --> 00:07:51,320
Speaker 3: race really the predominant factor the main reason why the

139
00:07:51,400 --> 00:07:53,680
Speaker 3: second lines were drawn the way they were or was

140
00:07:53,720 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 3: it really about politics. It's surely about politics, then it's

141
00:07:57,360 --> 00:08:01,200
Speaker 3: not a racistarymander. Again, I find this distinct nonsensical when

142
00:08:01,240 --> 00:08:03,400
Speaker 3: you have so much overlap between race and party in

143
00:08:03,480 --> 00:08:07,280
Speaker 3: the Southern States. But it looked like yet another in

144
00:08:07,320 --> 00:08:09,840
Speaker 3: a series of cases where the court's deciding whether race

145
00:08:09,920 --> 00:08:12,320
Speaker 3: or party predominates. But then the end of the Supreme

146
00:08:12,320 --> 00:08:15,520
Speaker 3: Court's term in June, rather than decide the case, the

147
00:08:15,560 --> 00:08:18,800
Speaker 3: Court issued a somewhat unusual order saying we're going to

148
00:08:18,880 --> 00:08:21,880
Speaker 3: hear reargument in the case, we're going to want additional briefing,

149
00:08:22,160 --> 00:08:23,760
Speaker 3: but we're not telling you yet what we want the

150
00:08:23,760 --> 00:08:26,880
Speaker 3: briefing on. And then it was not until last Friday,

151
00:08:27,120 --> 00:08:31,440
Speaker 3: the August first, after five pm Friday night news dump,

152
00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:34,920
Speaker 3: where the Court issued this kind of obscure, cryptic order

153
00:08:34,920 --> 00:08:38,920
Speaker 3: that I read as really asking the question whether Section

154
00:08:39,000 --> 00:08:42,120
Speaker 3: two of the Voting Rights Sack remains constitutional. And the

155
00:08:42,160 --> 00:08:45,800
Speaker 3: way this comes into the case is if race did predominate,

156
00:08:46,000 --> 00:08:48,720
Speaker 3: then the only way you can do that, as in

157
00:08:48,800 --> 00:08:51,600
Speaker 3: drawing district lines, is if you have a compelling reason

158
00:08:51,679 --> 00:08:54,320
Speaker 3: to do so. And the compelling reason that has been

159
00:08:54,440 --> 00:08:57,160
Speaker 3: considered is, well, the voting rightsac made me do it.

160
00:08:57,160 --> 00:09:00,080
Speaker 3: I had to do it to comply with Section two.

161
00:09:00,160 --> 00:09:04,480
Speaker 3: It wants to hear, maybe it's unconstitutional to apply Section

162
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:07,199
Speaker 3: two and make race the predominant factor when you're drawing

163
00:09:07,200 --> 00:09:09,920
Speaker 3: these district minds. So it really brings these two lines

164
00:09:09,920 --> 00:09:12,120
Speaker 3: of cases, the Voting Rights Act cases and the racial

165
00:09:12,160 --> 00:09:17,120
Speaker 3: gerrymandering cases together in a way where the Voting Rights

166
00:09:17,120 --> 00:09:19,760
Speaker 3: Act may lose. Here we are recording this on the

167
00:09:19,800 --> 00:09:22,800
Speaker 3: sixtieth anniversary of the passage of the Voting Rights Act,

168
00:09:23,120 --> 00:09:28,000
Speaker 3: and the Supreme Court appears poised to consider striking down

169
00:09:28,720 --> 00:09:32,400
Speaker 3: the second big pillar of the Voting Rights Act after

170
00:09:32,440 --> 00:09:36,040
Speaker 3: it had already struck down the first pillar in twenty

171
00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:38,600
Speaker 3: thirteen in the Shelby County versus Holder case.

172
00:09:39,640 --> 00:09:42,800
Speaker 1: Many of the Court's conservatives have been what you might

173
00:09:42,840 --> 00:09:46,240
Speaker 1: call hostile to the Voting Rights Act, and some seem

174
00:09:46,280 --> 00:09:49,960
Speaker 1: to think that the Voting Rights Act no longer provides

175
00:09:50,000 --> 00:09:55,840
Speaker 1: a legitimate basis for map makers to intentionally create majority

176
00:09:55,880 --> 00:09:58,960
Speaker 1: Black or majority Hispanic districts.

177
00:09:59,400 --> 00:10:03,040
Speaker 3: Well, the most recent piece of evidence we have on

178
00:10:03,120 --> 00:10:05,160
Speaker 3: what the Court thinks about the Voting Rights sack, aside

179
00:10:05,160 --> 00:10:07,920
Speaker 3: from this order that came out in the Louisiana case

180
00:10:08,360 --> 00:10:10,280
Speaker 3: is a case that was decided a few years ago

181
00:10:10,320 --> 00:10:13,080
Speaker 3: out of Alabama involving very similar facts of the voting

182
00:10:13,160 --> 00:10:16,320
Speaker 3: right fact requiring the drawing of an additional black majority district,

183
00:10:16,840 --> 00:10:20,280
Speaker 3: and in this case Alan versus Milligan, the Supreme Court,

184
00:10:20,360 --> 00:10:23,560
Speaker 3: on a five to four vote upheld the requirement that

185
00:10:23,640 --> 00:10:26,680
Speaker 3: these districts be drawn. The two conservatives who were in

186
00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:28,720
Speaker 3: the majority with the three liberals of the Court were

187
00:10:28,800 --> 00:10:32,640
Speaker 3: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Cavanaugh, making it a five

188
00:10:32,720 --> 00:10:37,480
Speaker 3: to four decision, with Justices Gorsich, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas dissent.

189
00:10:38,160 --> 00:10:42,880
Speaker 3: But Justice Cavanaugh, in the majority, wrote separately to say,

190
00:10:43,320 --> 00:10:46,080
Speaker 3: I'm intrigued by the argument that maybe Section two is

191
00:10:46,120 --> 00:10:48,760
Speaker 3: no longer constitutional because of the passage of time and

192
00:10:48,800 --> 00:10:51,840
Speaker 3: the changes in political conditions. This isn't the case to

193
00:10:51,880 --> 00:10:54,000
Speaker 3: decide that, but there may come a case down the

194
00:10:54,000 --> 00:10:56,600
Speaker 3: line where we need to address that, and I think

195
00:10:56,640 --> 00:11:01,000
Speaker 3: now this Louisiana case is that case. Kavanaugh could prove

196
00:11:01,040 --> 00:11:05,240
Speaker 3: to be the fifth vote, and Roberts, who has shown

197
00:11:05,600 --> 00:11:08,160
Speaker 3: some hostility in Voting Rights Act cases in the past,

198
00:11:08,640 --> 00:11:11,280
Speaker 3: including the Shelby County case I mentioned, could be a

199
00:11:11,320 --> 00:11:14,760
Speaker 3: sixth vote. If the court divides along party lines, along

200
00:11:14,840 --> 00:11:17,960
Speaker 3: ideological lines, the voting NIGHTSAX Section two could either be

201
00:11:18,040 --> 00:11:21,960
Speaker 3: whittled down or killed off. And so what started off

202
00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:27,400
Speaker 3: as a pretty small, not blockbuster case out of Louisiana

203
00:11:27,400 --> 00:11:30,520
Speaker 3: could turn out to be the most important voting rights

204
00:11:30,559 --> 00:11:31,679
Speaker 3: case of this decade.

205
00:11:31,880 --> 00:11:34,400
Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue

206
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:38,559
Speaker 1: this conversation with UCLA law professor Rick Hassen. What are

207
00:11:38,559 --> 00:11:42,040
Speaker 1: the consequences of getting rid of Section two of the

208
00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:45,960
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg,

209
00:11:47,080 --> 00:11:50,560
Speaker 1: I've been talking to UCLA law professor Rick Hassen about

210
00:11:50,600 --> 00:11:54,600
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court indicating it will consider outlining the use

211
00:11:54,640 --> 00:11:57,880
Speaker 1: of race and drawing voting maps. This sets up a

212
00:11:57,920 --> 00:12:02,760
Speaker 1: blockbuster showdown with imp locations for dozens of congressional districts

213
00:12:03,080 --> 00:12:08,360
Speaker 1: with predominantly minority populations. Rick, as you mentioned, in twenty

214
00:12:08,400 --> 00:12:12,840
Speaker 1: twenty three, the Supreme Court prohibited Alabama from using a

215
00:12:12,920 --> 00:12:17,280
Speaker 1: voting map that the justices found unlawfully diminished the power

216
00:12:17,280 --> 00:12:20,240
Speaker 1: of black voters. I mean that was just a few

217
00:12:20,320 --> 00:12:23,560
Speaker 1: years ago. Why do you think the Court has reached

218
00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:28,040
Speaker 1: this sort of monumental moment or decision.

219
00:12:28,400 --> 00:12:31,760
Speaker 3: Now, well, you know John Roberts likes to move slowly.

220
00:12:32,559 --> 00:12:34,959
Speaker 3: Let's just take the killing off of Section five of

221
00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:37,400
Speaker 3: the Voting If Act, which happened in Shelby County. That

222
00:12:37,559 --> 00:12:39,559
Speaker 3: was the provision that said, the states with a history

223
00:12:39,559 --> 00:12:42,880
Speaker 3: of racial discrimination in voting need to get approval before

224
00:12:42,880 --> 00:12:45,080
Speaker 3: they make their voting changes to make sure that minority

225
00:12:45,160 --> 00:12:49,360
Speaker 3: voters would not be made worse off. Congress renewed section

226
00:12:49,880 --> 00:12:54,480
Speaker 3: five in two thousand and six. The Supreme Court first

227
00:12:54,600 --> 00:12:59,040
Speaker 3: took up the issue of overturning Section five in two

228
00:12:59,120 --> 00:13:02,520
Speaker 3: thousand and nine in a case called Northwest Austin Municipal

229
00:13:02,640 --> 00:13:06,080
Speaker 3: Utility District Number one versus Holder. And in that case,

230
00:13:06,120 --> 00:13:08,760
Speaker 3: the Court punts it on the question, but strongly signals

231
00:13:08,840 --> 00:13:12,040
Speaker 3: that in a future case it could strike down Section five.

232
00:13:12,280 --> 00:13:15,000
Speaker 3: It was not until twenty thirteen, right, so you're talking

233
00:13:15,000 --> 00:13:18,480
Speaker 3: about seven years after Congress acts that Roberts was finally

234
00:13:18,480 --> 00:13:21,880
Speaker 3: ready to pull the trigger. And so Roberts moves slowly.

235
00:13:22,240 --> 00:13:25,200
Speaker 3: He whittles things away, and again the Court in the

236
00:13:25,240 --> 00:13:27,480
Speaker 3: Louisiana case could whittle it the way at the Voting

237
00:13:27,520 --> 00:13:31,720
Speaker 3: Rights Act make it essentially toothless without striking it down directly.

238
00:13:32,200 --> 00:13:35,040
Speaker 3: But I think what's coming is not likely to be

239
00:13:35,080 --> 00:13:37,559
Speaker 3: good for the Voting Rights Act, So you think.

240
00:13:37,360 --> 00:13:39,719
Speaker 1: They might strike it down completely.

241
00:13:40,200 --> 00:13:42,320
Speaker 3: They might strike it down completely, or they might say

242
00:13:42,320 --> 00:13:44,920
Speaker 3: it's unconstitutionalized applied in Louisiana, and then it will take

243
00:13:44,920 --> 00:13:47,120
Speaker 3: time to figure out, well, what does that mean? How

244
00:13:47,160 --> 00:13:49,360
Speaker 3: does it apply in other cases? That would be much

245
00:13:49,400 --> 00:13:52,520
Speaker 3: more of a John Roberts faux minimalist move, looking like

246
00:13:52,800 --> 00:13:55,880
Speaker 3: they're moving slowly, but in fact, you know, I was

247
00:13:55,920 --> 00:13:58,559
Speaker 3: telling my editor of the piece that I wrote Slate

248
00:13:58,640 --> 00:14:01,880
Speaker 3: about this, that you know, the media loves to cover

249
00:14:01,960 --> 00:14:05,520
Speaker 3: the car crash, the Texas registricting, you know, legislators getting

250
00:14:05,559 --> 00:14:09,600
Speaker 3: on planes, and you know that's great visuals, great story.

251
00:14:09,840 --> 00:14:13,520
Speaker 3: But the Supreme Court does slow poisoning, and so it's

252
00:14:13,600 --> 00:14:16,640
Speaker 3: very hard to cover. Right. So here's an order that's issued,

253
00:14:16,880 --> 00:14:21,200
Speaker 3: you know, Friday after five pm in August. I mean,

254
00:14:21,720 --> 00:14:24,520
Speaker 3: which journalists want to work then? And then who's going

255
00:14:24,560 --> 00:14:27,720
Speaker 3: to cover it on the weekend about a case that

256
00:14:27,720 --> 00:14:31,280
Speaker 3: they're going to hear arguments about probably sometime in December

257
00:14:31,400 --> 00:14:34,720
Speaker 3: or maybe in January. And then the issue an opinion

258
00:14:34,760 --> 00:14:38,400
Speaker 3: in June that will be very hard to understand. So

259
00:14:38,800 --> 00:14:40,560
Speaker 3: the Court is still doing a lot of damage, but

260
00:14:40,600 --> 00:14:43,040
Speaker 3: it does it in a way that is much harder

261
00:14:43,400 --> 00:14:45,920
Speaker 3: to cover and much harder for the public to grasp.

262
00:14:46,360 --> 00:14:49,760
Speaker 1: Speaking about being hard for the public to grasp, what

263
00:14:49,840 --> 00:14:53,880
Speaker 1: kind of theory might the conservatives use if they decide

264
00:14:53,920 --> 00:14:55,480
Speaker 1: to strike down Section two.

265
00:14:56,360 --> 00:15:01,120
Speaker 3: So the theory that the concerns could adopt in striking

266
00:15:01,160 --> 00:15:05,720
Speaker 3: down Section two or in whittling it away is that

267
00:15:06,120 --> 00:15:09,200
Speaker 3: the equal protection clause the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth

268
00:15:09,240 --> 00:15:13,000
Speaker 3: Amendments prohibition on discriminating and voting on the basis of race,

269
00:15:13,480 --> 00:15:16,640
Speaker 3: require a kind of color blindness that you can't take

270
00:15:16,760 --> 00:15:21,040
Speaker 3: race into account when you do something like draw political maps.

271
00:15:21,360 --> 00:15:24,240
Speaker 3: That view of the Constitution is that odds with a

272
00:15:24,320 --> 00:15:29,320
Speaker 3: view of the Constitution as preventing discrimination against minority voters.

273
00:15:29,520 --> 00:15:33,000
Speaker 3: So the whole reason that the reconstruction amendments after the

274
00:15:33,040 --> 00:15:36,800
Speaker 3: Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment

275
00:15:36,880 --> 00:15:41,040
Speaker 3: including equal protection, the Fifteenth Amendment barring race discrimination, the

276
00:15:41,160 --> 00:15:44,720
Speaker 3: reason for those amendments was to protect black's former slaves

277
00:15:44,800 --> 00:15:49,440
Speaker 3: from discrimination. And here the Court, if it adopts a

278
00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:53,920
Speaker 3: color blind view of the Constitution really be perverting what

279
00:15:53,960 --> 00:15:57,440
Speaker 3: it is that these amendments were meant to do, which

280
00:15:57,480 --> 00:16:00,600
Speaker 3: is to allow for the protection of minority voters. Turning

281
00:16:00,760 --> 00:16:04,040
Speaker 3: these amendments on their head to say that congressional legislation

282
00:16:04,200 --> 00:16:08,360
Speaker 3: to protect black and other minority voters is itself unconstitutional.

283
00:16:08,560 --> 00:16:11,520
Speaker 3: But that seems like there are at least three and

284
00:16:11,560 --> 00:16:13,920
Speaker 3: as many as six justices on the Court that are

285
00:16:13,920 --> 00:16:16,760
Speaker 3: going to be willing to embrace that view of congressional

286
00:16:16,800 --> 00:16:18,600
Speaker 3: power and the Voting Rights Act.

287
00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:23,880
Speaker 1: What are the consequences if the Court does eliminate Section

288
00:16:23,960 --> 00:16:26,080
Speaker 1: two of the Voting Rights Act.

289
00:16:26,520 --> 00:16:31,360
Speaker 3: Right now, much Black, Latino and Native American representation happens

290
00:16:31,360 --> 00:16:34,200
Speaker 3: in state legislatures because of the Voting Rights Act. That is,

291
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:37,200
Speaker 3: the Voting Rights Act is one of the remaining constraints

292
00:16:37,400 --> 00:16:42,680
Speaker 3: that allows for this kind of fairness, basic fairness and representation.

293
00:16:43,280 --> 00:16:47,240
Speaker 3: It would make our legislatures and our Congress much wider.

294
00:16:47,760 --> 00:16:51,560
Speaker 3: It would, I think trigger a political reaction, and I

295
00:16:51,600 --> 00:16:54,560
Speaker 3: think it could actually trigger a new voting rights movement

296
00:16:54,600 --> 00:16:57,760
Speaker 3: because this would be the Supreme Court being so hostile

297
00:16:58,160 --> 00:17:01,400
Speaker 3: to the Voting Rights Act. Remember, in the Constitution, in

298
00:17:01,440 --> 00:17:04,920
Speaker 3: both the Fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments. The Constitution gives Congress

299
00:17:04,960 --> 00:17:08,240
Speaker 3: the power to enforce the Fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments. These

300
00:17:08,359 --> 00:17:13,080
Speaker 3: powers are given to Congress to protect minority voters, and

301
00:17:13,119 --> 00:17:16,919
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court is whittling away or killing off the

302
00:17:16,920 --> 00:17:20,800
Speaker 3: Congress's ability to do this, and I think that it

303
00:17:20,880 --> 00:17:24,720
Speaker 3: makes the courts hostility to voting rights a direct political issue.

304
00:17:24,760 --> 00:17:28,960
Speaker 3: It would have changes in the way our politics runs,

305
00:17:29,320 --> 00:17:32,560
Speaker 3: from Congress in the broadest sense, to state legislatures down

306
00:17:32,600 --> 00:17:36,600
Speaker 3: to city council races in places where there are large

307
00:17:36,640 --> 00:17:40,480
Speaker 3: concentrations of minority voters and where whites and minority voters

308
00:17:40,520 --> 00:17:42,240
Speaker 3: tend to vote for different candidates. It would be an

309
00:17:42,280 --> 00:17:45,879
Speaker 3: earthquake in our politics. And I don't think that it

310
00:17:45,960 --> 00:17:48,640
Speaker 3: would be taken well by many people, who would see

311
00:17:48,680 --> 00:17:52,680
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court as really going too far in taking

312
00:17:52,720 --> 00:17:56,960
Speaker 3: away Congress's power to help protect minority voters, as was

313
00:17:57,000 --> 00:17:59,560
Speaker 3: the promise of the Fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments.

314
00:18:00,200 --> 00:18:04,480
Speaker 1: If that happens, would there be ways to challenge maps.

315
00:18:04,960 --> 00:18:06,800
Speaker 1: If you can't do it for partisan reasons, then you

316
00:18:06,800 --> 00:18:09,640
Speaker 1: can't do it for racial reasons. Are there other reasons?

317
00:18:10,440 --> 00:18:12,159
Speaker 3: Well, there will still be the one person in one

318
00:18:12,240 --> 00:18:15,040
Speaker 3: vote requirement, which means you have to draw districts with

319
00:18:15,480 --> 00:18:19,679
Speaker 3: roughly equal population. But even with that requirement that imposed

320
00:18:19,680 --> 00:18:23,200
Speaker 3: a very little constraint on the ability to draw lines

321
00:18:23,280 --> 00:18:25,760
Speaker 3: for the party in power to do what it wants.

322
00:18:26,000 --> 00:18:28,879
Speaker 3: Racial gerrymandering cases would be much less likely to be

323
00:18:28,920 --> 00:18:33,040
Speaker 3: successful as well, because there'd be no need to comply

324
00:18:33,119 --> 00:18:35,480
Speaker 3: with the Voting Rights Act, which is where this whole

325
00:18:35,520 --> 00:18:38,320
Speaker 3: line of cases comes from in the first place. So

326
00:18:38,760 --> 00:18:41,600
Speaker 3: it would be a less Congress acts or unless the

327
00:18:41,600 --> 00:18:45,560
Speaker 3: Constitution is amended or Congress passes new legislation, it would

328
00:18:45,560 --> 00:18:49,000
Speaker 3: really be turning the clock back to the mid nineteen

329
00:18:49,080 --> 00:18:52,440
Speaker 3: sixties in terms of representation, and that I think is

330
00:18:52,560 --> 00:18:56,119
Speaker 3: very dangerous for a multicultural democracy that we have today.

331
00:18:56,440 --> 00:19:00,040
Speaker 1: Well, the Louisiana case certainly seems like the case to

332
00:19:00,080 --> 00:19:02,359
Speaker 1: watch next term. It's great to have you on the

333
00:19:02,400 --> 00:19:06,280
Speaker 1: show again, Rick. That's Professor Rick Hassen of UCLA Law School.

334
00:19:06,800 --> 00:19:09,120
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

335
00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:11,800
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

336
00:19:11,880 --> 00:19:16,160
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

337
00:19:16,320 --> 00:19:21,359
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast Slash Law,

338
00:19:21,760 --> 00:19:24,359
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

339
00:19:24,400 --> 00:19:28,320
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

340
00:19:28,440 --> 00:19:30,040
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg