1 00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:19,600 Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to this week's episode of the Trip Cast. 2 00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:23,879 Speaker 2: I'm Eleanor Klebanoff law and politics reporter, joined as always 3 00:00:23,960 --> 00:00:25,920 by editor in chief Matthew Watkins. 4 00:00:25,920 --> 00:00:26,239 Speaker 3: Hello. 5 00:00:26,359 --> 00:00:27,199 Speaker 1: Hello, how's it going? 6 00:00:27,480 --> 00:00:28,000 Speaker 4: Pretty good? 7 00:00:28,079 --> 00:00:28,559 Speaker 1: Pretty good? 8 00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:32,280 Speaker 3: We just had our kind of off the recording podcasts 9 00:00:32,280 --> 00:00:33,799 about the Taylor Swift album, so. 10 00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:38,159 Speaker 2: We saved everyone from having to our medium hot takes 11 00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:41,280 exactly which I think for both of it takes really honest, 12 00:00:42,679 --> 00:00:46,960 I haven't listened that closely, but I released watch several tiktoks. 13 00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:47,000 Speaker 1: On the matter. 14 00:00:47,119 --> 00:00:47,759 Speaker 4: Yeah. 15 00:00:47,759 --> 00:00:50,079 Speaker 3: I think tepid is just the appropriate word, all wrong. 16 00:00:50,240 --> 00:00:53,359 Speaker 1: Yes, pepid is the album? Tepid are our tape? 17 00:00:53,439 --> 00:00:53,640 Speaker 4: Yeah? 18 00:00:53,799 --> 00:00:56,000 Speaker 2: Yeah, and come at us if you would like to. 19 00:00:57,000 --> 00:01:01,719 We will defend them tepidly. But sadly, we must turn 20 00:01:01,799 --> 00:01:06,719 back to democracy. This week's episode we are going to 21 00:01:06,719 --> 00:01:10,239 be talking about once again redistricting. 22 00:01:11,200 --> 00:01:13,680 Speaker 1: I am just back from El Paso. 23 00:01:13,959 --> 00:01:16,400 Speaker 2: Last was in al Paso last week for the first 24 00:01:16,480 --> 00:01:19,560 part of a nine day hearing to decide whether Texas 25 00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:23,120 can use its new congressional map in the fast approaching 26 00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:26,000 twenty twenty six elections. 27 00:01:26,640 --> 00:01:29,680 Speaker 1: And how did you find al Paso? I loved El 28 00:01:29,760 --> 00:01:31,840 Paso had. It was my first time in al Paso. 29 00:01:32,079 --> 00:01:34,480 Speaker 2: I discovered people in El Paso don't love it when 30 00:01:34,480 --> 00:01:36,280 you come in from Austin for like two days and 31 00:01:36,319 --> 00:01:38,120 are like, this is a great town. 32 00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:40,359 Speaker 1: Like they don't love the tone of surprise. 33 00:01:40,480 --> 00:01:44,719 Speaker 2: Be be honest, but had great tacos. Stayed in the 34 00:01:44,799 --> 00:01:51,239 lovely downtown hotel, cool beautiful courthouse. Okay, yeah, I'll be honest. 35 00:01:51,319 --> 00:01:56,480 The vibes at the event I was covering a little weird. 36 00:01:56,920 --> 00:01:58,000 Speaker 1: You know this. 37 00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:01,480 Speaker 2: The same plaintiff groups that are suing over this map 38 00:02:01,560 --> 00:02:03,959 and asking the judges to block this map are the 39 00:02:03,959 --> 00:02:06,200 same people who sued over the twenty twenty one maps. 40 00:02:06,719 --> 00:02:09,919 The lawyers defending it for the state are the same lawyers. 41 00:02:10,080 --> 00:02:12,000 They have been locked in this legal battle with each 42 00:02:12,000 --> 00:02:16,919 other for four years now, coming back to the same 43 00:02:16,960 --> 00:02:20,719 El Paso courtroom for the previous preliminary junction hearing and 44 00:02:20,759 --> 00:02:24,240 the status hearings, and just recently what concluded in June, 45 00:02:24,319 --> 00:02:27,879 a month long trial, and I'll passo together and we're 46 00:02:27,879 --> 00:02:31,719 back here again, and I'll be honest, by this point, 47 00:02:31,800 --> 00:02:33,039 everyone's like pretty friendly. 48 00:02:33,919 --> 00:02:36,319 Speaker 1: I was surprised. I'm always a little bit surprised with that. 49 00:02:36,400 --> 00:02:40,159 Speaker 2: With courts, like the lawyers are just you know, they're 50 00:02:40,159 --> 00:02:41,800 not like angry at each other. 51 00:02:42,159 --> 00:02:42,479 Speaker 4: Yeah. 52 00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:46,120 Speaker 3: In my early days, very early days as a journalist, 53 00:02:46,159 --> 00:02:49,120 I covered a lot of criminal trials, and I would 54 00:02:49,120 --> 00:02:51,479 always just sit there and be amazed that you have 55 00:02:51,639 --> 00:02:57,360 like the person who's accused of killing someone sitting at 56 00:02:57,400 --> 00:03:02,759 the table across from someone who is perhaps maybe trying 57 00:03:02,800 --> 00:03:06,719 to send that person to a death chamber, and then 58 00:03:07,159 --> 00:03:10,560 behind them the family of the person they're accused of killing, 59 00:03:10,639 --> 00:03:12,560 and we would all just sort of like sit there 60 00:03:12,879 --> 00:03:16,159 in that humanity and like make small talk about like 61 00:03:16,159 --> 00:03:17,800 where we're gonna get live actually and everything. 62 00:03:17,919 --> 00:03:19,520 Speaker 1: Yeah, and that certainly was them. 63 00:03:19,599 --> 00:03:21,879 Speaker 2: I mean again, like they were all just together in June, 64 00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:24,639 and it was funny like when they all reconvened here 65 00:03:25,039 --> 00:03:28,680 in October. You know, Adam Kircher, who's the head of 66 00:03:28,719 --> 00:03:31,080 special Litigation for the state, who's like handling this for 67 00:03:31,120 --> 00:03:33,280 the state, was over like yucking it up with the 68 00:03:33,360 --> 00:03:34,960 lawyers for the plaintiffs, and like one of them he 69 00:03:35,039 --> 00:03:37,800 was like, you got a haircut, and she was like, oh, yeah, 70 00:03:37,840 --> 00:03:40,599 you know for summer, And I just was like it's fine, 71 00:03:40,599 --> 00:03:42,520 you know, It's like you know, at this point, they're 72 00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:45,199 in it together. It just was funny of like, oh man, 73 00:03:45,680 --> 00:03:49,280 we're all friends. I guess I'm not sure. 74 00:03:49,080 --> 00:03:53,319 Speaker 3: That fcility in government, you know, if we could have 75 00:03:53,360 --> 00:03:54,120 more of that, that might be. 76 00:03:55,759 --> 00:03:59,000 Speaker 2: But obviously a lot to discuss about the hearing, how 77 00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:01,159 it went, and what this all sort of says about 78 00:04:01,159 --> 00:04:06,280 what's going to happen with these maps to help us 79 00:04:06,319 --> 00:04:08,599 understand this beyond just the vibes in the courtroom. 80 00:04:09,080 --> 00:04:11,800 Speaker 1: We are joined by Justin. 81 00:04:11,639 --> 00:04:14,960 Speaker 2: Levitt, who is a professor at Loyola Law School, where 82 00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:18,480 he studies constitutional law, voting rights, and the law of democracy. 83 00:04:18,879 --> 00:04:21,360 He previously served in the Biden administration as the White 84 00:04:21,399 --> 00:04:25,240 House's first Senior Policy Advisor for Democracy and voting Rights, 85 00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:28,079 and previously served in the Obama administration as a Deputy 86 00:04:28,079 --> 00:04:30,480 Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division. 87 00:04:30,959 --> 00:04:32,279 Speaker 1: Justin, Welcome to tripcast. 88 00:04:32,639 --> 00:04:35,120 Speaker 4: Thanks so much. I'm wonderful to be here with you. 89 00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:41,240 Speaker 2: I have spoken with Justin many times so over several months, 90 00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:44,519 always very helpful in helping us sort of understand the 91 00:04:44,600 --> 00:04:48,519 legal intricacies of like a very very complicated corner of 92 00:04:48,560 --> 00:04:51,360 the law, which I will say, after being in the 93 00:04:51,360 --> 00:04:54,319 hearing for several days, I am no less clear. I'm 94 00:04:54,360 --> 00:04:57,879 no more clear on than I was before that. But 95 00:04:58,000 --> 00:05:02,439 just to sort of start, I mean, the twenty one maps, 96 00:05:02,600 --> 00:05:04,480 that case is proceding sort of what we might consider 97 00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:08,319 like normally right, which is like this is normally with. 98 00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:09,439 Speaker 1: Some interruptions and all that. 99 00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:12,600 Speaker 2: But you know, that's being challenged on constitutional grounds, on 100 00:05:12,680 --> 00:05:16,920 voting rights grounds. Different plaintiffs bringing different claims. They had 101 00:05:16,920 --> 00:05:19,399 this trial. We'll eventually get a ruling on it. What 102 00:05:19,480 --> 00:05:21,120 we're dealing with here at the twenty twenty five maps 103 00:05:21,160 --> 00:05:24,000 is very different. This is a preliminary injunction. They're just 104 00:05:24,040 --> 00:05:27,439 asking the judges to halt the maps temporarily, and all 105 00:05:27,519 --> 00:05:32,399 the concerns are constitutional claims, and just maybe you can 106 00:05:32,439 --> 00:05:34,279 start and sort of explain what the differences between the 107 00:05:34,319 --> 00:05:38,160 constitutional claims and Voting Rights Act claims like generally speaking. 108 00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:41,279 Speaker 4: Yeah, sure, And the only prole I'll have with the 109 00:05:42,040 --> 00:05:46,040 description there is that it's not really normal to still 110 00:05:46,040 --> 00:05:48,079 be fighting over district lines in the middle of a decade. 111 00:05:48,120 --> 00:05:51,160 I know Texas has gotten used to it, and a 112 00:05:51,199 --> 00:05:53,720 couple other states are beginning to have the Texas experience 113 00:05:53,720 --> 00:05:55,399 and getting used to fighting over lines in the middle 114 00:05:55,399 --> 00:05:57,000 of a decade, but the fact that we're here at 115 00:05:57,040 --> 00:06:03,399 all is super weird. Yeah, And the fight over the 116 00:06:03,439 --> 00:06:06,399 state legislative maps still continues. As you point out that 117 00:06:06,439 --> 00:06:09,639 it's still very much live, and a lot of the 118 00:06:09,680 --> 00:06:13,759 evidence that was used in relation to the twenty one 119 00:06:13,800 --> 00:06:16,680 maps is also sitting in the back of the judge's 120 00:06:16,720 --> 00:06:21,759 mind as they deliberate as they hear the claims against 121 00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:24,319 the twenty five map. You're absolutely right that what's going 122 00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:27,199 on right now is a little bit different. It's quicker, 123 00:06:27,720 --> 00:06:32,199 it's sort of the debreviated train, and it's an attempt 124 00:06:32,240 --> 00:06:36,680 to see whether the plaintiffs are probably right enough on 125 00:06:36,759 --> 00:06:40,600 what they'll eventually have to prove to stop the maps 126 00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:42,319 right now, or at least and not let them go 127 00:06:42,360 --> 00:06:44,519 forward and get used in the twenty six elections. You 128 00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:48,199 can't ever take back an election if the elections are 129 00:06:48,199 --> 00:06:53,399 held under discriminatory terms, And so the question is, are 130 00:06:53,480 --> 00:06:59,600 these maps probably illegal and sufficiently probably illegal that the 131 00:06:59,680 --> 00:07:02,720 judge should stop them before they get used in an 132 00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:06,199 election that you can undo. That's the real question. As 133 00:07:06,199 --> 00:07:09,519 you point out, the playiffs have gone forward on constitutional claims, 134 00:07:09,560 --> 00:07:11,720 voting right tack claims are still very much live. And 135 00:07:11,759 --> 00:07:15,319 still very much real. They're just harder to prove. They 136 00:07:15,399 --> 00:07:17,680 require a lot more evidence that require a lot more time. 137 00:07:17,759 --> 00:07:21,040 Voting Right Sack claims are really cumbersome. Some people have 138 00:07:21,720 --> 00:07:24,720 a stereotype caricature of Voting Rights Act is saying you 139 00:07:24,800 --> 00:07:27,480 got to draw districts wherever you find communities of color, 140 00:07:27,519 --> 00:07:29,759 and that's not at all true. You've got to prove 141 00:07:29,879 --> 00:07:33,680 a bunch of stuff. And so the plaintiffs have decided, 142 00:07:34,000 --> 00:07:36,920 in this sort of short abbreviated version that they're going 143 00:07:36,959 --> 00:07:40,199 to move forward on things that aren't easy but that 144 00:07:40,319 --> 00:07:44,000 are slightly easy error so that they can get a 145 00:07:44,079 --> 00:07:47,199 ruling in time. It's really the claims they're pushing right 146 00:07:47,279 --> 00:07:49,920 now are really all about time. And there are two 147 00:07:49,959 --> 00:07:52,839 types of claims. One you tried to hurt us because 148 00:07:52,879 --> 00:07:58,480 of our race. Two you considered race too much without 149 00:07:58,480 --> 00:08:01,160 a good enough reason. And I can get into each 150 00:08:01,160 --> 00:08:02,720 of those if you want, but those are the two 151 00:08:02,800 --> 00:08:05,240 basic claims they're making with a whole lot evidence from 152 00:08:05,240 --> 00:08:06,079 the table. 153 00:08:07,279 --> 00:08:08,199 Speaker 1: Right right. 154 00:08:08,279 --> 00:08:10,920 Speaker 2: So to your point, there may still in the future 155 00:08:10,920 --> 00:08:13,800 be Voting Rights Act violations brought against this map, but 156 00:08:13,879 --> 00:08:17,120 for right now, they're saying to the judges like in 157 00:08:17,160 --> 00:08:19,560 the short term. These are the not ease, not like 158 00:08:19,680 --> 00:08:23,879 lower bar to prove, but like less complex process of proving. 159 00:08:24,240 --> 00:08:25,800 Speaker 4: Yeah, we got a bunch of stuff we want to 160 00:08:25,800 --> 00:08:27,959 talk to about eventually, but let's focus on these two 161 00:08:28,000 --> 00:08:30,920 things for now because they're quicker. That's basically the that's 162 00:08:30,959 --> 00:08:31,839 basically where we're at. 163 00:08:32,279 --> 00:08:36,200 Speaker 3: And the reason we're saying quicker is because, as you mentioned, 164 00:08:36,360 --> 00:08:38,960 just this summer was when they had the actual trial 165 00:08:39,320 --> 00:08:41,399 for the maps that were written in twenty twenty one. 166 00:08:41,840 --> 00:08:45,320 These maps written four years later. We are recording this 167 00:08:45,360 --> 00:08:47,759 on October seventh, which is a month and a day 168 00:08:47,840 --> 00:08:51,919 before the filing period starts for the twenty twenty six elections, 169 00:08:52,320 --> 00:08:55,960 which means you just you know, if these districts which 170 00:08:55,960 --> 00:08:59,919 were drawn to give Republicans five new seats in Congress, 171 00:09:00,360 --> 00:09:02,480 if you are going to block those, you got to 172 00:09:02,519 --> 00:09:03,039 act fast. 173 00:09:03,559 --> 00:09:07,279 Speaker 4: That's right now that filing dead lives can move. Courts 174 00:09:07,480 --> 00:09:09,480 have the ability to push those back a little bit. 175 00:09:09,480 --> 00:09:12,159 They aren't set in stone, but courts really don't like 176 00:09:12,279 --> 00:09:14,679 doing that. The Supreme Court has said be careful about 177 00:09:14,720 --> 00:09:17,759 doing that. The Supreme Court has had a whole other 178 00:09:17,960 --> 00:09:22,080 set of doctrines around making decisions too close to the 179 00:09:22,080 --> 00:09:25,279 final election, and nobody knows exactly what too close is. 180 00:09:25,960 --> 00:09:30,559 And so here the planiffs are basically racing against a 181 00:09:30,679 --> 00:09:33,879 clock where the timing isn't certain. They don't know exactly 182 00:09:33,919 --> 00:09:36,360 how much time is left, so they want to be 183 00:09:36,399 --> 00:09:40,240 sure to get an answer if they can, as quickly 184 00:09:40,279 --> 00:09:43,679 as possible, so that they're sure they be whatever clock 185 00:09:43,720 --> 00:09:46,120 there is right. 186 00:09:46,159 --> 00:09:48,080 Speaker 2: And I think the I mean, the judges on this 187 00:09:48,120 --> 00:09:50,159 case have sort of indicated that they are very aware 188 00:09:50,159 --> 00:09:55,159 of these time constraints, and everyone involved has indicated that 189 00:09:55,679 --> 00:09:58,159 part of that time constraint is not just getting this ruling, 190 00:09:58,279 --> 00:10:00,840 but the idea that this ruling will like be appealed 191 00:10:00,919 --> 00:10:05,960 up to the Supreme Court, and we need time for that, which. 192 00:10:07,480 --> 00:10:08,440 Speaker 1: Just to maybe you talk a little. 193 00:10:08,240 --> 00:10:10,799 Speaker 2: Bit about like how that goes like we will get 194 00:10:10,840 --> 00:10:12,879 some rolling one direction or the other, and then this 195 00:10:12,960 --> 00:10:14,000 goes up. 196 00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:17,639 Speaker 4: Yeah, and exactly what the court does when it goes 197 00:10:17,919 --> 00:10:21,480 up is still a little bit of a question. So 198 00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:27,240 the this is a weird case compared to most federal cases. 199 00:10:27,279 --> 00:10:29,919 We're used to one federal judge hearing most cases. Then 200 00:10:29,960 --> 00:10:32,440 it goes up to the Court of Appeals, where three 201 00:10:32,519 --> 00:10:34,519 judges sort of sit and review, and then the Supreme 202 00:10:34,519 --> 00:10:37,120 Court decides do I want this case or not? Am 203 00:10:37,120 --> 00:10:39,000 I gonna take it? There's a big deal about when 204 00:10:39,000 --> 00:10:43,519 the Supreme Court takes cases, but these cases, weirdly, redistricting 205 00:10:43,559 --> 00:10:45,519 and campaign finance cases are sort of in a set 206 00:10:45,519 --> 00:10:49,600 by themselves. They're heard by the judges that you went 207 00:10:49,639 --> 00:10:52,360 and saw this week, the three judge panel that's a 208 00:10:52,480 --> 00:10:56,879 trial court, and then they're direct appealed. We're playing monopoly, 209 00:10:56,960 --> 00:10:59,279 do not pass go direct appeal to the Supreme Court. 210 00:10:59,320 --> 00:11:01,840 Supreme Court does decide whether it wants the case or not. 211 00:11:02,519 --> 00:11:05,639 It has to deal with it in some way. Now, 212 00:11:06,279 --> 00:11:09,879 normally all of these processes take a little bit of time, 213 00:11:10,559 --> 00:11:13,399 and so you wouldn't expect that the Supreme Court would 214 00:11:13,399 --> 00:11:18,799 intercede right away, but it can, and it can intercede 215 00:11:18,840 --> 00:11:26,799 to say, essentially pause or to come. The Court might 216 00:11:26,879 --> 00:11:29,960 decide that it wants to put the trial court's opinion 217 00:11:29,960 --> 00:11:32,919 on a slow track and hear the appeals sort of 218 00:11:32,960 --> 00:11:36,000 as things normally happen, which would be sort of well 219 00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:38,159 into twenty twenty six. It would mean that the trial 220 00:11:38,159 --> 00:11:40,799 court's decision would stick for the twenty six elections. Whatever 221 00:11:40,840 --> 00:11:44,320 it is whichever way it goes, or the court might 222 00:11:44,399 --> 00:11:47,679 decide that it's going to issue something on what's called 223 00:11:47,679 --> 00:11:52,759 the emergency docket, the shadow docket, a temporary pause of 224 00:11:52,799 --> 00:11:56,759 whatever the trial court does in order to preserve the 225 00:11:56,799 --> 00:11:59,960 status quo before the twenty six elections. Now the court 226 00:12:00,080 --> 00:12:05,559 has done that in seriously controversial ways over the last 227 00:12:05,600 --> 00:12:07,639 couple of months. The Court's taken a lot of flak. 228 00:12:07,759 --> 00:12:10,480 I think has earned itself that flack for how it's 229 00:12:10,639 --> 00:12:14,320 used this temporary pause button, mostly because it hasn't explained 230 00:12:14,360 --> 00:12:17,279 itself very often. It's just pushed pause on a lot 231 00:12:17,279 --> 00:12:20,360 of really important cases from around the country without saying why, 232 00:12:20,879 --> 00:12:22,799 and that's driven a lot of people nuts. It's not 233 00:12:22,840 --> 00:12:25,360 their job. Court's job is to explain, not to just 234 00:12:25,440 --> 00:12:29,960 push pause. But that's an option that they have and 235 00:12:30,000 --> 00:12:32,799 have increasingly been using, and a lot of people are 236 00:12:32,840 --> 00:12:35,720 going to be watching for whether they take that option, 237 00:12:35,759 --> 00:12:38,039 whether they use that option on whatever the trap word 238 00:12:38,120 --> 00:12:38,799 does in this case. 239 00:12:39,919 --> 00:12:41,399 Speaker 3: So can we get in a little bit to the 240 00:12:41,679 --> 00:12:45,919 merits of the case here? I mean, you said there 241 00:12:45,919 --> 00:12:48,679 were kind of two claims that the state was making. 242 00:12:49,120 --> 00:12:51,879 Correct me, if I have these wrong, punished that there 243 00:12:51,879 --> 00:12:54,360 are voters basically who are being punished for their race 244 00:12:54,519 --> 00:12:57,440 in the drawing. And there's these maps and the state 245 00:12:57,519 --> 00:13:02,200 took race into consideration when it need to. You were 246 00:13:02,200 --> 00:13:08,200 in the trial, eleanor, can you help explain what evidence 247 00:13:09,039 --> 00:13:12,360 these plaintiffs brought forward to try to make the case 248 00:13:12,440 --> 00:13:15,159 that this that you know, one or both of those 249 00:13:15,159 --> 00:13:15,879 two things happen. 250 00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:19,000 Speaker 2: Yeah, so, and justin catch me when I go off 251 00:13:19,080 --> 00:13:24,639 track here, but like two concerns and in the like 252 00:13:24,679 --> 00:13:30,039 technical legal definition, right, one is intentional vote dilution, which 253 00:13:30,120 --> 00:13:33,320 is saying black and brown voters have had their sort 254 00:13:33,320 --> 00:13:36,000 of electoral power diluted by being the sort of we're 255 00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:38,480 talking about like cracked or packed into districts. 256 00:13:38,879 --> 00:13:46,879 Speaker 1: And to that they point at the sort of the 257 00:13:46,879 --> 00:13:47,720 original sin. 258 00:13:48,200 --> 00:13:51,320 Speaker 2: The what we have here is like the state is 259 00:13:51,480 --> 00:13:55,159 arguing this was all partisan, which the Supreme Court has 260 00:13:55,200 --> 00:13:57,320 said they cannot step in on. 261 00:13:58,120 --> 00:13:59,879 Speaker 1: Courts cannot block partisan jerry mandering. 262 00:13:59,879 --> 00:14:02,000 Speaker 2: They said, this is all partisan. Donald Trump asked for 263 00:14:02,080 --> 00:14:04,159 five seats. We said we're going to give you five seats. 264 00:14:04,240 --> 00:14:08,200 That's partisan. Anything else after that it was only partisan. 265 00:14:08,440 --> 00:14:10,840 Speaker 3: And they're making that case because basically the Supreme Court 266 00:14:10,840 --> 00:14:14,840 says you can pack and crack people because of their partisanship, 267 00:14:14,960 --> 00:14:16,080 but not because of their. 268 00:14:16,080 --> 00:14:18,440 Speaker 1: Race, right or if you do that, we can't step in. 269 00:14:18,720 --> 00:14:20,440 Speaker 2: The court has said, like that is bad, do not 270 00:14:20,559 --> 00:14:22,480 do that, but it's not a matter for the courts 271 00:14:22,480 --> 00:14:22,919 to resolve. 272 00:14:22,919 --> 00:14:26,039 Speaker 1: We just kind of a put in each camp over there. 273 00:14:26,039 --> 00:14:26,600 But that's fine. 274 00:14:26,679 --> 00:14:31,600 Speaker 2: I'm not so with the question of intentional vote dilution. 275 00:14:32,240 --> 00:14:34,759 The main evidence that they're pointing to to prove that 276 00:14:34,799 --> 00:14:37,639 this was not just partisan there was racial motivation behind 277 00:14:37,639 --> 00:14:41,320 this is this letter from the Department of Justice that 278 00:14:41,480 --> 00:14:46,720 basically told Texas, hey, there's four of your majority minority 279 00:14:46,720 --> 00:14:51,960 districts majority non white districts are unconstitutional because of this 280 00:14:52,039 --> 00:14:54,720 court ruling in twenty twenty four. You need to redraw 281 00:14:54,799 --> 00:14:59,480 them because they are majority non white and you no 282 00:14:59,519 --> 00:15:02,320 longer need to have that as unconstitutional. They sort of 283 00:15:02,639 --> 00:15:06,080 the plaintiffs argue that proves that anything that flowed from 284 00:15:06,159 --> 00:15:08,840 there was motivated by race. 285 00:15:10,039 --> 00:15:12,320 Speaker 4: And they're not. What's really important to I don't know, 286 00:15:12,320 --> 00:15:14,480 it's got this exactly right. What's really important is that they're 287 00:15:14,440 --> 00:15:18,679 not mutually exclusive. So the problem it's not like saying 288 00:15:19,320 --> 00:15:23,440 I did this for partisan reasons means that there's nothing 289 00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:26,879 to see here. We're completely absolved. If you have an 290 00:15:26,960 --> 00:15:30,200 ultimate partisan goal but you use race as the tool 291 00:15:30,279 --> 00:15:35,399 to achieve it, that's also not okay. There was a 292 00:15:35,799 --> 00:15:38,360 case in Los Angeles where I'm setting thirty years ago, 293 00:15:39,080 --> 00:15:41,279 but the judge explained it really clearly. You said, let's 294 00:15:41,279 --> 00:15:43,639 say you're a landlord, and let's say you don't have 295 00:15:43,759 --> 00:15:49,320 any feelings about whether minorities own rent apartments in your 296 00:15:49,360 --> 00:15:51,240 building or not. But somebody comes to you and say, 297 00:15:51,279 --> 00:15:53,919 if you rent to those people, your property values are 298 00:15:53,919 --> 00:15:55,399 going to go down. So you decide not to rent 299 00:15:55,440 --> 00:15:58,799 to any people of color. It's not your ultimate motive 300 00:15:58,879 --> 00:16:00,720 is just to make money. It's just the tool you 301 00:16:00,879 --> 00:16:02,799 use is not renting the people of color. Have you 302 00:16:02,799 --> 00:16:05,559 discriminated intentionally against people of color? Of course you have. 303 00:16:06,279 --> 00:16:09,440 It's obvious you have. And so the fact that the 304 00:16:09,519 --> 00:16:12,600 state's ultimate motive might have been partisan gain doesn't answer 305 00:16:12,600 --> 00:16:18,039 the question about whether the tool they used was intentionally 306 00:16:18,159 --> 00:16:19,120 treating people worse. 307 00:16:18,960 --> 00:16:21,399 Speaker 1: Because of their ace right. 308 00:16:21,600 --> 00:16:24,080 Speaker 2: And that's sort of you know, the state feels like 309 00:16:25,399 --> 00:16:27,440 our partisan goal was so clear, and the part of 310 00:16:27,480 --> 00:16:29,919 the motivation was so clear, and they have pretty aggressively 311 00:16:30,440 --> 00:16:34,440 thrown the letter, the Department of Justice, and even Governor 312 00:16:34,440 --> 00:16:37,600 Abbott for citing the letter under the bus to say. 313 00:16:37,600 --> 00:16:39,440 Speaker 1: You know that was junk the whole time. We all 314 00:16:39,519 --> 00:16:40,440 knew that was junk. 315 00:16:40,559 --> 00:16:42,720 Speaker 3: Well, well, let's let's let's go a little bit deeper 316 00:16:42,720 --> 00:16:43,960 into this, because I think this is one of the 317 00:16:43,960 --> 00:16:46,399 most one of the most sort of hilarious and fascinating 318 00:16:46,480 --> 00:16:48,559 parts of this right, which is of course, how this 319 00:16:48,600 --> 00:16:50,679 all happened, As we have discussed on the show before 320 00:16:50,720 --> 00:16:53,320 at nauseam, is that you know, there started to be 321 00:16:53,399 --> 00:16:56,360 reports coming out from the New York Times and The 322 00:16:56,399 --> 00:16:59,360 Tribune in other places that Donald Trump is worried about 323 00:16:59,399 --> 00:17:01,720 losing the House in twenty twenty six, and so he 324 00:17:01,799 --> 00:17:04,599 is asking Texas to read district in order to give 325 00:17:05,119 --> 00:17:08,160 him more Republican seats and a bigger cushion for this 326 00:17:08,279 --> 00:17:13,759 midterm election the state. There's uncertainty about in reporting from 327 00:17:13,799 --> 00:17:16,960 the Tribune, suggesting that Abbot doesn't really want to do this, 328 00:17:17,359 --> 00:17:20,839 But the Department of US Department of Justice writes Texas 329 00:17:20,839 --> 00:17:24,160 a letter saying, essentially, you considered race too much in 330 00:17:24,279 --> 00:17:25,200 drawing your lines. 331 00:17:25,240 --> 00:17:25,960 Speaker 4: They are illegal. 332 00:17:26,039 --> 00:17:28,400 Speaker 3: You need to do something about that, and Abbot then 333 00:17:28,559 --> 00:17:32,079 not long after that, calls a special session in which 334 00:17:32,119 --> 00:17:35,200 he cites that letter, saying we need to redraw things, 335 00:17:35,319 --> 00:17:40,160 and in which many critics of Abbot's decision are saying, oh, 336 00:17:40,279 --> 00:17:42,200 this is such bs, like he really. 337 00:17:42,119 --> 00:17:42,720 Speaker 1: Just wants to do. 338 00:17:44,279 --> 00:17:46,480 Speaker 2: Right. The Democrats are saying it's a partisan power grab. 339 00:17:46,559 --> 00:17:49,039 The Republicans are saying, our hands are tied. The DOJ 340 00:17:49,519 --> 00:17:52,480 insisting we do this. They have now switched sides on 341 00:17:52,559 --> 00:17:53,240 this matter. 342 00:17:53,279 --> 00:17:55,799 Speaker 3: And now everyone is like, actually, what we were saying 343 00:17:55,880 --> 00:17:57,920 is not true. What the other side is saying is true, 344 00:17:58,240 --> 00:18:01,519 and therefore we should win this legal case. 345 00:18:01,759 --> 00:18:04,160 Speaker 4: Right now, Let's not lose sight of the horrible behavior 346 00:18:04,160 --> 00:18:07,759 by the Department of Justice and all this because I 347 00:18:07,839 --> 00:18:10,519 firmly think that the folks in the Department of Justice 348 00:18:10,519 --> 00:18:13,279 who wrote that letter broke the law. That letter is 349 00:18:13,480 --> 00:18:16,640 hot garbage by any standard. And I don't say that 350 00:18:18,000 --> 00:18:20,839 with pleasure because I've served in that unit of the 351 00:18:20,839 --> 00:18:22,839 Department of Justice. I was in the Civil Rights Division, 352 00:18:22,960 --> 00:18:25,839 and it pains me to see that kind of work product. 353 00:18:25,920 --> 00:18:28,279 But it was sloppy, it was shoddy, at had typos 354 00:18:28,319 --> 00:18:30,559 all over the place. You couldn't tell if they understood 355 00:18:30,599 --> 00:18:34,000 the law or if they were just really misguided. It 356 00:18:34,160 --> 00:18:40,240 was garbage and pretext, And for the DOJ to send 357 00:18:40,279 --> 00:18:42,640 out a letter like that because of the electoral impact 358 00:18:42,680 --> 00:18:46,480 it might have is breaking federal law. So you're right 359 00:18:46,640 --> 00:18:48,319 in that it's kind of a comedy of errors on 360 00:18:48,359 --> 00:18:50,119 the state side about whether they want to believe this 361 00:18:50,200 --> 00:18:52,400 letter or not. But let's not too lightly let the 362 00:18:52,400 --> 00:18:55,240 Department of Justice off the hook for violating the federal 363 00:18:55,279 --> 00:18:56,440 law they're supposed to be enforcing. 364 00:18:57,720 --> 00:18:59,599 Speaker 2: And I think to some extent, I mean, the state 365 00:18:59,680 --> 00:19:01,039 is not going so far as to say that they 366 00:19:01,039 --> 00:19:03,359 broke the law, but the state now in its legal 367 00:19:03,359 --> 00:19:06,319 filings is sort of saying like this was shady, it 368 00:19:06,359 --> 00:19:10,039 didn't make any sense. Everyone knew this letter was just 369 00:19:10,079 --> 00:19:13,160 a legal pretext, and even saying like it doesn't matter 370 00:19:13,200 --> 00:19:15,759 that if Greg Abbott believed that Greg Abbott didn't draw 371 00:19:15,839 --> 00:19:18,160 the maps like Greg Abbott is in a state legislator, 372 00:19:18,519 --> 00:19:19,759 which is quite the thing to say. 373 00:19:19,559 --> 00:19:22,559 Speaker 3: About the governor, right, But he also you know, it 374 00:19:22,599 --> 00:19:24,920 was part of his exercise of power that led. 375 00:19:24,759 --> 00:19:26,000 Speaker 4: To these maps. Right. 376 00:19:26,119 --> 00:19:28,279 Speaker 3: But I mean, it's interesting justin that you talk about 377 00:19:28,319 --> 00:19:31,119 this idea then that it doesn't have to be the 378 00:19:31,200 --> 00:19:34,079 sort of Landlord example you mentioned earlier, because I mean, 379 00:19:34,359 --> 00:19:37,000 let's be honest, it was pretty clear when that letter 380 00:19:37,119 --> 00:19:40,200 came out it was to try to provide the report 381 00:19:40,200 --> 00:19:43,440 political cover. We all should see what was happening here, 382 00:19:43,559 --> 00:19:45,559 which was that they were trying to get five more 383 00:19:45,599 --> 00:19:48,799 Republican seats for to gain a partisan advantage. But what 384 00:19:48,839 --> 00:19:51,279 you're saying sort of is that even if that might 385 00:19:51,319 --> 00:19:54,279 be the case, there still might be legal reasons to 386 00:19:54,319 --> 00:19:57,480 say no, you're actually breaking the Voting Rights Act. 387 00:19:57,279 --> 00:19:59,880 Speaker 4: Here well, and not just I mean yes with the 388 00:20:00,160 --> 00:20:04,000 our attack, but even more on the immediate claims at issue. 389 00:20:04,240 --> 00:20:06,799 If the way you're going to get five more Republican 390 00:20:06,839 --> 00:20:10,160 seats is by intentionally figuring out where the minority communities 391 00:20:10,200 --> 00:20:14,880 are and then splitting those up, that's unconstitutional. That's intentionally 392 00:20:15,000 --> 00:20:17,960 targeting people because of their race to dilute their votes. 393 00:20:18,319 --> 00:20:21,200 Even if the reason you're doing it isn't because of race, 394 00:20:21,240 --> 00:20:23,759 If the reason you're doing it is partisanship, that doesn't 395 00:20:23,839 --> 00:20:25,839 change the fact that you're still targeting people because of 396 00:20:25,880 --> 00:20:29,759 their race. And that's still not okay. And that's part 397 00:20:29,799 --> 00:20:31,680 of the claim I'm sure that they're making this. 398 00:20:31,680 --> 00:20:35,240 Speaker 1: Week, right, which brings us to the other. 399 00:20:36,880 --> 00:20:39,359 Speaker 2: Claim, which is racial jerry mandering, which I'm going to 400 00:20:39,400 --> 00:20:41,839 be honest to the average person, sounds very similar to 401 00:20:41,960 --> 00:20:44,119 intentional vote dilutionship based on race. 402 00:20:44,279 --> 00:20:45,119 Speaker 1: They are very different. 403 00:20:45,200 --> 00:20:51,960 Speaker 2: It turns out racial jerrymandering, and I'm gonna probably quote 404 00:20:51,960 --> 00:20:54,880 you back to you justin, but racial jerrymandering is when 405 00:20:54,920 --> 00:20:58,960 you sort of, like over, when you take race into 406 00:20:59,079 --> 00:21:03,039 account too much in how you draw your lines. And 407 00:21:03,079 --> 00:21:05,759 the example that the plaintiffs are pointy two to prove 408 00:21:05,839 --> 00:21:10,920 this is how many of these districts are fifty point 409 00:21:10,960 --> 00:21:15,000 five percent black, fifty point five percent Hispanic, and now 410 00:21:15,039 --> 00:21:17,559 they're you know, going around saying, oh, we've drawn more 411 00:21:17,720 --> 00:21:22,440 Hispanic districts, more Black districts. A really particularly relevant piece 412 00:21:22,480 --> 00:21:26,480 to the plaintiffs is when Todd Hunter, the state representative 413 00:21:26,480 --> 00:21:28,480 who drew the map, or I'm sorry, Todd Hunter, who 414 00:21:28,839 --> 00:21:32,599 carried the legislation that was of the maps, stood up 415 00:21:32,599 --> 00:21:35,319 and in laying out the bill before it passed, he 416 00:21:35,400 --> 00:21:38,319 went through the racial makeup of every district, you know, 417 00:21:38,359 --> 00:21:42,680 many districts, sort of meticulously documenting the sea VAPP, the vapp, 418 00:21:42,759 --> 00:21:46,200 the racial you know, and that to the plaintiffs is 419 00:21:46,240 --> 00:21:51,440 evidence that they were too attentive to race, which is 420 00:21:51,480 --> 00:21:54,920 a very fine line between being not attentive enough to race. 421 00:21:55,240 --> 00:21:56,880 And this is now where I'll turn over to Justin 422 00:21:56,960 --> 00:21:58,559 to use his driving metaphor. 423 00:21:59,359 --> 00:22:01,400 Speaker 4: Yeah, and this is the way I've explained it in 424 00:22:01,440 --> 00:22:04,079 the past. It's a very fine line if you're not 425 00:22:04,119 --> 00:22:06,640 trying so hard. And there are an awful lot of 426 00:22:06,640 --> 00:22:09,519 states that aren't trying so hard, right that seem to 427 00:22:09,559 --> 00:22:12,640 be caught between these impossible things that don't use race 428 00:22:12,680 --> 00:22:14,640 too much or don't use race too little. You're actually 429 00:22:14,640 --> 00:22:17,559 paying attention. It's not that hard. And driving is how 430 00:22:17,599 --> 00:22:19,240 I know, or how I explain that we can all 431 00:22:19,279 --> 00:22:23,759 do this. So if you are driving, you know probably 432 00:22:24,240 --> 00:22:26,079 it's important to pay attention to how fast you're going, 433 00:22:26,319 --> 00:22:28,359 and so you look at the spedometer from time to time. 434 00:22:28,799 --> 00:22:32,319 You also look at the GPS, and you look at 435 00:22:32,519 --> 00:22:34,359 the road in front of you, and you look traffic 436 00:22:34,400 --> 00:22:37,319 and the weather and the lighting conditions and the temperature 437 00:22:37,359 --> 00:22:39,079 inside the car and what's playing on the radio, and 438 00:22:39,119 --> 00:22:41,079 what the people in the backseat are doing, and the 439 00:22:41,079 --> 00:22:43,559 cars around you, and how much gas is in the tank, 440 00:22:43,640 --> 00:22:46,480 and also the speed and if you do all those things, 441 00:22:46,640 --> 00:22:48,680 like all of us do all the time. You're fine 442 00:22:49,480 --> 00:22:54,039 if you stare at the speedometer exclusively or predominantly to 443 00:22:54,079 --> 00:22:56,680 the subordination of everything else. If you're so fixated on 444 00:22:56,720 --> 00:22:58,720 speed that you don't take your eyes away from the sphenometer, 445 00:22:58,759 --> 00:23:02,680 you're going to crash. Same thing with race, if you 446 00:23:02,839 --> 00:23:06,480 consider race in the mix while you're also considering a 447 00:23:06,519 --> 00:23:09,680 bunch of other stuff like municipal boundaries and communities of 448 00:23:09,720 --> 00:23:13,759 interest in how the districts look and what communities they connect, 449 00:23:14,480 --> 00:23:18,359 it's fine. If you stare at race to the subordination 450 00:23:18,480 --> 00:23:21,440 of everything else, you're going to crash unless you've got 451 00:23:21,480 --> 00:23:24,000 a really good reason. And what the planners are saying 452 00:23:24,000 --> 00:23:27,480 here is if you hit fifty point one percent, fifty 453 00:23:27,519 --> 00:23:30,880 point two percent, fifty point five percent, that kind of 454 00:23:30,880 --> 00:23:34,160 shows you were staring at race a lot like those 455 00:23:34,160 --> 00:23:38,599 aren't numbers that you just coincidentally land on, and you 456 00:23:38,720 --> 00:23:41,079 don't have a good enough reason because nothing made you 457 00:23:41,160 --> 00:23:46,079 do that. These districts were actually performing for minority communities 458 00:23:46,079 --> 00:23:49,119 of much lower numbers. Nobody said you had to overpack them, 459 00:23:49,359 --> 00:23:53,519 which dilutes and bleaches out some voting power elsewhere in 460 00:23:53,559 --> 00:23:58,039 the state, And so you stare at race so much 461 00:23:58,480 --> 00:24:00,839 that you crashed. At least that's Cline's case here. 462 00:24:02,599 --> 00:24:08,039 Speaker 3: So I have a big picture question here about something 463 00:24:08,039 --> 00:24:12,079 that I've been wondering about and would appreciate someone who 464 00:24:12,119 --> 00:24:14,799 actually understands the law to tell me whether I'm completely 465 00:24:14,799 --> 00:24:17,200 off base or not. I wonder a lot about, like 466 00:24:17,279 --> 00:24:21,519 whether what's happening now bears any resemblance Eleanor to a 467 00:24:21,839 --> 00:24:26,799 case you covered very early in your tribute career around 468 00:24:27,000 --> 00:24:32,039 SB eight, the abortion law right where Texas wrote this 469 00:24:32,079 --> 00:24:37,200 abortion law that didn't explicitly ban abortion, but had the 470 00:24:37,240 --> 00:24:42,480 effect of banning abortion, and it went to the courts 471 00:24:42,960 --> 00:24:45,160 and everyone was like, this is so obviously going to 472 00:24:45,160 --> 00:24:48,519 be rejected, et cetera, et cetera. And what we didn't 473 00:24:48,599 --> 00:24:51,480 really I think taken to consideration at that time, is 474 00:24:51,519 --> 00:24:55,480 that simultaneous to that, this very different Supreme Court that 475 00:24:55,640 --> 00:25:00,480 had very different ideas around abortion law than and the 476 00:25:00,480 --> 00:25:03,480 previous precedent that everyone was working around sort of had 477 00:25:03,519 --> 00:25:08,079 their concurrently sites on completely sort of changing how abortion 478 00:25:08,200 --> 00:25:13,920 cases are evaluated. And that law ended up being upheld, 479 00:25:14,079 --> 00:25:19,000 and a few months later, abortion the you know, the 480 00:25:19,519 --> 00:25:21,960 right to abortion as it was interpreted in the Constitution 481 00:25:22,359 --> 00:25:25,920 was overturned and that changed. I wonder if there are 482 00:25:26,039 --> 00:25:29,720 signs that we're doing the same thing here right, which 483 00:25:29,759 --> 00:25:32,279 is that we're basing all these kind of you can't 484 00:25:32,319 --> 00:25:34,200 do this, you can't do this on precedent that was 485 00:25:34,240 --> 00:25:38,000 set by a previous Supreme Court that has very different 486 00:25:38,079 --> 00:25:42,160 perspectives on how this can and should work than the 487 00:25:42,160 --> 00:25:49,960 one that currently exists. And that's, you know, we're essentially 488 00:25:50,000 --> 00:25:53,440 that essentially means we're evaluating things differently than they're actually 489 00:25:53,480 --> 00:25:56,799 going to ultimately be evaluated. What do you think about that? 490 00:25:57,680 --> 00:25:57,920 Speaker 1: Bought? 491 00:25:59,359 --> 00:26:06,720 Speaker 4: Maybe it's not wrong, but the way that's unflimately going 492 00:26:06,799 --> 00:26:09,200 to work out is complicated. So, first of all, I'll 493 00:26:09,240 --> 00:26:12,440 say it is abundantly true that this Supreme Court is 494 00:26:12,559 --> 00:26:14,279 very different from the Supreme Court of a few years 495 00:26:14,319 --> 00:26:18,200 ago even and that it's also true that they have 496 00:26:18,240 --> 00:26:20,920 a case in front of them right now, like literally 497 00:26:21,000 --> 00:26:23,240 right now, about to be argued. I think this week 498 00:26:24,480 --> 00:26:29,079 that drives sort of what happens or what could happen 499 00:26:29,119 --> 00:26:33,240 with the Voting Rights Act. So big deal case for sure. 500 00:26:37,920 --> 00:26:41,440 Two things I think are true. One, the Supreme Court 501 00:26:41,559 --> 00:26:43,640 also had a big deal case on the voting Rights 502 00:26:43,680 --> 00:26:47,000 Act two years ago effectively the same court effectively the 503 00:26:47,000 --> 00:26:50,960 same conditions, and it said, yeah, you know what, the 504 00:26:51,000 --> 00:26:53,000 status quo, the rules were all used to are fine. 505 00:26:53,680 --> 00:26:56,799 Like it actually had the chance to do to change 506 00:26:56,880 --> 00:26:59,200 things in a very real way, the same way that 507 00:26:59,200 --> 00:27:03,000 people were a sort of worried about Dobbs that happened 508 00:27:03,000 --> 00:27:04,960 to Dobbs. Had the chance to do that with Voting 509 00:27:05,000 --> 00:27:08,079 Rights Act two years ago and didn't. And so I 510 00:27:08,119 --> 00:27:11,440 don't think the surrounding conditions have changed over much. Doesn't 511 00:27:11,440 --> 00:27:14,920 mean they won't do something big this coming term, but 512 00:27:15,359 --> 00:27:17,200 there's a pretty good possibility that they take a look 513 00:27:17,200 --> 00:27:18,640 and they say, yeah, you know what, the rules that 514 00:27:18,640 --> 00:27:20,119 we've had, just like they did two years ago, the 515 00:27:20,160 --> 00:27:23,680 rules we've got are essentially fine, even if they do 516 00:27:23,759 --> 00:27:26,599 change things. You are right that this Supreme Court has 517 00:27:26,640 --> 00:27:30,319 a very different take on race than a lot of 518 00:27:30,359 --> 00:27:35,640 their predecessors. But that's not in the direction of wanting 519 00:27:35,720 --> 00:27:40,319 states to use race more. If anything, it's in the 520 00:27:40,359 --> 00:27:43,200 direction of wanting states to use race a lot less. 521 00:27:44,000 --> 00:27:46,960 And the constitutional claims that Eleanor talked about that they're 522 00:27:47,000 --> 00:27:50,440 hearing this week are all about using race more. We're 523 00:27:50,559 --> 00:27:56,000 using race in impermissible ways. And so it's for a 524 00:27:56,160 --> 00:28:00,960 court whose instinct is when you use race in certain 525 00:28:01,000 --> 00:28:05,119 ways in the process, it's bad. It's awful hard to 526 00:28:05,200 --> 00:28:09,759 intervene in a way that allows lots of bad use 527 00:28:09,799 --> 00:28:14,559 of race but also doesn't allow the Voting Rights Act, right, 528 00:28:14,559 --> 00:28:18,200 They're going to have to pick and choose a little bit. 529 00:28:19,359 --> 00:28:21,920 And the doctrines that we're talking about right now, the 530 00:28:21,920 --> 00:28:23,880 ones that are an issue in Olpaso that I don't 531 00:28:23,920 --> 00:28:27,039 orly just spend a couple of days listening to, are, 532 00:28:27,200 --> 00:28:32,559 if anything, sort of the Supreme Court's probably inclined to 533 00:28:32,839 --> 00:28:34,960 dial those up to eleven, not to dab them down. 534 00:28:37,000 --> 00:28:38,960 Speaker 3: It also just I mean, I guess one of the 535 00:28:38,960 --> 00:28:41,319 things I think about here is as something that has 536 00:28:41,319 --> 00:28:44,880 also changed around redisearching is just the technology right there. 537 00:28:45,240 --> 00:28:50,720 It is much easier to achieve your ends without explicitly 538 00:28:50,799 --> 00:28:53,359 thinking about race, right. And so if we have a 539 00:28:53,400 --> 00:28:57,720 Supreme Court that is willing to let you do that 540 00:28:57,880 --> 00:29:00,319 and focus on how much you thought about race and 541 00:29:00,400 --> 00:29:05,000 not the ultimate impact of people of color in the 542 00:29:05,039 --> 00:29:07,400 final decisions that were going to be made, like, does 543 00:29:07,440 --> 00:29:12,640 that give states a lot more leeway to achieve their 544 00:29:12,720 --> 00:29:13,799 partisan goals. 545 00:29:14,119 --> 00:29:19,440 Speaker 4: In the long run, it could those same technological tools 546 00:29:19,759 --> 00:29:25,240 also allow plaintiffs the opportunity to prove that what you 547 00:29:25,279 --> 00:29:27,559 were really doing here was based on ranks. Right. Nope, 548 00:29:27,799 --> 00:29:33,119 nobody thinks that the Texas legislators don't understand the racial 549 00:29:33,160 --> 00:29:39,119 balance of their communities. And to your point, under walk 550 00:29:39,200 --> 00:29:42,079 through the racial composition of a whole lot of districts 551 00:29:42,359 --> 00:29:45,759 right there before passage. But that wasn't news to anybody 552 00:29:45,880 --> 00:29:49,359 in the audience. The tenth of a percent might be news, 553 00:29:49,720 --> 00:29:52,039 but the overall composition of what this district looked like 554 00:29:52,119 --> 00:29:57,039 was news to anybody in the legislature. So it's fiction, 555 00:29:57,799 --> 00:30:02,400 patent fiction to say that the isn't aware of race, 556 00:30:03,240 --> 00:30:06,000 given that the same technological tools that let them draw 557 00:30:06,079 --> 00:30:09,640 superpartisan maps also let other people say, yeah, but did 558 00:30:09,640 --> 00:30:11,559 you have to do that in a way that targeted race? 559 00:30:11,640 --> 00:30:11,880 Speaker 2: Though? 560 00:30:12,279 --> 00:30:17,079 Speaker 4: It actually provides some some CSI like evidence about what 561 00:30:17,200 --> 00:30:20,880 you were how you were going about achieving the partisan goals. 562 00:30:21,000 --> 00:30:23,359 And that's the thing that's going to be really important. 563 00:30:23,400 --> 00:30:26,319 I think in the case that's currently in front of 564 00:30:26,319 --> 00:30:29,920 the court is not the did you it's the how 565 00:30:30,000 --> 00:30:30,319 did you? 566 00:30:31,319 --> 00:30:31,480 Speaker 1: Right? 567 00:30:31,519 --> 00:30:33,920 Speaker 2: And like the plaintiffs have put up their experts who say, 568 00:30:33,960 --> 00:30:37,960 you know, we drew you know, speaking sort of hyperbolically, 569 00:30:38,000 --> 00:30:40,599 but you know, we drew ten thousand maps that achieve 570 00:30:40,640 --> 00:30:44,319 your partisan goals, and you chose one that paid you know, 571 00:30:44,359 --> 00:30:47,160 the version you chose paid too much attention to race. 572 00:30:47,720 --> 00:30:49,960 But this question of who like this is why the 573 00:30:50,039 --> 00:30:52,119 question that the plaintiffs in the state, and today is 574 00:30:52,119 --> 00:30:54,319 a very important day for this, are trying to get 575 00:30:54,319 --> 00:30:56,799 to the bottom of is who drew the maps and 576 00:30:56,920 --> 00:31:00,799 who knew what about the draw of the maps when 577 00:31:00,839 --> 00:31:06,279 it happened. Because the state legislators are claiming that they 578 00:31:06,440 --> 00:31:08,519 did not draw the maps, they knew nothing about the maps, 579 00:31:08,559 --> 00:31:11,799 they did not know the racial they never looked at 580 00:31:11,799 --> 00:31:14,720 any racial data. They were given maps that they then 581 00:31:14,920 --> 00:31:17,359 sent for legal review. They were found to be in 582 00:31:17,599 --> 00:31:20,160 compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, so 583 00:31:20,200 --> 00:31:23,720 they pass them. Today the state will put on the 584 00:31:23,759 --> 00:31:28,279 stand Adam Kincaid, who is sort of the GOP's map 585 00:31:28,400 --> 00:31:33,680 drawer in chief. He drew Texas' twenty twenty one maps, 586 00:31:35,559 --> 00:31:40,839 recently drew Terrent County's new commissioner's court map. His role 587 00:31:40,920 --> 00:31:43,319 in this redistricting has been a little bit harder to 588 00:31:43,519 --> 00:31:47,079 pin down there was some original resistance from Republican lawmakers 589 00:31:47,119 --> 00:31:50,680 to say that he was involved. It seems likely that 590 00:31:50,720 --> 00:31:54,200 he was involved, and he will testify today in El Paso, 591 00:31:54,519 --> 00:31:59,160 where you know the state. I presume I'm here, obviously not. 592 00:31:59,240 --> 00:32:01,559 There will be said saying, you know, he'll say I 593 00:32:01,559 --> 00:32:03,720 didn't look at race at all. I just looked at 594 00:32:03,759 --> 00:32:07,680 partisan data and I drew constitutional maps. The plaintiffs will say, 595 00:32:07,720 --> 00:32:10,799 you know, they want to prove maybe lawmakers didn't look 596 00:32:10,799 --> 00:32:13,000 at racial data, but the guy who drew the map 597 00:32:13,480 --> 00:32:17,079 looked at racial data. I mean, just what's sort of 598 00:32:17,119 --> 00:32:20,200 your read on how he fits into the arguments. 599 00:32:20,359 --> 00:32:22,359 Speaker 4: I think that's right. I think this is where the 600 00:32:22,400 --> 00:32:24,319 fact that they've been fighting over this for four years 601 00:32:24,359 --> 00:32:27,039 actually makes a pretty big difference, because the three judges 602 00:32:27,079 --> 00:32:30,039 on this court have heard an awful lot about who 603 00:32:30,119 --> 00:32:32,559 knew what when when it came to the drawing of 604 00:32:32,559 --> 00:32:35,000 the twenty one maps, and they're not going to just 605 00:32:35,119 --> 00:32:39,599 etch a sketch forget that when they're evaluating the latest evidents. 606 00:32:39,680 --> 00:32:42,279 So they've come to we don't know what those conclusions are, 607 00:32:42,720 --> 00:32:45,440 but they've probably come to some pretty strong conclusions based 608 00:32:45,480 --> 00:32:48,039 on an awful lot of evidence they heard about who 609 00:32:48,119 --> 00:32:50,559 was looking at what win, how much they considered what when, 610 00:32:50,599 --> 00:32:53,960 what ways in which they considered what when, and that 611 00:32:54,599 --> 00:32:58,400 even though that was a different process, they're going to 612 00:32:58,480 --> 00:33:02,559 carry that information over to what they're evaluating for twenty 613 00:33:02,559 --> 00:33:06,839 five and I think that background actually makes a pretty 614 00:33:06,839 --> 00:33:08,720 big difference in how they're going to evaluate what they 615 00:33:08,799 --> 00:33:10,839 hear today and for the rest of this hearing. 616 00:33:11,880 --> 00:33:16,799 Speaker 3: Do recent political shifts have any impact on this? I mean, 617 00:33:16,920 --> 00:33:19,799 one thing that has happened between twenty twenty one and 618 00:33:19,839 --> 00:33:27,039 twenty twenty five is the idea that Hispanic voters are 619 00:33:28,119 --> 00:33:33,039 more likely Democratic voters than Republican voters. Has there's been 620 00:33:33,200 --> 00:33:36,519 reason to question that? And you know, the most recent 621 00:33:36,559 --> 00:33:39,680 presidential election, you know, indications that a lot of Hispanic 622 00:33:39,720 --> 00:33:43,519 communities were lurching very strongly to the right. Does that 623 00:33:44,079 --> 00:33:47,039 change the dynamic or the legal argument or the questions 624 00:33:47,079 --> 00:33:47,599 here at all? 625 00:33:48,359 --> 00:33:52,000 Speaker 4: It changes the evidence a little bit. And notice the 626 00:33:52,039 --> 00:33:55,359 way that you just said that if what Texas legislators 627 00:33:55,400 --> 00:33:58,880 were targeting were Republicans, that means something very different than 628 00:33:59,079 --> 00:34:03,400 what Texas legislator we're targeting were Latinos or Hispanics. Because 629 00:34:03,400 --> 00:34:06,480 of the way they vote right, and that that could 630 00:34:06,559 --> 00:34:10,000 well make all the difference in the legal case if they, 631 00:34:10,719 --> 00:34:13,559 using their background knowledge about trends in the Latino or 632 00:34:13,639 --> 00:34:16,679 Hispanic community, said I'm going to move those people in 633 00:34:16,960 --> 00:34:22,400 because they're likely solid Republicans because they're Latino. That's very 634 00:34:22,440 --> 00:34:25,920 different from the likely solid Republicans. So it changes a 635 00:34:25,920 --> 00:34:28,000 little bit of the evidence that the planets are presenting 636 00:34:28,039 --> 00:34:28,719 this week, I think. 637 00:34:31,360 --> 00:34:37,960 Speaker 3: So let's say, hypothetically, this three judge panel, it would 638 00:34:38,039 --> 00:34:40,239 be an injunction. What's the what's. 639 00:34:40,039 --> 00:34:42,400 Speaker 2: The They've been asked to grant a preliminary in junction 640 00:34:43,000 --> 00:34:47,159 and effectively, you know, use the twenty twenty one maps 641 00:34:48,400 --> 00:34:49,639 for the twenty twenty sixth election. 642 00:34:50,039 --> 00:34:54,400 Speaker 3: So what happens if this? Like, what are the options here? 643 00:34:54,440 --> 00:34:57,599 I mean, could they is it basically they use the 644 00:34:57,599 --> 00:34:59,440 twenty twenty one maps, or they use the twenty twenty 645 00:34:59,440 --> 00:35:03,079 five maps. There are other possibilities here. What are the 646 00:35:03,119 --> 00:35:05,719 potential outcomes we could see in the coming weeks. 647 00:35:06,679 --> 00:35:11,239 Speaker 4: There's a very long shot possibility that the court decides 648 00:35:11,280 --> 00:35:14,760 to draw its own maps or use some other expert 649 00:35:14,800 --> 00:35:16,599 set of maps for twenty six The reason I said 650 00:35:16,599 --> 00:35:18,719 it's a long shot is that itself takes a while 651 00:35:18,760 --> 00:35:22,639 to sort through, and they're really running hard against the clock. 652 00:35:23,159 --> 00:35:27,440 So the far more likely choices for more likely options 653 00:35:27,519 --> 00:35:30,199 are either, if there's something really wrong with the twenty 654 00:35:30,199 --> 00:35:32,119 five maps, we use the twenty one maps for now. 655 00:35:32,920 --> 00:35:34,880 And if there's not something really wrong with the twenty 656 00:35:34,880 --> 00:35:36,760 five maps, then we use the twenty five maps for now. 657 00:35:38,599 --> 00:35:39,360 Speaker 1: And I think. 658 00:35:40,880 --> 00:35:43,320 Speaker 3: Sorry, and one other quick thing there, but and then 659 00:35:43,559 --> 00:35:46,000 it's likely to go to the Supreme Court to decide. 660 00:35:46,400 --> 00:35:50,519 But before then, whether that injunction actually sticks before the. 661 00:35:50,440 --> 00:35:52,159 Speaker 1: Election, Yeah, yeah, yeah, ye, yes, yeah. 662 00:35:52,159 --> 00:35:55,320 Speaker 2: I think both sides have intimated, if not set out right, 663 00:35:55,360 --> 00:35:58,280 that they anticipate this going to the Supreme Court. And 664 00:35:58,280 --> 00:36:01,199 we should say, I mean that three judge panel, unfortunately 665 00:36:01,199 --> 00:36:03,559 for our like prognosticating, has not yet ruled in the 666 00:36:03,559 --> 00:36:06,239 twenty one maps. We don't know sort of where they're leaning. 667 00:36:06,519 --> 00:36:10,800 But it is, you know, one judge who and this 668 00:36:10,840 --> 00:36:12,920 is not the only arbiter of how their rule, but 669 00:36:13,000 --> 00:36:15,480 one judge who was appointed by President Obama, one judge 670 00:36:15,480 --> 00:36:18,039 who was appointed by President Trump, and a fifth Circuit 671 00:36:18,079 --> 00:36:22,159 judge who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, So a pretty 672 00:36:22,320 --> 00:36:24,480 politically diverse panel. 673 00:36:24,880 --> 00:36:26,800 Speaker 3: Well, this is a really interesting thing that I had 674 00:36:26,800 --> 00:36:28,760 not thought of until you just said that. But so 675 00:36:28,880 --> 00:36:31,199 the question of whether the twenty twenty one maps are 676 00:36:31,280 --> 00:36:34,719 legal remains up in the air. So there is a 677 00:36:34,840 --> 00:36:38,760 world in which a panel which will eventually find the 678 00:36:38,800 --> 00:36:43,400 twenty one maps illegal could decide to use those maps 679 00:36:43,960 --> 00:36:48,519 during this upcoming election instead of the what potentially more 680 00:36:48,559 --> 00:36:50,159 illegal twenty twenty five maps. 681 00:36:50,199 --> 00:36:52,559 Speaker 2: Well, and this is the state's art, Like, this is 682 00:36:52,639 --> 00:36:54,199 the state is saying like, well, if you think the 683 00:36:54,239 --> 00:36:56,280 twenty twenty one maps are so crap, why do you 684 00:36:56,320 --> 00:36:58,440 want us to be using those for an election? Like 685 00:36:59,719 --> 00:37:02,119 I would say, I'm curious your thoughts. Justin I felt 686 00:37:02,280 --> 00:37:05,079 sort of watching this like this is probably not great 687 00:37:05,119 --> 00:37:08,559 for the case on the twenty twenty one maps to 688 00:37:08,679 --> 00:37:11,079 be saying, for the plaintiffs to be like, we have 689 00:37:11,159 --> 00:37:12,400 found even worse maps. 690 00:37:13,840 --> 00:37:17,320 Speaker 4: Well, I mean there's I think from the plainiff's point 691 00:37:17,320 --> 00:37:19,280 of view, they're going to be good maps, they're going 692 00:37:19,360 --> 00:37:20,639 to be bad maps, and they're going to be even 693 00:37:20,679 --> 00:37:23,440 worse maps. Sure, and it's not crazy to think that 694 00:37:23,480 --> 00:37:25,559 you might not want the even worse maps if you 695 00:37:25,599 --> 00:37:28,199 have a shot at the bad maps and one day 696 00:37:28,679 --> 00:37:32,760 fight for the actual fair maps. And that's I think 697 00:37:32,840 --> 00:37:35,960 that the really sticky situation that Texas has put the 698 00:37:35,960 --> 00:37:39,440 plaintiffs in, and the reason they've been fighting for four 699 00:37:39,480 --> 00:37:43,239 years in court is to have the options at the 700 00:37:43,320 --> 00:37:46,119 moment be at least from the planeff's perspectives bad and 701 00:37:46,199 --> 00:37:51,039 worse and for the Texans perspectives better and a whole 702 00:37:51,039 --> 00:37:51,480 lot better. 703 00:37:52,280 --> 00:37:55,519 Speaker 2: Right, and truthfully, like we talk about this a lot 704 00:37:55,639 --> 00:37:58,079 understandably as like the maps, right, but all of these 705 00:37:58,079 --> 00:38:01,679 claims are about individual districts and individual concerns, and so 706 00:38:02,559 --> 00:38:05,679 you know, there may be ways in which that you know, 707 00:38:05,760 --> 00:38:08,119 you could remediate their concerns in the twenty one. 708 00:38:08,000 --> 00:38:10,679 Speaker 1: Maps that still you know, doesn't look like the twenty five. 709 00:38:10,760 --> 00:38:13,519 Speaker 2: You know, it's like these are ultimately it is a 710 00:38:13,559 --> 00:38:17,159 tweaking of lines. And on the twenty one map, like 711 00:38:17,239 --> 00:38:19,079 right now we're talk about an injunction. Yes, no, but 712 00:38:19,159 --> 00:38:22,440 the twenty one maps, it may look more like you 713 00:38:22,519 --> 00:38:25,840 need to move this here and this, you know, lop 714 00:38:25,880 --> 00:38:28,519 off these weird things you drew and draw this differently, 715 00:38:28,559 --> 00:38:32,360 so you could have two rulings that look very different. 716 00:38:32,360 --> 00:38:35,159 Speaker 1: But I was sort of as just a human person. 717 00:38:34,920 --> 00:38:37,239 Speaker 2: Watching this, I was like, I see the state's argument 718 00:38:37,280 --> 00:38:39,880 of like you know, oh, you hate these so much. 719 00:38:39,760 --> 00:38:42,679 Speaker 1: Until you saw something worse. You know, it's interesting. 720 00:38:42,719 --> 00:38:45,880 Speaker 3: I mean, this is an obvious point, but just I 721 00:38:45,920 --> 00:38:48,440 think one worth emphasizing. I mean, this is a really 722 00:38:48,760 --> 00:38:53,000 big deal for the politics. You know, there are topics 723 00:38:53,039 --> 00:38:55,480 of representation. I mean, you wrote a really great story 724 00:38:55,519 --> 00:38:58,039 about you know, how this could impact people in the 725 00:38:58,079 --> 00:39:00,920 Fort Worth community that would have a very different representative. 726 00:39:01,159 --> 00:39:04,719 But also just I mean, we're talking about five potential seats. 727 00:39:05,039 --> 00:39:07,599 I have some questions about whether all of those seats 728 00:39:07,639 --> 00:39:11,039 will three flip, but three to five potential seats that 729 00:39:11,079 --> 00:39:16,199 could determine the balance of the US House beyond twenty 730 00:39:16,239 --> 00:39:20,920 twenty six, and you know, could determine whether Democrats are 731 00:39:20,920 --> 00:39:23,960 controlling and able to you know, open investigations in a 732 00:39:24,039 --> 00:39:27,239 Donald Trump and you know, provide a check to Republican power, 733 00:39:27,480 --> 00:39:30,679 or whether Republicans will remain in power and be able 734 00:39:30,719 --> 00:39:32,880 to you know, clear a path for him to pursue 735 00:39:32,880 --> 00:39:37,199 his agenda. It's a it's a very granular topic but 736 00:39:37,320 --> 00:39:39,159 with huge, huge implications. 737 00:39:39,159 --> 00:39:41,280 Speaker 2: For the huge implications and I think one of the 738 00:39:41,320 --> 00:39:45,760 most sort of surprising things but understandably legally, but surprising 739 00:39:45,760 --> 00:39:48,280 to hear is how clearly the state has taken that 740 00:39:48,320 --> 00:39:50,440 on as like sort of in saying like, this is 741 00:39:50,480 --> 00:39:52,559 why we're doing this, and they have said, like to 742 00:39:52,719 --> 00:39:56,840 prevent investigations impeach you know, potential attempted to impeachment of 743 00:39:56,880 --> 00:39:59,400 the president, and of course, you know, to encourage his agenda. 744 00:39:59,480 --> 00:40:03,440 But it's really quite overt in making this these parts 745 00:40:03,440 --> 00:40:06,400 and claims. It's clear that they know what the stakes 746 00:40:06,400 --> 00:40:10,280 are and it's clear Democrats do too, Right, the Democrats 747 00:40:10,519 --> 00:40:13,079 don't want this, Yes, they. 748 00:40:12,960 --> 00:40:15,320 Speaker 1: Are concerned about the representation issues. They also don't want 749 00:40:15,320 --> 00:40:16,159 to lose five seats. 750 00:40:16,320 --> 00:40:16,719 Speaker 4: Yeah. 751 00:40:17,039 --> 00:40:21,639 Speaker 2: Yeah, It's extremely complicated, but at the end of the day, 752 00:40:21,719 --> 00:40:22,360 pretty simple. 753 00:40:22,440 --> 00:40:22,639 Speaker 4: Yeah. 754 00:40:22,719 --> 00:40:25,480 Speaker 3: Yeah, does this I mean there's also the question of 755 00:40:25,599 --> 00:40:30,920 other states following Texas's lead, including California. How does this case, 756 00:40:30,960 --> 00:40:34,679 if at all, affect the ability of these other states 757 00:40:34,679 --> 00:40:35,119 to do this. 758 00:40:36,280 --> 00:40:38,079 Speaker 4: I don't know that it affects the ability, but it 759 00:40:38,119 --> 00:40:40,159 sure affects the desire and the fact that we're here 760 00:40:40,239 --> 00:40:44,119 at all is sort of a waterfall that Texas kicked off, 761 00:40:45,920 --> 00:40:48,320 and it's worth making the point. I mean, Eleanor mentioned 762 00:40:48,360 --> 00:40:52,039 this up top, that all of this partisan action is 763 00:40:52,079 --> 00:40:56,320 not okay, it's actually not constitutional. It's just as she said, 764 00:40:56,440 --> 00:40:59,159 the courts have said, don't look to us to fix it. 765 00:40:59,719 --> 00:41:03,320 But this is a little bit like shoplifting. It's still 766 00:41:03,400 --> 00:41:05,639 illegal even if there's not a cop watching the store. 767 00:41:06,199 --> 00:41:09,280 And there's a whole lot of shoplifting going on openly 768 00:41:09,440 --> 00:41:12,039 and avowedly, which means there's a whole lot of Texas 769 00:41:12,079 --> 00:41:17,039 state legislators sort of violating their ow's of office because 770 00:41:17,079 --> 00:41:20,480 they're doing something out loud and quite vocal about it 771 00:41:20,519 --> 00:41:24,079 that violates the US Constitution. And because of that, and 772 00:41:24,119 --> 00:41:27,920 because courts won't step in, federal courts won't step in 773 00:41:28,000 --> 00:41:32,199 on partisan gerrymanders, that's created a little bit of a 774 00:41:32,199 --> 00:41:36,000 cascade around the rest of the country. You mentioned California 775 00:41:36,039 --> 00:41:37,599 has got an election coming up in less than a 776 00:41:37,639 --> 00:41:42,360 month about whether to approve a redrawing of Californian's own lines, 777 00:41:42,400 --> 00:41:45,840 whether to sort of kick its independent commission to the side, 778 00:41:46,400 --> 00:41:48,960 not permanently but temporarily for the next couple of years, 779 00:41:48,960 --> 00:41:51,159 in order to respond to what Texas has done. I 780 00:41:51,199 --> 00:41:56,000 think that in that same vein missouriist readrew its congressional lines, 781 00:41:56,000 --> 00:41:58,840 and there's litigation over that every which way. There are 782 00:41:58,840 --> 00:42:02,199 a couple of other states that have declared they're on 783 00:42:02,239 --> 00:42:06,239 the horizon, even if they're not quite there yet. Texas's 784 00:42:06,239 --> 00:42:10,480 decision to Rerejerrymander in the middle of the decade is 785 00:42:10,840 --> 00:42:14,679 a big deal, and it's horrible for voters of both 786 00:42:14,719 --> 00:42:16,920 parties all the way around. The whole premise of the 787 00:42:16,960 --> 00:42:20,320 system is that if you don't like what your representatives doing, 788 00:42:20,440 --> 00:42:22,639 you have the opportunity to pick a new one. Well, 789 00:42:22,760 --> 00:42:27,840 that kind of gets undermined if who the voters are 790 00:42:27,880 --> 00:42:29,880 that pick their representative, or the way in on whether 791 00:42:29,880 --> 00:42:33,559 they're representative effective keep changing before every election. So there 792 00:42:33,559 --> 00:42:36,400 are real good reasons not to redraw the lines year 793 00:42:36,440 --> 00:42:38,000 after year after year, or regain the lines in the 794 00:42:38,039 --> 00:42:42,400 middle of a decade, and voters know it. Where they've 795 00:42:42,440 --> 00:42:45,880 had the opportunity. In other states where there's the opportunity 796 00:42:46,000 --> 00:42:51,119 to directly change the rules, voters have taken that opportunity, 797 00:42:51,199 --> 00:42:53,840 and they've done it to take the power away from 798 00:42:54,000 --> 00:42:58,480 their own same parties officials. In Colorado, Democrats took the 799 00:42:58,480 --> 00:43:02,639 power away from Democratic legislators to drug the lines. In Utah, 800 00:43:02,960 --> 00:43:06,440 Republicans took the power away from Republican legislators to use 801 00:43:06,559 --> 00:43:09,599 to draw the line because they don't like this game plan. 802 00:43:10,320 --> 00:43:14,840 They think, and they're ready that they deserve representation for 803 00:43:14,960 --> 00:43:18,239 real communities with real problems, rather than just responding to, 804 00:43:18,960 --> 00:43:23,039 as you noted, sort of partisan freakouts at a national level. 805 00:43:24,719 --> 00:43:27,760 Speaker 2: Yeah, certainly one of those things where each side says 806 00:43:27,880 --> 00:43:31,760 to the other, you know, you go first is your fault, right, 807 00:43:31,800 --> 00:43:34,559 this is your fault. And if you lay down your weapons, 808 00:43:34,599 --> 00:43:38,800 will lay down ours, but not until you've laid yours down. Yeah, 809 00:43:39,000 --> 00:43:41,599 well it is you know this. The hearing is expected 810 00:43:41,639 --> 00:43:44,400 to conclude this week. We will get a ruling from there. 811 00:43:44,559 --> 00:43:47,599 We will see you at the Supreme Court probably and 812 00:43:48,639 --> 00:43:52,159 eventually get to know, you know, what the battle lines 813 00:43:52,159 --> 00:43:54,239 will look like for the twenty twenty six election and 814 00:43:54,400 --> 00:43:58,079 the rest of the decade, ostensibly one day. 815 00:43:58,159 --> 00:44:01,320 Speaker 1: Well know, and thank you so much for joining us. 816 00:44:01,320 --> 00:44:05,639 Speaker 2: This was a great conversation and you can get the 817 00:44:05,639 --> 00:44:08,440 trip cast anywhere you get your podcast. We are on YouTube. 818 00:44:08,599 --> 00:44:12,639 Our producers are Rob and Chris, and we will see 819 00:44:12,679 --> 00:44:13,679 you all next week.