Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio
Speaker 1: New Justice Amy Coney Barrett will immediately be embroiled in
Speaker 1: some of the nation's biggest legal battles. The Court has
Speaker 1: already been deciding pre election skirmishes over the rules for
Speaker 1: casting and counting ballots. Joining me as constitutional law professor
Speaker 1: Neil Kinkoff of the Georgia State University College of Law,
Speaker 1: Most of these emergency petitions on election law issues are
Speaker 1: being decided by Chief Justice Robert's vote. When Barrett is
Speaker 1: in the equation, will she then be the deciding vote.
Speaker 1: She'll be the deciding vote in any case where Roberts
Speaker 1: makes the vote four to four. So in a case
Speaker 1: like the Wisconsin case from yesterday that was five to three,
Speaker 1: her vote wouldn't affect the outcome. Speaking of the Wisconsin case,
Speaker 1: are you reading into Justice Kavanaughs comments that he's trying
Speaker 1: to provide a roadmap that could help Trump win in
Speaker 1: the election if there's a contested race. Well, I guess
Speaker 1: I would put it this way. Two years ago, we
Speaker 1: saw Brett Kavanaugh screaming at the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now,
Speaker 1: in his opinion, we see him screaming Donald Trump's talking
Speaker 1: points into his concurrence. Really, the only difference between Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh's opinion in Donald Trump's Twitter feed is that Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: doesn't use all caps. Three of the justices worked on
Speaker 1: the Republican side on Bush v. Gore. When you're a
Speaker 1: litigator or a lawyer, you don't necessarily believe in what
Speaker 1: you're arguing for your client in that context, does there
Speaker 1: being on that case signal anything? So I don't think
Speaker 1: that being on that case was an example of just
Speaker 1: taking your client's position, because that's what you're being paid
Speaker 1: to do. People who were involved in that case were
Speaker 1: very much committed to the cause they were arguing for
Speaker 1: are so this wasn't just sort of professional lawyering, So
Speaker 1: that I think you're quite right. In general, it's a
Speaker 1: perilous thing to read into an advocates position what that
Speaker 1: advocate might do on the bench. But I would say
Speaker 1: Bush versus Gore is a real exception to that, because
Speaker 1: the people who argued that case were very much committed
Speaker 1: to what they were arguing for, and so and I
Speaker 1: think it's it's you know, in that respect, it's no
Speaker 1: accident that um that in the Wisconsin opinion yesterday, Judge
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh cited and discussed Bush versus Gore. Um. I
Speaker 1: believe that's the first time as any Supreme Court justice
Speaker 1: has done that since Bush versus Gore was decided. Right.
Speaker 1: It contained that famous passage where um Justice Kennedy wrote
Speaker 1: that that the the opinion was good for that day
Speaker 1: in that train only. But I think Justice Kavana was
Speaker 1: making it quite clear that that he regards that as
Speaker 1: sort of normal settled law and an appropriate precedent for
Speaker 1: how the Court should act. Justice Barrett was questioned on
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade repeatedly during her confirmation hearings. She said
Speaker 1: that Roe v. Wade was not what she called a
Speaker 1: super precedent that could not be overturned, and she may
Speaker 1: be making a key decision on abortion in a matter
Speaker 1: of days. The Court is considering at a private confidence
Speaker 1: on Friday whether to hear Mississippi's defense of a law
Speaker 1: that would ban most abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy.
Speaker 1: If the Court takes that case, can we read anything
Speaker 1: into it? Well, I think if they take that case,
Speaker 1: they're taking it to uphold the Mississippi law. I think
Speaker 1: that's quite clear, and I think it's clear that the
Speaker 1: Court is aiming to overrule Row. I just I don't
Speaker 1: think there's any subtlety about it, and I don't think
Speaker 1: there's anything to be mystified about. That's exactly the agenda.
Speaker 1: And in order to uphold Mississippi's law, would they have
Speaker 1: to overrule Row? No, No, they wouldn't in that case.
Speaker 1: And that's you know, they could, but they wouldn't have to.
Speaker 1: And I think that's the preference of at least some
Speaker 1: of the justices in that group, is to move a
Speaker 1: bit incrementally. I think that's certainly Justice Roberts's preference UM.
Speaker 1: And I think that's serve the more credible way that
Speaker 1: that somebody who wants to reach that result would go
Speaker 1: about reaching it instead of reaching out to overrule Row.
Speaker 1: Set up a few cases beforehand that that seriously undermine Row.
Speaker 1: That then allows you when you do the starry decisive analysis.
Speaker 1: One component of that is whether the precedent is something
Speaker 1: that's fixed in the law, that's relied upon UM and
Speaker 1: that is consistent with other areas of the law, or
Speaker 1: by contrast, is it something that sort of sticks out
Speaker 1: like a sort um. So I think the first agenda
Speaker 1: item for UM Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts is to make
Speaker 1: Row really stick out like a sore thumb and then
Speaker 1: come back and overrule it. The arguments on Obamacare come
Speaker 1: up right after the election. How is that likely to
Speaker 1: play out? There are a couple of aspects to that case.
Speaker 1: One is whether or not again the individual mandate as
Speaker 1: revised recently to have no penalty associated with it, whether
Speaker 1: that's constitutional. Because the Court ruled by a five to
Speaker 1: four vote that it was her vote replacing the vote
Speaker 1: of Justice Ginsberg, can flip that five to four in
Speaker 1: the other direction. Then the second question is if that
Speaker 1: provision is unconstitutional, is it severable from the rest of
Speaker 1: the statute. And that's the kind of question on which
Speaker 1: I would have expected Chief Justice Roberts too have sided
Speaker 1: with the liberals to say it is severable, or even
Speaker 1: to have sided with the liberals that have said in
Speaker 1: the first instance, it's still not constitutional. So I think
Speaker 1: Justice Barrett's vote is going to be decisive on both
Speaker 1: of those questions. And the severability argument, frankly, is really weak.
Speaker 1: And so it may be that Justice Barrett and any
Speaker 1: number of other conservative justices will agree that the individual
Speaker 1: mandate is severable. The Supreme Court has expedited a Trump
Speaker 1: administration appeal on the president's did to exclude undocumented immigrants
Speaker 1: from the census count, and they're going to hear that
Speaker 1: on November. Is there any indication how that case might
Speaker 1: go again? This is reading tea leaves um. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of reason to be concerned, given the
Speaker 1: way that at least four justices right there, four conservative justices,
Speaker 1: have pretty consistently upheld the frankly partisan Republican positions with
Speaker 1: respect of voting um, and fundamentally, that's what this census
Speaker 1: case is about, the apportionment of seats and House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: It also has a lot to do with the portionment
Speaker 1: of federal funding. So it's a case that goes goes
Speaker 1: beyond just that, but it has real political implications. And
Speaker 1: so adding Justice Barrett to that group means that the
Speaker 1: Court may well be poised to vindicate the Trump administration's
Speaker 1: frankly preposterous position. For two hundred and thirty years, it
Speaker 1: has been uniformly understood by Republicans, Democrats, pro immigration, anti immigration.
Speaker 1: Everybody that inhabitants means inhabitants. It doesn't mean citizens and
Speaker 1: so that this is even a question is really extraordinary.
Speaker 1: And yes, having Justice Barrett on the court for that
Speaker 1: I think was a big part of the impetus to
Speaker 1: push to fill Justice Ginsburg's vacancy with some one that
Speaker 1: the right wing felt they could rely upon. Also coming
Speaker 1: up is a clash between gay rights and religious rights,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court in recent years has been expanding
Speaker 1: religious rights, some even by seven to two votes. Does
Speaker 1: it seem as if that case is going to favor
Speaker 1: religious rights. Yes, that that case is going to go
Speaker 1: to use religious rights to establish a right to discriminate
Speaker 1: against people because of their gender or sexual orientation. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's very much the direction in which it's going. Let's
Speaker 1: just say that there is a democratic House, a Democratic Senate,
Speaker 1: and a democratic president. Can Congress pass laws to protect
Speaker 1: gay rights? If the Supreme Court holds that the free
Speaker 1: exercise of religion includes the right to discriminate against people
Speaker 1: becomes of their sexual orientation. Right, so the employer's religious
Speaker 1: belief that an employee's sexual orientation is sinful or disordered. Um,
Speaker 1: if that's protected free exercise, that forbids Congress from overriding it,
Speaker 1: because the right to free exercise is a fundamental First
Speaker 1: Amendment protected constitutional right, and Congress can't infringe on that
Speaker 1: by legislation. It is contrary to how we've always understood
Speaker 1: free exercise in the past to say that it includes
Speaker 1: a right to discriminate. But this Court certainly appears poised
Speaker 1: to say exactly that. Those are the cases that have
Speaker 1: been talked about a lot. Are there other decisions coming
Speaker 1: up that Cony Barrett's vote may make a difference. The
Speaker 1: other one that is immediately coming up is that the
Speaker 1: case involving the president's tax returns, and so you know
Speaker 1: she could end up casting at this aiding vote in
Speaker 1: that case. And when you think about the way the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court resolved the cases, both the one out of
Speaker 1: New York and the cases coming out of the congressional
Speaker 1: subpoena's it was a very complicated and frankly kind of
Speaker 1: convoluted compromise between several factions on the Supreme Court. Right,
Speaker 1: so they sort of spanned the gamut from the liberal
Speaker 1: approach of allowing Congress and um Cyrus Vans the Manhattan
Speaker 1: Prosecutor to subpoena and gain access to the president's tax
Speaker 1: returns um At the other end, you had Justice is
Speaker 1: Thomas and Alito who seemed to want to give the
Speaker 1: president blanket protection um. And then in the middle you
Speaker 1: had Justice roberts Um siding with the liberals, but in
Speaker 1: a in a much more narrow way, holding that there
Speaker 1: might be circumstances under which the as um could be upheld,
Speaker 1: but really leaving enforcement of that to sort of further
Speaker 1: judicial elaboration. Well, now it's time for that further judicial elaboration,
Speaker 1: and when you replace Ginsburg with Barrett, that could have
Speaker 1: a real important consequence for whether or not those tax
Speaker 1: returns have to be have to be turned over. Now
Speaker 1: that Cony Barrett is on the court, there's more of
Speaker 1: a push by Democrats to pack the court, and Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has said he's not a fan of that, but
Speaker 1: he's going to appoint Bipartisan Presidential Commission. What's your opinion
Speaker 1: about packing the court and whether it will, as some
Speaker 1: people say, ruin the Supreme Court. So, I think Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Mitch McConnell have packed not just the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court but the federal courts generally, right, the district court
Speaker 1: um and the courts of Appeals um. And so I
Speaker 1: think it's important that they be unpacked. UM. The courts
Speaker 1: as they stand now do not have legitimacy or credibility,
Speaker 1: And it may be that adding seats doesn't do anything
Speaker 1: to improve their credibility, but it certainly improves their legitimacy
Speaker 1: in terms of their balance, in terms of undoing the
Speaker 1: manipulation that's been going on over the last years, many years,
Speaker 1: even before Donald Trump came into office, UM, Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: was manipulating to make sure vacancies didn't get filled so
Speaker 1: they could be filled during the Trump administration, most famously
Speaker 1: with Marrick Garland, but not only UM. And so I
Speaker 1: think responding to that is absolutely vital to the court.
Speaker 1: Right to just lay down and accept it UM is
Speaker 1: to accept a judiciary that lacks any kind of real legitimacy,
Speaker 1: that's been manipulated and manipulated for obvious partisan purposes, and
Speaker 1: that needs to be undone. I suspect what Biden is
Speaker 1: doing is you know, pardon the pun, but he's Biden
Speaker 1: his time, right, And so you appoint a commission UM
Speaker 1: in order to take some time to really think about
Speaker 1: things and see how things are going. If John Roberts
Speaker 1: were still really the swing vote, I think he would
Speaker 1: hold his hand on things like over ruling Row. I
Speaker 1: think that would be his strong inclination, especially given the
Speaker 1: threat of court packing. But with the six to three majority,
Speaker 1: you know, even if you lose John Roberts, now it's
Speaker 1: a five to four majority. Rowe is gone right, and
Speaker 1: it may make political sense for Joe Biden to wait
Speaker 1: for that to happen before coming forward with any kind
Speaker 1: of court reform package. Thanks for being in the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Laws Show, Neil. That's Professor Neil Kinkoff of the Georgia's
Speaker 1: Day University College of Law. Just as Amy Coney, Barrett
Speaker 1: made her Supreme Court debut less than a week after
Speaker 1: being sworn in as the newest member of the Court. Barrett,
Speaker 1: a graduate of notre Ame Law School, is the only
Speaker 1: current justice who did not attend law school at Harvard
Speaker 1: or Yale. About half of Supreme Court clerks in recent
Speaker 1: years also attended those law schools. So how did Barrett
Speaker 1: pick her law clerks? Joining me as Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter, So Kimberly Barrett looked beyond
Speaker 1: Harvard and Yale for her law clerks. Well, that's what
Speaker 1: we've been seeing um with her on the Seventh Circuit,
Speaker 1: and that is how she picked her clerks for her
Speaker 1: first clerk class on the U. S. Supreme Court. She
Speaker 1: announced the other day for clerks to join her in
Speaker 1: chambers and none of none of them are from Harvard
Speaker 1: and Yale, something that has definitely set her apart. Now.
Speaker 1: Barrett hired two men and two women. Two were from
Speaker 1: the University of Chicago Law School, one from George Washington
Speaker 1: Law School, and one from Northwestern Law School, so none
Speaker 1: from her own alma mater. Does each justice have four clerks?
Speaker 1: Each active justice four clerks and then the retired justices
Speaker 1: can have one and those numbers and sometimes switch around
Speaker 1: depending on, you know, the membership of the court itself,
Speaker 1: but typically it's just four clerks for the nine justices
Speaker 1: sitting on the bench and have some of the clerks
Speaker 1: that she chose work for other justices. So she she
Speaker 1: did choose UM three clerks who had previously clerked for
Speaker 1: other justices, and then she brought one of her clerks
Speaker 1: from the Seventh Circuit along with her um to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. And that's typical. That's typically what we see
Speaker 1: from the justices who are just starting out on the bench. Now,
Speaker 1: I thought that Supreme Court clerkships lasted a year. Are
Speaker 1: some people clerking for the court for more than a year. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, we we do occasionally see people who have
Speaker 1: clerked for more than one justice. That could happen in ways. Um.
Speaker 1: One they are either get selected to clerk, and then
Speaker 1: that justice retired, and so technically they're working for the
Speaker 1: retired justice they had one of the active justices, um.
Speaker 1: For example, like Kennedy might have sent some of his
Speaker 1: clerks over to Justice Gorsute. Um. But then we also
Speaker 1: see that new justices do tend to hire clerks who
Speaker 1: have some previous experience on the Supreme Court probably um
Speaker 1: we're discussing, but to help them kind of learn the
Speaker 1: ropes a little bit of how you know the ins
Speaker 1: and outs of Supreme Court process. You know, I noticed
Speaker 1: that her clerks clerk previously for Justice is appointed by
Speaker 1: Republican presidents. When they're choosing clerks, are they thinking about
Speaker 1: their political bent? Well, Justice Scalil is really the last
Speaker 1: justice to hire quote unquote counter clerks, that is, somebody
Speaker 1: who is ideologically opposite of him. But he stopped that
Speaker 1: practice UM many many years ago before he passed away.
Speaker 1: And most of the justices tend to hire clerks who
Speaker 1: have clerked for other justices or other judges on lower
Speaker 1: courts UM who applied the law in a similar way
Speaker 1: as them. So it's not unusual that her clerks all
Speaker 1: came from Republican appointed justices. What has happened to Justice
Speaker 1: Ginsberg's clerks? So all five of Justice Ginsberg's clerks have
Speaker 1: been distributed amongst the Democratic appointed UH justices, And I
Speaker 1: did say five. Justice Ginsberg had agreed to take on
Speaker 1: Justice Stevens clerk before UH he had hired before he
Speaker 1: passed away, UM, and so that clerk is once again
Speaker 1: redistributed to yet another justice. Are there more women clerks
Speaker 1: and there used to be? Well, you know, Justice Barrett.
Speaker 1: Her experience of hiring more diverse clerks, academically diverse clerks
Speaker 1: her first term out is actually very similar to Justice Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: who hired the first all female UH clerk class for
Speaker 1: his chambers and his first term as well. And so
Speaker 1: since then we have seen the number of women rising,
Speaker 1: largely due to Justice Kavanaugh's efforts. But Justice Ginsburg was
Speaker 1: also one of the justices who hired a large number
Speaker 1: of female clerks, and so we'll have to see if
Speaker 1: Justice any Colney Barrett continues that same direction or if
Speaker 1: we actually see the numbers follow a little bit under
Speaker 1: her tenure on the Court. And so Justice Barrett did
Speaker 1: not take part in some of the emergency election matters
Speaker 1: that came before the Court even after she was sworn in,
Speaker 1: but she did take part in the oral arguments. So
Speaker 1: what was the case about. Well, these cases, the two
Speaker 1: cases of the justices heard were relatively lower profile. Um.
Speaker 1: They were about PRISM them Information Act cases UM, and
Speaker 1: another about retirement benefits for railroad employees. UM. But of
Speaker 1: course in the coming weeks she's gonna hear some real blockbusters,
Speaker 1: starting on Wednesday, UH, with a dispute between religious freedom
Speaker 1: and LGBT rights, and the next week a case regarding
Speaker 1: the constitutionality of Bamacare or the Affordable Care Act. And
Speaker 1: of course we could still see the election come to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Um. As you know, these challenges worked
Speaker 1: through the system. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show, Kimberly.
Speaker 1: That's Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter, a
Speaker 1: federal judge rejected abid by Republican activists to invalidate one
Speaker 1: seven thousand votes that were cast using drive through voting
Speaker 1: in the most populous county in Texas. Federal Judge Andrew
Speaker 1: Hannan said, for lack of a nicer way of saying it,
Speaker 1: I ain't buying it, joining me as Laurel Culkins Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Legal reporter, there seemed to have been a lot of
Speaker 1: court action about the election in Texas. What's been happening?
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, I think I've got PTSD from all the
Speaker 1: election challenges that have been filed against every single life
Speaker 1: and dice of the changes that Harris County in particular,
Speaker 1: which is home to Houston, UM every change the election
Speaker 1: officials have made trying to make it easier for people
Speaker 1: to vote during a pandemic, and they have been fought
Speaker 1: tooth and toneil every step of the way. It's been
Speaker 1: really hard to keep up with who's fighting what. And
Speaker 1: it's like the challenge that we just heard a conclusion
Speaker 1: on the same group of let's call the Radical Republicans
Speaker 1: had brought the exact same challenge in state court um.
Speaker 1: They were shot down Sunday by the State Supreme Court
Speaker 1: that they had another shot at it today in front
Speaker 1: of a federal judge who also shot them down. And
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the drive through voting challenge, which was
Speaker 1: one of the more unique options that Harris Canny came
Speaker 1: up with to try to put more voters into a
Speaker 1: voting boost. Tell us about the drive through because it
Speaker 1: seems as if they're checking, and it's a lot like
Speaker 1: going to vote at the polls. It's exactly like going
Speaker 1: to vote at the polls, except you never get out
Speaker 1: of your car, which for Houston is like the best
Speaker 1: possible solution because everybody in Houston is like born with
Speaker 1: car keys in their hands. At the town that lived
Speaker 1: and dies by the car. So what is in ten
Speaker 1: different locations around the city. The county has set up
Speaker 1: these giant tents like you see when you go to
Speaker 1: parties or think of the circus, but it has drive
Speaker 1: through lane built through the center of it. And you
Speaker 1: when the election clerk that's in that lane signals you
Speaker 1: as the voter, you drive forward and they make you
Speaker 1: turn off your cell phone. You have to follow all
Speaker 1: the regular procedures, You show your I D. You sign
Speaker 1: a voters register, just as if you had walked into
Speaker 1: the poll, they put a sanitized electronic tablet in your hands,
Speaker 1: You cast your vote, and you hand it back and
Speaker 1: it's plugged into the system and your vote counts, and
Speaker 1: away you go. At least that's theoretically how it's supposed
Speaker 1: to happen. This was approved by the Secretary of State
Speaker 1: and it's been in process for quite a while since
Speaker 1: the summer. Right. Well, we actually had a test drive
Speaker 1: of the system in the runoff election that was held
Speaker 1: in Texas in July, and Harris County rolled out one
Speaker 1: drive through location just to if the concept would work.
Speaker 1: And it worked outstandingly. Everybody loved it and there were
Speaker 1: no problems and there were no court challenges, and the
Speaker 1: Texas Secretary of State, who is the highest ranking election
Speaker 1: official in Texas, said hey, looks fine to me. So
Speaker 1: Harris County said, great, we'll double down. We'll put ten
Speaker 1: locations spread out all around the county and make it
Speaker 1: easy for everybody. And things were going swimmingly until the
Speaker 1: voting was well underway when this group of Republicans loalthy
Speaker 1: could call them radicals, you can call them malcontents, you
Speaker 1: can call them patriots. What everything you want to say.
Speaker 1: They challenged that the county elections clerk who had come
Speaker 1: up with drive through voting didn't technically have the authority
Speaker 1: to do so. Their argument was that only the Texas
Speaker 1: legislature can create new methods of voting, and so that's
Speaker 1: the fight was on from that point as to whether
Speaker 1: the county clerk had overstepped his bounds and creating new
Speaker 1: methods of voting. And today the judge in federal court
Speaker 1: in Houston essentially said, I think it's okay. At least
Speaker 1: it's okay for early voting. On a technicality, he threw
Speaker 1: out the lawsuit. He said the Republicans who complained don't
Speaker 1: have an actual injury to their right to vote, so
Speaker 1: they don't even have the right to bring this complaint,
Speaker 1: and so he wouldn't even consider the rest of the
Speaker 1: arguments legally, except he said, now, I know you're going
Speaker 1: to go run over to the Fifth Circuit and appeal
Speaker 1: my decision, So let me give you the rest of
Speaker 1: my thinking. And he said he sort of agreed with
Speaker 1: the people that looked at the Texas Election Code and said, well,
Speaker 1: it says on election day you're required to cast your
Speaker 1: vote in a building or in a structure, and he
Speaker 1: said the tents might not qualify under that rule. So
Speaker 1: he said on election day that might not be a
Speaker 1: legal place to cast your vote, but it certainly has
Speaker 1: been a legal place under the early voting rules. And
Speaker 1: so the hundred did twenties seven thousand votes that have
Speaker 1: been cast so far in early voting are going to
Speaker 1: count their legally counting unless an appellate corps comes in
Speaker 1: with a different decisions. Why we're Republicans going after these
Speaker 1: votes in Harris County? Could there have been Republican votes
Speaker 1: there too? Yes, In fact, they probably would have thrown
Speaker 1: out some Republican votes because there were quite a few
Speaker 1: elderly individuals who were voting at these drives through locations
Speaker 1: as a way to number one easily get around without
Speaker 1: mobility issues, but number two also avoid going into a
Speaker 1: crowded polling location and exposing themselves to potentially correct catching
Speaker 1: the coronavirus. So there were and older voters tend to
Speaker 1: vote Republican in Texas, so there would have been Republican
Speaker 1: votes that were caught up in this. But the um
Speaker 1: the main thing is Harris County is sort of brown
Speaker 1: zero for the Democratics effort to flip the state of
Speaker 1: Texas from its traditional Republican stronghold to a Democratic stronghold. UM.
Speaker 1: The state has been trending democratic in the last uh
Speaker 1: several presidential elections, in mid term congressional elections, and all
Speaker 1: of its largest cities are now routinely voting Democratic, with
Speaker 1: Harris County, which is again the home of Houston, leading
Speaker 1: the pack with the largest number of votes. So if
Speaker 1: a hundred and twenty seven thousand early voters in drives through,
Speaker 1: which was about ten of nearly a million and a
Speaker 1: half votes that cast in Harris County alone in early voting,
Speaker 1: if they could get those votes thrown out, UM, then
Speaker 1: this group of Republicans just felt they were that much
Speaker 1: closer to not losing to Democrats in Harris County. And
Speaker 1: the stakes are incredibly high because Texas is a winner
Speaker 1: take all state for Electoral College votes. It has thirty
Speaker 1: eight states, and if Trump doesn't win those thirty eight states,
Speaker 1: it becomes very difficult for the math to come together
Speaker 1: for him to win the presidency. UM. Beyond the presidency,
Speaker 1: it's also UM, this has the This election has the
Speaker 1: ability to change the makeup of the Texas Congressional Delegation,
Speaker 1: which right now is strongly Republican, but it could lose
Speaker 1: some of that and become more and more tilted towards
Speaker 1: the Democrats. And even more importantly, um the Democrats could
Speaker 1: gain control of the Texas State Legislature, which will determine
Speaker 1: the next set of redistricting maps. We will draw redistricting
Speaker 1: maps for the new legislative districts all over the country
Speaker 1: based on the census, and whoever controls the House in
Speaker 1: Texas will draw those maps. So it's a lot of stake,
Speaker 1: and that's why they were fighting so hard. The Texas
Speaker 1: Supreme Court also rejected this challenge. What was their reasoning, Well,
Speaker 1: it's funny, they gave no reason. Interestingly enough, the Texas
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is Republican, and this challenge, this exact challenge
Speaker 1: was presented to them three different times by essentially an
Speaker 1: overlapping group of people, but at one point also included
Speaker 1: the Texas Democratic Party, and they presented this challenge and
Speaker 1: each time the Texas Supreme Court just rejected it without
Speaker 1: any explanation. In one of the challenges, one of the
Speaker 1: justices wroted the sending opinion where he said he would
Speaker 1: have listened to the Republican objectors and and he would
Speaker 1: have given some credence to what they had to say.
Speaker 1: But he was the only one, and he was an outlier.
Speaker 1: So we don't actually have the benefit of the of
Speaker 1: the whole Supreme Court's ruling because they never gave us
Speaker 1: their thinking on it. That's Laurel Calkins, Bloomberg Legal Reporter.
Speaker 1: That's it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always hit the latest legal news on
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm
Speaker 1: June Grasso. Thanks so much for listening, and remember to
Speaker 1: tune to The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
Speaker 1: pm Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio.