Latest / 775 Alive / Ep017: Redistricting Blues

Transcript

Ep017: Redistricting Blues · 775 Alive

• 0:00
  [music] Crystal [voiceover]: Welcome to the 775 Alive podcast, your rural Nevada headquarters for decoding politics, economics, and general global shenanigans. I'm Crystal Newton, your business strategist, breaking down why Nevada's hustle is stronger than a sagebrush root in a windstorm. Here with my trusty co-host, Scott Gavorsky, PhD historian, here to explain the smart lessons of history, even if we are likely to ignore them. Grab your boots for a wild ride through today's most important news.
• 0:35
  Scott: So, welcome to 775 Alive. You know, two weeks ago we did an episode on the Census and all of a sudden the redistricting issue has popped up nationwide.
• 0:40
  Scott: Crystal: The two things are tied together. Let me tell you what.
• 0:44
  Scott: Scott: Yep. And it's been unusual.
• 0:49
  Scott: dragged into a redistricting dispute here in Nevada.
• 0:49
  Scott: Crystal: Well, it's happening everywhere. It is like we've all heard that it's happening in Texas, California. And we've heard all the the national politics, but it is happening right here. We have clips, we have audio to share, and you testified down there. So, I mean, it's happening everywhere, including here.
• 1:04
  Scott: Scott: Right. And it's fascinating. So, let's listen to . . . because of course the Texas issue is coming about Texas's redistricting. And the argument is they're doing this to create five more Republican seats in the House, although there's some lawsuits we can talk about, but let's listen to Texas's justification. and then California Governor Gavin Newsom with his justification for redistricting to protect those to create five more Democratic seats to counterbalance what Texas is trying to do. So, here's the two clips.
• 1:37
  Scott: [AudioClip: Texas Gov. Abbott] Why now? Two reasons. Uh one is since we last did redistricting, there's been a change in law. Uh a court decision affecting Texas came out and said that coalition districts are are no longer required. uh and it's perfectly legal to dismantle coalition districts. Uh the the second is uh gerrymandering can be done or drawing lines can be done on the basis of uh political makeup as in Republican versus Democrat and there's nothing illegal about that. And then when you look at the outcome of the most recent presidential election, all these districts that are being added are districts that were won by Trump. Here's the point of that. These voters in these districts won by Trump, they don't have the ability to vote for their candidate of choice now because they're in in congressional districts. They're in a Democrat district as opposed to a district won by Trump. And and so we we have the authority legally under redistricing law to draw to draw districts that align with the voter preferences of the voters of the state of Texas. And Donald Trump proved in these Hispanic created districts that Hispanics as well as other people in those districts, they want to vote Republican.
• 2:53
  Scott: [Audio Clip: California Governor Newsom]: And we'll be asking coinciding with a lot of local municipal elections to provide a temporary pathway for congressional maps. We will affirm our commitment to the state independent redistricting after the 2030 census, but we're asking the voters for their consent to do midterm redistricting in 2026, 2028, in 2030 for the congressional maps to respond to what's happening in Texas, to respond what Trump is trying to excite.
• 3:28
  Scott: Scott: So, so there you go. You have a series of issues that have been laid out here in these two clips. So Texas is not only justifying this because there are some potential lawsuits um but also on the fact that Texas's population is growth has been growing and that's what's been generating the need here to redistrict and move these districts around. California's counterargument is that doing this redistricting in the middle of a census cycle, right, is fundamentally wrong. And if Texas can do it fundamentally wrong, California apparently
• 4:06
  can do it fundamentally wrong as well. Crystal: Yeah. Scott: Right. So, we've got these issues of, you know, what does redistricting do? What what purpose should it it really serve? Uh and, you know, when is it appropriate and how should the redistricting be done? So, I mean, these are these are the types of issues that people think are solved uh until it actually happens, which is sort of what we saw in Henderson here recently.
• 4:28
  can do it fundamentally wrong as well. Crystal: Crystal: I think you're too nice to California in that description. I mean, Texas is redistricting based on actual population growth. California is redistricting because Texas is.
• 4:39
  can do it fundamentally wrong as well. Crystal: Scott: Right.
• 4:46
  Scott: And I got dragged in right after we did the census episode talking about redistricting. I got dragged into the controversy down in Henderson.
• 4:51
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah. And I think it's really important that we talk about that because Texas is in the news. California is in the news. We're all aware of the redistricting issue, but it's happening right here in Nevada. And Nevada is actually one of the most vulnerable states to redistricting. Um, so Henderson, what I found interesting is they had to call somebody from Elko, you, to come down and testify.
• 5:10
  Scott: Scott: Yeah. Well, I got hired by one of the parties in the dispute, one of the members of the city council. Um, what's going on is Henderson is unique in Nevada by having a city charter that doesn't use the census data for redistricting.
• 5:23
  Scott: Crystal: Now, are we referring to this member as one of the members or we going to name this person?
• 5:27
  Scott: Scott: Well, I think just one of the members, I think, yeah. This issue got covered heavily in the the Nevada press, down in the Vegas area and is now picked up nationally. Governing magazine just this last week did a did an article about it. Um, but the charge was is that uh this automatic redistricting that's supposed to be triggered if there's a discrepancy of more than 5% between wards. Since 2013, Henderson has not used census data, which of course we've already talked about, everybody is supposed to use census data for the redistricting.
• 5:59
  Scott: Crystal: Well, and they have redistricted every two years.
• 6:03
  Scott: Scott: Every two years
• 6:08
  Crystal: and they've been growing really fast, so it's justified.
• 6:08
  Crystal: Scott: Well, and that's one of the issues that we see with with redistricting is it . . . it is needed to capture growth. The question is what data are you using?
• 6:18
  Crystal: Crystal: Yes.
• 6:21
  Crystal: Typically they use the census.
• 6:21
  Crystal: Scott: Right. The direct count though with the decennial census, but part of what they're doing here is using internal data generated by the city. Um and so anyway . . .
• 6:29
  Crystal: Crystal: Internal data, does that mean non-public?
• 6:35
  Crystal: Scott: Well, it's partially public. it's a form of estimates. And I'm not saying necessarily that what the city demographer is doing, his estimates are wrong. I don't think they are. I don't think they're accurate or precise enough to be used for redistricting. But there are . . . they're a combination of residency permits, average family size dynamics, and stuff like, you know, electrical Nevada energy account information. That's the private . . . that's proprietary information that they don't share out. Um, and again for something like roads or if you're going to need a new hospital or a new school in the next five or 10 years, that data is accurate enough for that. It's perfectly suited. That's how you want to capture growth. The question where I got called in and I've worked with Dr. Sondra Cosgrove quite a bit. She's heading up the Fair Maps Nevada team. She's a professor of US history down at College of Southern Nevada, CSN. We've been having and worked on a lot of these census issues. Um, and what they needed was somebody like, "How how are these numbers the city's given us comparing to the census?" And in my view, they're a little off. Their estimates are high, and they're high enough where I'm not sure that this is enough to . . . a solid enough basis
• 7:47
  to justify this automatic redistricting. Crystal: And this one council member was the one taking issue. And there actually was a little bit of a blowup. And we'll play that in a little bit, but if you don't mind, I want to read something that she's published.
• 7:58
  to justify this automatic redistricting. Crystal: Scott: Okay.
• 8:04
  to justify this automatic redistricting. Crystal: is she the Henderson mayor?
• 8:04
  to justify this automatic redistricting. Crystal: Scott: She's the mayor of the city of Henderson.
• 8:08
  to justify this automatic redistricting. Crystal: is her words, not mine, Mayor Michelle Romero is trying to play a political game with Henderson's Ward 3 residents and intends to move them around as if they were her own personal pawns on a chessboard.
• 8:19
  Scott: Right.
• 8:19
  Scott: Crystal: And it is a little salacious quote for them specifically, but in general, that's what's going on in the United States and that's what she's trying to take issue with.
• 8:23
  Scott: Scott: Right. And this is this is one of the things that redistricting debates always heat up about. There's always the argument we're moving stuff. What's interesting in this case, I think, with Henderson is the fact that of course this is sparked into charges just like we're seeing with Texas and California that's politically motivated. This is a political effort to dilute the voting power of a precinct that um, a council member that's on the opposite side of policy issues from the mayor. They're all technically nonpartisan. Dilute her voting power, which is exactly what the redistricting is. But what's what's interesting, I think, in the Henderson case is that it's taking place very much like the Texas and California ones, uh outside of the decennial census cycle. Like I said, they're claiming they've done this every two years. And that's highly unusual. Other cities in Nevada, city of Las Vegas, which has seen similar growth, Hend . . . or North Las Vegas, which has seen similar growth, they're not doing this. They're depending on the census data, right?
• 9:22
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah. And I remember when you went down there and I got a text from you. You're like, "This thing has devolved into kind of an issue." Scott: Yeah.
• 9:32
  Scott: it up and we'll play it for you here in a second, but you were a little bit shocked as, you know, a consultant and someone just speaking on a matter to have to deal with the . . . . It just goes to show how contentious this issue is.
• 9:41
  Scott: Scott: Right. And, and it sort of got overshadowed. I do think there's something interesting in, in some of the arguments that are, that are laid out on these issues of, you know, if redistricting is an automatic process, you know, what is the input of of politicians and it can they be used to manipulate elections and and a whole range of other issues. Um, my testimony actually came earlier, so I wasn't like the target. I just got overshadowed in the in the dispute that uh that that sort of came there. But why don't we go ahead and play that and let people hear what happened at the Henderson City Council.
• 10:10
  Scott: Crystal: So, this is, it's their direct council member that's objecting to this process trying to speak and getting shut down, right? And I think it's important for Nevadans to know because a little bit later we're going to talk about how Nevada in general is in jeopardy. Um but there's a real fight going on in this room to showcase it.
• 10:32
  [Audio clip of Henderson City Council] Mayor Romero: By proposed the proposed redistricting. I you you've answered this, but I want to emphasize does it not in fact ensure a more equal representation of the residents by making sure that one area of the city is not overly represented by one council person so that there is a close to even resident to council person ratio.
• 10:50
  [Audio clip of Henderson City Council] Mayor Romero: City Demographer: Yeah, it should in theory should this should allow for a more likely scenario where each each resident has the same access to to their council person. There's you would you wouldn't want one one council person representing 60,000 residents and another 100,000.
• 11:07
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Thank you. This council is obligated to follow the law, which is exactly what's happening here tonight. We are not in an election year in the year in which an election is being held. And the only person attempting to mislead the residents of Henderson politicized this routine procedure for the second time and suggested the law not be followed and that there be unequal representation of our residents is the council woman making these accusations and with that I will turn it over to Ward One representative.
• 11:35
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Councilwoman Cox: I would really like you are out of order and you have to order said we're going in order[overlapping voices] about 7415 because the carriers are wrong. You can period. So 74, Miss Councilwoman Cox, you can wait for your 7415. Why is it being added in as a fourth precinct when I'm already in 7415? Councilwoman, I am in 7415. I live in 7415. If you don't stop going out of order, I'm going to call a recess. But I've had a lot of accusations made about me in my good name. You're going to get an opportunity. We're not going to go through this process when the mayor has done what she just did. Not acceptable. This is your leadership. We are going to lead. No, I have to ask. We're going in order to ask questions. You're not in charge. You are not in charge. I will call a recess and we will do this in order and allow everybody the opportunity to speak and we will come back in a one minute. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak and everyone will do it in the order of their ward.
• 12:47
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Crystal: Okay. So they shut it down? Scott: They shut it down. Uh yeah. And if we well and if we were if you would been there like we were sitting out in the audience, they continued the argument sort of in the wardroom backstage. Um and and what I think that's interesting and again at at this point this obviously had devolved into something where my certain expertise was just not not exactly valid.
• 13:10
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Crystal: And I just love the idea that a rural showed up and was shocked at the shenanigans of like come on! Scott: As bizarre as the councils get up here, we . . . I don't, I don't ever recall experiencing something like that. But anyway, um that being said, I think there's some interesting points. So the the question is how do you manage growth with this redistricting? And the truth is we might be in a stage where Americans are moving much more quickly and, and much more frequently than the 10 year census can capture. Right? Now the problem with that is can you make those types of justifications? And again I'd have to look at at a lot of their their detailed history data for specific precincts um to really tell that. that that really hasn't been shared. I'm not one . . . Henderson's about 320,000 people right now. I I'm I I can't see them getting one ward that has 100,000 and another was 60. I just don't see that happening. They have had a couple large housing complexes, you know, stages come online. But that being said, um I think it's interesting that, you know, you get the sense that redistricting is necessary to manage growth. The question is where are the numbers coming from, right? What does that redistricting do in terms of affecting political candidate choice? Um Part of what you heard, Councilwoman Cox, arguing about the 7415 that's the precinct she actually lives in and on the documents presented that was listed as one of the precincts to be moved which would have moved her out of the of the ward she represents. Come to find out that was a typo which is another another problem with this, uh with the data. They actually meant another precinct and the 7415 got put in by mistake. But it's just it's an example of of how contentious and heated these debates can really become even at the local level.
• 15:01
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Crystal: And you know we still are a very young country and this might be a little bit of growth pains combined with people taking advantage of the situation. I think you know 200 years ago people the idea that they'd move every few years was almost it it was unheard of and people kind of settled into one spot. So, you know, redrawing districts every 10 years, I think made sense for a long time. But now we're in this place where a city can grow enormously, 10, 15, 20% in a couple of years, which does warrant redistricting. It's just being taken advantage of. So, we definitely have to come up with some kind of solution going forward for redistricting, right?
• 15:40
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Scott: And again, going back to the estimates, which is really my, uh, my interest in a lot of this. Again, for, for certain policy purposes, those estimates are perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with them. If you're deciding to build a road, for instance, if you're off five or six thousand, you know, car trips a day and building a road that's going to take you five years to complete, yeah, it probably it probably just doesn't matter. Worst case, you end up with a little larger road and a little less traffic, right? Which most people would consider a win. Um the the problem comes into . . . .
• 16:08
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Crystal: Like maybe education like well but even per capita spending?
• 16:16
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Scott: Per capita school district well you talk about per capita, one of the the estimates that the city's using is actually a technique um well it's widely used but the it's certified by the the Nevada state demographer and what it's used for is to redistribute out the C-taxes, the consolidated taxes. So, so those of you who don't know, in Nevada, most municipalities can't collect their own taxes. They're all contributed up to the state and the state redistributes. It's based on the formula. And my argument, I didn't get to say this, but my argument against that is like, you know, they are redistributing the C- tax based on these estimates. They're not using those estimates to issue like a tax refund to individual household.
• 16:50
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Crystal: Yeah.
• 16:54
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: anybody would say that's insane because you don't have accurate enough data. And the question is, is it then accurate enough data to use for redistricting?
• 17:00
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Crystal: Yeah.
• 17:04
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: question we're at. And you know, again, this is very similar to what Texas is going into um in that they've had a lot of growth in this redistricting.
• 17:09
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Crystal: Huge.
• 17:15
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: know, should they be redistricting? You also hear the mayor mention that it's not an election year. Now, what she's specifically referencing is the fact that um uh Henderson City Charter specifically prevents redistricting in an election year to, you know. But it it's clearly understood that they're doing this this year because there's an election next year, right? And you know that's the same thing again we're seeing in Texas, right?
• 17:36
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Crystal: Yeah. So we are I do want to talk about Texas and California because there is some monumental things going on but the same in Henderson. What we're seeing is a weaponization of redistricting rules in my opinion and I think it's very important particularly before we talk about Texas, let's talk about Nevada.
• 17:51
  You'd rather they both represent 80. Mayor Romero: Scott: okay
• 17:56
  Crystal: We're one seat in both sides of our house from becoming a super majority right so what that means is if Democrats get a supermajority and I don't have anything personally against Democrats I personally believe in a balanced legislature is best for both people and I really believe that if Democrats and Republicans are all getting a little bit of what they want it's what's best for everybody body going forward. So, I want a balanced legislature. But here's the thing, folks. We have midterms coming up. Democrats win one more seat. What they essentially will be able to do is redraw the districts of Nevada. And with the way we're laid out, the majority of our population centers are in Clark County and Washoe, you can bet that the majority of every district is going to lie within the city and the rurals will be attached to it and they won't ever have enough of vote to ever make a difference. And there's a lot at stake here.
• 18:44
  Crystal: a supermajority legislature with a Democratic governor, Steve Sisolak, back in 2021 that created the current maps, which everybody agrees . . . I mean, you know, like Texas, um, Nevada has an F from these various groups that that are grading their stuff. But, you know, the thing that that gets us, um, here in Elko, we're in the same, uh, assembly district that got redistricted as Pahrump, 600 miles away. So, our assemblyman is covering basically the entire eastern part of Nevada, uh, from the Idaho border down to Death Valley in California, right? It's just an insane, insane region. And there's no I mean, one of the issues I mentioned repeatedly, we talk about this is this concept of community of interest, which should be the basis of redistricting. There is no community of interest between Pahrump and Elko outside the fact from a Democratic perspective, they tend to vote too Republican.
• 19:33
  Crystal: Crystal: Well, and this is for our Nevada audience specifically. There is a huge difference between Tonopah and Pahrump in the same county and in the same category of rural. Those two almost work against each other within the county. But to your point, you know, lumping them all together in some weirdly drawn district, it just . . . it's not the best thing for the state.
• 19:50
  Crystal: Scott: Yeah. Well, and and you know, again, this gets back, you know, should community of interest be the interest of a political party? Is that the community we're really talking about? I think that's absurd where we've got . . . Bert Gurr as our assemblyman, you know, where we have this ridiculous situation where he's trying to, you know, sort of, sort of deal with water issues, for instance, big out in the rurals, in Pahrump, which is part of the Colorado River Basin dynamic, and then in Elko, which is totally disconnected and a totally different water system, and you've got this guy trying to balance these two, which makes no sense, right? How can he how can he adequately represent the interest of of either group?
• 20:29
  Crystal: Crystal: Well, and those two issues are actually distinctly different sticky wickets because the Colorado River Authority is one big thing you have to deal with, but then Elko is the headwaters for most of the water rights that go through Northern Nevada.
• 20:43
  Scott: Right. Humboldt River.
• 20:43
  Scott: Crystal: Completely different things. One's interstate, one's intrastate. And it's like how does one assemblyman address both of . . . water is a very complicated issue. So, I mean, we're always Elko and Lovelock are . . .
• 20:54
  Scott: Scott: Oh, yeah. Lovelock's the end. Technically they have some sort of a right that makes them reach into other counties. But to your point, having one politician cover all those very important issues is kind of absurd, Right. And before this redistricting that was done in 2021, there was an assembly district in the south centered roughly . . . not centered on Pahrump, but included Pahrump that could really deal with with, you know, southern Nye County, Lincoln County that can deal with this. And then there was one in the north um that was sort of centered in Elko. That actually in my mind is a much more . . . I don't want to use the term natural, but it's a much more logical community of interest than the idea, well, you're all rural, so you know, your issues are all the same. That's that's just absurd, right? Um, not to mention the the gerrymandering that went on, one of the things that also happened in that redistricting, which was done, they . . . they held a special session--again, like Texas--there was a special session of the Nevada legislature. It was called over Veterans Day weekend. So, you know, it's a holiday weekend. People gone. Crystal: It certainly was a special session.
• 21:58
  Scott: a special session when they ran through these maps. But one of the things they did is there was interest in taking the Duck Valley Reservation in extreme um northwest Elko County up on the Idaho border and trying to move it into a district to the west um that you know combined them with Pyramid Lake and some other native tribes to increase sort of native representation within that district to create a more favorable ground. Um . . .
• 22:20
  Scott: Crystal: Natives that traditionally vote Democrat.
• 22:26
  Scott: Well, they haven't traditionally voted at all. That's, that's a, that's a yeah, Native American uh and and it still is. They have . . . that precinct has one of the lowest turnout levels in Elko County.
• 22:36
  Crystal: I appreciate you correcting that because I feel like that is a stereotype most people think.
• 22:36
  Crystal: Scott: Yes. Yeah. And it's it's but what they ran into is um some of this stuff with, like the Miller versus Johnson case from 1995. You can't, you can't just take out a race-based district. So what they did is they went to a precinct just south that wasn't largely Native American and split it to justify incorporating that. So we had this precinct of basically grand total of like 75 voters where 30 of them vote in a district represented out of Sparks and the rest vote in a district represented out of Elko. And it's just like, that's just insane. That that's just a ridiculous use of redistricting power.
• 23:14
  Crystal: Crystal: Yeah.
• 23:20
  Crystal: maybe a maximum of 600 eligible voters up on Duck Valley. So, we're talking less than a thousand people that you've separated these people from the county that controls their school district that controls, you know. It just makes no sense, right? And it wasn't a numbers game. It wasn't
• 23:34
  like if they don't have this part, they can't get this district to balance out. Crystal: Yeah.
• 23:34
  like if they don't have this part, they can't get this district to balance out. Crystal: Scott: Right. This this was a direct manipulation.
• 23:38
  like if they don't have this part, they can't get this district to balance out. Crystal: Crystal: It is a difficult thing to try to address. And the more I thought about it over the last few weeks, I was like, well, it seems like an independent council would be the best thing to do redistricting. But going into the Texas and California issue going on, obviously Texas is redrawing its districts. It's trying to get five more seats for Republicans. And arguably that's in response to Democrats redistricting Illinois, redistricting California, redistricting New York, like watching them do this. So arguably it's a response to that. But in response to the Texas redistricting, California suspended its independent commission for redistricting because it decided it needs to go back to drawing these maps itself. So there goes that idea.
• 24:20
  like if they don't have this part, they can't get this district to balance out. Crystal: Scott: Well, no, no, no. I there's a lot or six different things in here. Um, so first of all, um, yeah, I think that's exactly what's . . .
• 24:29
  like if they don't have this part, they can't get this district to balance out. Crystal: we'll talk about this a little bit more, but um, I think that's exactly what's going to come out of this Henderson case is a renewed call for an independent districting agency in Nevada. Yeah, it's probably going to be a ballot question. Um, but that said, California isn't getting rid of their independent redistricting. No, they're just suspending it for this voting cycle. Well, they're trying, but it's going to go to a ballot initiative, and there's a lot of pushback.
• 24:47
  like if they don't have this part, they can't get this district to balance out. Crystal: Crystal: But don't you find that a little bit icky?
• 24:50
  like if they don't have this part, they can't get this district to balance out. Crystal: Scott: Well, I do find it icky, and it's been interesting that these these independent redistricting commissions in some cases, Wisconsin, they they've been responsible for some what some people think are are gerrymandering. But in New York just what two, three years ago um the independent . . . they have an independent redistricting. They drew a map the the uh Democrat dominated New York state legislature basically threw out and and instituted their own, overruled their own independent commission.
• 25:15
  Crystal: To my point.
• 25:15
  Crystal: Scott: Right. But the New York Supreme Court, which is, shall we say, um leans rather far to the left, looked at and said, "No, you you can't do that." Right? This is this is just nonsense. So they had to go back to the independent redistricting.
• 25:30
  Crystal: Crystal: Well, good. There's some common sense.
• 25:34
  Crystal: some of that might come out in California. It's interesting, you know, um we have uh you know, of course, Gavin Newsom's out there using this probably as a promotional thing for a potential run for president in 2028. But on the other side, you have like Arnold Schwarzenegger lining up um to take on Gavin Newsom. Of course, when Schwarzenegger was governor of California, was when the the independent districting idea came, came up as a balloted initiative. Um so that's going to be an interesting battle when that goes out.
• 25:58
  Crystal: Crystal: I just want to point out more than one instance of this. So these independent redistricting commissions, they're kind of Gavin Newsom, he said not entirely suspending it. He's making he's going to give the voters a choice of but it's like three choices.
• 26:16
  Crystal: Scott: Three choices.
• 26:21
  Crystal: to cover your tail. You're actually going to put it up for a vote. But again, this is a case where this political party, the Democratic political party are making the choices for the Democrats. And I saw this with the Kamala Harris nomination for candidate. They didn't get a chance to vote on their candidate. They were given a candidate and then they had to vote on it. There wasn't even a choice. It was just one choice.
• 26:38
  Crystal: Scott: In the guise of saving democracy.
• 26:43
  Crystal: of saving democracy. And I'm like, these are the most undemocratic things you can do, but they're desperately trying to make it look democratic. But I'm watching this happen and I mean I was um I was taken aback when they did it with Kamala Harris and they didn't do the primary like they should have, right? And then I was taken aback when Gavin Newsom was like, "We're going to suspend this independent commission and then give the voters a choice, but it's very limit." I'm like, This is not this is not how you do things.
• 27:06
  Crystal: Scott: Right. And I think it's, it's going to be an interesting battle to watch.
• 27:11
  Crystal: Crystal: Putin-esque to me.
• 27:16
  Crystal: but this is this is this has been a problem . . .
• 27:16
  Crystal: Crystal: He holds democratic votes, but somehow he always wins like all of the votes.
• 27:21
  Crystal: Scott: Well, he holds plebiscites.
• 27:25
  Crystal: it's one of those things where it's represented as democracy, but it's clearly behind the scenes not,
• 27:29
  Scott: Right. I mean, you're, you're presenting limited choices.
• 27:29
  Scott: Crystal: And yes, I know it's a republic,
• 27:33
  We're using small-D democracy. Um, Scott: Well, I think there is I think there is something interesting with that, because I think there's a much more fundamental problem with Newsom's approach.
• 27:42
  We're using small-D democracy. Um, Scott: Crystal: Yeah.
• 27:48
  We're using small-D democracy. Um, Scott: the past with what Newsome's um proposing which is that there's some sort of existential need to protect democracy to to balance representation in Congress. So if Texas is adding five seats, California should add five seats. In the 19th century, this was actually done with the Senate. Of course, under the Constitution, each state has two senators.But by the 1810s, the concern of slaveholding states is that more and more free states were going to come into the Union. That was going to give them not only the population advantage in the House, but the representation in the Senate.
• 28:21
  We're using small-D democracy. Um, Scott: Crystal: I forgot all about that. You have explained that in the past to me. It's like the North and the South were both trying to gain power over the United States in a way.
• 28:31
  Scott: Well, this was really about freedom and slavery though.
• 28:31
  Scott: Crystal: And this was still was um slaves were still counted as like three-fifth. Scott: Yeah, that was the representation thing counted as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, but still wasn't enough to give the South the leading edge in the, in the House. And this becomes a crisis. So in 1820, um Maine wants to break apart from Massachusetts and become a state. Missouri also wants to become a state. The problem is Missouri is leaning towards becoming a free state. Maine of course would be a free state because Massachusetts was. So this would have given four additional, right, seats. What they end up coming up with is the Compromise of 1820. So Maine comes in as a free state. Missouri comes in as a slave state. Then they set this boundary line around the 38th parallel or so where the . . . excuse me, 36-50 parallel, but that any state that comes in below that line is going to be slave. Any state above that free. The point is they're trying to maintain a balance.
• 29:25
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah. And they have to revisit it in 1850 because now the territory the US acquires from the Mexican-American War is threatening to upset this. So they try to rebalance this again in 1850.
• 29:38
  Scott: Crystal: I mean so to be clear this was Congress met and they were like we will only we only vote for Maine to be a state if you vote for Missouri to be a state and Missouri's like only vote for this. So that was the compromise was if you get one free state, we get one slave state.
• 29:49
  Scott: Scott: And this is uh . . . this is one of the things what it does and this is where Newsom, I think, is on very dangerous grounds. What that effort at balance does is it actually prevents the slavery issue from being solved short of civil war.
• 30:04
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah.
• 30:11
  Scott: just nonworkable mainly because so many states are going to be coming in north of that line. So when Kansas and Nebraska are moving towards statehood in 1856, um, one of the things that does Congress has to say, "We we we're going to let them have a choice. They're going to choose." And this actually leads to armed conflict in Kansas, which has the population. Bloody Kansas or Bleeding Kansas as it's known of. I mean, there's actual warfare before the Civil War going on in Kansas. So this idea of trying to maintain some mythical balance as a way of saving democracy, boy, that's a, that's a very, very dangerous proposition, I think, from Newsom.
• 30:42
  Scott: Crystal: It's tried in more than the United States I mean correct me if I'm wrong but um NATO--what was the counterbalance to NATO?
• 30:49
  Scott: Scott: The Warsaw Pact.
• 30:55
  Crystal: The Warsaw Pact. So those two were kind of like that and we're in the situation with Ukraine. I keep going back to this. Europe, NATO was terrified to fold Ukraine into NATO because the balance would be off and Putin might strike. He he was that and there was kind of that same that same thing is taking place today and we see a war going on over it. But, you know, you have those balance of powers just constantly hanging with each other. And that was I feel like that's the one reason Ukraine didn't get folded into NATO was that Warsaw side would--I know they were dissolved, but . . .
• 31:27
  Crystal: Scott: Right. And that's I think that's a key point. I don't think it was so much an effort to maintain some sort of balance of power. It's, it's the fact that Russia feels threatened. Now, rightly or wrongly, that's that's the argument Russia puts out.
• 31:35
  Crystal: Crystal: Keep Putin from using his nuclear weapons on us. Like, all right, we'll leave it kind of alone.
• 31:39
  Crystal: Scott: But, yeah, I don't know if it's an exact parallel, but yeah, this, this effort to maintain some sort of balance when you have shifting population. And again, one of the things that's going on that intrigues me is that part of what Texas is doing, and we probably need to go a little bit into the community of interest issue on Texas, particularly minority majority districts. But Texas is also arguing, is doing something again going back to Henderson, that's very, very similar. And that that similarity is the fact that um Texas is trying to account for this massive amount of growth.
• 32:12
  Crystal: Crystal: Yeah.
• 32:17
  Crystal: population center within Texas, if you buy Texas's numbers, right? Um, and I think they're probably largely right. But Texas's population is shifting away from the Houston and to a lesser extent the Austin area northward to the Dallas-Fort Worth area since COVID, right? Um, and that in that changes some of the ethnic relationships within Texas or within Texas. So, Texas is using updated information like Henderson's claiming they're doing to represent more, right? Is California, which has lost population since 2020, going to take that into account or are they going to continue to rely on the 2020 Census and then shift districts around?
• 32:52
  Crystal: Crystal: Yeah. Well, Henderson's redistricting is justified via population growth. Uh Texas redistricting is justified via population growth. The one place where it's completely unconstitutional and in my mind unlawful is what California is doing because basically they're redistricting because Texas is.
• 33:08
  Crystal: Scott: Right.
• 33:13
  Crystal: That's something a three-year-old would say. Like he got cake, I want cake, too. And like that's not a reason to redistrict. It is not.
• 33:17
  Crystal: Scott: And Texas is redistricting. And again, it's very, it's very . . . I'm so mad about this.
• 33:25
  Crystal: Scott: Oh yeah. Well, no, you're not is the worst thing you could do to our country. Scott: The Democrats are hailing him because they think what Texas is doing is illegitimate, Crystal: Right. But it is justified. Anyone with half a brain could see that there's population growth. California shrunk and they're basically saying Texas is going to get five seats, so we need five seats. That's not a justification.
• 33:43
  Crystal: Scott: No, let's back up. Let's back up. Um because there's there's a couple different things. Normally, growth in redistricting or loss of population equates in gaining or losing seats. Nobody's charging about that. Cal . . . or Texas is going to have the same number of seats. California is going to end up with the same number of seats. So, nobody's challenging that. But redistricting for the purpose of redistricting to support a political party.
• 34:07
  Crystal: Crystal: Yeah.
• 34:12
  Crystal: mid . . . in in a you know not a non-decennial year. So halfway through a decennial census cycle.
• 34:12
  Crystal: Crystal: Thank you for cleaning up my statement because you're right. A population shrink is just enough of a justification for redistricting too.
• 34:22
  Crystal: Scott: Well, it could be, right? Or, or a discrepancy in population which is Henderson's argument. There's now a discrepancy between these two regions. But only Congress can change the number of representatives. So, you know, uh, realistically, California is probably now compared to 2020 down the one or two . . . They should probably really have one or two seats less. Um, redistricting has happened between decennial censuses in the past, but always in relation to lawsuits that claimed that the redistricting done was flawed. And Texas is facing that. There's a series of lawsuits ongoing in Texas um that argues that the districts they had set up in 2021 are illegitimate.
• 35:00
  Crystal: Crystal: Yeah. this is . . . and what seems to be going on is Texas is using that as the legal justification for for doing this redistricting is, yeah, we're going to rebalance it.
• 35:11
  Crystal: Crystal: Well, and I'm fine with lawsuits because that's the way you challenge laws and, you know, once it's settled in a court, then both parties can look at it and accept it because we are a nation of laws in theory. Um but yeah, I mean if you don't think something is going on lawfully, you sue and a judge makes a decision and that's that.
• 35:31
  Crystal: Scott: Yeah. Well, and this gets, this gets into the question though, I think, of the basis of those lawsuits and this idea of community of interest, which is really, I mean, the whole, the whole problem with redistricting is, you know, it what you're supposed to be doing is sort of accounting for that population growth and whatnot, but also you're you're sort of creating representative districts that can represent a group. The question is, how do you define that? And the term gerrymandering named after one of the Constitutional signers, Eldridge Gerry, of Maryland, um who interestingly plays a key role in actually curtailing court powers, federal court powers in the Constitutional Convention. Which is interesting because . . .
• 36:10
  Crystal: Crystal: He had that light bulb moment. If I draw the district, more people will vote for me. And then someone else saw it and then the game began.
• 36:22
  Crystal: Scott: And that's where that's here the term gerrymandering comes from, right? It was from his name. That was 1812. Although the idea is much older, right? I mean, of course, the founding fathers were very familiar with Britain's rotten buroughs and whatnot, where you Old Sarum, right? That where there's two voters and they get a Member of Parliament.
• 36:37
  Crystal: Crystal: Well, technically invading another country is redistricting it.
• 36:41
  Crystal: Scott: Well, that's technically, but the question has always been what's the community of interest? And this accelerates in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act, where community of interest becomes tied to race or ethnicity.
• 36:53
  Crystal: Crystal: Yeah.
• 37:01
  Crystal: have to make because the concern was before . . . which was true, I mean, this was a real problem right is that districts would be redrawn where African-Americans would always be a minority and can never get somebody to represent their vote. And that was, that was true throughout the South.
• 37:11
  Crystal: Crystal: Okay.
• 37:16
  Scott: But um what the Voting Rights Act did is say well you know, we're going to . . . redistricting has to take place where it's a community of interest where minorities have the ability to compete equally. Um the question is what does that mean? And for years the initial thing was well that meant drawing minority majority districts that are say 50% plus one African-American or 50% plus one Hispanic because that's the only way their candidates could win.
• 37:41
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah.
• 37:45
  Scott: And what happened is that redistricting or that model of the minority majority district is still what we're operating on, but it has been for almost 40 years increasingly uh brought under court scrutiny, right? And I have to admit Georgia was, Georgia's been a center of this. So if we go uh two big cases real quick just to illustrate this. Miller versus Johnson 1995. So 1990 Census indicates Georgia should have or gain a seat in the House. Okay? Right. And looking at the demographics and the proportion of African-Americans in Georgia, it was determined that the fairest way to do this would be to create another uh African-American minority majority district. But what they did, and I was living there at the time, and this was a certain they they took predominantly African-American communities around Savannah, Georgia, which is of course down on the coast, draw a line up the middle of the Savannah River for 200 miles where there's no population, and then take predominantly African-American areas in the city of Augusta to create this district. And you know, basically this gets up to the Supreme Court like this is this type of racial gerrymandering is just nonsense, right? I mean you you I mean what what do August and Savannah have in have in dynamics? Um . . . Crystal: Well I think we've had this conversation. I well you and I at least are in agreement that people more align with their socioeconomic class than necessarily race.
• 39:08
  Scott: Scott: I think they do.
• 39:14
  certainly doing it by race seems wrong. Scott: Well and, and then what's interesting is how that race issue and the Texas one is based on these minority majority districts, right? the lawsuits. But um another case again out of Georgia, this is Georgia v. Ashcroft. After the 2000 Census, the Democratic party dominated the Georgia Senate. And a lot of that dominance was based on the fact that they they pulled in a large share of the African-American vote. But they realized that if they kept creating minority majority districts, eventually the Republicans would be able to capture enough other seats, right? Because so many African-Americans were concentrated. So, let's say you have three districts, one, two, three. The one in the middle is 50% plus one African-American. The two on the sides are 35-40% African-American. And the the um the Democrats are like, well, over time, two versus one is is a losing strategy. So, what they did was redrew the districts where each of the three had like 45% African-American, thinking they just needed to pick up about 6% of the of the non-African-American vote to win all three districts. and then they get sued under this under John Ashcroft um because this is supposedly a violation of the Voting Rights Act. And the Supreme Court said no, it's not. That that competitive edge doesn't mean that you have to create minority majority districts. You just can't create districts that make it impossible for that minority to be represented. Crystal: Yeah.
• 40:42
  certainly doing it by race seems wrong. Scott: separate out is it is it race that represents the community of interest? Is it socioeconomic or my argument to solving this is . . . so one, I am in favor of independent redistricting commissions, but I think those commissions need something, a legal framework to conduct their work And I think that legal framework has to be keeping lower levels of political divisions as intact as possible, right?
• 41:11
  certainly doing it by race seems wrong. Scott: Crystal: Well I think that the race visualize things when I think about this and think about it in a common sense way. If you had a room of four people and you had two black people and two white people and the two black people had one poor black person and one rich black person, one poor white person, one rich white person, the two rich people are going to have a lot more in common and the two poor people are going to have a lot more in common. And this notion that the poor black person and the rich black person are going to are going to have more in common because they're black. That's just it's well I mean just does that make sense common sense wise no that the two rich people have more in common with each other and the more and the two poor people do right. But this idea that just because the two are black they're going to get along more than than the white people. I'm like no well that's not
• 41:59
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: The problem is we probably also don't want to get into the thing of trying to divide up districts based on on explicitly on socioeconomic status.
• 42:02
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Crystal: No, but I see . . . we were looking at the voter turnout rates and it's like across the board, white people turn out to vote more than black people. And I guess the the thing I want to get to the bottom of is, you know, if you're going to use redistricting to try to rebalance out race um inequities, it's not the districting, it's the disenfranchisement. For some reason, these other groups feel disenfranchised and they're not showing up to vote. So, it doesn't matter how much more you draw the line around them, you still have a fundamental problem that they're not coming out to vote and that's on them.
• 42:39
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Crystal: Well, well, let's let's break that So, we were looking at some data from the Kaiser Family Foundation . . .
• 42:43
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Crystal: It's like redistricting won't fix disenfranchisement is what I'm trying to say. Scott: Well, and that's that's one of the arguments. Um, so we're looking at this data from the the Kaiser Family Foundation on the 2024 election, right? And one of the one of the arguments on this equality is that if you have a situation where say white voters are turning out at at x% and African-American voters are turning out at x - 2%. That represents a disparity, right? And and that's what triggers it. And the assumption is that disparity or at least on the Democratic side, the assumption is that disparity is coming from structural obstacles that are keeping them the vote. Right? That's what's justifying the Voting Rights Act. So, looking at it, California, right, uh, whites and blacks in the 2024 election actually vote at almost exactly the same levels, about 60-some percent. Right? I mean, no problem with California, however gerrymandered they were on political party. The race issue doesn't matter. Um, Georgia and Illinois are interesting because the discrepancy in both. Whites vote about 6% higher in Georgia than African-Americans. In Illinois, it was 6% higher. Yeah. Georgia is under the Voting Rights Act or was until 2019 under special scrutiny for discriminating against African-Ameans.
• 44:03
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Crystal: I know.
• 44:10
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: charge apply against Illinois, right? Uh it's the same discrepancy in votes. And then we get into places . . . was it Maine we looked at that was like 20%, almost 30% off difference.
• 44:15
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Crystal: I think Idaho was the biggest.
• 44:21
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Scott: Oh, Idaho was the biggest.
• 44:27
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: something like that.
• 44:27
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Scott: Now, granted, there are some African-American community in in Idaho is is much, much smaller. That is not a justification for anything, but it's hard to see. You know, I don't think they're large enough to ever create a district that's minority majority in Idaho. Um, but Illinois, you can, right? And there there are districts that are minority majority. So, so why is that supposed discrepancy in Georgia worthy of federal intervention and a sign of structural change, but in Illinois considered, oh, we've solved the problem and it doesn't really mean anything.
• 44:59
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Crystal: Yeah.
• 45:03
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: these are these are the interesting arguments that is is really bubbling to the surface now, I think, with a lot of this redistricting stuff. Crystal: Yeah. And I mean, if you're doing a redistricting with discrimination in mind, in some ways, that's a civil rights violation.
• 45:12
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Scott: Well, it's the bug and feature argument.
• 45:19
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Crystal: Well, I mean, we have to figure we have this bigger thing that we've been talking about where um like with Harvard, they had they adjusted their admission standards to include more minorities and different ethnicities to try to balance out the inequities that they see exists in our culture. And so you're seeing different iterations of how they're trying to balance out these inequities, but it's it's corruptive to the law because the law has to be applied equally. So the moment you start discriminating in any kind of way, it becomes a serious problem. Even if it is in favor of one group, it it's at disfavor to another, which is the fundamental problem, right? Scott: Well, and again, it gets into a lot of stuff with what what does that community of interest in this case actually mean? I mean, um, like I said, I'm in favor that I think independent districts that are operating under a mandate to keep lower level units, precincts, um, cities, counties, and so forth, um, as whole as possible is the best way for it. It's not going to be perfect. Las Vegas is never never going to be in one congressional district. Its population is just too large. Um, but also parceling it out. I mean, conceivably we could have an independent district that parcels Vegas up four ways and just attaches the rurals to those four things and then the rurals just lose any representation whatsoever.
• 46:38
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Crystal: That's the biggest thing that I fear in this state.
• 46:43
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Scott:Um, but I think it's quite possible for a redistricting thing that to, you know, sort of achieve a more equitable thing by keeping precincts together and cities together as much as possible.
• 46:55
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Crystal: Yeah.
• 47:00
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: take the east side of uh Las Vegas and Henderson and what not, but you know, this idea that counties such as Elko should be split between two congressional districts makes no sense. Some are going to be split. Lyon, unfortunately, because Lyon, you know, has that long structure, it's it's probably going to be divided between two congressional districts um at some point or two assembly districts or whatever. Um there's just no way you can do it. But some of the stuff we've seen the last few years, um . . . well, I can give you another example.
• 47:26
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Crystal: Yeah. You're making this way too complicated. I if if you don't mind, I'm going to throw up the the Illinois map, right? And so what you're going to see is uh Illinois in 1970s and you're going to see Illinois now. So you can see a side-by-side comparison of how this looks. And you can start to see those nice round concentric contiguous districts. They make sense. And then you see how it's been gerrymandered in the modern days. You see everything going in all sorts of directions and you can see it starts to lose common sense.
• 47:59
  really how people divide themselves. Scott: Scott: Right.
• 48:05
  Scott: Right. And it this is an effort to do it. And remember, you know, where where do the Texas Democrats flee to escape redistricting? I think Illinois, which is a lot of people consider one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. Crystal: The irony is . . .
• 48:19
  Crystal: It's, it's, and I did want to ask you, what did you think about that? um the Democrats fleeing. Do you think that was the best strategic move for them?
• 48:23
  Crystal: Scott: No, I . . . and I think this has been because you know this is the second or third time this has happened.
• 48:27
  Crystal: Crystal: It's not really going to stop it from happening.
• 48:31
  Scott: It's not it's not going to stop it from happening. But the reason it does happening is Texas has
• 48:36
  a unique constitutional amendment. Crystal: Yeah.
• 48:36
  a unique constitutional amendment. Crystal: Scott: That actually requires a quorum in the Texas state
• 48:43
  house to be two-thirds of members. Crystal: Yeah.
• 48:43
  house to be two-thirds of members. Crystal: Scott: Right. Most legislative bodies have a much, much smaller and the problem is Democrats hold just enough seats where they can deny that quorum.
• 48:53
  Crystal: Yeah. And they're just like us that they meet every two years.
• 48:53
  Crystal: Scott: They do meet every two years.
• 48:57
  Crystal: Crystal: They're non-professional. I think they get paid like $7,000 a year. Scott: Year plus per diem when it's in session.
• 49:02
  Crystal: Crystal: And they get fined $500 a day for not being there. So and that's something.
• 49:07
  Scott: That's something, that's that's something that's been introduced since the last time the Democrats have done this to try to keep them from doing it again. The argument being with a non-professional legislature, people have to have other jobs.
• 49:15
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah. also an issue . . .
• 49:21
  Scott: Crystal: Was that what you'd like to see from a professional politician? Do you think that is in the wheelhouse of politics? Is this just the theater of politics or was this egregious for them to abandon their post and not face the music?
• 49:31
  Scott: Scott: Well, I think it is political theater because I don't think they're necessarily going to ever be able to stop this because what's going to happen is Abbott's just going to keep calling special sessions until . . . It is a bit of posturing. It does bring up an issue very similar to what we have here. How do you how do you um how do you veto stuff that as a minority party you might oppose? Right. Uh, in Nevada right now, we're able to do it because we have a governor, a Republican governor in Joe Lombardo.
• 50:02
  Scott: Crystal: Well, call me crazy, but I think standing up in the legislator . . . legislature and making your protest known and heard is the professional thing to do.
• 50:13
  Scott: Scott: I think so, too.
• 50:18
  Scott: anything.
• 50:18
  Scott: Scott: And, and then drawing this into a national issue. I think that's uh I think that's something. And, you know, ultimately it has to be the Texas voters that that hold them responsible for this if they do it. Um . . .
• 50:29
  Scott: Crystal: And part of them it's just like poor losers. Like you're not in . . .
• 50:35
  Crystal: So Democratic Party lost big time in 2024. They're powerless now, which is what they're facing.
• 50:42
  Scott: Yeah.
• 50:42
  Scott: Crystal: And so, you know, if you're powerless and you've lost your election, you have to stand and make your voice known. You still have to represent your people. Abandoning your . . . I'm sorry, I've already said it.
• 50:51
  Scott: Scott: No, no, no, no. But, no, but this is I mean, this gets into I think the core thing gets into an issue. They did do it in 2021 over the the redistricting last time and that's that one was much more problematic in part simply because that was a normal redistricting, right? This is not a normal redistricting.
• 51:09
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah.
• 51:14
  Scott: but you know, these are different times than what the law was designed to to sort of encompass, if we could say, but I do think um I do think one of the things that's going on is we're going to have to get a handle on this.
• 51:23
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah.
• 51:28
  Scott: understanding of redistricting, and of course Kevin Kiley from California and one of the New York reps have introduced a bill that basically would just say no redistricting in between censuses, right? We're going to, we're going to, at least for congressional districts, you know, we're not going to do this. It's every 10 years and then you have the question of having to deal with the growth issue. Um I'm not sure what that means. I don't think anybody trusts the estimates. I mean, one side's going to put up estimates like and and somebody's going to always think a problem with it. I think what we're going to do is either have to say live with it for 10 years and we'll adjust it then or, maybe, look at a constitutional amendment that introduces a census every 5 years to try to capture these more rapid population changes.
• 52:06
  Scott: Crystal: That's what I was thinking as you were saying it. I was like maybe every 5 years is more appropriate especially again I mean our country was set up at a time where moving wasn't so easy. And now it's pretty easy and actually the average person moves homes every 3 to 5 years so with that being said that would be justified to do it every 5 years.
• 52:25
  Scott: Scott: But in it it does create a of the things we need to have a discussion of how to balance that right um Crystal: And I think the expense is worth it because and this is going to sound a little melodramatic but I really think the districting issue. We only have a few swing states left which are really kind of movable. And if the whole game board, if all 50 states get gamed out by the parties, you're pretty much not going to have elections. I mean, you'll have elections, but you really won't have a choice. I mean, you can vote for who you want, but we all know who's going to win. And in that situation, essentially, the country has failed.
• 52:59
  Scott: Scott: Right.
• 53:04
  Scott: money and make sure that it works because if this gets gamed out the way that we're talking about all the way there everyone's going to be disenfranchised somewhere. So it is important
• 53:14
  to spend the money to do that I think. Scott: Yeah. And it's going to be it's going to be an issue that's not going to go away and and uh I think uh we're going to be dealing with this well through the 2026. Yeah. Uh and and even beyond. So, if you got some comments on this, go ahead and shoot us a line at info@775alive.com. I'm Scott Gavorsky. Crystal: I'm Crystal Newton.