►
From YouTube: Gerrymandering: Is It a Problem? Can It Be Fixed?
Description
Gerrymandering has been in the spotlight this summer, this year and, well, continuously throughout this decade. Examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling about the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Can politics be removed or reduced in redistricting, and how?
A
Sooo,
this
freezing
cold
room
I
do
want
you
to
know.
We've
asked
for
them
to
turn
up
the
heat,
but
I
don't
feel
like
an
empowered
person.
Every
time
I've
asked
for
them
to
turn
up
the
heat.
It's
done
nothing
other
than
to
it's
like
pushing
the
button.
When
you're
going
to
cross
the
street.
It
doesn't
really
seem
to
help,
but
it
makes
you
feel
good
that
you
tried.
So
will
that
we'll
see
how
it
goes
on
that
front?
I
do
have
a
few
little
housekeeping
things.
To
mention
to
you.
Thank
you.
A
A
The
BIOS
will
also
have
those
posted
on
the
resource
page
connected
with
this
session,
and
that's
all
true
for
anyone
who
came
to
one
of
the
sessions
yesterday
and
if
any
of
that
doesn't
make
sense
to
you,
Dylan
Lynch
who's
in
the
back.
My
colleague
from
NCSL
he's
got
this
nailed
down,
so
he
could
discuss
that
with
you
further.
If
there's
any
other
questions
of
that
kind,
I
do
want
to
remind
everyone
that
this
is
live
streamed,
so
anything
you
say
will
be
recorded
for
posterity.
You
can
share
it
with
your
grandchildren.
A
A
We
will
have
microphones
walking
around
the
room
Dylan
now
that
I've
said
that
out
loud,
that's
true
and
will
also
hand
you
all
some
note
cards
and
if
you
would
like
to
write
down
some
cards,
Dylan
and
I
will
be
picking
those
up
and
that
actually
speeds
up
the
question-and-answer
period
so
that
we
can
get
through
more
questions
now
many,
how
many
of
you
know:
Peter
Watson
who's,
our
moderator
hands
up
all
right.
So
that
means
that
all
of
you
know
that
he
is
one
of
the
nation's
gurus
on
redistricting.
A
He
spent
40
years
in
the
middle
SOTA
legislature,
working
on
as
a
non
partisan
staff
person,
that's
40
years
to
the
day
on
mostly
on
redistricting,
or
at
least
that
was
your
favorite
part
of
the
job
it
sounds
like
and
since
he's
been
retired,
it
is
his
avocation
to
continue
his
work
in
the
redistricting
realm
and
NCSL
benefits
from
that,
which
means
you
all
benefit
from
that
too.
Here's
one
way
he
produces
some
amazing
reports
for
us
that
are
then
posted
on
the
ncsl
web
page,
and
these
will
be
linked
on
the
resources.
A
Then
we
have
most
recently
districting
principles
for
2010
and
beyond,
and
if
you
go
there
not
you
will
not
only
see
the
list
of
which
principles
are
in
place
as
of
2010
in
the
states
and
any
changes
that
have
taken
place
since
then,
but
follow
along
and
you'll
be
able
to
get
to
the
links
for
that
exact
piece.
So
if
you
are
doing
detailed,
research
he's
already
done
the
first
many
steps
for
you
and
then
I
feel
like
there's
a
third
one.
I
was
going
to
mention,
but
it's
it
made
the
major
cake.
A
The
case
summaries,
the
major
case
summaries.
So
if
you're
looking
for
what's
been
going
on
in
terms
of
legislation
this
decade,
there's
a
wonderful
resource,
that's
primarily
Peters
work
on
the
major
case
is
broken
down
by
state,
broken
down
by
congressional
versus
legislative
and
broken
down
by
the
topic
that
got
them
into
court.
A
In
the
first
place,
so
the
point
is
Peters
an
amazing
resource
for
us
and,
by
extension,
to
all
of
you
and
I
believe
you
are
going
to
stay
around,
possibly
everyone
at
the
end
to
talk
with
anyone
outside
and
even
into
the
lunch
hour.
So
with
that,
I
want
to
say
a
warm
welcome
to
Peter
and
come
on
up
and
thank
you
for
taking
this
on.
For
us.
B
We're
first
going
to
talk
about
the
two
most
recent
decisions
of
the
US
Supreme
Court,
in
June,
from
Maryland
and
in
Wisconsin,
and
for
that
part
of
the
program
we
are
going
to
have
our
two
featured
speakers,
Theresa
Lee
and
mark
Braden
Theresa
to
my
immediate
left
is
staff
attorney
with
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
Voting
Rights
Project,
headquartered
in
New
York.
She
litigates
voting
rights
cases
throughout
the
country,
including
challenges
to
voter
registration,
purges,
discriminatory
voter
identification
and
registration
requirements,
compliance
with
the
NVRA
and
partisan
gerrymandering.
B
She
wrote
amicus
briefs
in
both
Gill
and
Ben
ASEC
and
as
working
for
the
plaintiffs.
In
the
current
challenge
to
the
Ohio
congressional
plan,
she
worked
for
a
law
firm
and
Ben
clerk
to
judge
or
two
and
got
her
law
degree
from
Yale,
which
makes
they're
eligible
for
appointment
to
the
US
Supreme
Court.
B
Marquez
counsel
to
Baker
Hostetler
in
Washington
DC.
He
concentrates
his
work
on
the
law
of
the
political
process,
including
work
with
the
election
and
campaign
finance
agencies,
voting
issues,
redistricting
and
ethics
and
lobbying
regulations.
He
spent
ten
years
as
chief
counsel
to
the
Republican
National
Committee
before
joining
Baker
Hostetler.
He
served
as
chief
counsel
to
the
Ohio
Elections
Commission
and
as
election
counsel
to
the
Ohio
Secretary
of
State
he's
argued
cases
before
the
Supreme
Court
on
redistricting.
B
After
we
hear
about
those
those
two
major
cases
where
have
a
little
time
toward
the
end,
to
hear
from
two
states
that
have
constitutional
changes
relating
to
redistricting
next
to
mark
is
Frank.
Skrah
Gauri
of
Ohio
and
mark
has
worked
as
the
chief
legal
counsel
to
the
Ohio
Senate.
He
supervises
administrative
and
legal
affairs
of
the
of
the
Senate
and
advises
the
president
and
the
majority
caucus
members
on
legal
issues.
One
of
his
primary
areas
of
expertise
is
election
law.
B
B
Office
of
legislative
legal
services
in
the
Colorado
General
Assembly
he
drafts
bills
and
provides
advice
and
counsel
in
the
areas
of
elections
and
campaign,
finance,
state
and
local
government
law,
legislative
ethics,
land-use
property
and
several
other
subjects.
He
also
provides
advice
and
counsel
to
the
office
of
the
state
auditor
and
the
legislative
audit
committee.
He
has
served
as
a
clerk
to
Justice
of
the
Colorado
Supreme
Court
and
also
was
a
legislative
aide
to
Senator
Gary
Hart
back
in
the
day
he
received
his
BA
from
Colorado
College
and
is
law
degree
from
Columbia.
B
Thank
you
we'll
hear
from
you
guys
later
before
we
get
into
the
cases,
though
I'm
gonna
talk
about
partisan
gerrymandering
generally.
What
is
it?
How
does
it
work?
Might
there
be
some
limits
placed
on
it
by
the
courts
by
constitutions
or
in
other
ways?
Well,
my
definition
of
partisan
gerrymandering
is
drawing
district
lines
to
intentionally
give
a
political
party
an
unfair
advantage
in
elections
to
a
legislative
body.
B
What
limits
might
there
be
on
partisan
gerrymandering?
Well
until
1986
there
were
none.
If
a
plaintiff
had
a
case
brought
to
federal
court
alleges
a
plan
as
a
partisan
gerrymander.
The
court
said
you
are
not
here
properly,
we
will
not
listen.
Your
case
is
not
just
disabled,
threw
him
out
of
court
that
changed
in
1986
with
an
Indiana
case
called
Davis
versus
Bandemer,
where
the
court
for
the
first
time
said
that
courthouse
doors
will
be
open
to
claims
of
partisan
gerrymandering.
B
B
That's
probably
not
too
hard,
because
legislators
usually
know
the
political
impact.
The
partisan
impact
of
redistricting
plans
they
enact.
The
harder
part
is
to
prove
a
discriminatory
effect
and
the
bar
that
the
court
said
in
Davis
versus
Bandemer
was
very
high.
It
was
both
that
you
had
to
show
that
the
effects
of
the
plan
would
be
long-lasting,
that
is
probably
throughout
the
decade,
but
also
that
it
had
to
be
pervasive
and
a
plan
whose
defects
or
discrimination
was
list
limited
to
making
it
more
difficult.
For
the
minority
party
to
win
elections
was
not
sufficiently
bad.
B
You
had
to
show
that
the
minority
party
had
been
shut
out
of
the
pool
process
as
a
whole.
Well,
what's
that
kind
of
a
bar
to
meet?
Nobody
was
successful
so
for
20
years,
plaintiffs
brought
cases
and
had
them
thrown
out
of
court
because
they
hadn't
satisfied
that
discriminatory
effects
prong
in
veeth
versus
Jubilee
R
in
2004.
We
had
a
four
for
one
split
and
some
of
you
who
were
in
our
meetings
yesterday
heard
about
this
case.
We
had
four
judges
who
said
this
is
a
waste
of
time.
B
We
shouldn't
be
listening
to
these
cases
at
all
their
non-justiciable,
throw
them
out
for
others
who
said
well.
We
should
be
listening
to
these
cases
and
I've
got
a
way
for
deciding
these
cases,
but
they
had
three
different
methods
among
the
four
different
judges.
So
there
was
no
agreement,
Justice
Kennedy
in
the
middle,
as
he
often
was
said
well
I,
do
think
we
should
continue
to
hear
these
claims,
but
I
don't
agree
with
any
of
those
three
methods
by
the
four
justices
so
keep
working
at
it.
B
Keep
wearing
it
see
if
you
can
do
a
little
bit
better.
Two
years
later,
the
court
had
another
case
from
Texas
LULAC
versus
Perry,
and
again
they
decided
there's
no
good
test.
Here.
It
appeared
that
the
discriminatory
effects
test
imposed
by
the
court
in
Davis
versus
Bandemer
was
dead.
It
just
was
not
working
to
anybody's
satisfaction.
No
justice
said:
oh,
oh
gerrymandering
is
good,
let's
promote
it,
but
they
did
say
we
don't
know
how
to
limit
it.
So
the
court
continued
to
have
no
measurable,
no
no
agreed-upon
standard.
B
In
this
decade,
we've
had
a
number
of
cases
brought
in
both
state
and
federal
courts,
challenging
legislative
and
congressional
plans
as
partisan
gerrymander
I'm
going
to
talk
about
the
state
court
cases
briefly,
just
just
two
of
them
and
then
Theresa
and
Mark
will
talk
about
a
couple
of
the
most
important
federal
cases
in
Florida,
the
voters
in
2010
amended
their
constitution
to
add
a
requirement
explicitly
prohibiting
partisan
gerrymandering.
They
said
a
plan
may
not
be
adopted
with
an
intent
to
either
favor
or
disfavor
a
political
party
or
an
incumbent.
B
They
also
said
districts
should
be
formed
of
compact
territory
and
should
not
split
counties
or
cities.
In
Pennsylvania,
the
Supreme
Court
discovered
an
ancient
provision
in
its
constitution
that
required
that
congressional
districts
be
composed
of
compact
territory
and
not
split
counties
or
cities.
I'll
tell
you
a
little
bit
more
about
that
in
a
moment
in
Florida,
the
Constitution
requires
that
a
legislative
plan
be
presented
to
the
Supreme
Court
for
its
approval
before
it
may
be
put
into
effect.
B
B
The
Senate
changed
district
numbers,
so
that
incumbents,
who
had
served
for
two
years,
were
given
a
district
with
a
four-year
term
and
incumbents
who
had
served
for
four
years.
They
were
staggered
terms
were
given
a
district
with
a
two-year
term
that
way
in
the
following
election.
They
could
all
run
for
another
four
years,
giving
them
a
total
of
ten
rather
than
the
eight.
Otherwise
that
would
apply
under
their
constitution.
B
The
Supreme
Court
also
looked
at
the
shapes
of
the
districts
and
found
that
eight
districts
had
violated
those
tier
two
principles
of
compactness
and
not
dividing
political
subdivisions
and
through
those
eight
districts
out,
all
of
them
had
been
drawn.
The
court
found
to
favor
incumbents
and
four
of
them
had
been
drawn
to
favor
a
political
party.
B
Now
in
Florida,
the
Constitution
does
not
require
that
a
congressional
plan
be
presented
to
the
court
for
approval,
so
plaintiffs.
In
this
case,
the
League
of
Women
Voters
brought
suit
in
state
court,
challenging
the
Congressional
plan
and
after
several
trips
to
the
Supreme
Court,
to
clarify
the
meaning
of
those
2010
constitutional
amendments.
B
The
court
allowed
the
legislature
an
opportunity
to
go
back
and
redraw
the
plan
to
fix
those
problems,
but
the
house
and
the
Senate
which
each
passed
a
plan
could
not
agree
between
the
two
on
one
to
present
to
the
governor.
So
the
House
and
the
Senate
each
presented
their
plans
to
the
state
court,
which
chose
one
adopted
by
the
point
presented
by
the
plaintiffs,
because
it
was
slightly
more
compact
than
the
ones
presented
by
the
House
and
Senate
and
split
fewer
counties
and
cities.
B
After
the
Supreme
Court
had
found
that
intent
to
discriminate
in
favor
of
a
party
and
incumbents
in
the
Congressional
plan,
the
Senate
went
back
to
the
state
court
and
said
we
confess
we
intended
to
favor
a
party
and
incumbents
in
our
Senate
plan
to
give
us
an
opportunity
to
redraw
the
plan.
Ourselves
will
go
into
special
session
and
and
come
back
with
a
plan
that
you
can
assess
and
it'll
be
a
good
plan.
Well,
once
again,
they
failed
to
agree
on
a
plan
to
present
to
the
governor.
B
They
went
to
the
state
court
with
a
plan,
a
new
plan
that
hadn't
been
considered
either
by
the
house
or
by
the
Senate
and
presented
that
to
the
court.
But
the
court
chose
a
plan
that
was
presented
by
plaintiffs
because
on
the
numbers
it
was
more
compact
and
split
fewer
cities
and
also
created
one
more
Hispanic
performing
district
than
the
plan
that
had
been
presented
by
the
Senate.
B
Now
we
moved
to
Pennsylvania
the
2011
Pennsylvania
legislature
was
very
creative
in
drawing
its
congressional
districts
as
they
had
been
for
some
time.
This
one
is
called
goofy
kicking,
Donald
Duck,
it's
it's!
The
7th
district-
and
yes,
it's
funny
it
is
funny,
but
it
also
has
partisan
implications.
This
shape
and
I'm
going
to
try
to
show
you
those
partisan
implications
with
this
map,
which
I
hope
most
of
you
can
see.
I'm
gonna
have
to
step
around
here
so
that
my
pointer
can
describe
what's
going
on.
B
B
In
the
2012
election,
Democratic
candidates
won
51
percent
of
the
votes
statewide,
but
only
28
percent
of
the
seats.
The
League
of
Women
Voters
challenged
this
plan
in
state
court.
There
were
multiple
lawsuits
both
in
state
court
and
in
federal
court,
but
the
one
that
got
past
the
finish
line
was
the
one
in
state
court.
They
argued
that
it
violated
the
Pennsylvania
Constitution's
free
and
equal
elections
clause,
one
that's
a
little
bit
different
from
causes
in
most
states
they're
about
a
dozen
states
that
have
a
similar
clause.
B
The
court
gave
the
legislature
a
very
short
time
to
draw
a
plan
of
its
own
with
a
Republican
House
and
Senate
and
a
Democratic
governor.
They
did
not
come
to
an
agreement.
The
court
appointed
a
special
master
who
drew
a
new
plan
which
was
more
compact
than
the
existing
districts
and
reduced
the
municipal
and
counties
split.
B
Let's
take
a
look
at
the
partisan
impact
of
that
new
shape
in
the
western
suburbs
of
Philadelphia
you'll
see
that
the
new
district
is
fairly
compact
and
has
all
those
Democratic
blue
precincts
gathered
together
into
the
district,
and
although
it
does
have
a
significant
amount
of
Republican
precincts
and
strong
Republican
precincts.
It
also
goes
out
to
the
city
of
Redding
up
there
in
the
north
and
prognosticators
think
that
this
is
a
good
district
for
Democrats,
possibly
in
the
2018
election.
B
So
that's
the
story.
At
the
state
level,
state
courts
have
been
successful
in
striking
down
gerrymanders
based
on
a
state
constitution,
not
quite
the
same
in
the
federal
cases,
and
we're
going
to
take
a
look
first
at
Maryland
and
Theresa.
If
you
would
be
so
kind
to
take
us
through
the
case
and
into
the
Supreme
Court
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
plaintiffs,
Wisconsin
Wisconsin,
I'm,
sorry
Oh.
D
Checking
so
while
Peter
is
pronouncing
gerrymandering
entirely
correctly,
based
on
the
last
name
of
the
long-ago
Massachusetts
representative,
after
which
it's
named
there,
there's
oh
okay,
okay
mark
and
I'll
pass
it
between
our
each
other
I,
it's
a
little
too
late
in
my
in
my
time
with
it,
and
maybe
in
some
of
yours
to
switch
from
call
it
from
calling
it
gerrymandering.
So
you'll
have
to
just
bear
with
me
there.
So
the
case
in
Wisconsin,
Whitford
V
Gill
began
in
July
of
2015.
D
Statewide
carry
less
weight
than
they
would
under
a
fairly
drawn
plan
throughout.
They
allege
that
this
violated
both
the
First
Amendment
right
of
Association
and
expression,
and
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
they
generally
I
would
say
here.
The
plaintiffs
didn't
really
make
a
distinction
as
to
what
legal
theory
they
were
pursuing
it
under
sort
of
the
the
two
amendments
would
just
both
be
referred
to
and
the
matter
went
on
from
there
as
early
as
their
complaint.
D
The
plaintiffs
advanced,
a
social
science
metric
called
called
the
efficiency
gap,
which
uses
the
the
total
votes
for
candidates
of
each
party
across
the
map
to
demonstrate
that
the
map
doesn't
treat
both
parties
equally
going
to
the
idea
that
not
requiring
proportional
representation.
It's
not
that
if
you
have
55
percent
of
the
votes,
you
need
to
have
55
percent
of
the
seats
pretty
much
much
of
the
Socialists.
Excuse
me,
political
science.
D
And
so
here
that
in
both
of
these
cases
that
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
the
three-judge
panel
hears
that
case
in
the
first
instance
at
the
trial
court,
some
number
of
motions
will
are
heard,
sometimes
just
by
the
original
judge,
to
which
it's
heard,
the
non
dispositive
motions
and
then
from
there
it's
an
automatic
appeal
to
the
Supreme
Court
a
lot
of
times.
You
may
hear
about
people
saying
well:
the
Supreme
Court
only
takes
75
or
80
cases
a
year.
D
They
aren't
sort
of
making
decisions
across
the
board,
but
in
this
area
it's
not
that
the
Supreme
Court
chooses
to
take
these,
particularly
in
these
cases,
sort
of
the
the
losing
side
below
has
a
direct
appeal
to
the
Supreme
Court
as
of
right.
So
that
also
makes
I
think
litigation
in
this
area
a
little
bit
different
in
the
sense
that
litigants
know.
In
the
end,
it
is
unless
the
losing
side
chooses
not
to
appeal
it's
going
up
to
the
Supreme
Court
and
that
sort
of
sets
the
stage
for
litigation
here.
D
Sorry
for
that,
tangent,
sorry
I
think
helps
it
make
sense
like
why
it
becomes
such
a
Supreme.
Court
focused
conversation,
and
so
the
the
defendants
below
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
on
juice,
disability
grounds,
which
are
the
grounds
that
Peter
referred
to
where
courts
were
saying.
This
is
a
political
question
we
can't
or
that
this
is.
D
So
a
specific
injury
to
the
the
plaintiffs
to
the
people
who
brought
the
case
that's
fairly
traceable
to
the
complaint
of
conducts
and
that
the
court
can
then
redress,
and
so
the
lower
court
identified
a
test
of
discriminatory
intent.
They
noted
that
this
is
more
than
awareness
of
party
which
the
Supreme
Court
had
previously
said.
D
Some
of
the
points
that
were
brought
up
by
defendants
in
the
case
was
that
political
geography,
the
fact
that
Democrats
tend
to
more
often
live
in
cities
or
in
near
suburbs
to
those
cities,
while
Republican
voters
tend
to
live
in
more
spread-out
places
in
more
places,
the
court
found
that
the
mat
and
what
did
not
need
to
be
determined
by
political
geography.
There
were
other
maps
in
the
record,
including
maps
considered
by
defendants.
D
That,
obviously,
are
all
facing
the
same
political
geography
as
it's
a
redistricting
map
across
an
entire
state
that
had
less
of
negative
partisan
effect
on
the
Democratic
voters,
and
there
they
pointed
to
there
was
nothing.
That
said
this
map
was
justifiable
based
on
any
of
the
neutral
criteria.
Political
geography
didn't
answer
the
question
of
why
this
level
of
partisan
skew
so
at
the
Supreme
Court.
D
This
is
an
appeal
after
trial,
which,
of
course,
things
can't
just
be
alleged.
They
need
to
be
proven,
but
that
the
in
conducting
the
child,
the
plaintiffs,
didn't
attempt
to
prove
that
with
respect
to
those
four
plaintiffs,
none
of
those
plaintiffs
testified
at
the
trial
and
the
sort
of
the
entire
focus
was
on
this
statewide
theory
of
harm,
and
another
case.
This
term
was
also
remanded.
D
Based
on
this
same
standing,
analysis,
not
the
benefit
case,
which
we
will
shortly
be
discussing
them
at,
not
that
Maryland
case.
But
there
was
also
North
Carolina
partisan
gerrymandering
case
that
had
been
litigated
on
the
merits,
and
that
has
also
been
returned
to
the
lower
court
on
remand.
For
consideration
of
the
court's
opinion
in
in
guilty.
Whitford.
C
Okay,
I
I
will
confess
that
I've
argued
both
sides,
which
is
the
advantage
of
a
lawyer
that
I
get
to
represent
clients.
I
argue
their
interest.
I
was
on
the
other
side
in
Vandermeer,
batam,
vu
and
I
would
argue,
although
you
have
to
read
it
carefully
in
the
only
actual
case
where
partisan
gerrymandering
claims
have
been
upheld
and
a
plan
actually
thrown
out,
which
would
be
larious
versus
Cox
and
I
would
suggest
to
you
that
that's
the
only
case
and,
frankly,
the
only
analysis
that
seems
likely
that
the
court
is
going
to
go
with.
C
It
doesn't
really
isn't
going
to
apply
to
congressional
plans
but
will
in
fact
apply
to
legislative
plans.
But
let
me
talk
specifically
about
that
and
we'll
get
the
hilarious
goes
forward.
You've
seen
in
the
popular
press,
a
description
of
the
courts,
actions
and
guilt
and,
to
a
lesser
degree
in
the
Maryland
case
as
punny
not
deciding
it
on
the
merits
and
and
for
the
press.
C
I
I'm
saying
you
know,
I'm
not
going
to
object
to
that
characterization
of
it
to
those
of
us
involved
in
a
process
to
lawyers
and
the
people
in
this
room
who
are
gonna
have
to
deal
with
the
decision.
It
was
not
a
punt.
The
court
made
some
real
decision
there
and
you
need
to
look
at
that
decision
and
look
at
how
that's
going
to
impact
the
process
going
forward.
C
C
Four
other
members
joining
it,
but
that
as
Roberts,
clearly
in
expressly
states
in
this
opinion
is
not
the
opinion
of
the
court
for
partisan
gerrymandering
plans
to
be
thrown
out
by
a
federal
court
and
affirmed
by
the
US
Supreme
Court
you're
gonna
need
five
members
on
the
US
Supreme
Court.
Agreeing
to
that
I.
Don't
see
that
in
the
future,
what
happened
is
Gill
was
the
finding
that's
important,
because
it
goes
the
heart
of
the
claim,
which
is
the
issue
of
standing
under
our
jurisprudence,
to
bring
a
case.
You
have
to
have
an
individualized
harm.
C
It's
we
don't
in
the
context
of
this
type
of
litigation.
We
don't
have
group
rights,
we
have
individual
rights
and
if
you
go
down
that
road
of
standing
as
a
court
did
hear
Justice
Roberts,
does
you
effectively
kill
out
almost
all
the
arguments
you
have
being
presented
by
the
people
litigating,
because
there
are
all
effectively
supported
by
proportional
representation
of
numbers
and
analysis
partisan?
You
know
symmetry
partisan
fairness,
all
the
various
attempts
of
political
scientists
to
do.
C
But
that
is
not
going
to
be
successful
in
court
unless
you
think
that
the
new
justice
coming
on
the
Supreme
Court
is
going
to
vote
with
the
for
liberal
/,
Democrat
and
I
do
think
that
in
the
context
hate
to
be
so
straightforward
about
it,
but
I
think
in
the
context
of
redistricting
litigation,
you
really
do
need
to
be
saying
Democrat
versus
Republican,
because
that's
you
know
I'd
like
to
say:
that's
not
the
case,
but
these
this
is
partisan
litigation.
We're
talking
about
litigation
where
the
harm
is
expressly
all
this
plan
doesn't
collect
sufficient
Democrats.
C
We
need
to
draw
a
plan
that
elects
more
Democrats,
it's
hard
for
that,
not
to
be
political
and
it's
hard
for
it
not
to
be
partisan
political.
So
the
reluctance
of
the
court
on
the
Supreme
Court
and
the
very
expressed
reluctance,
obviously
of
Roberts
to
be
involved
is,
is
the
concern
about
this,
not
just
drawing
the
courts
into
the
political
thicket
but
impaling
the
courts
on
the
political
thicket
and
severely
potentially
undermining
their
credibility
by
getting
involved
in
an
actual
decision-making
process
that
affects
how
many
Democrats
get
elected
and
how
many
Republicans
get
elected.
C
There's
not
been
anything
fouled
yet
and
I.
Last
time,
I
looked
at
the
docket,
which
was
just
a
couple
of
days
ago,
nothing's
been
filed
in
guilt
because
of
the
obvious
problem
of
trying
to
figure
out
how
you
are
going
to
show
that
particular
lized
harm.
Every
argument
I've
heard,
has
drawn
from
some
type
of
comparison
of
how
many
Democrats
win
versus
how
many
Republicans
win
and
some
type
of
metric
from
statewide
vote.
C
When
you
go
down
to
the
individualized
harm
I'm
in
a
packed
district,
so
the
person
I
vote
for
that's
my
preferred
candidate
wins
every
time.
What's
my
arm,
I
can't
figure
out
what
the
hell
it
is.
I
live
in
a
crack
district
Oh,
the
candidate
I,
doesn't
I
vote
for,
doesn't
win
most
of
the
time
that
it
harm
is.
Is
there
a
right
to
vote
for
a
winning
candidate?
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
constitutional
right
to
vote
for
a
winning
candidate,
so
I
see
no
future.
C
It's
hard
to
come
up
with
that.
Fifth
vote.
I
see
no
future
for
this
litigation.
None
zip
zero
I
in
the
sense
of
being
successful.
I,
see
plenty
of
history
of
desire
to
do
this.
Litigation
continue
to
fight
it's
good
for
the
lawyers
it's
entertaining
and
the
discovery
process
is
wonderful
politics.
You
do
the
discovery.
You
find
out
that,
oh
by
the
way
elected
officials
are
concerned
about
politics,
politics,
okay,
yep,
okay!
C
The
answer
is
by
the
way,
at
the
very
first
Vandermeer
case,
the
supreme
justice
white
observed.
This
isn't
going
to
be
hard
to
prove
I've,
always
thought
people
being
surprised
about
what
people
talk
about
in
the
legislative
chamber
is
a
little
bit
like
the
inspector
in
Casablanca,
since
we're
in
Hollywood
I
can
use
my
my
Casablanca
story.
It's
a
little
bit
like
him
being
shocked
that
there's
gambling
at
ricks
people
being
shocked
that
there's
politics
and
legislative
chambers
drawing
plans.
Thank
god.
There's
politics.
B
D
No,
no
I'm,
petrified
you're,
not
gonna,
be
able
to
hear
me
so.
The
the
judgment
from
the
Supreme
Court
was
just
returned
to
the
lower
court
on
the
23rd
of
July.
It
comes
about
a
month
and
change
after
the
the
opinion
that
we
all
learn
of
in
the
public.
The
plaintiffs
in
that
case
have
publicly
stated
that
they're
planning
on
amending
their
complaint-
that's
I,
would
imagine
going
to
take
some
time.
D
So
I
wouldn't
expect
that
decision
to
be
reached
in
the
court
below
quickly
enough
for
Whitford
to
make
it
back
up
to
the
Supreme
Court
in
this
coming
term.
In
the
North
Carolina
case,
I
mentioned,
which
consider
some
of
these
same
metrics
and
again,
the
Supreme
Court
had
stated
in
Alabama
black
caucus
that
state
white
evidence
can
be
applied
to
district
wide
claims
they
have.
D
Obviously,
as
in
many
things,
litigation
have
very
different
views
on
what
needs
what
needs
to
happen.
The
the
plaintiffs
are
urging
the
court
that
there's
actually
enough
facts
in
the
record,
with
the
exception
of
speaking
to
there's,
there's
numerous
alternative
maps
in
the
record,
and
so
the
plaintiffs
are
offering.
If
we
take
one
of
those
alternative
maps,
you
can
demonstrate
the
packing
and
cracking
specific
to
the
certain
individual
plaintiffs
therein,
north
carolina
case.
They
also
had
individual
plaintiffs
in
more
districts
than
in
Whitford,
which
I
think
for
a
congressional
case.
D
You
it's
going
to
need
fewer
plaintiffs
than
a
state
legislative
case.
I
think
there's
16
or
so
districts
there,
but
obviously
99
and
gale.
So
it's
sort
of
a
different,
a
different
puzzle
for
for
litigators,
but
as
to
to
gill.
I
don't
think
it
will
be
back
until
29,
the
2019
term
at
at
the
earliest
yeah.
C
Well,
when
it
comes
to
redistricting
and
you're
gonna,
guess
where
the
law
is
going
to
come
from,
it's
always
a
good
starting
point
to
think
it
will
be
North
Carolina,
which
seems
to
be
the
source
of
unlimited
litigation
as
good.
A
guess
as
any
is
that
Covington
will
be
the
first
one
to
get
back
up,
and
then
we
probably
won't
see
a
punt,
we'll,
probably
see
the
ending
of
disability
question
I,
don't
actually
think
the
court
is
is
going
to
to
put
a
spike
in
that
they
might.
C
They
might
I
think
it's
much
more
likely
that
that
they'll
leave
a
small
window
of
opportunity
for
certain
types
of
claims.
The
obvious
type
of
claim,
which
used
to
be
the
most
obvious
form
of
gerrymandering,
was
which
population
deviation.
That's
and,
and
that's
limited
and
congressional
you're
not
able
to
do
that.
It
still,
though,
present
in
in
plans
used
as
a
gerrymandering
technique
and
I
think
using
population
deviations
as
a
gerrymandering
technique.
The
court
will
find
justiciable
because
it's
easy
to
see
the
standing
and
it's
easy
to
see
the
dilution
of
individual
votes.
C
So
you
can
find
an
individual
plaintiff
that
has
a
dilution
of
their
vote
because
of
the
population
question.
So
the
the
notion
that
there's
no
window
and
also
I
I
think
the
court
could
really
actually
go
back
to
more
of
the
Bandemer
situation,
which
is
the
total
shut
out
situation
which
again,
given
the
the
fluid
dynamics
of
our
politics,
doesn't
strike
me
as
an
inconceivable.
C
C
B
C
Do
I
get
to
do
that?
Okay?
Well,
this
has
a
long
and
tortured
history.
The
planet,
this
this
deals
with
the
Congressional
plan
in
Maryland,
which,
if,
if
you
just
want
to
look
at
the
word,
gerrymandering
or
gerrymandering,
you
could
use
the
Maryland
congressional
plan
to
illustrate
that
in
the
normal
we,
when
we
talk
about
gerrymandering,
you
know
gerrymandering,
we.
What
comes
to
mind,
of
course,
is
that
I
describe
as
an
inner
ocular
test.
C
You
look
at
it
and
looks
pretty
ugly,
so
you
think
it's
probably
a
gerrymander,
as
it
is
an
ugly
plan
and
under
anybody,
no
one
I
think
actually
would
claim
that
it
wasn't
designed
to
do
what
it
did,
which
was
the
remove
the
Republican
members
from
Maryland
from
Congress,
and
it
was
pretty
effective
at
doing
that.
So
it
is.
It
is
a
good
crack
and
plat
plan
the
when
the
suit
was
originally
filed.
C
It's
been
to
the
Supreme
Court
now
twice
when
it
was
originally
filed.
The
district
court
in
what
I
can
only
describe
as
a
moment
of
lunacy
decided
that
the
single
judge
couldn't
ignored
the
Constitution
of
the
statutory
provision
requiring
forming
a
three-judge
panel.
This
decided
on
his
own
volition
that
this
claim
could
be
tossed
out
on
a
motion
to
dismiss
that
went
up
to
the
Supreme
Court
in
the
Supreme.
Court
unanimously
decided
no.
That
statute.
That
says
you
have
to
convene
a
three-judge
court
to
make.
C
This
decision
means
what
it
says,
and
so
it
went
back.
Then
a
the
plaintiffs
sought
a
preliminary
injunction
which
was
denied
by
the
court
and
they
appealed
up
on
the
preliminary
injunction
exactly
why
the
Supreme
Court
took
this
case
on
a
preliminary
injunction
is,
is
again
a
mystery
to
me
like
the
original
district
court.
They
took
this
up
on
a
preliminary
injunction
to
deny
of
a
preliminary
injunction
motion.
So
that's
a
very
strange
procedural
situation
to
be
in
with
a
high
standard.
C
What
happened
was
the
the
court
decided
I
would
argue
and
we
can
go
in
a
long
discussion
of,
but
basically
that
Wow,
it's
too
damn
late
that
and
it's
certainly
too
damn
late.
In
the
context
of
a
preliminary
injunction,
but
basically
the
court
and
I
think
this
is
actually
important.
Now
the
court
at
least
implied
that
there
might
be
a
time
limit
in
this
process
that
there
might
be
a
stage
at
which
well
you
should
have
brought
you
know
these
plans
were
passed
in
2011
or
2012.
C
You
don't
have
to
wait
to
now
to
bring
them
and
so
effectively
what
happened.
They
rejected
the
overturning
the
Plymouth,
the
die-off
limit
or
injunction
on
the
basis
of
laches
argument.
Now
there
were
other.
Obviously
the
standing
issues
were
all
there
and
all
those
other
issues,
but
principally
on
I,
would
argue
on
the
laches
argument,
probably
because
it's
easier
to
get
a
per
curiam
opinion
out
on
that
basis.
This
case
has
gone
back
about
the
same
timeframe.
C
As
the
case
went
back
in
Gill,
there's
already
been
cross
judgment
motions
filed,
I
I,
you
know
I'm
going
to
bet
the
ranch
on
on
this
court.
The
three-judge
panel
denying
it
this
case
isn't
going
anywhere
in
this
three-judge
panel
has
pretty
much
zero
chance
of
deciding
in
the
favor
of
the
plaintiffs.
D
So
just
a
couple
of
timeline
things
so
this
case
the
case
was
originally
filed
in
2013,
so
the
actual
relief
certainly
wasn't
filed
that
much
longer
after
the
the
plan
was
drawn.
It
wasn't
until
the
case
had
been
filed
for
a
number
of
years
that
they
filed,
then
for
a
preliminary
injunction
and
so
the
in
terms
of
waiting,
the
quartz
timing.
Concern
may
simply
have
been
observing
if
something
requires
extraordinary
relief
with
diploma
injunction
is
that
should
be
filed
at
the
same
time
or
in
close
time
with
your
complaint.
D
The
motions
for
summary
judgment
in
this
case
were
also
initially
filed
prior
in
2017
about
a
year
ago,
and
then
the
court
there
stayed
at
the
same
time
that
they
denied
the
preliminary
injunction.
They
stayed
proceedings
there,
so
they
didn't
then
make
any
decision
on
the
motion.
For
summary,
judgment
I
think
the
defendants
in
this
case,
which
is
what
Peter
asked
me
to
speak
to
I
sort
of
equally
think
that
plaintiffs
in
this
case
could
indeed
make
out
and
prove
a
claim
for
that.
D
This
map
is
a
partisan
gerrymander,
basically
at
the
ACLU
who's
ever
doing
it
shouldn't
be
doing.
It
is
our
position
as
it's
violating
the
rights
of
individuals.
I.
Think
the
defendants
in
this
case
are
probably
pretty
happy
that
that
first
judge
decided
it
on
dismissed
it
on
her
own,
as
opposed
bringing
it
to
a
three-judge
panel,
because
it
extended
the
life
of
this
case
to
be
now
at
this
same
period
of
time.
D
There's
a
lot
of
parts
in
gerrymandering
cases
being
decided
on
their
merits,
as
opposed
to
being
kicked
out
of
court
at
the
motion
for
summary
judgment
other
than
that
sort
of
with
respect
to
two
defendants.
They,
even
though
they'd
won
below
they
themselves,
filed
an
affirmative
motion
in
the
supreme
court
to
affirm
basically
in
a
preliminary
injunction.
The
standard
is
an
abuse
of
discretion,
and
so
they
were
sort
of
perfectly
happy
to
just
have
that
it
in
her
to
their
benefit.
B
E
Sure
Peter
my
wife's
tends.
It
tends
to
tell
me
that
I
have
a
very
loud
voice.
So
I
think
you
guys
are
probably
going
to
hear
me.
Fine,
but
I
will
make
sure
that
I
speak
into
the
microphone
so
and
as
as
much
as
I
tend
to
agree
with
most
of
the
stuff
that
mr.
Braden
tends
to
say.
I
will
disagree
with
him
and
the
fact
that
he
says
that
North
Carolina
is
the
center
of
all
redistricting
an
election
litigation,
because
I
believe
Ohio
probably
tends
to
be
the
center
of
all
of
it.
E
What
I'm
here
to
talk
about
how
you
can
actually
reform
the
process
and
get
it
in
a
done
in
a
bipartisan
way
and
get
it
where
everyone
tends
to
be
happy,
including
all
the
voters.
So
we
had
to
congressional
I'm
sorry,
we
had
two
plans
separately
proposed
and
introduced
and
passed
by
the
General
Assembly
that
involves
constitutional
amendments.
E
Months
ago,
main
it
may
of
eighteen
by
a
vote
of
just
about
75%
I,
do
have
to
give
a
recognition
and
call
out
to
one
of
the
senators
from
Ohio
that
actually
was
involved
in
the
process
and
Senator
Vern
Sykes
who's
I
believe
is
right
over
there
who
has
been
instrumental
in
both
both
proposals
and
worked.
Very
you
know
in
a
very
good
way,
with
all
of
our
members
and
helps
get
everything
passed
so
obviously
need
to
commend
him.
E
So,
although
it's,
although
the
the
resolution,
probably
got
a
lot
of
wind
in
under
its
wings
from
a
coalition
of
organizations
proposing
to
put
a
constitutional
amendment
on
the
ballot
in
November,
that
would
have
reformed
congressional
redistricting,
the
Ohio
General
Assembly
and
in
particular
the
Senate,
has
actually
been
working
on
this
issue.
For
over
10
years,
we've
had
separate
resolutions
and
plans
introduced
in
at
least
six
straight
General
Assemblies.
E
Now
that
involved
the
idea
of
congressional
and
state
reform,
and
this
year
it
got
done
probably
because
I
think
there
was
a
little
bit
of
concern
about
the
actual
ballot
issue
getting
on
in
November
and
potentially
passing
so
I
think
that
helps
with
the
Senate
I
know,
at
least
on
three
different
two
different
occasions.
Prior
this
year
has
already
had
passed
congressional
redistricting
form,
but
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
what
the
plan
tends
to
do,
which
is
sort
of
consistent
with
what
the
state
legislative
district
reform
does.
E
Is
it's
trying
to
do
a
couple
things
its
number
one?
It's
promoting
bipartisan
compromise
of
both
both
chambers
and
both
parties
and
in
both
chambers
to
support
the
maps
which,
obviously,
everyone
would
probably
agree,
is
a
good
thing
is
to
have
both
parties
supporting
a
map
in
congressional
districts
and
legislative
districts.
So
by
promote
the
promotion
of
a
compromise,
I
think
was
probably
one
of
the
one
of
the
the
main
and,
if
not
the
main
idea
behind
the
initiative.
E
The
second
goal,
I
would
suggest
would
be
that
there
needed
to
be
for
the
congressional
plan.
There
was
an
emphasis
on
putting
better
rules
in
place
because,
prior
to
this,
you
know
the
General
Assembly
subject
to
you
know
anything
that
was
declared.
You
know
Federal
Constitution
about
the
court
that
we
had
to
abide
by
and
the
Voting
Rights
Act.
There
was
no
rules
in
place,
so
we
could
draw
them.
E
However,
we
wanted
to,
unlike
with
state
legislative
districts,
there
at
least
was
rules
in
place
in
the
Constitution
about
how
to
draw
those
so
Jeff
having
a
better.
You
know,
definition
and
scope
on
what
the
rules
were
was
it
was
an
emphasis
and,
and
then
I
think
the
other
thing
that
I
you
know
that
was
at
least
I
know.
E
Well
in
Ohio
I
know
that
there
was
a
strong
emphasis
on
wanting
to
maintain
the
General
Assembly's
control
in
the
process
and
which
is
what
happened
and
briefly
I
would
suggest
you
actually
probably
try
to
get
online
and
read
the
plan,
because
it's
very
complicated
and
it's
very
it's
gonna-
be
very
hard
to
discuss
in
the
span
of
prob
about
to
at
two
minutes
an
hour.
So
but
ultimately,
what
happens
is
is
there's
three
there's
three
phases
silo's
as
Senator
Sykesville
recall
that
it
emphasizes
the
first
stage.
E
If
that
isn't
achieved
by
a
certain
date
that
what
happens
next
is
the
Ohio
redistricting
commission,
which
is
the
Commission
that
is
formed
to
do
state
legislative
districts
comes
back
in
and
that's
comprised
of
the
governor
or
auditor
state
secretary
of
state
and
the
four
legislative
leaders
appointees.
They
come
into
play
and
they
say,
and
they
can
they
can
adopt
a
map
for
ten
years,
but
they
also
need
to.
E
But
in
order
to
do
that,
you
have
at
least
four
of
the
seven
members
approving
it
and
two
members
of
each
political
party
voting
to
approve
the
map
which
again
promotes
bipartisan
brought
bipartisanship.
If
that
doesn't
work,
we
come
to
the
final
stage,
which
is
where
the
General
Assembly
gets
it
one
more
time
to
pass
a
map.
The
first
part
of
the
final
stage
is
passing
a
map
that
would
last
for
ten
years
and
this
time
around,
you
still
need
to
get
three-fifths
of
the
vote
of
each
chamber
and
in
the
General
Assembly.
E
But
you
only
need
one
third
of
ultimately
each
party,
including
the
minority
party,
to
pass
it
which
sits
a
little
different
from
the
half
required
in
the
first
stage.
If
that
can't
be
accomplished,
then
it
comes
down
to
just
a
simple
majority
vote
of
each
house
to
pass
a
patent
submit
to
pass
and
enact
the
plan
which,
probably
which
obviously
the
point
was
there
was
we
need
to
pass
something.
So
if
we
just
need
to
do,
if
it's
just
the
majority,
that's
you
can
only
get
to
pass
it.
E
That's
what
well
that's
what
will
enable
a
map
to
be
passed
but
the
the
conditions
that
are
in
place?
They're,
obviously
a
would
promote,
not
billing
getting
that
final
stage,
because
that
map
will
only
last
for
four
years
so
they're
going
to
have
to
come
back
in
in
the
middle
of
the
decade
to
do
it
again,
which
I
don't
think
anybody
probably
really
wants
to
do
on
either
side
and
there's
extra
conditions
and
it's
more
stringent
rule
making
and
I'm.
E
Sorry,
more
stringent
line-drawing
that's
going
to
apply,
and
specifically
there
was
provisions
in
there
that
says
that
you
can't
unduly
split
local
subdivisions
and
you
can't
unduly
favor
of
a
political
party
which
is
the
the
language
which
you
say
all
from
Peters
presentation
about
Florida.
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
with
this,
what
these
three
phases
are
doing
and
what
this
is
complicated
process
is
trying
to
do
is
to
suggest
hey.
E
So
you
know
they
probably
would
once
who
most
likely
draw
a
map-
that's
gonna
last
for
10
years
and
then
there's
stronger
rules.
That
is
guard
that
are
going
to
apply
that
are
going
to
make
it
even
more
difficult
for
them
to
draw
districts
to
their
liking.
So
we
believe
we
landed
in
a
good
spot.
The
voters
in
Ohio
thought
we
landed
in
a
good
spot
and
I
think
to
go
back
to
what
I
said
in
the
beginning.
E
Although
Ohio
tends
to
be
the
center
of
a
lot
of
election
and
redistricting
issues,
as
our
other
panelists
know,
because
they've
represented
people
I
know,
I
think
this
was
shows
that
you
know
if
you
get
people
in
the
room
together
to
try
to
solve
a
problem
that
you
know,
a
lot
of
people
think
needs
to
be
solved.
They
can
you
be
done
so
that's
Ohio.
Thank.
F
You
Peter
I
will
try
to
keep
this
close.
So
if
you
can't
hear
me,
let
me
know
the
many
of
you
who
are
not
from
here
from
Colorado.
Probably
don't
know
that
today
is
Colorado
Day,
that's
the
anniversary
of
the
day
in
1876,
when
our
state
joined
the
Union,
so
I'm
pleased
to
be
here
on
Colorado
day
to
discuss
developments
from
the
Centennial
state
in
1974.
F
That
seemed
to
taint
the
entire
process.
On
the
Congressional
side,
a
state
district
judge
has
ultimately
drawn
the
boundaries
three
out
of
the
last
four
times,
because
there's
been
a
split
in
the
General
Assembly
and
the
political
parties
couldn't
agree.
The
last
two
times
the
court
has
adopted
plans
that
seemingly
favored
the
Democratic
Party.
So
the
Republicans
were
interested
in
changing
the
process.
In
2016,
they
worked
on
an
initiative
to
take
to
the
voters
that
would
have
created
a
single
new
Commission
to
draw
both
legislative
and
congressional
boundaries.
F
However,
our
state
Supreme
Court
held
that
that
was
not
a
single
subject
under
our
constitutional
initiative
requirements
and
therefore
that
did
not
make
the
ballot.
The
proponents
came
back
this
year
with
two
different
ballot
propositions,
one
dealing
with
congressional
boundaries,
the
other
dealing
with
legislative
boundaries.
F
At
the
same
time,
the
Democrats
submitted
their
own
proposals
and,
to
everyone's
great
surprise
and
amazement,
we
had
a
major
kumbaya
moment
in
Colorado,
and
both
parties
got
together
and
worked
out
a
compromise,
I
think
similar
to
what
Frank
talked
about
the
ballot
proposals
in
our
last
session
were
turned
into
concurrent
resolutions,
which
is
the
name
of
the
legislative
vehicle
in
Colorado.
For
proposals
that
the
General
Assembly
submits
in
terms
of
constitutional
changes
to
the
people
for
their
approval,
so
there
were
two
different
concurrent
resolutions.
F
F
The
process
by
which
commission
members
are
picked
is
a
multi-stage
lottery
process
by
which
retired
appellate
judges
play
a
role
in
selecting
Commission
members
in
terms
of
the
criteria
for
drawing
the
maps,
both
Commission's
are
directed
to
consider
certain
factors,
including
population
equality,
compliance
with
the
Voting,
Rights
Act,
preserving
whole
political
subdivisions
and
communities
of
interest
and
drawing
boundaries
that
are
as
compact
as
possible.
The
legislative
Commission
is
also
required
to
prioritize
the
preservation
of
communities
of
interest
and
political
subdivisions
that
fit
within
a
district
now,
as
if
these
criteria
were
not
sufficiently
difficult.
F
Both
Commission's
are
also
required
to
maximize
the
number
of
politically
correct
districts,
which
the
measures
define
to
mean
that
there's
a
reasonable
potential
for
a
flip
in
the
affiliation
of
the
districts
representatives
at
least
once
a
decade.
The
maps
cannot
be
drawn
to
protect
incumbents
candidates
or
political
parties
for
both
proposals.
Nonpartisan
staff
is
directed
to
create
preliminary
Maps.
The
final
map
must
be
approved
by
a
supermajority
at
least
eight
members
of
each
Commission,
including
at
least
two
unaffiliated
members.
F
The
Colorado
Supreme
Court
approves
the
final
map
and
its
review
is
limited
to
an
abuse
of
discretion
standard.
The
court
must
approve
maps
for
each
of
the
two
Commission's
in
the
December
of
the
redistricting
year.
Now,
an
additional
hurdle
that
both
proposals
face
is
that
in
2018,
the
people
of
Colorado
approved
a
supermajority
requirement
of
55%
for
the
approval
of
measures
that
would
change
our
Constitution.
So
obviously
this
time
in
order
to
become
part
of
our
Constitution,
they
need
to
obtain
at
least
55%
of
the
electorate's
approval.
F
A
specific
question
that
has
been
asked
is
how
we,
as
nonpartisan
staff,
feel
about
drawing
the
maps
and
on
this
I
referred.
This
question
to
my
colleague,
Jerry
berry,
who
was
the
staff
director
for
the
last
Commission
and
is
our
resident
expert
in
my
office
on
this
issue?
Jerry's
response
is
that
there's
really
nothing
new
about
drawing
maps.
Nonpartisan
staff,
at
least
in
Colorado,
have
been
doing
that
for
years.
The
the
real
concern
and
the
difficulty
comes
in
meeting
the
specified
criteria,
especially
maximizing
the
number
of
politically
competitive
districts.
F
The
concern
is
that
you
just
can't
make
certain
districts
in
Colorado
politically
competitive
under
the
standard.
I'm
sure
that's
a
problem,
that's
probably
faced
in
many
states
across
the
country,
so
Jerry
anticipates
that
the
argument
that
will
be
made
to
the
judge
is
that
the
map
of
the
state
as
a
whole
doesn't
favor
one
political
party
or
another,
and
that's
the
view
from
Colorado.
F
B
G
It
so
Wendy
will
be
running
around
collecting
cards.
If
you
have
a
question
you'd
like
to
read,
is
this
on
now
all
right:
when
do
we
run
around
collecting
cards?
If
you
do
have
a
question
that
would
like
to
say
aloud,
let
me
know,
try
and
catch
my
attention.
Please
have
a
question
please
and
then
we'll
try
and
keep
it
short.
So
we
can
get
as
many
questions
as
possible
and.
B
F
E
A
resolution
that
has
bipartisan
support
that
for
a
constitutional
amendment
that
the
voters
approve
unanimously,
it's
I,
don't
think
you
can
ever
get
rid
of
it
entirely.
I
mean
I,
don't
it's
I
mean.
If
you
listen
to
the
some
of
the
speakers
yesterday,
some
of
the
sessions
I
mean
they
will
tell
you
that
it's
impossible
to
remove
politics
from
the
purely
politically
political
process
that
exists,
but
you
know
I
think
with
our
plan
in
Ohio.
You
know
by
promoting
bipartisanship
and
rule
and
specific
rules
that
may
help
there
that
may
help
in
having
a
cure.
E
B
E
The
next
the
next
cycle
in
2011
just
was
a
midterm
presidential
election
and
the
the
delegation
became
13
to
5
Republican,
and
then
we
had
the
new
redistricting
map
strong
and
then
it
basically
has
gone
along
the
same
lines
of
12
before
Republican
side.
It's
just
tough
I
mean
you
know
just
voting
trends
that
are
voting
trends
and
you
know
who's.
You
know
in
the
presidential
office
at
the
time
like
it's
hard,
so
you
really
ever
truly
be
able
to
dictate.
What's
going
to
happen
so
I
attempted
home.
H
Racial
packing
was
achieved
with
by
splitting
precincts
to
meet
a
very
narrow,
plus
or
minus
one
percent
requirement
in
the
deviation
rule.
So
my
question
is:
is
there
Court
precedent
on
not
splitting
precincts,
which
usually
are
drawn
based
on
communities
of
interest,
as
opposed
to
not
splitting
jurisdictions?
H
C
Little
hesitant
to
comment
since
I'm
lawyer
in
a
particular
case,
but
let
me
just
talk
in
a
general
sense
about
the
splitting
of
precincts
in
in
the
vast
majority
of
states.
Precincts
are
not
identified
as
political
subdivisions.
There
may
be
some
exception
to
doesn't
come
to
mind
right
away.
They
are
administrative
convenience
items
that
change
in
states
they
get
locked
in
for
the
census
period,
but
after
the
census
process,
the
vast
majority
of
states
change
them
with
some
regularity
for
administrative
purposes.
C
I,
don't
think
it's
actually
accurate
to
describe
them
generally
as
communities
of
interest
they
are.
They
are
devices
that
provide
convenience
to
administration.
Political
subdivisions
generally
do
in
fact
reflect
at
least
some
type
of
decision
making,
based
upon
political
community
of
interests.
The
the
the
precincts
are
really
just
simply
a
minute
election
administration
units.
There
might
be
a
state
different
well.
G
B
Not
aware
of
any
state
whose
Constitution
requires
the
use
of
whole
precincts
and
putting
together
a
redistricting
plan,
but
there
are
a
number
of
states
where
a
statute
may
require
that
which
could
be
overridden
by
the
legislature
in
adopting
their
plan
or
where
the
practice
has
simply
been
that,
and
there
is
a
rest
of
those
in
the
red
book,
the
ncsl
red
book
from
ten
years
ago.
That
shows
which
states
use
precincts
as
their
basic
building
blocks.
But
generally
there's
there's
not
going
to
be
a
constitutional
requirement
that
prevents
you
from
splitting
precincts
yeah.
C
C
E
You
know,
if
you
look
at
the.
If
you
have,
you
have
to
look
at
the
actual
resolution
to
get
into
the
specifics
of
it,
because
it's
it's
probably
not
worth
me
going
over
all
the
specific
rules
right
now,
but
there
are
a
series
of
rules
that
are
in
place,
which
I
think
is
is
is
a
backup
in
the
for
preventing
the
situation
that
you're
suggesting.
In
addition
to
the
compromise
as
well
so.
B
Well,
if
there
are
no
more
questions
from
the
audience,
I'll
ask
a
question:
why
did
I
put
that
map
up
that
was
on
the
screen
when
you
came
in
anybody
noticed
that
ma'am
I
put
it
up
there
as
a
way
to
illustrate
both
how
to
draw
a
gerrymander
and
how
to
attack
a
gerrymander
and
the
opportunities
for
creating
competitive
districts
or
not?
And
you
find
that
out
by
taking
a
look
at
the
map
of
the
political
geography
of
your
state
and
like
those
two
Pennsylvania
Maps
that
I
showed
you.
B
B
There
aren't
any
Democratic
votes
there
on
the
Republican
side
that
not
too
many
opportunities
to
draw
a
Republican
gerrymander
up
there
in
the
Northeast
or
in
the
that
there
are
ten
Senate
districts
here
in
Minneapolis,
st.
Paul
and
they're
entering
suburbs
you're
not
going
to
draw
Republican
one,
at
least
if
you
are
limited
by
having
to
draw
districts
that
are
compact
having
to
draw
districts
that
respect
county
boundaries
having
to
draw
districts
that
draw
that
respect
city
boundaries,
you
just
can't
do
it.
B
So,
if
you're
looking
to
draw
a
jury
mannery,
what
jerry
matter,
what
kind
of
a
political
geography
are
you
looking
for?
You're
looking
at
these
edge
areas
where
there's
a
mixture
of
Democratic
and
Republican
precincts
in
the
fringe
areas
of
the
Twin
Cities
suburb,
there's
a
mixture
and
depending
on
who
controls
the
process
for
drawing
the
map,
those
districts
can
be
made
either
Republican
or
Democrat.
B
As
the
map
makers
choose,
if
you're
looking
to
draw
competitive
districts,
that's
the
same
area
that
you
look
for,
you
can
make
them
competitive
or
you
can
make
them
not
competitive
in
those
border
areas.
I
would
encourage
you
all
to
get
a
similar
political
map
of
your
state
at
the
precinct
level.
This
is
the
2016
election
for
the
Minnesota
Senate,
take
a
look
at
it
and
you
can
see
where
the
opportunities
are
for
gerrymandering
and
how
you
would
attack
a
plan
that
you
alleged
to
be
a
gerrymander.
B
Now
this
plan
was
drawn
by
a
five
judge
panel
of
Minnesota
state
court
judges.
It
was
not
an
intentional
gerrymander,
it's
not
subject
to
attack
for
that
reason,
but
if
you
were
looking
to
challenge
a
map,
you
would
not
spend
your
time
coming
up
with
plaintiffs
in
this
area
or
this
area
or
that
area.
H
B
Would
look
for
plaintiffs
in
those
blended
area
of
Republican
and
Democratic
precincts
and
find
people
who
had
been
put
too
many
in
one
district
packed
or
their
votes
were
cracked
so
that
they
couldn't
win
a
sufficient
majority
in
the
in
the
statewide
body
and
in
the
legislature?
That's
why
that's
up
there
it's
attached
to
a
report
which
was
one
of
the
handouts
which
I
call
the
partisanship
report,
which
is
something
that
I'm
playing
with
and
it
cludes
on
the
front
page
of
it.
The
very
statistics
for
what's
the
percentage
of
the
statewide
vote
by
party?