WEBVTT - he Voting Rights Act Is in Jeopardy 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.120 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg. 0:00:06.680 --> 0:00:11.200 Radio mean eighty five eyes and six nays. 0:00:11.240 --> 0:00:14.480 The motion prevails. The Sergeant at Arms and any officers 0:00:14.480 --> 0:00:17.680 appointed by her are directed to send for all absentees 0:00:17.840 --> 0:00:18.880 whose attendance is not. 0:00:18.880 --> 0:00:22.320 Excused for the purposes of securing and maintaining their attendants 0:00:22.560 --> 0:00:24.560 under warrant of arrest if necessary. 0:00:25.120 --> 0:00:29.600 Arrest warrants, threats of prosecution and removal from office, and 0:00:29.800 --> 0:00:34.600 possible federal involvement. The all out war over an unusual 0:00:34.880 --> 0:00:40.159 mid decade redistricting in Texas is escalating and spreading across 0:00:40.159 --> 0:00:43.839 the country. Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered the arrest of 0:00:43.960 --> 0:00:47.680 Democratic lawmakers who left the state to block a vote 0:00:47.720 --> 0:00:51.760 on new congressional maps, and President Trump hasn't ruled out 0:00:51.920 --> 0:00:52.960 federal involvement. 0:00:53.479 --> 0:00:55.080 Well, I think they've abandoned the state. 0:00:56.440 --> 0:00:59.440 Well, they may have to, but the Democratic lawmakers, like 0:00:59.520 --> 0:01:03.800 state Representative James tallerco say they're not budging. 0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:07.560 We're not very worried about the consequences we may face, 0:01:07.600 --> 0:01:12.680 whether they are arrest or financial fines or even removal 0:01:12.680 --> 0:01:15.520 from office, because we have right on our side. We 0:01:15.560 --> 0:01:18.800 are part of a long American tradition of looking bullies 0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:22.480 in the eye, of speaking truth to power, of civil disobedience, 0:01:22.480 --> 0:01:25.480 of good trouble. That is how this democracy was forged. 0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:28.320 And we are participating in that tradition and we're proud 0:01:28.360 --> 0:01:28.760 to do it. 0:01:29.120 --> 0:01:35.160 And several democratic states are threatening retaliatory redistricting. My guest 0:01:35.240 --> 0:01:38.800 is elections law expert Rick Hassen, a professor at UCLA 0:01:38.880 --> 0:01:44.120 Law School. So, Rick, Texas already jerrymandered it's maps in 0:01:44.200 --> 0:01:47.600 twenty twenty one, and that's still in the courts. Is 0:01:47.640 --> 0:01:51.840 what it's doing now, trying to redistrict again to get 0:01:51.880 --> 0:01:55.120 five extra Republican seats. Is that constitutional? 0:01:55.960 --> 0:01:59.960 Well, that remains to be seen. What's going to happen 0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:03.960 and if Texas draws its districts again is they will 0:02:04.040 --> 0:02:08.120 almost certainly be challenged as violating either the Voting Rights 0:02:08.160 --> 0:02:12.960 Act or as violating the Constitution's prohibition on racial jerrymanagering. 0:02:13.400 --> 0:02:16.040 And that'll get tied up in the courts, just as 0:02:16.120 --> 0:02:18.320 the current round of redistricting is going to get tied 0:02:18.400 --> 0:02:20.280 up in the courts. What the federal courts are not 0:02:20.400 --> 0:02:24.760 going to do is say it's unconstitutional as a partisan 0:02:24.960 --> 0:02:28.600 gerrymander that is, drawing the district lines to favor Republicans 0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:32.280 over Democrats, because back in twenty nineteen, the Supreme Court 0:02:32.320 --> 0:02:35.640 decided a case called Rusho versus Common Cause, where the 0:02:35.639 --> 0:02:38.360 Court said that there are no standards to judge under 0:02:38.400 --> 0:02:42.320 the Constitution whether partisan jerry managering goes too far. 0:02:43.200 --> 0:02:49.840 Several Blue states have threatened retaliatory redistricting, but two key states, 0:02:50.080 --> 0:02:54.680 New York and California, have commissions drawing up the maps. 0:02:55.000 --> 0:02:57.640 So would they be able to retaliate in time for 0:02:57.680 --> 0:02:58.480 the midterms. 0:02:59.040 --> 0:03:01.320 Well, as far as the California case goes, which is 0:03:01.360 --> 0:03:04.720 one I'm most familiar with living here in California, the 0:03:04.760 --> 0:03:09.040 way that registring could be done consistent with state law 0:03:09.240 --> 0:03:11.200 in the middle of the decade would have to be 0:03:11.280 --> 0:03:15.359 through a voter passed measure, because voters earlier passed to 0:03:15.440 --> 0:03:20.800 measure actually two ballot measures, establishing a non partisan or 0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:25.600 multi partisan commission and then extending that commission's job to 0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:30.600 include drawing congressional district To overturn a ballot measure in California, 0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:33.200 you need a new ballot measure. So what the legislature 0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:35.480 and the governor are talking about doing now is drafting 0:03:35.480 --> 0:03:37.760 a new registioning plan and putting it before voters in 0:03:37.840 --> 0:03:41.119 a special election. If it passes, the new registing plan 0:03:41.160 --> 0:03:44.040 would be in effect, and then that could be challenged 0:03:44.080 --> 0:03:46.920 in court. But I think that again, because partisan jerry 0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:50.120 managering is not something that federal courts will police, there 0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:52.160 wouldn't be much of a federal basis unless you can 0:03:52.200 --> 0:03:54.840 make an argument, again like the voting rights actor, as 0:03:54.840 --> 0:03:58.240 a racial ferry manager, the district somehow are illegal. 0:03:58.960 --> 0:04:02.960 If there is an all out redistricting war red states 0:04:03.040 --> 0:04:06.960 versus blue states, would the red states or the Republicans 0:04:07.200 --> 0:04:10.640 ultimately win because they're in control of more states. 0:04:11.400 --> 0:04:13.640 Well, so to answer that question, you need to know 0:04:13.720 --> 0:04:16.480 not just how many states to Republicans control, but how 0:04:16.560 --> 0:04:20.599 much more redistricting on partisan grounds could they squeeze out 0:04:20.600 --> 0:04:24.280 of their already existing plan. I'm not an expert on 0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:27.000 the politics of all of this, but what I understand 0:04:27.080 --> 0:04:29.960 is if all the states that could do more did 0:04:30.040 --> 0:04:33.520 do more, it would probably end up benefiting Republicans more 0:04:33.560 --> 0:04:37.599 than Democrats. But in each state, as our discussions already shown, 0:04:37.839 --> 0:04:40.120 the particulars of state law and the particulars of the 0:04:40.120 --> 0:04:42.720 state map, that's already in existence are going to dictate 0:04:42.760 --> 0:04:44.840 some of that. I do think though, that it's very 0:04:44.880 --> 0:04:48.400 bad for our politics. If everyone is trying to maximize 0:04:48.440 --> 0:04:51.800 their congressional districts for you know, the most they can 0:04:51.839 --> 0:04:54.800 squeeze out. I mean, it just creates more of a 0:04:54.839 --> 0:04:59.200 winner take all, no holds barred, all out war kind 0:04:59.200 --> 0:05:02.200 of mentality, which I think just further polarizes everyone in 0:05:02.240 --> 0:05:02.800 the country. 0:05:03.400 --> 0:05:07.320 It's sort of startling to hear the Republicans in Texas 0:05:07.400 --> 0:05:09.680 and the presidents say, you know, we're doing this to 0:05:09.720 --> 0:05:12.680 get more seats, But I mean, this is something, as 0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:14.880 you've written, that Congress could cure. 0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:17.320 Yeah, well, let me go back first to why are 0:05:17.320 --> 0:05:21.159 they saying this. Well, one reason why we've seen legislators 0:05:21.240 --> 0:05:24.440 in Texas and earlier in North Carolina say we are 0:05:24.480 --> 0:05:27.599 doing a partisan jerimander like proudly admitting it, it's because 0:05:27.600 --> 0:05:30.839 they're trying to deflect the argument, No, you're doing this 0:05:30.960 --> 0:05:33.400 on racial grounds. You're doing this to make it harder 0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:36.760 for black and Latino and Native American voters to elect 0:05:36.800 --> 0:05:40.000 their candidates of choice, which could raise a Voting Rights 0:05:40.080 --> 0:05:43.160 Act question or could raise a racial gerymander in question 0:05:43.160 --> 0:05:46.360 on the protection close. So if the Supreme Court says 0:05:46.480 --> 0:05:48.919 we're not going to police politics, but we are going 0:05:49.000 --> 0:05:52.520 to police race, then of course they want to say, 0:05:52.760 --> 0:05:55.000 if they're trying to defend it, we're just doing politics. 0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:57.080 And so the courts have to try and sort that out, 0:05:57.080 --> 0:05:59.200 which is a very difficult thing to do when in 0:05:59.240 --> 0:06:02.280 a place like Texas, minority voters are much more likely 0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:05.600 to vote for Democrats and white voters for Republicans. You're 0:06:05.680 --> 0:06:09.720 right that Congress could do something. Article won. The Constitution 0:06:10.000 --> 0:06:13.160 tells states they can set their rules for running congressional elections, 0:06:13.520 --> 0:06:16.279 but Congress anytime can make new rules or alter those 0:06:16.320 --> 0:06:19.479 state rules. And so if Congress wanted to say no 0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:22.760 mid decade registering or established commissions, or set a standard 0:06:22.839 --> 0:06:25.960 for when partisan jerry mandarin goes too far, Congress would 0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:28.520 have the power to do that under this provision of 0:06:28.640 --> 0:06:31.039 Article one, known as the Elections Clause. I just don't 0:06:31.040 --> 0:06:34.719 think there's the political will in Congress, given our polarization, 0:06:34.920 --> 0:06:38.240 given this all out war, there's no reason to expect 0:06:38.240 --> 0:06:40.640 that Congress is going to do it anytime soon. 0:06:41.400 --> 0:06:45.200 You mentioned racial jerry mandering, and the Supreme Court is 0:06:45.520 --> 0:06:49.760 ordering reargument of a case that was argued last March 0:06:50.360 --> 0:06:55.200 involving a Louisiana congressional map that created an additional majority 0:06:55.240 --> 0:06:58.000 black district. Explain what's happening there. 0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:01.200 So, what we're talking about here is a case called 0:07:01.240 --> 0:07:05.480 Louisiana versus Calais, and it was already argued last March, 0:07:06.279 --> 0:07:10.280 and it was one of these cases where the Louisiana legislature, 0:07:10.560 --> 0:07:14.280 thanks to an earlier lawsuit, drew a second congressional district 0:07:14.880 --> 0:07:18.000 where black voters could elect their cad of choice to 0:07:18.040 --> 0:07:21.360 a congressional district. And the argument in the earlier case 0:07:21.520 --> 0:07:23.800 was you had to draw the second district to comply 0:07:24.000 --> 0:07:26.320 with Section two of the Voting Right sect. Well, then 0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:28.680 a new group of voters came in and they said, hey, 0:07:28.760 --> 0:07:31.720 when you drew that second district, you made race the 0:07:31.760 --> 0:07:35.600 predominant factor in drawing those lines, and you don't have 0:07:35.680 --> 0:07:38.600 up a compelling reason to do so, and therefore you 0:07:38.640 --> 0:07:42.000 were committing a racial gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth 0:07:42.000 --> 0:07:45.160 Amendments Equal Protection Clause. Back in March, the court heard 0:07:45.240 --> 0:07:48.040 argument in that case where the main issue was was 0:07:48.200 --> 0:07:51.320 race really the predominant factor the main reason why the 0:07:51.400 --> 0:07:53.680 second lines were drawn the way they were or was 0:07:53.720 --> 0:07:57.320 it really about politics. It's surely about politics, then it's 0:07:57.360 --> 0:08:01.200 not a racistarymander. Again, I find this distinct nonsensical when 0:08:01.240 --> 0:08:03.400 you have so much overlap between race and party in 0:08:03.480 --> 0:08:07.280 the Southern States. But it looked like yet another in 0:08:07.320 --> 0:08:09.840 a series of cases where the court's deciding whether race 0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:12.320 or party predominates. But then the end of the Supreme 0:08:12.320 --> 0:08:15.520 Court's term in June, rather than decide the case, the 0:08:15.560 --> 0:08:18.800 Court issued a somewhat unusual order saying we're going to 0:08:18.880 --> 0:08:21.880 hear reargument in the case, we're going to want additional briefing, 0:08:22.160 --> 0:08:23.760 but we're not telling you yet what we want the 0:08:23.760 --> 0:08:26.880 briefing on. And then it was not until last Friday, 0:08:27.120 --> 0:08:31.440 the August first, after five pm Friday night news dump, 0:08:31.560 --> 0:08:34.920 where the Court issued this kind of obscure, cryptic order 0:08:34.920 --> 0:08:38.920 that I read as really asking the question whether Section 0:08:39.000 --> 0:08:42.120 two of the Voting Rights Sack remains constitutional. And the 0:08:42.160 --> 0:08:45.800 way this comes into the case is if race did predominate, 0:08:46.000 --> 0:08:48.720 then the only way you can do that, as in 0:08:48.800 --> 0:08:51.600 drawing district lines, is if you have a compelling reason 0:08:51.679 --> 0:08:54.320 to do so. And the compelling reason that has been 0:08:54.440 --> 0:08:57.160 considered is, well, the voting rightsac made me do it. 0:08:57.160 --> 0:09:00.080 I had to do it to comply with Section two. 0:09:00.160 --> 0:09:04.480 It wants to hear, maybe it's unconstitutional to apply Section 0:09:04.600 --> 0:09:07.199 two and make race the predominant factor when you're drawing 0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:09.920 these district minds. So it really brings these two lines 0:09:09.920 --> 0:09:12.120 of cases, the Voting Rights Act cases and the racial 0:09:12.160 --> 0:09:17.120 gerrymandering cases together in a way where the Voting Rights 0:09:17.120 --> 0:09:19.760 Act may lose. Here we are recording this on the 0:09:19.800 --> 0:09:22.800 sixtieth anniversary of the passage of the Voting Rights Act, 0:09:23.120 --> 0:09:28.000 and the Supreme Court appears poised to consider striking down 0:09:28.720 --> 0:09:32.400 the second big pillar of the Voting Rights Act after 0:09:32.440 --> 0:09:36.040 it had already struck down the first pillar in twenty 0:09:36.120 --> 0:09:38.600 thirteen in the Shelby County versus Holder case. 0:09:39.640 --> 0:09:42.800 Many of the Court's conservatives have been what you might 0:09:42.840 --> 0:09:46.240 call hostile to the Voting Rights Act, and some seem 0:09:46.280 --> 0:09:49.960 to think that the Voting Rights Act no longer provides 0:09:50.000 --> 0:09:55.840 a legitimate basis for map makers to intentionally create majority 0:09:55.880 --> 0:09:58.960 Black or majority Hispanic districts. 0:09:59.400 --> 0:10:03.040 Well, the most recent piece of evidence we have on 0:10:03.120 --> 0:10:05.160 what the Court thinks about the Voting Rights sack, aside 0:10:05.160 --> 0:10:07.920 from this order that came out in the Louisiana case 0:10:08.360 --> 0:10:10.280 is a case that was decided a few years ago 0:10:10.320 --> 0:10:13.080 out of Alabama involving very similar facts of the voting 0:10:13.160 --> 0:10:16.320 right fact requiring the drawing of an additional black majority district, 0:10:16.840 --> 0:10:20.280 and in this case Alan versus Milligan, the Supreme Court, 0:10:20.360 --> 0:10:23.560 on a five to four vote upheld the requirement that 0:10:23.640 --> 0:10:26.680 these districts be drawn. The two conservatives who were in 0:10:26.720 --> 0:10:28.720 the majority with the three liberals of the Court were 0:10:28.800 --> 0:10:32.640 Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Cavanaugh, making it a five 0:10:32.720 --> 0:10:37.480 to four decision, with Justices Gorsich, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas dissent. 0:10:38.160 --> 0:10:42.880 But Justice Cavanaugh, in the majority, wrote separately to say, 0:10:43.320 --> 0:10:46.080 I'm intrigued by the argument that maybe Section two is 0:10:46.120 --> 0:10:48.760 no longer constitutional because of the passage of time and 0:10:48.800 --> 0:10:51.840 the changes in political conditions. This isn't the case to 0:10:51.880 --> 0:10:54.000 decide that, but there may come a case down the 0:10:54.000 --> 0:10:56.600 line where we need to address that, and I think 0:10:56.640 --> 0:11:01.000 now this Louisiana case is that case. Kavanaugh could prove 0:11:01.040 --> 0:11:05.240 to be the fifth vote, and Roberts, who has shown 0:11:05.600 --> 0:11:08.160 some hostility in Voting Rights Act cases in the past, 0:11:08.640 --> 0:11:11.280 including the Shelby County case I mentioned, could be a 0:11:11.320 --> 0:11:14.760 sixth vote. If the court divides along party lines, along 0:11:14.840 --> 0:11:17.960 ideological lines, the voting NIGHTSAX Section two could either be 0:11:18.040 --> 0:11:21.960 whittled down or killed off. And so what started off 0:11:22.000 --> 0:11:27.400 as a pretty small, not blockbuster case out of Louisiana 0:11:27.400 --> 0:11:30.520 could turn out to be the most important voting rights 0:11:30.559 --> 0:11:31.679 case of this decade. 0:11:31.880 --> 0:11:34.400 Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue 0:11:34.400 --> 0:11:38.559 this conversation with UCLA law professor Rick Hassen. What are 0:11:38.559 --> 0:11:42.040 the consequences of getting rid of Section two of the 0:11:42.120 --> 0:11:45.960 Voting Rights Act. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg, 0:11:47.080 --> 0:11:50.560 I've been talking to UCLA law professor Rick Hassen about 0:11:50.600 --> 0:11:54.600 the Supreme Court indicating it will consider outlining the use 0:11:54.640 --> 0:11:57.880 of race and drawing voting maps. This sets up a 0:11:57.920 --> 0:12:02.760 blockbuster showdown with imp locations for dozens of congressional districts 0:12:03.080 --> 0:12:08.360 with predominantly minority populations. Rick, as you mentioned, in twenty 0:12:08.400 --> 0:12:12.840 twenty three, the Supreme Court prohibited Alabama from using a 0:12:12.920 --> 0:12:17.280 voting map that the justices found unlawfully diminished the power 0:12:17.280 --> 0:12:20.240 of black voters. I mean that was just a few 0:12:20.320 --> 0:12:23.560 years ago. Why do you think the Court has reached 0:12:23.679 --> 0:12:28.040 this sort of monumental moment or decision. 0:12:28.400 --> 0:12:31.760 Now, well, you know John Roberts likes to move slowly. 0:12:32.559 --> 0:12:34.959 Let's just take the killing off of Section five of 0:12:35.040 --> 0:12:37.400 the Voting If Act, which happened in Shelby County. That 0:12:37.559 --> 0:12:39.559 was the provision that said, the states with a history 0:12:39.559 --> 0:12:42.880 of racial discrimination in voting need to get approval before 0:12:42.880 --> 0:12:45.080 they make their voting changes to make sure that minority 0:12:45.160 --> 0:12:49.360 voters would not be made worse off. Congress renewed section 0:12:49.880 --> 0:12:54.480 five in two thousand and six. The Supreme Court first 0:12:54.600 --> 0:12:59.040 took up the issue of overturning Section five in two 0:12:59.120 --> 0:13:02.520 thousand and nine in a case called Northwest Austin Municipal 0:13:02.640 --> 0:13:06.080 Utility District Number one versus Holder. And in that case, 0:13:06.120 --> 0:13:08.760 the Court punts it on the question, but strongly signals 0:13:08.840 --> 0:13:12.040 that in a future case it could strike down Section five. 0:13:12.280 --> 0:13:15.000 It was not until twenty thirteen, right, so you're talking 0:13:15.000 --> 0:13:18.480 about seven years after Congress acts that Roberts was finally 0:13:18.480 --> 0:13:21.880 ready to pull the trigger. And so Roberts moves slowly. 0:13:22.240 --> 0:13:25.200 He whittles things away, and again the Court in the 0:13:25.240 --> 0:13:27.480 Louisiana case could whittle it the way at the Voting 0:13:27.520 --> 0:13:31.720 Rights Act make it essentially toothless without striking it down directly. 0:13:32.200 --> 0:13:35.040 But I think what's coming is not likely to be 0:13:35.080 --> 0:13:37.559 good for the Voting Rights Act, So you think. 0:13:37.360 --> 0:13:39.719 They might strike it down completely. 0:13:40.200 --> 0:13:42.320 They might strike it down completely, or they might say 0:13:42.320 --> 0:13:44.920 it's unconstitutionalized applied in Louisiana, and then it will take 0:13:44.920 --> 0:13:47.120 time to figure out, well, what does that mean? How 0:13:47.160 --> 0:13:49.360 does it apply in other cases? That would be much 0:13:49.400 --> 0:13:52.520 more of a John Roberts faux minimalist move, looking like 0:13:52.800 --> 0:13:55.880 they're moving slowly, but in fact, you know, I was 0:13:55.920 --> 0:13:58.559 telling my editor of the piece that I wrote Slate 0:13:58.640 --> 0:14:01.880 about this, that you know, the media loves to cover 0:14:01.960 --> 0:14:05.520 the car crash, the Texas registricting, you know, legislators getting 0:14:05.559 --> 0:14:09.600 on planes, and you know that's great visuals, great story. 0:14:09.840 --> 0:14:13.520 But the Supreme Court does slow poisoning, and so it's 0:14:13.600 --> 0:14:16.640 very hard to cover. Right. So here's an order that's issued, 0:14:16.880 --> 0:14:21.200 you know, Friday after five pm in August. I mean, 0:14:21.720 --> 0:14:24.520 which journalists want to work then? And then who's going 0:14:24.560 --> 0:14:27.720 to cover it on the weekend about a case that 0:14:27.720 --> 0:14:31.280 they're going to hear arguments about probably sometime in December 0:14:31.400 --> 0:14:34.720 or maybe in January. And then the issue an opinion 0:14:34.760 --> 0:14:38.400 in June that will be very hard to understand. So 0:14:38.800 --> 0:14:40.560 the Court is still doing a lot of damage, but 0:14:40.600 --> 0:14:43.040 it does it in a way that is much harder 0:14:43.400 --> 0:14:45.920 to cover and much harder for the public to grasp. 0:14:46.360 --> 0:14:49.760 Speaking about being hard for the public to grasp, what 0:14:49.840 --> 0:14:53.880 kind of theory might the conservatives use if they decide 0:14:53.920 --> 0:14:55.480 to strike down Section two. 0:14:56.360 --> 0:15:01.120 So the theory that the concerns could adopt in striking 0:15:01.160 --> 0:15:05.720 down Section two or in whittling it away is that 0:15:06.120 --> 0:15:09.200 the equal protection clause the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth 0:15:09.240 --> 0:15:13.000 Amendments prohibition on discriminating and voting on the basis of race, 0:15:13.480 --> 0:15:16.640 require a kind of color blindness that you can't take 0:15:16.760 --> 0:15:21.040 race into account when you do something like draw political maps. 0:15:21.360 --> 0:15:24.240 That view of the Constitution is that odds with a 0:15:24.320 --> 0:15:29.320 view of the Constitution as preventing discrimination against minority voters. 0:15:29.520 --> 0:15:33.000 So the whole reason that the reconstruction amendments after the 0:15:33.040 --> 0:15:36.800 Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment 0:15:36.880 --> 0:15:41.040 including equal protection, the Fifteenth Amendment barring race discrimination, the 0:15:41.160 --> 0:15:44.720 reason for those amendments was to protect black's former slaves 0:15:44.800 --> 0:15:49.440 from discrimination. And here the Court, if it adopts a 0:15:49.520 --> 0:15:53.920 color blind view of the Constitution really be perverting what 0:15:53.960 --> 0:15:57.440 it is that these amendments were meant to do, which 0:15:57.480 --> 0:16:00.600 is to allow for the protection of minority voters. Turning 0:16:00.760 --> 0:16:04.040 these amendments on their head to say that congressional legislation 0:16:04.200 --> 0:16:08.360 to protect black and other minority voters is itself unconstitutional. 0:16:08.560 --> 0:16:11.520 But that seems like there are at least three and 0:16:11.560 --> 0:16:13.920 as many as six justices on the Court that are 0:16:13.920 --> 0:16:16.760 going to be willing to embrace that view of congressional 0:16:16.800 --> 0:16:18.600 power and the Voting Rights Act. 0:16:19.400 --> 0:16:23.880 What are the consequences if the Court does eliminate Section 0:16:23.960 --> 0:16:26.080 two of the Voting Rights Act. 0:16:26.520 --> 0:16:31.360 Right now, much Black, Latino and Native American representation happens 0:16:31.360 --> 0:16:34.200 in state legislatures because of the Voting Rights Act. That is, 0:16:34.200 --> 0:16:37.200 the Voting Rights Act is one of the remaining constraints 0:16:37.400 --> 0:16:42.680 that allows for this kind of fairness, basic fairness and representation. 0:16:43.280 --> 0:16:47.240 It would make our legislatures and our Congress much wider. 0:16:47.760 --> 0:16:51.560 It would, I think trigger a political reaction, and I 0:16:51.600 --> 0:16:54.560 think it could actually trigger a new voting rights movement 0:16:54.600 --> 0:16:57.760 because this would be the Supreme Court being so hostile 0:16:58.160 --> 0:17:01.400 to the Voting Rights Act. Remember, in the Constitution, in 0:17:01.440 --> 0:17:04.920 both the Fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments. The Constitution gives Congress 0:17:04.960 --> 0:17:08.240 the power to enforce the Fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments. These 0:17:08.359 --> 0:17:13.080 powers are given to Congress to protect minority voters, and 0:17:13.119 --> 0:17:16.919 the Supreme Court is whittling away or killing off the 0:17:16.920 --> 0:17:20.800 Congress's ability to do this, and I think that it 0:17:20.880 --> 0:17:24.720 makes the courts hostility to voting rights a direct political issue. 0:17:24.760 --> 0:17:28.960 It would have changes in the way our politics runs, 0:17:29.320 --> 0:17:32.560 from Congress in the broadest sense, to state legislatures down 0:17:32.600 --> 0:17:36.600 to city council races in places where there are large 0:17:36.640 --> 0:17:40.480 concentrations of minority voters and where whites and minority voters 0:17:40.520 --> 0:17:42.240 tend to vote for different candidates. It would be an 0:17:42.280 --> 0:17:45.879 earthquake in our politics. And I don't think that it 0:17:45.960 --> 0:17:48.640 would be taken well by many people, who would see 0:17:48.680 --> 0:17:52.680 the Supreme Court as really going too far in taking 0:17:52.720 --> 0:17:56.960 away Congress's power to help protect minority voters, as was 0:17:57.000 --> 0:17:59.560 the promise of the Fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments. 0:18:00.200 --> 0:18:04.480 If that happens, would there be ways to challenge maps. 0:18:04.960 --> 0:18:06.800 If you can't do it for partisan reasons, then you 0:18:06.800 --> 0:18:09.640 can't do it for racial reasons. Are there other reasons? 0:18:10.440 --> 0:18:12.159 Well, there will still be the one person in one 0:18:12.240 --> 0:18:15.040 vote requirement, which means you have to draw districts with 0:18:15.480 --> 0:18:19.679 roughly equal population. But even with that requirement that imposed 0:18:19.680 --> 0:18:23.200 a very little constraint on the ability to draw lines 0:18:23.280 --> 0:18:25.760 for the party in power to do what it wants. 0:18:26.000 --> 0:18:28.879 Racial gerrymandering cases would be much less likely to be 0:18:28.920 --> 0:18:33.040 successful as well, because there'd be no need to comply 0:18:33.119 --> 0:18:35.480 with the Voting Rights Act, which is where this whole 0:18:35.520 --> 0:18:38.320 line of cases comes from in the first place. So 0:18:38.760 --> 0:18:41.600 it would be a less Congress acts or unless the 0:18:41.600 --> 0:18:45.560 Constitution is amended or Congress passes new legislation, it would 0:18:45.560 --> 0:18:49.000 really be turning the clock back to the mid nineteen 0:18:49.080 --> 0:18:52.440 sixties in terms of representation, and that I think is 0:18:52.560 --> 0:18:56.119 very dangerous for a multicultural democracy that we have today. 0:18:56.440 --> 0:19:00.040 Well, the Louisiana case certainly seems like the case to 0:19:00.080 --> 0:19:02.359 watch next term. It's great to have you on the 0:19:02.400 --> 0:19:06.280 show again, Rick. That's Professor Rick Hassen of UCLA Law School. 0:19:06.800 --> 0:19:09.120 And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. 0:19:09.480 --> 0:19:11.800 Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 0:19:11.880 --> 0:19:16.160 our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 0:19:16.320 --> 0:19:21.359 and at www dot Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast Slash Law, 0:19:21.760 --> 0:19:24.359 and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every 0:19:24.400 --> 0:19:28.320 weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso 0:19:28.440 --> 0:19:30.040 and you're listening to Bloomberg