1 00:00:07,879 --> 00:00:10,599 Speaker 1: This week's episode of the Tribcast is brought to you 2 00:00:10,679 --> 00:00:18,800 by south By Southwest. Hello, and welcome to the Texas 3 00:00:18,800 --> 00:00:23,199 Tribune Tribcast for Tuesday, November twenty fifth. I'm Eleanor Klibanoff, 4 00:00:23,359 --> 00:00:28,440 redistricting report uh law and politics reporter, basically redistricting. 5 00:00:27,960 --> 00:00:29,359 Speaker 2: Reporter for the Texas Tribute. 6 00:00:29,679 --> 00:00:32,479 Speaker 1: Yeah one and the same, joined this week by special 7 00:00:32,520 --> 00:00:35,200 guest host, politics editor Jasper Schaer. 8 00:00:35,280 --> 00:00:36,039 Speaker 3: Jasper, how are you? 9 00:00:36,240 --> 00:00:38,240 Speaker 4: I'm good, Thanks for thanks for having me. I feel 10 00:00:38,280 --> 00:00:41,600 like this is this is the appropriate topic to be discussing. 11 00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:44,880 It has dominated our work lives, so glad, We're glad 12 00:00:44,880 --> 00:00:45,320 we're doing it. 13 00:00:45,560 --> 00:00:48,159 Speaker 1: Like we both need a place to process through what 14 00:00:48,240 --> 00:00:50,240 has happened in the last week. 15 00:00:50,399 --> 00:00:51,520 Speaker 2: Therapy session, Yeah. 16 00:00:51,439 --> 00:00:52,200 Speaker 3: Therapy session. 17 00:00:53,359 --> 00:00:57,399 Speaker 1: Matthew is having probably an actual therapy session, and you 18 00:00:57,439 --> 00:00:59,920 know his is off for the week, well deserved after 19 00:01:00,719 --> 00:01:05,040 very busy trip fest. But for those of you traveling 20 00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:08,319 for the holidays or looking to escape your families for 21 00:01:08,319 --> 00:01:11,560 about forty minutes, we are here for you to bring 22 00:01:11,599 --> 00:01:15,640 you into our weird family of our feuding uncles Jeff 23 00:01:15,680 --> 00:01:18,920 Brown and Jerry Smith. We're gonna talk this week, obviously 24 00:01:18,959 --> 00:01:23,959 about redistricting and just sort of walk through where things stand. 25 00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:26,799 Speaker 3: But it's been a crazy week or so. 26 00:01:27,079 --> 00:01:29,920 Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, the last as they say, the last week 27 00:01:29,959 --> 00:01:33,879 has been a crazy year. And yeah, I just feel 28 00:01:33,920 --> 00:01:40,000 like everyone involved in the Texas political arena is experiencing 29 00:01:40,040 --> 00:01:43,359 some whiplash with just how you know, especially thinking of 30 00:01:43,400 --> 00:01:47,480 these these candidates who you know, essentially they're for a 31 00:01:47,519 --> 00:01:49,640 lot of them, they're like political futures are going to 32 00:01:49,680 --> 00:01:53,159 be dictated by you know, they're kind of at the 33 00:01:54,000 --> 00:01:57,120 whim of the Supreme Court within the next hopefully next 34 00:01:57,200 --> 00:01:59,120 week or so. I mean, I know the state has 35 00:01:59,239 --> 00:02:04,799 asked for a specific deadline for the High Court to 36 00:02:04,799 --> 00:02:08,560 step in, but I don't know, it's I guess we 37 00:02:08,639 --> 00:02:12,479 have the real deadline is December eighth, that's the filing deadline. 38 00:02:12,520 --> 00:02:15,599 But I think ideally, you know, we'll get some sort 39 00:02:15,639 --> 00:02:18,319 of ruling with a little bit of runway for candidates 40 00:02:18,360 --> 00:02:20,439 to decide what they're what they're going. 41 00:02:20,360 --> 00:02:20,919 Speaker 2: To do here. 42 00:02:21,319 --> 00:02:24,159 Speaker 1: Yeah, hopefully, I mean where it stands now basically is 43 00:02:24,199 --> 00:02:29,599 that the okay, so the to walk us through this. 44 00:02:29,719 --> 00:02:35,199 Last Tuesday, the District Court three judge panel issued their 45 00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:38,400 ruling basically saying Texas's twenty twenty five maps. The maps 46 00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:42,599 they drew over the summer showed a high likelihood that 47 00:02:42,719 --> 00:02:45,840 they engaged the lawmakers engage in racial jerry mandering and 48 00:02:45,919 --> 00:02:49,319 drawing the maps they should not be used for the 49 00:02:49,319 --> 00:02:53,159 twenty twenty six elections while sort of that case proceeds 50 00:02:53,280 --> 00:02:54,960 onward through the legal system. 51 00:02:54,960 --> 00:02:57,039 Speaker 2: Which could take months, years, years. 52 00:02:57,120 --> 00:02:58,800 Speaker 1: Yeah, Like we just had the hearing for the twenty 53 00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:02,319 twenty one maps earlier summer. So they were like, while 54 00:03:02,360 --> 00:03:03,840 we sort that out, just go back and use the 55 00:03:03,879 --> 00:03:07,719 twenty twenty one maps that again are still under legal review. 56 00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:12,520 Speaker 4: But right and also still you know, also a partisan jerrymander. 57 00:03:12,560 --> 00:03:15,439 But you know, I think we would be remiss if 58 00:03:15,479 --> 00:03:18,479 we didn't point out that it's still the both of 59 00:03:18,520 --> 00:03:21,800 these maps heavily advantaged Republicans were just talking about totally right, 60 00:03:21,800 --> 00:03:25,080 one that would potentially advantage them even more. 61 00:03:25,120 --> 00:03:28,360 Speaker 1: Right, right, Like Republicans remain the dominant political force in Texas. 62 00:03:28,400 --> 00:03:31,719 The twenty twenty one map was drawn by Republican lawmakers 63 00:03:31,840 --> 00:03:36,639 to support Republican candidates, maybe more to support incumbents than 64 00:03:36,680 --> 00:03:41,120 to take like a very aggressive tack towards building Republican districts, 65 00:03:41,159 --> 00:03:45,319 but a very I mean that's why that it's one 66 00:03:45,319 --> 00:03:47,319 of the reasons that that map was challenging court was 67 00:03:47,360 --> 00:03:50,280 that plaintiffs were unhappy with both what they saw as 68 00:03:50,599 --> 00:03:53,560 racial jerrymandering, but also you know, it was a very 69 00:03:53,599 --> 00:03:55,199 aggressive Republican map. 70 00:03:55,080 --> 00:03:55,479 Speaker 2: Right yeah. 71 00:03:55,479 --> 00:03:59,159 Speaker 4: I mean I think just sort of you know, overarching summary. 72 00:03:59,199 --> 00:04:02,240 I mean, the state has thirty eight congressional districts, and 73 00:04:02,479 --> 00:04:04,759 you know what we're talking about between these two maps 74 00:04:04,800 --> 00:04:11,000 is you know, a current layout where Republicans pretty almost 75 00:04:11,039 --> 00:04:15,159 automatically control twenty five of those thirty eight seats unless 76 00:04:15,159 --> 00:04:18,759 we see a you know, a mega blue wave in November, 77 00:04:19,319 --> 00:04:21,959 and that's you know, compared to this twenty twenty five 78 00:04:22,040 --> 00:04:26,720 map that would you know, secure up to thirty seats 79 00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:29,120 for Republicans. I think, you know, maybe somewhere in the 80 00:04:29,120 --> 00:04:32,000 ballpark of twenty eight to thirty, depending on how I 81 00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:36,360 think those those two South Texas districts are kind of 82 00:04:36,399 --> 00:04:40,680 the most iffy for Republicans, which which we can talk about, 83 00:04:40,720 --> 00:04:43,319 but you know, it's we're kind of talking about a 84 00:04:43,360 --> 00:04:47,319 sliding scale of like a three to five seat difference. 85 00:04:47,560 --> 00:04:49,639 Speaker 1: Which could make a huge difference in the US House. 86 00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:52,279 It's a little bit less I mean to these candidates. 87 00:04:52,319 --> 00:04:54,199 It's relevant in Texas, but this is much more of 88 00:04:54,240 --> 00:04:56,680 a national situation. 89 00:04:56,360 --> 00:05:00,519 Speaker 4: That does happen to be roughly the margin of you know, 90 00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:03,120 the how closely the house is divided right now? 91 00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:04,279 Speaker 2: So there you go. 92 00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:08,279 Speaker 1: So these judges, so the three judge panel redistricting cases 93 00:05:08,319 --> 00:05:10,480 are weird. They go before three judges instead of one. 94 00:05:10,959 --> 00:05:13,639 They issued this ruling from two of the three judges 95 00:05:13,759 --> 00:05:17,240 last Tuesday, saying there's evidence Texas virtually jerrymanderd used the 96 00:05:17,279 --> 00:05:21,720 twenty twenty one maps while we sort this out. Unsurprisingly, 97 00:05:22,519 --> 00:05:26,439 Texas appealed that to the Supreme Court. Again, redistricting is weird. 98 00:05:26,480 --> 00:05:30,480 It goes directly the Supreme Court. We can talk about 99 00:05:30,480 --> 00:05:32,399 what the third judge had to say, but that's sort 100 00:05:32,399 --> 00:05:33,680 of less relevant to the timeline. 101 00:05:33,720 --> 00:05:34,759 Speaker 2: But do you have something to say? 102 00:05:34,800 --> 00:05:36,480 Speaker 3: Yeah, I have a few things to say. 103 00:05:37,519 --> 00:05:43,000 Speaker 1: So Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees cases from 104 00:05:43,040 --> 00:05:46,639 Texas or emergency orders from Texas, stepped in granted a 105 00:05:46,720 --> 00:05:51,560 temporary administrative stay, sending Texas back to the twenty twenty 106 00:05:51,600 --> 00:05:54,600 five maps on Friday night while they figure out whether 107 00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:56,920 or not they want what map they want Texas to use. 108 00:05:57,000 --> 00:05:59,160 While all of this proceeds, and so we are now 109 00:05:59,199 --> 00:06:02,160 currently in theme. Is possible by the time this you 110 00:06:02,199 --> 00:06:04,279 hear this, it has already been resolved. But in all 111 00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:07,519 likelihood we're still in the waiting game of you know, 112 00:06:07,879 --> 00:06:10,639 what will the Supreme Court say, not even did Texas 113 00:06:10,720 --> 00:06:14,680 racially jerrymander or is the map unconstitutional or did the 114 00:06:14,759 --> 00:06:17,360 DJ let her mean anything. All we're going to find 115 00:06:17,399 --> 00:06:23,199 out is what map should Texas use while the Supreme 116 00:06:23,240 --> 00:06:26,439 Court appeal proceeds, which, considering the as you said, the 117 00:06:26,560 --> 00:06:29,480 short timeline, is likely to have huge impacts. 118 00:06:29,600 --> 00:06:30,160 Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure. 119 00:06:30,199 --> 00:06:34,279 Speaker 4: I mean, I guess I'm curious from you from your standpoint, 120 00:06:34,319 --> 00:06:36,720 from your reporting and just kind of looking at the 121 00:06:36,879 --> 00:06:41,480 precedent when situations like this have happened before in other states. 122 00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:44,040 I mean, I guess I am curious, you know, if 123 00:06:44,120 --> 00:06:48,759 the fact that Alito, you know, issued this this short 124 00:06:48,839 --> 00:06:52,959 term decision, you know, if we can read anything kind 125 00:06:52,959 --> 00:06:55,120 of from the tea leaves out of that. And I 126 00:06:55,120 --> 00:06:59,600 guess I'm also you know, wondering if you know, typically 127 00:06:59,639 --> 00:07:03,000 the sp Court has established in the past that it 128 00:07:03,040 --> 00:07:07,319 will you know, lean in the direction of stepping in 129 00:07:07,480 --> 00:07:11,879 and you know, keeping the maps on hold, you know, 130 00:07:11,920 --> 00:07:16,480 for the upcoming election cycle versus h you know, stepping 131 00:07:16,480 --> 00:07:19,839 into to allow them. So I think that has maybe 132 00:07:19,879 --> 00:07:22,240 happened in Louisiana recently. 133 00:07:22,480 --> 00:07:24,720 Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I don't know that we can read 134 00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:28,279 a ton into Aledo's temporary administrative stay. I mean, obviously 135 00:07:28,319 --> 00:07:31,240 Samuel Ledo a very conservative justice. There's been this like 136 00:07:31,240 --> 00:07:35,120 sort of conservative effort or conservative the conservative justice on 137 00:07:35,120 --> 00:07:39,199 the court have been increasingly opposed to some of the 138 00:07:39,839 --> 00:07:43,199 racial gerrymandering arguments have been brought in front of them recently. 139 00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:46,160 So like it, if there is a tea leaf to read, 140 00:07:46,199 --> 00:07:49,759 it's that, like Samuel Ledo remains a very conservative justice. 141 00:07:50,439 --> 00:07:52,680 To get the broader stay, we'll have to go before 142 00:07:52,680 --> 00:07:56,079 the full court in all likelihood. And like, I think 143 00:07:56,480 --> 00:08:00,000 it's not crazy to say, you know, these conservative justices 144 00:08:00,079 --> 00:08:07,079 are probably not overly like sold on the idea that 145 00:08:07,279 --> 00:08:11,759 these racial jerrymandering claims will hold up in court. They've 146 00:08:11,839 --> 00:08:14,800 basically taken very different approaches on a case to case 147 00:08:14,839 --> 00:08:17,959 basis in other states, which I guess is what you 148 00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:20,000 would want your Supreme Court to do, right Like they 149 00:08:20,000 --> 00:08:23,480 are not. It's not as easy to say, like, you know, ugh, 150 00:08:23,800 --> 00:08:27,519 the six conservative justices. There ain't no way they're gonna 151 00:08:27,600 --> 00:08:30,079 let Texas, you know, use the twenty twenty one maps. 152 00:08:30,360 --> 00:08:34,200 There have been cases certainly where they have you know, 153 00:08:34,399 --> 00:08:36,799 intervened in one direction versus the other. There was an 154 00:08:36,840 --> 00:08:39,080 interesting case in Alabama a couple of years ago where 155 00:08:39,080 --> 00:08:44,720 they did issue a stay and said, like basically they said, like, 156 00:08:45,399 --> 00:08:47,279 Alabama should use the new maps that they drew. We 157 00:08:47,320 --> 00:08:50,200 don't the implicitly saying like, we don't believe that there's 158 00:08:50,200 --> 00:08:53,240 evidence of racial gerrymandering. Two years or a little more 159 00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:54,919 than a year later, they came back with their official 160 00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:57,200 ruling and said, like, no, you were right, there was 161 00:08:57,360 --> 00:08:58,320 racial jerrymandering. 162 00:08:58,679 --> 00:09:00,120 Speaker 3: That map should have been struck down. 163 00:09:00,480 --> 00:09:02,000 Speaker 4: But I guess, you know, in the Texas case, you 164 00:09:02,039 --> 00:09:05,039 could theoretically have the flip side scenario where they you know, 165 00:09:05,080 --> 00:09:08,480 potentially put this map, this new map on hold for 166 00:09:08,519 --> 00:09:11,279 the twenty twenty six elections, but then come back and 167 00:09:11,840 --> 00:09:13,840 rule for you know, I guess the twenty twenty eight 168 00:09:13,919 --> 00:09:17,840 cycle that actually this map is fair game. 169 00:09:17,879 --> 00:09:20,679 Speaker 2: So I guess you know, you could see the convex 170 00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:21,519 of that, right. 171 00:09:21,559 --> 00:09:25,279 Speaker 1: It's like very I mean, and there's no way any 172 00:09:25,399 --> 00:09:29,720 Supreme Court justice is not taking some political calculation on 173 00:09:29,759 --> 00:09:33,440 this not I mean, I you know, all the experts 174 00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:36,279 I've talked I've spoken to are like in many ways, 175 00:09:36,360 --> 00:09:38,960 I Supreme Court justices. 176 00:09:38,639 --> 00:09:40,519 Speaker 3: Are not as politically. 177 00:09:42,279 --> 00:09:45,080 Speaker 1: Or like, are not as politicized as we think or 178 00:09:45,120 --> 00:09:46,519 like as the caricature would make you think. 179 00:09:46,559 --> 00:09:46,639 Speaker 2: Like. 180 00:09:46,639 --> 00:09:48,639 Speaker 1: They are still like thoughtful jurists who will look at 181 00:09:48,639 --> 00:09:53,480 each case on its merits and also like it's the 182 00:09:53,519 --> 00:09:56,759 most usually like when they're dealing with redistricting cases, at 183 00:09:56,840 --> 00:09:59,399 least they have like a lot of states all happening 184 00:09:59,440 --> 00:10:02,879 at once, and this is like just Texas. 185 00:10:02,320 --> 00:10:06,480 Speaker 4: And it's just pure politics, pure partisanship, pure you know. 186 00:10:06,519 --> 00:10:10,080 It's it's probably more so than any other case you 187 00:10:10,120 --> 00:10:14,000 could realistically like draw up that would ever go before them. 188 00:10:14,039 --> 00:10:17,279 So it's it's of course impossible to imagine how you 189 00:10:17,320 --> 00:10:20,320 could look at this through just like a purely uh 190 00:10:20,919 --> 00:10:25,759 you know, judicial textbook lens. So I you know, I 191 00:10:26,519 --> 00:10:30,759 it strikes me that I guess the Court has also 192 00:10:30,960 --> 00:10:34,960 established essentially that you know, when it's sort of a 193 00:10:35,000 --> 00:10:37,879 fifty to fifty situation, when it's kind of up in 194 00:10:37,919 --> 00:10:41,879 the air whether racial jerrymandering has occurred, that you know, 195 00:10:41,919 --> 00:10:44,679 the courts should you know, err on the side of 196 00:10:44,720 --> 00:10:47,799 like giving the the state legislature the benefit of the 197 00:10:47,840 --> 00:10:52,240 doubt and you know, and sign off on the maps. 198 00:10:52,519 --> 00:10:54,919 But I guess in this case what we're talking about 199 00:10:54,919 --> 00:10:57,480 now with the Texas maps, the question before the court 200 00:10:57,519 --> 00:11:00,960 is not, you know, as it stands right now, it's 201 00:11:00,960 --> 00:11:03,679 not on the merits of you know, the maps. It's 202 00:11:03,720 --> 00:11:07,519 just whether kind of almost it's like a logistical consideration 203 00:11:07,639 --> 00:11:12,000 whether they should be paused or not. I don't know, 204 00:11:12,000 --> 00:11:13,120 do you have anything to add to that? 205 00:11:13,440 --> 00:11:16,200 Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think the plaintiffs would say it 206 00:11:16,279 --> 00:11:18,279 is on the merits because we want the Supreme Court 207 00:11:18,320 --> 00:11:21,639 to agree that we are likely to prevail at trial. 208 00:11:21,840 --> 00:11:24,399 Speaker 4: And so I guess a preliminary ruling on the merit 209 00:11:24,440 --> 00:11:26,480 not a full consideration of them. 210 00:11:26,559 --> 00:11:26,759 Speaker 2: Yeah. 211 00:11:26,879 --> 00:11:28,519 Speaker 1: I think the state is really trying to make a 212 00:11:28,519 --> 00:11:32,600 logistical argument. They're citing this like twenty sixteen Supreme Court 213 00:11:32,679 --> 00:11:35,399 case called Percel, where they're basically saying where Supreme Court 214 00:11:35,399 --> 00:11:39,440 basically was like, we shouldn't intervene on election law, election 215 00:11:39,559 --> 00:11:42,159 policy things like this too close to an election. 216 00:11:42,320 --> 00:11:43,960 Speaker 3: It's like putting our thumb on the scale. 217 00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:47,759 Speaker 1: And so they're saying logistically whether or not, I mean, 218 00:11:47,799 --> 00:11:50,559 they're saying we didn't racially Jerrymander. But if even if 219 00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:53,840 we did, the percel principle says, like you cannot intervene 220 00:11:53,919 --> 00:11:56,960 this close to the election. The plaintiffs are saying, it's 221 00:11:57,000 --> 00:11:58,480 your fault, it's this close to the electriction. 222 00:11:58,639 --> 00:11:59,799 Speaker 4: I was going to say, you know, to get it 223 00:12:00,120 --> 00:12:01,759 a little bit into the weeds of some of these 224 00:12:02,639 --> 00:12:06,000 these very colorful or at least one of the very 225 00:12:06,039 --> 00:12:12,440 colorful opinions. Jerry Smith, the judge who dissented in dramatic fashion, 226 00:12:12,480 --> 00:12:15,080 pointed out at one point in his what was it 227 00:12:15,080 --> 00:12:16,000 a one hundred. 228 00:12:15,840 --> 00:12:17,960 Speaker 3: One hundred and four page yes. 229 00:12:18,559 --> 00:12:21,720 Speaker 4: In his descent that you know, the essentially he was 230 00:12:21,799 --> 00:12:25,480 he was alluding to the Democrats who broke korum in 231 00:12:25,519 --> 00:12:28,480 the Texas House left the state for a couple of weeks. 232 00:12:28,600 --> 00:12:32,679 And you know, I guess in Smith's argument, in his eyes, 233 00:12:32,759 --> 00:12:36,240 he's he's saying that pushed the timeline back, and and 234 00:12:36,759 --> 00:12:39,720 you know, it's almost like it's it's the Democrat's fault 235 00:12:39,759 --> 00:12:43,000 that we're in, you know, jeopardy of running a foul 236 00:12:43,000 --> 00:12:44,360 of this purcel principle. 237 00:12:44,519 --> 00:12:46,279 Speaker 2: So I I thought that was interesting. 238 00:12:46,000 --> 00:12:48,159 Speaker 1: That he's putting on the Democrats, I think, also saying 239 00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:50,320 like it took these other two judges a long time 240 00:12:50,360 --> 00:12:53,120 to issue their ruling, so they've pushed us closer. He 241 00:12:53,159 --> 00:12:55,559 also criticizes them for putting it out too soon and 242 00:12:55,559 --> 00:12:58,600 not giving him a chance to dissent. Let's talk about 243 00:12:58,600 --> 00:13:01,639 this dissent because it is honestly, if you're looking for 244 00:13:01,639 --> 00:13:04,519 something to read over the holidays, I have one hundred 245 00:13:04,519 --> 00:13:08,440 and four pages of chaos for you. So, judge, we 246 00:13:08,480 --> 00:13:10,440 should say, like, when the ruling first came down, it 247 00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:12,960 was from Judge Jeff Brown, who is a Trump appointee, 248 00:13:13,080 --> 00:13:15,639 former member of the Texas Supreme Court, clerked for Governor 249 00:13:15,679 --> 00:13:18,120 Greg Abbott, appointed to the Supreme. 250 00:13:17,840 --> 00:13:18,440 Speaker 2: Court by. 251 00:13:19,799 --> 00:13:22,200 Speaker 1: Rick Perry by all accounts, I mean, and he was 252 00:13:22,240 --> 00:13:24,639 appointed by President Trump during the time when President Trump 253 00:13:24,720 --> 00:13:27,840 was like really you know, under with the guidance of 254 00:13:28,000 --> 00:13:31,679 Senator Ted Cruz and John Cornyan like appointing really really 255 00:13:31,720 --> 00:13:35,519 conservative judges to Texas courts. He was like part of 256 00:13:35,559 --> 00:13:38,000 this class of very conservative judges. 257 00:13:37,879 --> 00:13:40,600 Speaker 4: Been very high esteem from all the people who have 258 00:13:40,639 --> 00:13:43,559 appointed him to stuff and just everyone involved in the 259 00:13:43,639 --> 00:13:44,759 conservative ecosystem. 260 00:13:44,919 --> 00:13:48,879 Speaker 1: It seems like, yeah, absolutely up until recently, up until recently. 261 00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:52,320 Speaker 3: But he issued this ruling and he was the author 262 00:13:52,360 --> 00:13:52,519 of it. 263 00:13:52,559 --> 00:13:56,240 Speaker 1: The other judge, David guadarama Is, was appointed by President 264 00:13:56,240 --> 00:14:00,159 Barack Obama. He Jeff Brown on behalf of the two 265 00:14:00,200 --> 00:14:05,120 of them, wrote this ruling that essentially pretty concretely and 266 00:14:05,200 --> 00:14:08,919 overtly accused Texas lawmakers are racially jerrymandering instruck on the map, 267 00:14:08,960 --> 00:14:14,840 and they were really pretty outraged by this. Yeah, certainly 268 00:14:15,000 --> 00:14:18,879 Texas Republicans. And there was no descent attached, which is uncommon. 269 00:14:19,000 --> 00:14:21,039 Usually you get sort of the whole package all at once. 270 00:14:21,679 --> 00:14:25,399 The next day, Smith issued this descent that it was 271 00:14:25,440 --> 00:14:29,159 a very personal attack on Brown, basically saying like he 272 00:14:29,679 --> 00:14:32,000 like going through like emails they sent each other of 273 00:14:32,080 --> 00:14:34,200 like how the timing work, so that he was felt 274 00:14:34,200 --> 00:14:36,279 he was like cut out of the descent or cut 275 00:14:36,279 --> 00:14:38,080 out of like having a chance to put his descent 276 00:14:38,240 --> 00:14:38,840 on the ruling. 277 00:14:38,960 --> 00:14:42,360 Speaker 4: Really kind of a remarkably detailed timeline, sort of peeling 278 00:14:42,360 --> 00:14:44,519 back the curtain on how some of these things work. 279 00:14:44,720 --> 00:14:45,720 Speaker 2: Sound that kind of interesting. 280 00:14:45,840 --> 00:14:49,639 Speaker 1: Yeah, The descent starts with fasten your seat belts, it's 281 00:14:49,639 --> 00:14:50,879 going to be a bumpy night. 282 00:14:51,080 --> 00:14:52,320 Speaker 2: And it was and it was. 283 00:14:52,360 --> 00:14:55,600 Speaker 1: And then later he does and I didn't notice this immediately, 284 00:14:55,759 --> 00:15:02,919 but he uh later in a footnote says I did 285 00:15:02,960 --> 00:15:05,159 say it was going to be a bumpy knight, didn't I, 286 00:15:05,240 --> 00:15:07,440 and then signs it off with one hundred and four 287 00:15:07,480 --> 00:15:11,000 pages later, Darkness descends on the rule of law a 288 00:15:11,039 --> 00:15:11,679 bumpy knight. 289 00:15:11,840 --> 00:15:12,320 Speaker 3: Indeed. 290 00:15:12,639 --> 00:15:16,120 Speaker 1: Wow, so a degree of drama, I would say, poetry, Yeah, exactly. 291 00:15:17,039 --> 00:15:20,559 I think like the question is like the first I 292 00:15:20,559 --> 00:15:23,399 don't know, twenty five pages are like personal attacks on Brown, 293 00:15:23,399 --> 00:15:26,360 which don't I don't think, really play a huge. 294 00:15:26,279 --> 00:15:27,679 Speaker 3: Role in it. Yeah. 295 00:15:27,799 --> 00:15:31,080 Speaker 1: The other part is a main character in the descent 296 00:15:31,440 --> 00:15:34,679 is George Soros certainly not involved in this? 297 00:15:34,759 --> 00:15:36,360 Speaker 3: But who is George Soros? And why is Smith? 298 00:15:36,679 --> 00:15:37,639 Speaker 2: Yeah? 299 00:15:38,039 --> 00:15:41,519 Speaker 4: I guess, well, so big picture, I mean George Soros 300 00:15:42,080 --> 00:15:47,639 a Democratic megadonner who has gotten involved in just all 301 00:15:47,679 --> 00:15:50,440 sorts of elections, you know, across the state, including in 302 00:15:50,480 --> 00:15:53,360 Texas at this especially I think at the state and 303 00:15:53,399 --> 00:15:56,279 local levels. I mean he's you know, at least where 304 00:15:56,279 --> 00:15:58,840 I first encountered him in my reporting career was in 305 00:15:58,879 --> 00:16:02,840 his contribution to local prosecutors like district attorney races to 306 00:16:02,879 --> 00:16:08,480 try to get progressives in office, but his I guess 307 00:16:08,639 --> 00:16:12,559 Smith and his descent was also drawing ties between Soros 308 00:16:12,600 --> 00:16:16,320 and uh, you know, some of the groups that employ 309 00:16:16,480 --> 00:16:20,320 the lawyers who are on the side of the plaintiffs. 310 00:16:20,360 --> 00:16:25,000 And I believe his sources name was invoked seventeen times 311 00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:28,879 if I'm remembering correctly, So it's and and you know, 312 00:16:29,399 --> 00:16:35,120 accompanying Soros in Smith's descent was California Governor Gavin Newsom, 313 00:16:35,399 --> 00:16:40,320 who Smith noted would be one of the main beneficiaries 314 00:16:40,320 --> 00:16:44,480 of this this decision decision referring to the to to 315 00:16:44,600 --> 00:16:50,120 California's fairly recent move at least recently the voters in 316 00:16:50,159 --> 00:16:54,759 the states signed off on the Newsom led plan to 317 00:16:54,759 --> 00:17:00,679 to respond in kind with Jerry manderd that net five 318 00:17:00,720 --> 00:17:04,559 seats for Democrats in California. So it was it was 319 00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:09,960 kind of a striking, you know, involvement of these political 320 00:17:09,960 --> 00:17:12,559 figures in a in a legal opinion that also, you know, 321 00:17:12,799 --> 00:17:16,519 separately went on to you know, discuss the legal merits 322 00:17:16,519 --> 00:17:20,680 of the case in the situation, but accompanied by quite 323 00:17:20,680 --> 00:17:22,559 a bit of other stuff. 324 00:17:22,640 --> 00:17:24,640 Speaker 1: We can say, yeah, yeah, I mean, Soros is kind 325 00:17:24,640 --> 00:17:27,200 of this like liberal boogeyman or I guess maybe like 326 00:17:27,240 --> 00:17:31,240 conservative boogeyman in a way. Right, He's like saying something 327 00:17:31,319 --> 00:17:34,079 is like sorrows backed is like saying it's you know, 328 00:17:34,920 --> 00:17:37,079 so liberal as to be you know. 329 00:17:37,400 --> 00:17:40,680 Speaker 4: Right, it's it's sort of a it has become like 330 00:17:40,960 --> 00:17:46,200 a code code word for everything that conservatives you know hate, 331 00:17:46,359 --> 00:17:50,440 and everything you know, tied to liberalism that they're morally 332 00:17:50,480 --> 00:17:50,960 opposed to. 333 00:17:51,200 --> 00:17:54,039 Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, which is interesting. It also is just like 334 00:17:54,160 --> 00:17:56,599 not relevant. He's not a party to this case or 335 00:17:56,599 --> 00:17:59,799 really involved. I will say Smith makes a nice point. 336 00:17:59,799 --> 00:18:02,640 He rips apart the lawyers involved in the plaintiffs as 337 00:18:02,680 --> 00:18:05,480 like basically Soros funded Hills, and then in a footnote 338 00:18:05,559 --> 00:18:06,799 is like, to be clear, I respect them. 339 00:18:06,799 --> 00:18:09,920 Speaker 3: I think they're great. Juriss Let's move on. It's a 340 00:18:09,960 --> 00:18:11,119 wild dissent. 341 00:18:11,400 --> 00:18:13,720 Speaker 1: But you know, and I got a lot of I 342 00:18:13,720 --> 00:18:16,759 got this question frequently in my email and in my 343 00:18:16,920 --> 00:18:20,720 tweet mentions or x mentions, So I think we should 344 00:18:20,720 --> 00:18:22,440 discuss it, which is like a lot of people are 345 00:18:22,440 --> 00:18:25,359 saying like, oh, well, like if the courts allow California's 346 00:18:25,359 --> 00:18:27,640 redistrict to go through but they strike down Texas, is 347 00:18:27,759 --> 00:18:30,839 like only the left gets to redistrict, And it's like 348 00:18:31,720 --> 00:18:35,519 the facts of these redistricing cases are so specific, and 349 00:18:35,559 --> 00:18:39,319 there's certainly already California's face legal challenges. 350 00:18:39,039 --> 00:18:42,599 Speaker 3: And probably will still. But it's like these not the 351 00:18:42,640 --> 00:18:44,079 same thing, right. 352 00:18:43,920 --> 00:18:47,160 Speaker 4: Yeah, there's totally different things under consideration. And I guess 353 00:18:47,240 --> 00:18:50,599 we should also point out that the you know, the 354 00:18:51,000 --> 00:18:54,880 passage of California's map is not in any way contingent 355 00:18:54,960 --> 00:18:57,279 upon the Texas map. I know that that was coming 356 00:18:57,319 --> 00:18:59,799 up a lot, and there was maybe an initial pre 357 00:19:00,039 --> 00:19:03,799 vision in the California map legislation that would have would 358 00:19:03,839 --> 00:19:07,000 have made it contingent on the text map. But yeah, 359 00:19:07,000 --> 00:19:09,359 I think you know, they're they're fully separate, but in 360 00:19:09,359 --> 00:19:12,200 that sense and also just in the the set of 361 00:19:12,319 --> 00:19:16,559 facts that the judges will be considering in both cases. 362 00:19:17,279 --> 00:19:19,359 I guess, you know, there are also some some things 363 00:19:19,359 --> 00:19:22,160 that we could probably unpack from Smith's descent if we're 364 00:19:22,200 --> 00:19:26,079 just thinking about, you know, how the Supreme Court might 365 00:19:26,079 --> 00:19:28,880 come down on on Texas's map and some of the 366 00:19:29,559 --> 00:19:31,680 things they might consider. And you know, one thing that 367 00:19:31,720 --> 00:19:34,119 you highlighted in in one of your stories was that 368 00:19:34,759 --> 00:19:37,200 Smith was really pushing back on this. I mean, it's 369 00:19:37,279 --> 00:19:41,599 kind of the crux of browns of Judge Brown's, you know, 370 00:19:41,680 --> 00:19:45,160 his his majority opinion where he was saying that Governor 371 00:19:45,200 --> 00:19:49,559 Abbott's comments in the lead up to redistricting, where he 372 00:19:49,720 --> 00:19:54,680 was talking about this you know, Department of Justice letter 373 00:19:54,720 --> 00:19:57,759 that we've written about, and you know that you've talked 374 00:19:57,759 --> 00:20:01,279 about probably ad nauseum at this point on the podcast, 375 00:20:01,599 --> 00:20:05,839 just you know, specifically singling out this issue of coalition 376 00:20:05,920 --> 00:20:09,640 districts where multiple racial groups can can band together to 377 00:20:09,680 --> 00:20:13,799 form a majority to bring challenges under the Voting Rights Act. 378 00:20:15,200 --> 00:20:20,480 You know, gunn Rabbits invoking of that that letter was 379 00:20:21,039 --> 00:20:25,039 a big part of, you know what why Brown ended 380 00:20:25,160 --> 00:20:28,279 up deciding that, yes, this did amount to racial jerrymandering. 381 00:20:28,640 --> 00:20:32,119 And so Smith comes in and says the fact that 382 00:20:32,119 --> 00:20:37,200 Abbot's comments about he also mentioned Hispanic districts, Hispanic majority 383 00:20:37,279 --> 00:20:42,200 districts right right, He was saying that, I guess he 384 00:20:42,640 --> 00:20:46,599 Abbot's comments about Hispanic districts came after the first version 385 00:20:46,680 --> 00:20:49,960 of the map was drawn, which Smith said shows that 386 00:20:50,000 --> 00:20:53,440 Abbott had quote adjusted his rhetoric to defend the map 387 00:20:53,440 --> 00:20:57,920 in a forward facing capacity, rather than directing the legislature 388 00:20:57,960 --> 00:21:00,240 to redraw based on a race based premise. I wonder 389 00:21:00,240 --> 00:21:02,680 if you could help kind of unpack what's going on there. 390 00:21:02,880 --> 00:21:05,880 Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that, like this is the really complicated 391 00:21:05,880 --> 00:21:08,960 thing about redistricting, and it is part of why the 392 00:21:08,960 --> 00:21:11,359 Supreme Court has said, like, if you're not sure, give 393 00:21:11,400 --> 00:21:14,079 the legislature the benefit of the doubt, in part because 394 00:21:14,119 --> 00:21:17,440 like this is really really complicated, and like not messing 395 00:21:17,519 --> 00:21:20,880 up is in many ways harder than messing up. 396 00:21:20,920 --> 00:21:25,720 Speaker 3: Now, Like, the role that. 397 00:21:25,720 --> 00:21:29,519 Speaker 1: Race should play in redistricting is very complicated because, on 398 00:21:29,559 --> 00:21:32,960 the one hand, the Voting Rights Act right is like 399 00:21:33,039 --> 00:21:36,039 very clear you cannot dilute the voting power of minorities. 400 00:21:36,480 --> 00:21:43,160 The juris prudence or like the legal analysis around that 401 00:21:43,160 --> 00:21:47,079 that has developed has struggled mightily, I think, to figure 402 00:21:47,079 --> 00:21:50,960 out what is unconstitutional racial gerrymandering? When can you how 403 00:21:50,960 --> 00:21:54,000 can you disentangle race and partisanship? 404 00:21:54,079 --> 00:21:56,640 Speaker 3: How can you? Is it bad to say. 405 00:21:56,640 --> 00:21:58,720 Speaker 1: Oh, we're creating actually more district We're going to make 406 00:21:58,720 --> 00:22:01,039 it easier for black and red people to elect their 407 00:22:01,160 --> 00:22:02,200 candidate of choice. 408 00:22:02,319 --> 00:22:03,839 Speaker 3: How how could that be bad? 409 00:22:04,119 --> 00:22:08,880 Speaker 1: Well, like, the constitutional claims are like, you know, you 410 00:22:08,920 --> 00:22:12,720 really can't take race, You can't unduly take race into account, period. 411 00:22:13,279 --> 00:22:16,680 And the argument that Brown is making is that it 412 00:22:16,759 --> 00:22:19,160 is clear from Abbot's comments and the comments of several 413 00:22:19,200 --> 00:22:24,079 state lawmakers that they were trying to create these majority 414 00:22:24,119 --> 00:22:28,559 Hispanic districts or these majority Black districts to like sell 415 00:22:28,640 --> 00:22:33,480 the map, basically to cover up their partisan and aims. 416 00:22:34,039 --> 00:22:35,400 Speaker 3: And the main thing he points to is. 417 00:22:36,240 --> 00:22:39,000 Speaker 1: From this is that those districts are all like fifty 418 00:22:39,039 --> 00:22:41,680 point one percent Black, fifty point two percent. 419 00:22:41,599 --> 00:22:44,160 Speaker 2: Raise bare majority was bear majority? 420 00:22:44,240 --> 00:22:44,440 Speaker 3: Right? 421 00:22:44,880 --> 00:22:48,279 Speaker 1: And that is to Brown, and certainly to the plaintiffs, 422 00:22:48,319 --> 00:22:50,960 but to Brown evidence that you know, they did not 423 00:22:51,160 --> 00:22:56,599 accidentally create these districts for pure partisan gain. They intentionally 424 00:22:56,640 --> 00:23:00,519 created slight majorities so that they could, as they did, 425 00:23:01,000 --> 00:23:02,680 go to the media and stand on the floor of 426 00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:05,759 the House and say, how could this be bad? 427 00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:07,799 Speaker 3: We have created these districts. 428 00:23:07,960 --> 00:23:09,480 Speaker 2: Right right before we move. 429 00:23:09,359 --> 00:23:13,240 Speaker 1: On, let me shout out our tripcast sponsor b where 430 00:23:13,240 --> 00:23:16,440 the future unfolds at south By Southwest twenty twenty six. 431 00:23:16,799 --> 00:23:19,319 Get ten percent off your innovation badge when you use 432 00:23:19,400 --> 00:23:23,839 tribcast ten by January seventh. Join the creatives shaping what's 433 00:23:23,880 --> 00:23:28,960 next at Southbysouthwest dot com slash Tribcast ten offer valid 434 00:23:29,000 --> 00:23:33,000 through January seventh. Discount applies to Badge price only excludes 435 00:23:33,200 --> 00:23:36,200 applicable fees and taxes. Cannot be combined with other offers, 436 00:23:36,240 --> 00:23:39,880 discounts and promotional codes. Badge purchase subject to credential terms 437 00:23:39,880 --> 00:23:42,880 and conditions to get faster doing that last part, like 438 00:23:42,880 --> 00:23:43,160 I'm in. 439 00:23:43,160 --> 00:23:45,440 Speaker 2: A pharmaceutic lad, it was okay, thank you. 440 00:23:47,079 --> 00:23:49,839 Speaker 3: So yeah, I mean, I think this question and like 441 00:23:50,680 --> 00:23:55,079 Abbot's role in all of it is an interesting subplot. 442 00:23:55,839 --> 00:23:59,039 Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean I think he you know, 443 00:24:00,400 --> 00:24:04,000 as this was unfolding, we thought, you know, just kind 444 00:24:04,039 --> 00:24:07,559 of talking in the newsroom that you know, it seemed 445 00:24:08,359 --> 00:24:11,960 like a potential item that could you know, come up 446 00:24:12,480 --> 00:24:15,680 you know in court once this was inevitably challenged, but 447 00:24:15,720 --> 00:24:19,599 it wasn't really clear if you know, the judges would 448 00:24:19,920 --> 00:24:22,599 interpret it that way in the sense that you know, 449 00:24:23,799 --> 00:24:26,160 of course, there was there was clearly some mention of 450 00:24:27,519 --> 00:24:30,920 you know, race and that you know, comments that suggested 451 00:24:31,359 --> 00:24:34,720 lawmakers were taking that under consideration, specifically in some of 452 00:24:34,720 --> 00:24:38,960 the TV interviews that Abbot was that Abbot did that 453 00:24:39,000 --> 00:24:40,359 they were actually cited. 454 00:24:40,440 --> 00:24:41,319 Speaker 2: In Brown's opinion. 455 00:24:41,400 --> 00:24:43,640 Speaker 4: But you know, I think it was it was to 456 00:24:43,680 --> 00:24:48,119 me at least really unclear whether you know, that would 457 00:24:48,119 --> 00:24:50,559 have been all of that would have been outweighed or 458 00:24:50,640 --> 00:24:54,559 kind of overridden by the course correction that lawmakers took 459 00:24:55,079 --> 00:24:58,119 once you know, the maps started flowing through the pipeline. 460 00:24:58,200 --> 00:25:00,759 You know, they were doing committee hearings and talking about 461 00:25:00,759 --> 00:25:04,359 this on the House floor, and there really did seem 462 00:25:04,400 --> 00:25:07,839 to be this this you know, somebody, I don't know, 463 00:25:07,839 --> 00:25:09,640 I feels like somebody got them in the in a 464 00:25:09,720 --> 00:25:11,880 room and sort of shook some sense into them. But 465 00:25:12,119 --> 00:25:14,799 there was clearly like a memo that went out of 466 00:25:15,559 --> 00:25:18,319 you know, of some sort or some sort of direction. 467 00:25:18,640 --> 00:25:21,720 You like, guys like, we got to really emphasize we 468 00:25:21,759 --> 00:25:25,079 are purely you know, this is pure purely for partisan gain. 469 00:25:25,720 --> 00:25:29,400 But you know, you also saw while that's that is true, 470 00:25:29,400 --> 00:25:33,319 there were also even some situations where lawmakers reverted back 471 00:25:33,359 --> 00:25:35,759 to talking about race on the House floor. And I 472 00:25:35,759 --> 00:25:39,279 thought that was really interesting that that Brown brought that 473 00:25:39,359 --> 00:25:41,880 back into his brought that into his opinion talking about 474 00:25:43,279 --> 00:25:46,559 State Rep. Todd Hunter, the kind of head honcho of 475 00:25:46,559 --> 00:25:52,640 the House's redistricting push, who was kind of unprompted going 476 00:25:52,720 --> 00:25:56,160 through all the against your point. You know, it's kind 477 00:25:56,160 --> 00:25:59,480 of a confusing situation where in this case, Hunter was 478 00:25:59,519 --> 00:26:03,400 presenting as a you know, a positive that these districts 479 00:26:03,440 --> 00:26:09,559 were increasing minority representation. But I guess in the eyes 480 00:26:09,599 --> 00:26:13,079 of Brown, it's you know, you're considering it, whether it's 481 00:26:13,160 --> 00:26:16,000 it's being framed as positive or negative, and that was 482 00:26:16,119 --> 00:26:20,640 that ended up being enough to help sway his opinion. 483 00:26:21,119 --> 00:26:23,799 Speaker 1: Yeah, I think Hunter, you know, took some ls in 484 00:26:23,839 --> 00:26:27,920 this ruling. I think certainly, like I think just it 485 00:26:28,000 --> 00:26:31,039 is very I think sort of when you look at it, like, 486 00:26:31,160 --> 00:26:33,960 not as a legal matter, but as a like Democrats 487 00:26:34,000 --> 00:26:37,119 were just like railing on Republicans saying, this is part 488 00:26:37,200 --> 00:26:39,640 is in game playing. You're trying to steal an election. 489 00:26:39,680 --> 00:26:43,559 You're trying to steal seats. And it's hard to believe 490 00:26:43,720 --> 00:26:46,880 that if they had just said, like, yeah, we're trying 491 00:26:46,880 --> 00:26:49,839 to steal some seats. We want to cook the twenty 492 00:26:49,880 --> 00:26:52,680 twenty six elections so that we can give President Trump 493 00:26:52,960 --> 00:26:55,400 five more seats and hold the House for sure. 494 00:26:56,559 --> 00:26:58,960 Speaker 4: And you know, it's not say that the Democrats didn't 495 00:26:59,400 --> 00:27:02,400 focus at all on the racial gerrymandering aspect, but it 496 00:27:02,440 --> 00:27:05,759 is sort of ironic that, you know, we're at this 497 00:27:05,839 --> 00:27:09,759 current moment after them the vast majority of the Democrats 498 00:27:09,799 --> 00:27:12,400 messaging was how this was like a power grab, and 499 00:27:13,599 --> 00:27:17,200 you know, it's I wonder if I mean, they did 500 00:27:17,240 --> 00:27:19,319 end up getting the ruling that they wanted, of course 501 00:27:19,359 --> 00:27:22,519 from this panel, but I wonder if the playbook, if 502 00:27:22,559 --> 00:27:25,519 we get our you know, once the twenty thirty mid 503 00:27:25,559 --> 00:27:29,799 decade redistrict angles around, maybe the Democrats will focus more on, 504 00:27:30,279 --> 00:27:35,359 you know, probing the presence of any racial considerations that time. 505 00:27:35,640 --> 00:27:37,759 Speaker 1: Yeah, it certainly is one of those like it's hard 506 00:27:37,839 --> 00:27:40,000 and they have been criticized for like coming out before 507 00:27:40,000 --> 00:27:41,880 they even see a map and saying, oh, it's definitely 508 00:27:41,920 --> 00:27:44,599 racially gerrymandered, and it's like, so I understand why they 509 00:27:44,640 --> 00:27:49,079 make the partisan claim. And frankly, I think in some 510 00:27:49,119 --> 00:27:51,079 ways it worked right, like they got I don't know 511 00:27:51,119 --> 00:27:53,880 if this was actually a strategy, but if you look 512 00:27:53,880 --> 00:27:56,720 at where we stand now, by pushing so hard on 513 00:27:56,759 --> 00:28:01,279 the partisan things and the partisan angle of the result 514 00:28:01,319 --> 00:28:04,160 was that Republicans felt forced to sort of say like no, no, no, no, no, 515 00:28:04,279 --> 00:28:05,039 it's not partisan. 516 00:28:05,079 --> 00:28:06,160 Speaker 3: No no, no, we wouldn't do that. 517 00:28:06,240 --> 00:28:10,799 Speaker 4: And it's like, oh right, it was sort of the politically, 518 00:28:12,319 --> 00:28:15,599 you know, the political argument that you know, the in 519 00:28:15,680 --> 00:28:20,440 terms of gaining the advantage in the public arena. You know, 520 00:28:21,200 --> 00:28:23,519 they thought it was the best approach to to say, no, 521 00:28:23,559 --> 00:28:26,480 we're we're doing this to fix this problem flagged by 522 00:28:26,480 --> 00:28:29,920 the DJ. But really the this is just you know, 523 00:28:30,039 --> 00:28:33,119 pure raw politics, and really what matters is what's going 524 00:28:33,160 --> 00:28:35,359 to hold up in court. So they really should have 525 00:28:35,440 --> 00:28:40,559 been from the outset just purely thinking about what was 526 00:28:40,640 --> 00:28:43,839 going to secure a legal victory, as opposed to you know, 527 00:28:43,880 --> 00:28:46,359 it was it's kind of the opposite of this is 528 00:28:46,640 --> 00:28:48,319 a little far afield, but I was just I was 529 00:28:48,400 --> 00:28:53,759 listening to Tony Busby, Houston attorney, on conservative talk radio 530 00:28:53,799 --> 00:28:57,359 in Houston the other day talking about how in the 531 00:28:57,480 --> 00:29:01,640 Ken Paxson's impeachment trial he was really keeping it like 532 00:29:01,680 --> 00:29:03,920 you would keep an eye on Twitter, you know, when 533 00:29:03,960 --> 00:29:06,759 he was whenever he wasn't talking, and he was like 534 00:29:06,799 --> 00:29:11,720 really cognizant of how the public was interpreting the legal 535 00:29:11,799 --> 00:29:15,880 arguments because the jurors were state senators who were you know, 536 00:29:15,920 --> 00:29:20,319 subject to the voters. And so that's kind of the 537 00:29:20,319 --> 00:29:23,240 opposite side of the needle. Like here, it's really just 538 00:29:23,880 --> 00:29:26,759 you got to drive home it's partisan, partisan, partisan, and 539 00:29:26,799 --> 00:29:27,440 nothing else. 540 00:29:27,759 --> 00:29:30,319 Speaker 1: Right, And part of this is that that's pretty new, right, 541 00:29:30,319 --> 00:29:33,119 the Supreme Court in twenty nineteen basically said we don't 542 00:29:33,119 --> 00:29:35,640 believe partisan Jerry mannering is like an issue for the 543 00:29:35,680 --> 00:29:37,599 courts to weigh in on. So a lot of this 544 00:29:38,279 --> 00:29:43,319 is changing quickly and probably changing a lot more. The 545 00:29:43,359 --> 00:29:45,160 other person that I want to talk about who caught 546 00:29:45,200 --> 00:29:47,480 a lot of flak in this ruling. Actually, it's like 547 00:29:47,519 --> 00:29:51,240 the one person all three judges agree on is Senator 548 00:29:51,279 --> 00:29:56,640 Phil King Weatherford Senator, state senator who chaired the state 549 00:29:56,839 --> 00:30:03,079 the Senates redistricting Committee. In Brown's ruling, they basically said, 550 00:30:03,119 --> 00:30:05,640 like they don't Brown and Guateama basically said that they 551 00:30:05,640 --> 00:30:08,440 did not believe he was being truthful in his testimony 552 00:30:08,480 --> 00:30:13,119 on the stand, and Smith essentially said, yeah, no, I 553 00:30:13,160 --> 00:30:16,200 agree with that. But each used that point to make 554 00:30:16,240 --> 00:30:17,960 their own point. But it's like the one thing they 555 00:30:18,039 --> 00:30:21,240 agree on is that center Fiel King. You know, I 556 00:30:21,240 --> 00:30:23,079 don't think they go so far to say he lied 557 00:30:23,160 --> 00:30:25,240 on the stand, but they said he was not credible 558 00:30:25,319 --> 00:30:26,519 or believable. 559 00:30:26,119 --> 00:30:30,319 Speaker 4: Right, And I guess the point there was that what 560 00:30:30,759 --> 00:30:34,000 was at issue with King's comments was, you know, his 561 00:30:35,039 --> 00:30:40,039 relating of his own conversation with Adam Kincaid. I think 562 00:30:40,039 --> 00:30:42,920 it's confirmed he's the map drawer. He's kind of behind 563 00:30:43,079 --> 00:30:48,039 the handle the mouse. Yeah, exactly, And so by you 564 00:30:48,079 --> 00:30:51,400 put this in your story, by King's retelling, he explicitly 565 00:30:51,400 --> 00:30:55,440 told Kinkaid he didn't when they met one on one, 566 00:30:55,559 --> 00:30:57,240 he told King kid he didn't want to talk about 567 00:30:57,240 --> 00:31:00,599 redistricting and never asked about how many seats Republic Mike Gain. 568 00:31:00,640 --> 00:31:04,039 And then Kincaid follows up by saying, King spoke openly 569 00:31:04,079 --> 00:31:07,240 with him about the process and they discussed how many 570 00:31:07,240 --> 00:31:10,640 seats the GOP could get. So but and so what 571 00:31:10,759 --> 00:31:14,880 was Smith? You were saying that he used that situation 572 00:31:15,039 --> 00:31:17,960 to make his own point. How did he use that 573 00:31:18,039 --> 00:31:21,160 to bolster his case for why the map should be upheld? 574 00:31:21,480 --> 00:31:23,400 Speaker 1: So a lot of this comes down to Adam Kincaid, 575 00:31:23,400 --> 00:31:26,559 who is, as Smith notes, like, not a lawmaker and 576 00:31:26,599 --> 00:31:29,000 not you know, the governor, Like he has no real 577 00:31:29,119 --> 00:31:32,319 role in Texas, but Texas essentially hired him. He's like 578 00:31:32,359 --> 00:31:34,559 the GOP's map drawer in chief. 579 00:31:34,599 --> 00:31:39,680 Speaker 4: He's formerly the executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. 580 00:31:39,720 --> 00:31:41,240 Speaker 3: I think he's still the executive director. 581 00:31:41,319 --> 00:31:43,720 Speaker 2: Yeah, no, sorry for Molly. 582 00:31:43,599 --> 00:31:47,359 Speaker 1: As Mai yes, yes, yes, so yeah, and he you 583 00:31:47,400 --> 00:31:49,960 know Kinkaid testified in El Paso both during the twenty 584 00:31:50,000 --> 00:31:53,519 twenty one hearing, twenty twenty one trial and this twenty 585 00:31:53,519 --> 00:31:58,039 twenty five hearing, because a lot of this comes down 586 00:31:58,079 --> 00:32:00,440 to all this talk of you know, we looked at 587 00:32:00,519 --> 00:32:02,799 racial data. Racial data didn't play a role in this 588 00:32:03,079 --> 00:32:07,680 is did Kingkaid, as the state's sort of hand on 589 00:32:07,720 --> 00:32:11,279 the mouse, take racial data into account? And Brown says 590 00:32:11,519 --> 00:32:15,599 pretty clearly like yes, because how else did he land 591 00:32:15,640 --> 00:32:19,559 on several fifty point two fifty point one percent districts 592 00:32:19,599 --> 00:32:24,240 you know of a certain racial group. Smith says, like, well, 593 00:32:24,240 --> 00:32:26,079 there's no evidence of that. And part of this comes 594 00:32:26,119 --> 00:32:30,279 down to King, Senator King on the stand, you know, 595 00:32:30,400 --> 00:32:32,920 saying I told him I never want to talk about 596 00:32:33,000 --> 00:32:35,160 racial data. He like a couple of things about like 597 00:32:35,400 --> 00:32:38,759 basically it's King is trying Senator King, it seems like 598 00:32:38,839 --> 00:32:43,200 is trying to was almost trying to like bolster the 599 00:32:43,279 --> 00:32:45,200 case that they didn't look at racial data. 600 00:32:45,640 --> 00:32:52,920 Speaker 3: Kincaid sort of, I think, maybe more strategically. 601 00:32:53,720 --> 00:32:55,720 Speaker 1: It was able to like tell this in a way 602 00:32:55,880 --> 00:32:59,079 that seemed to exonerate him as having never looked at 603 00:32:59,160 --> 00:32:59,680 racial data. 604 00:32:59,680 --> 00:33:00,680 Speaker 3: Brown obviously sort. 605 00:33:00,519 --> 00:33:04,599 Speaker 1: Of didn't buy that but these specific conversations about when 606 00:33:04,960 --> 00:33:10,079 Senator King and Adam Kinkaid spoke has really become probably 607 00:33:10,079 --> 00:33:13,160 not like the most important issue in this ruling, but 608 00:33:13,200 --> 00:33:16,119 like a pretty important question of like did a state 609 00:33:16,160 --> 00:33:18,440 senator lie on the stand or at least sort of 610 00:33:18,440 --> 00:33:21,640 say like he couldn't remember and sort of up the skate. 611 00:33:21,599 --> 00:33:22,480 Speaker 2: Yeah, stand, Yeah. 612 00:33:22,559 --> 00:33:24,160 Speaker 4: I think you know the other interesting thing too, with 613 00:33:24,200 --> 00:33:27,400 all these these districts that just barely cross the fifty 614 00:33:27,440 --> 00:33:32,000 percent threshold with in most cases Hispanic majority districts. There 615 00:33:32,039 --> 00:33:35,640 is also one district in Houston that just crossed the 616 00:33:35,640 --> 00:33:40,720 fifty percent threshold for black residents. But especially with the 617 00:33:41,200 --> 00:33:46,640 Hispanic majority districts, we've reported that you know, some you know, 618 00:33:46,720 --> 00:33:51,839 Democrats who study redistricting and are involved in this arenas 619 00:33:52,079 --> 00:33:56,359 think that within those those fifty point three percent Hispanic districts, 620 00:33:56,880 --> 00:34:01,440 the map drawers kind of surgically made it so that, 621 00:34:02,240 --> 00:34:04,720 you know, as part of that fifty zero point three 622 00:34:04,759 --> 00:34:09,800 percent population, they made sure that you know, a sizable 623 00:34:09,840 --> 00:34:14,719 subset were Hispanic voters who do not reliably turn out 624 00:34:14,719 --> 00:34:17,480 to vote, and that was I'm not sure if that 625 00:34:17,599 --> 00:34:20,000 actually came up in any of the opinions, but I 626 00:34:20,079 --> 00:34:23,679 thought that was kind of an important extraneous point that 627 00:34:23,840 --> 00:34:29,679 you know, it sort of lends it, I guess, makes 628 00:34:29,719 --> 00:34:32,639 it a little casts more doubt on the claim that 629 00:34:32,719 --> 00:34:36,440 the map drawers were completely race blind. You know, you 630 00:34:36,480 --> 00:34:39,400 would have to sort of see that as a basically 631 00:34:39,440 --> 00:34:42,119 just a convenient coincidence. 632 00:34:42,199 --> 00:34:42,599 Speaker 3: Right, Yeah. 633 00:34:42,599 --> 00:34:44,800 Speaker 1: I think that's a big part of this is, like, 634 00:34:45,599 --> 00:34:50,639 you know, Hispanic voters or like registered voters, turn out 635 00:34:50,920 --> 00:34:54,360 I think at the lowest rate of any group, and 636 00:34:54,559 --> 00:34:57,760 so drawing a districts that's fifty point three percent Hispanic 637 00:34:58,079 --> 00:35:01,719 if you know you know that, you know twenty percent 638 00:35:01,760 --> 00:35:05,559 aren't going to turn out, is like you've drawn the actual. 639 00:35:05,480 --> 00:35:07,519 Speaker 2: White making district the makeup of the. 640 00:35:07,440 --> 00:35:11,280 Speaker 1: Electorate, which again can be fine if you're not walking 641 00:35:11,320 --> 00:35:14,239 around touting that you drew so many more Hispanic districts 642 00:35:14,760 --> 00:35:16,920 and like you're welcome, which is sort of the vibe 643 00:35:16,920 --> 00:35:19,199 that came like or a little bit of like stop complaining, 644 00:35:19,639 --> 00:35:20,719 we did this for you. 645 00:35:21,519 --> 00:35:22,960 Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, Yeah. 646 00:35:23,119 --> 00:35:26,679 Speaker 1: So this is all like very the nuances of this 647 00:35:26,719 --> 00:35:29,679 are very complicated, and I do think, like you know, 648 00:35:30,280 --> 00:35:33,400 despite Judge Smith's sort of rhetoric around this, like this 649 00:35:34,199 --> 00:35:37,639 redistrict is very politicized, but the case law around it 650 00:35:37,679 --> 00:35:39,639 is very complicated and evolving, and so I think, like 651 00:35:39,679 --> 00:35:40,400 the judges have. 652 00:35:42,159 --> 00:35:43,719 Speaker 3: It's not as simple as just saying. 653 00:35:43,519 --> 00:35:45,480 Speaker 1: Like do you I mean, it's the politician's job to say, 654 00:35:45,480 --> 00:35:46,599 do we want five more seats? 655 00:35:46,639 --> 00:35:48,320 Speaker 3: It's the judges jobs to say, like, did you do 656 00:35:48,400 --> 00:35:49,400 it right? 657 00:35:49,519 --> 00:35:53,800 Speaker 1: And one factor sort of hanging over all of this 658 00:35:54,000 --> 00:35:57,760 is the this Louisiana case that the Supreme Court has heard, 659 00:35:57,800 --> 00:36:00,639 they heard earlier this month or I guess last month 660 00:36:00,679 --> 00:36:05,119 now about that Basically, if it goes the way that 661 00:36:05,199 --> 00:36:07,960 Louisiana wants and that a lot of these conservative groups want, 662 00:36:08,280 --> 00:36:12,280 it would essentially gut most of the racial protections in 663 00:36:12,440 --> 00:36:15,800 Section two of the Voting Rights Act. And essentially it's 664 00:36:15,800 --> 00:36:18,119 this conservative priority that's been pushed for a while that says, 665 00:36:18,159 --> 00:36:20,559 like the Voting Rights Act was great at the time. 666 00:36:20,800 --> 00:36:22,840 There should be temporal there should be like time limits 667 00:36:22,880 --> 00:36:25,239 on this. We can't just say forever black and Hispanic 668 00:36:25,280 --> 00:36:31,800 voters get, you know, should be like sort of considered separately. Obviously, 669 00:36:32,440 --> 00:36:37,960 many voting rights groups and certainly the Democratic establishment feels 670 00:36:38,000 --> 00:36:41,480 like that is would be like a huge loss to 671 00:36:42,039 --> 00:36:44,960 and really open the door to particularly red states, to 672 00:36:45,159 --> 00:36:49,119 just like run rough shot over the voting rights of 673 00:36:49,159 --> 00:36:50,559 black and Hispanic. 674 00:36:50,320 --> 00:36:52,320 Speaker 4: And this is sort of the point you were just 675 00:36:52,320 --> 00:36:55,599 making about. You know, at certain point there's a cutoff 676 00:36:55,599 --> 00:36:59,000 where you're no longer considering these racial and ethnic groups 677 00:36:58,800 --> 00:37:02,320 as sort of separate. I mean, that's my understanding is 678 00:37:02,320 --> 00:37:05,840 that's sort of an outgrowth or a continuation of the 679 00:37:06,000 --> 00:37:09,400 what went into the twenty twelve ruling that struck down 680 00:37:09,880 --> 00:37:13,000 that no longer required Texas to be subject to the 681 00:37:13,000 --> 00:37:16,760 pre clearance rules in the sense that you know, I 682 00:37:16,800 --> 00:37:21,199 think it was the Chief Justice who issued the opinion saying, 683 00:37:21,480 --> 00:37:24,480 you know, essentially like I mean, it wasn't you know, 684 00:37:24,519 --> 00:37:26,719 he didn't say it as bluntly as like we've solved 685 00:37:26,719 --> 00:37:28,599 the race problem, but he was like, you know, we 686 00:37:28,599 --> 00:37:31,800 were at a different point than we were in nineteen 687 00:37:31,840 --> 00:37:36,320 sixty five when this act was first approved. Which that 688 00:37:36,440 --> 00:37:38,920 so that feels like kind of a subtext or a 689 00:37:38,960 --> 00:37:42,119 theme of a lot of these of these you know, 690 00:37:42,239 --> 00:37:46,599 considerations for the Supreme Court in setting this evolving precedent. 691 00:37:47,119 --> 00:37:49,039 Speaker 1: Right, Like, I think there's been these like chipping away 692 00:37:49,079 --> 00:37:51,880 of like you know, okay, right, like states that have 693 00:37:52,119 --> 00:37:54,440 a history of racial discrimination no longer need to send 694 00:37:54,440 --> 00:37:56,559 their maps to the Department of Justice to get pre cleared. 695 00:37:57,840 --> 00:38:01,119 You know, we've had this the ruling that said, you know, 696 00:38:01,320 --> 00:38:03,960 you have to sort of assume good intentions. 697 00:38:04,079 --> 00:38:05,400 Speaker 3: We've had like other rulings that. 698 00:38:05,360 --> 00:38:07,480 Speaker 1: Said partisan jerrymandering is like kind of okay if you 699 00:38:07,480 --> 00:38:11,320 can justify it as such. Like and I think people 700 00:38:11,320 --> 00:38:13,840 feel like this Louisiana case is probably sort of the 701 00:38:13,880 --> 00:38:15,360 final nail in that coffin. 702 00:38:16,760 --> 00:38:17,880 Speaker 3: It is interesting to me. 703 00:38:19,039 --> 00:38:21,559 Speaker 1: I obviously got my start in Texas covering like the 704 00:38:21,599 --> 00:38:24,039 abortion stuff, and is so funny to me, how like 705 00:38:24,559 --> 00:38:27,960 similar this is in some ways where with the Dobbs case, 706 00:38:28,039 --> 00:38:31,480 like conservative groups have been like slowly, meticulously like finding 707 00:38:31,480 --> 00:38:34,119 the right case, building the jurisprudence, getting the right judges, 708 00:38:34,159 --> 00:38:36,159 like just like moving so and they were like, we 709 00:38:36,199 --> 00:38:38,280 are finally gonna strike down Roe v. Wade with this 710 00:38:38,360 --> 00:38:41,480 Dobs case. And then Texas just came like skidding in 711 00:38:41,519 --> 00:38:44,519 from left field with SB eight and was like right, 712 00:38:44,639 --> 00:38:47,400 do us first, right, yeah, yeah, and like and it's 713 00:38:47,440 --> 00:38:49,159 weird and you're not gonna feel good about it, and 714 00:38:49,199 --> 00:38:51,719 like it's a little legally complicated, but you're gonna have 715 00:38:51,719 --> 00:38:55,119 to uphold it, and like, I don't think that even 716 00:38:55,159 --> 00:38:57,000 the conservative justices were like thrilled. 717 00:38:56,719 --> 00:38:58,039 Speaker 3: About how any of that went down. 718 00:38:58,840 --> 00:39:00,679 Speaker 1: Some of them probably were, but you know, to speak 719 00:39:00,719 --> 00:39:02,719 for my dear friends the Supreme Court, right, and now 720 00:39:02,800 --> 00:39:04,280 we have the same thing, which is like again, these 721 00:39:04,280 --> 00:39:06,760 conservative groups have been like slowly doing that. They finally 722 00:39:06,760 --> 00:39:09,079 got this Louisiana case. It's finally gonna like be it 723 00:39:09,440 --> 00:39:11,840 had to be heard a second time, like they and 724 00:39:12,360 --> 00:39:15,119 Texas comes skidding in out of left field, being like 725 00:39:15,239 --> 00:39:16,599 we did a weird one too. 726 00:39:16,639 --> 00:39:20,039 Speaker 4: Right, I mean, do you do you think that the 727 00:39:20,079 --> 00:39:24,239 Louisiana case has like much potential to be affected by 728 00:39:24,440 --> 00:39:27,119 what I mean? How would how would the you know, 729 00:39:27,119 --> 00:39:29,320 those two cases potentially influence each other. 730 00:39:29,719 --> 00:39:33,239 Speaker 1: I mean, I think certainly, once we get a ruling 731 00:39:33,239 --> 00:39:35,880 in the Louisiana case, it will come to bear on 732 00:39:36,079 --> 00:39:38,639 the eventual ruling on whether or not these maps and frankly, 733 00:39:38,639 --> 00:39:42,679 the twenty twenty one maps are racially jerymandered. They probably eventually, 734 00:39:42,880 --> 00:39:45,159 assuming that the Supreme Court rules the way people expect, 735 00:39:45,159 --> 00:39:48,800 they will will end up upholding these maps ultimately, but 736 00:39:48,960 --> 00:39:51,159 like they are required to operate under the law as 737 00:39:51,199 --> 00:39:53,880 it exists right now, so you cannot sort of proactively 738 00:39:53,880 --> 00:39:54,719 say like we're pretty sure. 739 00:39:54,599 --> 00:39:55,360 Speaker 3: We're going to uphold that. 740 00:39:55,480 --> 00:39:58,159 Speaker 1: So and I think, I mean I talked to one 741 00:39:58,239 --> 00:40:00,960 legal expert who was saying, like, you know, there is 742 00:40:01,000 --> 00:40:03,480 also a world again just interpreting sort of like human 743 00:40:04,599 --> 00:40:08,480 emotions onto these like larger than life justices where you think, 744 00:40:08,519 --> 00:40:11,039 like we are about to do this, why are you 745 00:40:11,119 --> 00:40:13,880 setting like doing this like weird higher bar like you know, 746 00:40:14,000 --> 00:40:16,480 don't so like there's a world in which all sort of. 747 00:40:16,719 --> 00:40:18,440 Speaker 4: Chess pieces set out on the board and came and 748 00:40:18,519 --> 00:40:19,800 knocked them all up exactly right. 749 00:40:19,840 --> 00:40:21,119 Speaker 1: And it's like, you know, do they sort of make 750 00:40:21,159 --> 00:40:23,760 this a bit sort of hold on to legitimacy of 751 00:40:24,119 --> 00:40:26,320 you know, I mean they did in that Alabama case, 752 00:40:26,360 --> 00:40:28,480 like I said, they did rule I think very surprising 753 00:40:28,480 --> 00:40:29,079 a lot of people. 754 00:40:29,079 --> 00:40:30,440 Speaker 3: That was twenty twenty three. 755 00:40:30,480 --> 00:40:34,119 Speaker 1: I think that like Alabama had engaged in racial gerrymandering. 756 00:40:34,199 --> 00:40:37,960 So again, the Spree Court is not like a one 757 00:40:38,039 --> 00:40:40,800 hundred percent predictable on this issue, even if we sort 758 00:40:40,800 --> 00:40:43,480 of know predictably where they might end up going with 759 00:40:43,480 --> 00:40:44,480 this Louisiana case. 760 00:40:44,599 --> 00:40:45,599 Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, for sure. 761 00:40:45,800 --> 00:40:50,239 Speaker 1: Yeah, So yeah, Texas continues to be a real thorn 762 00:40:50,280 --> 00:40:54,360 in the side of the methodical slow progress. 763 00:40:54,480 --> 00:40:56,960 Speaker 4: Yeah, kind of the erratic stepchild, I guess of the 764 00:40:56,960 --> 00:40:57,800 Conservative government. 765 00:40:59,119 --> 00:41:00,760 Speaker 3: But you know, I'm sure they love them. 766 00:41:00,840 --> 00:41:03,440 Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, yeah, I mean they've they've they have 767 00:41:03,679 --> 00:41:06,599 given them a lot of key victories over the years too. 768 00:41:08,599 --> 00:41:11,760 Speaker 1: So we stand here now on Tuesday, we're taking this 769 00:41:11,800 --> 00:41:14,840 at eleven forty four am, waiting for a ruling on 770 00:41:14,880 --> 00:41:18,400 a stay from the Supreme Court. Do you think they 771 00:41:18,440 --> 00:41:20,760 will do it on Thanksgiving just to ruin our day? 772 00:41:20,920 --> 00:41:21,320 Speaker 2: Probably? 773 00:41:21,440 --> 00:41:23,440 Speaker 4: Yeah, or maybe like Friday morning when we're still coming 774 00:41:23,480 --> 00:41:27,000 out of our food comas, you know, whatever the most 775 00:41:27,000 --> 00:41:30,679 inopportune time is. I'm racing for that. Yeah, but I 776 00:41:30,719 --> 00:41:30,920 don't know. 777 00:41:31,000 --> 00:41:32,159 Speaker 2: Maybe they'll maybe surprise me. 778 00:41:32,199 --> 00:41:32,679 Speaker 3: I will say. 779 00:41:33,039 --> 00:41:36,000 Speaker 1: Whatever you think of his ruling, we appreciated Judge Brown 780 00:41:36,159 --> 00:41:38,679 issuing it at a normal time on a normal weekday, 781 00:41:38,960 --> 00:41:42,000 and Judgement as well issued his you know, descent at 782 00:41:42,000 --> 00:41:44,639 a normal time on a normal weekday. So thank you 783 00:41:44,679 --> 00:41:47,880 to our friends and the judiciary for that. Samuel Lito 784 00:41:47,960 --> 00:41:48,840 did not Friday night. 785 00:41:49,119 --> 00:41:53,239 Speaker 4: That's fine. He reversed that that streak, but that's okay. 786 00:41:53,360 --> 00:41:56,159 Speaker 1: Yes, As a journalist, my main feelings about most people 787 00:41:56,239 --> 00:41:59,320 is when they issued their p so we're going to 788 00:41:59,400 --> 00:42:01,079 leave it there, and I'm sure this is not our 789 00:42:01,159 --> 00:42:03,719 last regitioning episode, so we will be back after the 790 00:42:03,760 --> 00:42:06,360 holidays with whatever Texas. 791 00:42:05,960 --> 00:42:07,000 Speaker 3: Has done between now and then. 792 00:42:07,719 --> 00:42:11,360 Speaker 1: This week's episode is sponsored by south By Southwest. Our 793 00:42:11,400 --> 00:42:13,239 producers are Rob and Chris. 794 00:42:13,360 --> 00:42:15,480 Speaker 3: You can get all of our episodes wherever you get 795 00:42:15,519 --> 00:42:18,440 your podcasts or on YouTube, and we will see you 796 00:42:18,480 --> 00:42:19,039 next week.