Latest / Bloomberg Law / Instant Reaction: Supreme Court Curbs Use of Race in Drawing Voting Districts

Transcript

Instant Reaction: Supreme Court Curbs Use of Race in Drawing Voting Districts · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
• 0:09
  Speaker 2: This is a breaking news outdate from Bloomberg. Instant reaction
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: and analysis from our three thousand journalists and analysts around
• 0:18
  Speaker 2: the world.
• 0:19
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court ruling today herbs the use of race and
• 0:22
  Speaker 3: drawing voting districts. Let's get some perspective on what all
• 0:27
  Speaker 3: this means. June Grosso is our legal analyst at Bloomberg. Here,
• 0:30
  Speaker 3: do you talk to us about just the background of
• 0:32
  Speaker 3: this case and then maybe what we may know about
• 0:35
  Speaker 3: this ruling here?
• 0:36
  Speaker 4: So, I mean, the Voting Rights Act has been under
• 0:39
  Speaker 4: fire for, you know, such such a long time, and
• 0:43
  Speaker 4: the Roberts Court has been very receptive to sort of
• 0:48
  Speaker 4: destroying I'll use the word destroying the Voting Rights Act.
• 0:51
  Speaker 4: In twenty eighteen, I believe it was they took one
• 0:57
  Speaker 4: part of the Act, which required pre clear certain states
• 1:01
  Speaker 4: that had a history considered to have a history of
• 1:03
  Speaker 4: racism Texas, etca. Certain states in the South would have
• 1:06
  Speaker 4: to get preclearance before they redistricted, before their plans were approved.
• 1:11
  Speaker 4: They took away that and now this is really the
• 1:13
  Speaker 4: other significant part of the Voting Rights Act, the remaining
• 1:18
  Speaker 4: part of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in
• 1:21
  Speaker 4: nineteen sixty five to address discrimination against black votes.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: And I'll just read a line from what.
• 1:27
  Speaker 4: The dissenting opinion of Justice Elena Keig and the three
• 1:30
  Speaker 4: Liberals are in Descent said, under the Court's new view
• 1:34
  Speaker 4: of Section two of the Voting Rights Act, a state can,
• 1:37
  Speaker 4: without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens voting power. Of course,
• 1:43
  Speaker 4: the majority does not announce today's holding that way, but
• 1:46
  Speaker 4: it's understated, even antiseptic. So I mean, this is really consequential,
• 1:52
  Speaker 4: and it's consequential for I think the Republicans, you know,
• 1:56
  Speaker 4: holding the House. If some of this, if some of
• 1:59
  Speaker 4: these states can district before the mid terms, I mean,
• 2:03
  Speaker 4: I don't know if that would be possible as far
• 2:05
  Speaker 4: as timing, but it really, it really is consequential for
• 2:11
  Speaker 4: voting rights.
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: And the Court has, you.
• 2:13
  Speaker 4: Know, systematically the years you hear them say, well, you know,
• 2:16
  Speaker 4: we're so far away from the time of the Voting
• 2:19
  Speaker 4: Rights Act, and there isn't I mean, I think Justice
• 2:21
  Speaker 4: Roberts was the one who said in Shelby County, you know,
• 2:23
  Speaker 4: we don't have that kind of discrimination anymore. So we
• 2:27
  Speaker 4: don't and how long can we keep doing this? How
• 2:29
  Speaker 4: long can we keep having these rules that prioritize, you know,
• 2:33
  Speaker 4: race in voting districts. So it's I think it's it's
• 2:37
  Speaker 4: a stunning decision. Although the Court has been heading in
• 2:40
  Speaker 4: this way for a long time. I think a lot
• 2:42
  Speaker 4: of people hope that they wouldn't get to it at
• 2:44
  Speaker 4: this point.
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: But so, you know, it's really consequential. It's consequential.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: And you go back to the Voting Rights Act that
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: you mentioned and how this is kind of part of
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: the dismantling of it.
• 2:56
  Speaker 4: What is left of the Voting Rights Act right now?
• 2:58
  Speaker 4: You know, I don't think there's much left of it.
• 3:00
  Speaker 4: I have to get an expert to because the two
• 3:03
  Speaker 4: big the two biggest sections were the section that was
• 3:07
  Speaker 4: eliminated or you know, gut it in in the Shelby
• 3:12
  Speaker 4: County case, and then this section. So I don't think
• 3:15
  Speaker 4: there's much left of the Voting Rights Act.
• 3:17
  Speaker 3: How are districts drawn up in the first place?
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: I mean, that's my question. That is a great question.
• 3:22
  Speaker 4: Well, jerry mandering have you seen have you seen that
• 3:25
  Speaker 4: some of the like even if you look in Louisiana.
• 3:28
  Speaker 4: In order to get to keep the House speaker in
• 3:31
  Speaker 4: a Republican district.
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: You know, they have these odd shapes that you.
• 3:34
  Speaker 4: Would never imagine, you know, different kinds of weird shape,
• 3:38
  Speaker 4: so they can get in people that they want.
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: It's it's it's political at this point. It's you know,
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: and you.
• 3:44
  Speaker 4: Know, the Democratic states do it as well. The Republican
• 3:47
  Speaker 4: states do it as well. And it's you know, it's just.
• 3:50
  Speaker 3: The my old district in New Jersey, which we since
• 3:53
  Speaker 3: moved from. I finally saw it on a drawn somewhere
• 3:57
  Speaker 3: and it was unbelievably.
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: It's just a bunch of squiggly lines everywhere.
• 4:01
  Speaker 3: They figure that out because having lived there, like, that's
• 4:03
  Speaker 3: not how I think of my area, this town.
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: You know, No, it's been Kerry paig test. I mean,
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: they have people who do this for a living.
• 4:11
  Speaker 4: You know, they have also they have all kinds of
• 4:13
  Speaker 4: you know, electronic ways of doing it. But if you
• 4:15
  Speaker 4: look at this, I mean, the one in Louisiana looks.
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: Like a sliver up the coast.
• 4:19
  Speaker 4: I mean, it's but all the states, and you know,
• 4:23
  Speaker 4: there's the only thing that has happened is but only
• 4:25
  Speaker 4: in Democratic states.
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: They've had.
• 4:29
  Speaker 4: Maps drawn by commissions, So in that way you get
• 4:33
  Speaker 4: a fair map because it's drawn by a commission with
• 4:35
  Speaker 4: maybe equal representatives.
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: But only democratic states have.
• 4:39
  Speaker 4: Done that, and that's put them in a bad position,
• 4:41
  Speaker 4: which is why you have some states like California redistricting
• 4:46
  Speaker 4: in a different way, not using the commission. So the
• 4:49
  Speaker 4: way to do it is to, you know, have a commission.
• 4:52
  Speaker 4: But when when you let Republicans or Democrats do it,
• 4:55
  Speaker 4: they're going to do it to their own advantage. And
• 4:57
  Speaker 4: it's it's so easy for them to raw maps and
• 5:01
  Speaker 4: just eliminate certain you know, minority populations.
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: It's it's a mess. It's a mess. Really, it's just
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: a mess. So let me ask a really dumb question.
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: When the Supreme Court rules makes a ruling like this,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: people jump int action right away, right, I mean this
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: has immediate consequences.
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: Well yeah, well I think what will happen.
• 5:20
  Speaker 4: Is, yes, states will start looking at this and deciding
• 5:22
  Speaker 4: what to do.
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: And Louisiana certainly is going to jump into action.
• 5:26
  Speaker 4: Yeah, because what they're going to do is, you know
• 5:28
  Speaker 4: the politics of it. They're going to start looking at
• 5:31
  Speaker 4: their maps and seeing what they can do and how
• 5:34
  Speaker 4: they can use their power as legislators to redraw the maps.
• 5:38
  Speaker 4: I mean, I just think this is opening up a
• 5:40
  Speaker 4: can of worms that you know, the implications are just
• 5:45
  Speaker 4: are just crazy. I think as far as what's going
• 5:48
  Speaker 4: to happen next, because you know, you see that what's
• 5:51
  Speaker 4: happening Florida is trying to redraw its maps without.
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: Even this decision. So you know, we've come.
• 5:58
  Speaker 4: To the point where are we going to have democratic
• 6:00
  Speaker 4: states with all democratic districts and Republicans states with all
• 6:03
  Speaker 4: Republican districts.
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: It's just it's sort of mind boggling. I'm still stunned
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: by this.
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: Does this change any of what California voter has just
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: decided or what Virginia voters decided.
• 6:15
  Speaker 4: No, I don't think this has anything to do with that,
• 6:17
  Speaker 4: because that was a separate I think that California, in
• 6:21
  Speaker 4: the California Texas passed the Supreme Court. I think California
• 6:24
  Speaker 4: may have passed the Supreme Court as well. They're saying
• 6:26
  Speaker 4: that wasn't based on race, that was based on politics,
• 6:29
  Speaker 4: and it's okay to jerrymander based on politics. So think
• 6:32
  Speaker 4: about that. Think of it's okay to jerrymander based on politics.
• 6:36
  Speaker 4: So you know, Republicans and Democrats are fine, or they're
• 6:39
  Speaker 4: allowed to go in and jerrymander based on politics. Before
• 6:43
  Speaker 4: this decision, it was just you couldn't jerrymander based on race,
• 6:46
  Speaker 4: And now you can jerrymander basically based on race, no
• 6:49
  Speaker 4: matter what the Supreme Court said in its majority opinion.
• 6:52
  Speaker 3: What's left for the Supreme Court this session here? I
• 6:56
  Speaker 3: mean this is a one.
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 6:58
  Speaker 4: The big case, the case that we're away for at
• 7:00
  Speaker 4: Ploomberg is the case of the attempted firing by President
• 7:05
  Speaker 4: Trump of Lisa Cook, the Fed Fed Reserve governor. And
• 7:10
  Speaker 4: the thing is that every week that it's opinion day,
• 7:13
  Speaker 4: we expect that case to come out because it was
• 7:15
  Speaker 4: argued so long ago and because it seemed like the
• 7:18
  Speaker 4: Justices were on board with not.
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: Allowing her to be fired.
• 7:23
  Speaker 4: But it's taking so long that you start to wonder
• 7:26
  Speaker 4: what's happening. Is it because they were writing a lot
• 7:28
  Speaker 4: of concurrences and descents, you know, White's Is it because
• 7:32
  Speaker 4: they're having a hard time distinguishing, as they want to
• 7:35
  Speaker 4: the FED chair from other other board members that he's fired.
• 7:40
  Speaker 4: So is that what's taking them long? Are they just
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: holding it?
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: That's what I think.
• 7:45
  Speaker 3: I think they're just good programmers and they're holding their
• 7:48
  Speaker 3: juiciest one for you.
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: They they don't, They say they don't, but I don't.
• 7:51
  Speaker 4: I really don't believe that, because it's it's no coincidence
• 7:54
  Speaker 4: that all these controversial cases come down the last day
• 7:57
  Speaker 4: of the term.
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: So when it is the last the term, well it's
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: a movable date. Okay. It used to be the very
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: end of June, huh, and then they would go on vacation.
• 8:08
  Speaker 4: But it's now we've had a couple of times where
• 8:11
  Speaker 4: it went into July because they couldn't get their stuff
• 8:14
  Speaker 4: finished and they had so many late breaking.
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: Opinions.
• 8:18
  Speaker 4: There used to be I mean, there's a story about
• 8:20
  Speaker 4: a justice that used to have his car waiting outside
• 8:24
  Speaker 4: the court the last day so they could drive him
• 8:26
  Speaker 4: to you know, his vacations. But then they all disappear
• 8:28
  Speaker 4: and go to different, you know, different locations for the summer.
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: I want to bring in.
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: Michael McKee covers all the economics and international aspects of
• 8:36
  Speaker 3: our reporting for a Bloomberg Boy. We just had a
• 8:40
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court ruling which has obviously political ramifications for this country,
• 8:46
  Speaker 3: maybe economics as well. What's your initial take of the
• 8:48
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court ruling here?
• 8:50
  Speaker 5: Well, the ruling sets the stage for states to redraw
• 8:53
  Speaker 5: congressional districts.
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: But the question is do they have time to do that?
• 8:57
  Speaker 5: In some states where they have a number of black
• 8:59
  Speaker 5: men or districts, it's already too late because filing deadlines
• 9:03
  Speaker 5: for primaries have already passed. The issue is how many
• 9:07
  Speaker 5: states could still do it. One expects that Louisiana would try,
• 9:12
  Speaker 5: But the question, the secondary question is then how far
• 9:16
  Speaker 5: do they get with this, because if you draw the districts,
• 9:19
  Speaker 5: you know somebody is going to complain to the courts
• 9:22
  Speaker 5: about it goes back into the court system to question
• 9:26
  Speaker 5: whether the new maps are discriminatory in one way or another.
• 9:30
  Speaker 5: It does have a long term foundational impact, however, and
• 9:33
  Speaker 5: that it dilutes minority voting power in the sense that
• 9:37
  Speaker 5: you can't create a district that is basically guaranteed to
• 9:41
  Speaker 5: elect a minority, and that would be a question of
• 9:45
  Speaker 5: disenfranchisement for a lot of people. And the kind of
• 9:49
  Speaker 5: deal that many states made that they would never admit
• 9:52
  Speaker 5: is that we'll give you your own minority district and
• 9:56
  Speaker 5: then we will be able to use the rest of
• 9:59
  Speaker 5: the state for our own white majority districts. And most
• 10:02
  Speaker 5: states Republican districts. So at this point there could be
• 10:07
  Speaker 5: a shift in the balance of power in some states
• 10:09
  Speaker 5: once they can get around to actually changing their congressional districts.
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: Boy, this gets messy really quickly. Effect of this kind
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: of decision. Was this a surprise the way that Supreme
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: Court ruled, No, it's.
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: Not at all.
• 10:23
  Speaker 5: In fact that legal and political analysts had been expecting
• 10:26
  Speaker 5: this for quite some time. The Court has not liked
• 10:30
  Speaker 5: the Voting Rights Act for many years. Chief Justice Roberts
• 10:33
  Speaker 5: has said that while it was useful at one time,
• 10:36
  Speaker 5: it cannot be permanent law because many of the states
• 10:41
  Speaker 5: and many of the aspects of the Voting Rights Act
• 10:44
  Speaker 5: have been you'd say, cured, taken care of. People can vote,
• 10:48
  Speaker 5: poll taxes are gone, that sort of thing. So they've
• 10:52
  Speaker 5: been gutting it one section at a time. This is
• 10:54
  Speaker 5: Section two and now it is gone. So the Voting
• 10:57
  Speaker 5: Rights Act itself is not worth much anymore. But that
• 11:03
  Speaker 5: was expected, and that's why you have a lot of lawyers,
• 11:06
  Speaker 5: especially on the Democratic side, waiting to pounce on any
• 11:09
  Speaker 5: new districts redrawn to see if they can make the
• 11:13
  Speaker 5: case that they discriminate in one way or another and
• 11:16
  Speaker 5: aren't fair