►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Welcome
everybody
to
redistricting
left
right
and
center
right
at
the
moment.
We
have
right
and
center
with
us
and
we
hope
we'll
have
left
with
us
shortly
too.
In
fact,
the
plan
today
is
excellent.
Thank
you
mark
good
to
see
you
here
too.
We
are
fortunate
that
we
have
mark
elias,
who
is
with
perkins
cui
and
mark
braden
with
baker
haastedler.
What
you
need
to
know
about
these
two
men
is
that
they
are
amongst
the
nation's
leading
litigators
on
election
law.
A
We've
agreed
that
we'll
focus
mostly
on
the
future,
what's
going
to
happen
in
the
coming
decade,
but
it
is
possible
that
we
can't
really
talk
about
that
unless
we
also
talk
about
the
past.
So
I'm
not
trying
to
hold
this
up,
but
just
to
kind
of
put
a
frame
for
us
on
that,
and
I
have
prepared
questions
for
you
all
and
and
then
we're
going
to
open
it
up
to
questions
from
the
audience
so
audience.
A
If
you
want
to
put
your
questions
in
the
q,
a
that
would
be
great
we'll
get
to
that
in
maybe
a
half
an
hour
or
so
so
I
think
we're
ready
here
we
go
mr
braden,
I'm
going
to
start
with
you.
We
hear
from
the
public
that
redistricting
should
be
fair
and
open.
What
do
those
words
mean
to
you
and
how
do
we
operationalize
that,
if
we're
going
to
have
fair
redistricting,
what's
a
fair
process.
B
Well,
let's
start
with
open,
which
I
do
understand,
I
think
fair
is
more
difficult
and
it
tends
to
be
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder.
What's
fair
to
me
is
likely
not
to
be
fair
to
my
companion
here,
so
I'm
difficult
to
finding
fair
open,
though
I
do
understand,
and
I
think
open
benefits
everyone
and
open
meaning
giving
access
to
people
to
the
process.
B
First
of
all,
it's
it
gives
you
a
better
plan.
Every
planned,
drawing
process.
I've
been
involved
with,
even
though
you're
using
sophisticated
people
who
are
members
of
the
legislature
who
have
a
lot
of
political
background
and
know
their
neighborhoods
is
always
a
lot
to
be
clean
from
the
general
public
in
in
changes
and
plans
and
changes
in
neighborhoods
that
are
available
at
very
much
a
very
localized
level.
So
an
open
process,
understanding
it
at
the
back
end
is
much
more
likely.
You
minimize
you
don't
eliminate,
but
you
do
minimize
some
of
the
complaints.
B
If
people
know
why
you're
doing
things
so
I'm
wildly
in
favor
of
making
as
public
as
possible.
Again
this
generally,
although
not
everywhere,
is
a
legislative
process.
People
just
have
a
lot
of
unpleasant
descriptions
of
that,
but
this
is
the
type
of
process
that
much
of
which
can
be
done
now
online
for
people
to
see.
What's
going
on
and
people
provide
explanations,
a
lot
of
the
problems
people
have
with
plans
are
visual,
but
a
lot
of
those
visual
problems
that
people
have
with
plans
can
be
explained.
A
I,
like
that
and
mr
elias,
what
about
fair
and
open
take
either
one
or
both.
C
Yeah,
so
I
think
they
do
they
are
not
unrelated
to
one
another.
I
do
think
that
there
is
an
impulse,
sometimes
among
legislators,
drawing
maps
to
want
to
sort
of
get
their
internal
house
in
order
and
and
keep
that
from
the
public,
and
I
do
think
that,
as
mark
said-
and
this
will
be
a
moment
of
bipartisan
agreement-
that
it
is,
it
is
oftentimes
better
to
simply
explain
directly
what
it
is
you
were
trying
to
achieve.
C
You
know
were
you
trying
to
achieve
a
community
of
interest?
Were
you
trying
to
achieve
a
voting
rights
interest
where
you're
trying
to
achieve
a
partisan
interest
where
you're
trying
to
achieve
a
community
of
interests,
not
splitting
counties?
I
think
I
think
the
more
that
legislature,
legislators
and
legislatures
can
articulate
and
be
open
in
that
direction,
because
I
agree
with
mark
obviously
having
public
input
and
interest
group
input
very,
very
important
to
the
process,
but
I
think
also
the
articulation
of
the
why
oftentimes
can
take
some
of
the
sting
out
of
the
results.
C
I
think
one
of
the
hardest
discussions
to
have,
which
is
people,
will
look
at
a
map
and
simply
visually
decide
that
they
think
it
is
fair
or
not
fair
and,
while
visual
you
know,
is
helpful,
it's
not
in
and
out
in
and
of
itself
the
end
of
the
story.
Sometimes
there
are
good
reasons
why
something
that
visually
doesn't
look
right
or
for
that
matter,
visually
does
look
right
is
not
what
it
seems
to
be.
C
On
the
on
the
open,
like
I
said
in
the
other
direction
right
open
on
the
inputs,
I
think,
is
what
mark
spoke
to,
and
I
agree
with,
but
also
openness
to
just
forthrightly
explaining
this
is
this
is
why
we
did
this
with
this
district,
I
think,
is,
is
helpful
in
terms
of
fairness.
Look,
I
think
that
that
that
there
are
certain
benchmarks
that
people
can
use
in
common
sense
about
whether
or
not
a
process
was
fair
right.
C
There's
fairness
in
the
outcome
of
the
map
and
then
there's
fairness
in
the
process
of
the
map,
and
I
think
that
there
are
things
that
that
lead
people
to
believe
that
the
outcome
of
a
map
is
not
fair
but
having
a
process
that
is
fair
and
is
open
and
transparent
goes
a
long
way
towards
making
people
feel
better.
There's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
literature
about
the
importance
of
process,
fairness
in
people
accepting
the
outcome
of
things
as
fair
outcomes.
A
All
right,
I,
like
it,
there's
quite
a
lot
of
information
there
about
the
importance
of
being
having
public
input,
and
maybe
even
public
outreach
too,
where
you
describe
what
the
process
looks
like,
and
we
do
have
some
information
on
this
which
we'll
put
in
the
chat
box
and
we
have
a
session
on
it
later
on.
So
people
are
at
the
right
meeting.
Mr
lies:
I'm
going
to
start
with
you
on
this.
A
We
also
have
a
session
later
on
on
racial
gerrymandering,
but
we
do
not
have
a
session
on
partisan
gerrymandering
and
in
light
of
the
big
2019
case
out
of
north
carolina
route
common
cause.
What's
the
future
of
partisan
gerrymandering,
what
do
we
need
to
know
at
this
point?
Surely
people
aren't
going
to
stop
quibbling
about
it.
C
Yeah,
so
look,
I
think,
two
things.
First
of
all,
we
live
in
a
federal
system,
which
means
that
state
courts
still
play
an
important
role
in
drawing
and
reviewing
redistricting
maps.
C
As
you
all
know,
in
many
respects
they
play
a
preeminent
role,
for
example,
in
impasse
litigation
they
actually
are
given
preference
over
federal
courts
in
the
drawing
of
maps,
and
we
saw
at
least
two
state
supreme
courts
last
go-round
find
in
their
state
constitutions,
prohibitions
against
excessive
partisan
gerrymandering.
So
you
know
my
my
first.
C
My
first
reaction
is
that
simply
because
there
is
not
a
federal
constitutional
protection
doesn't
mean
there
are
not
protections
either
statutory
or
state
state
constitutional,
and
I
suspect
you
will
see
more
state
courts
put
to
the
test
of
whether
or
not
their
free
and
fair
elections
clauses
which
virtually
every
state
has
in
one
form
or
another,
whether
those
clauses
give
a
textual
basis
to
claims
of
partisan
gerrymandering.
C
This
may
be
a
little
bit
beyond
the
scope
of
your
question,
but
I've
never
been.
I've
never
been
persuaded
that
there
is
not
a
that
a
standard
is
so
elusive
as
to
not
be
not
be
not
be
able
to
be
applied.
C
Courts
deal
with
a
lot
of
difficult
standards.
They
deal
with
a
lot
of
balancing
of
interests.
They
deal
with
a
lot
of
questions
of
how
much
is
too
much
you
know
in
the
area
of
voting,
so
I
would.
I
would
not
be
surprised
to
see
state
courts
come
to
a
different
conclusion
than
the
u.s
supreme
court
came
to
as
to
whether
or
not
courts
are
able
to
to
find
and
apply
such
a
standard
in
their
state
constitutions.
A
We
are
all
about
the
states
at
ncsl,
mr
braden.
What
have
you
got
for
us
on
partisanship
coming
up.
A
B
That
case
involved,
the
overpopulation
of
all
the
republican
districts
and
the
underpopulation
of
all
the
democratic
districts
which,
if
you
play
it
out
in
a
large
legislative
chamber,
can
have
obviously
give
you
a
few
more
seats
than
you
would
otherwise
get
assuming
you're
clever
about
it.
So
I
think
that's
conceivable,
I'm
not
sure
the
door
is
open
to
that,
but
it's
possibly
open
to
that.
B
North
carolina
and
pennsylvania
were
unusual
circumstances
where
the
partisanship
of
the
state
supreme
court
changed,
but
the
line
drawing
process
was
in
the
hands
of
the
other
party.
I
mean
pennsylvania
frankly
earlier
in
a
decade
rejected
a
partisan
gerrymandering
claim
against
the
drawing
of
the
plans,
and
then
two
justices
were
elected
to
the
supreme
court
on
the
platform
of
of
throwing
out
the
plan.
So
those
are
unusual
circumstances.
B
They
may
apply
in
your
state
or
they
might
apply
later
in
the
decade
in
your
state
and
in
those
circumstances
you
should
be
concerned
about
it
and
you
simply
should
be
concerned
about
it
in
the
broader
sense.
B
C
Yeah-
and
I
want
to
echo
that
last
part
that
mark
said,
because
the
one
thing
that
I
think
is
not
accounted
for
in
the
in
some
of
the
less
nuanced
commentary-
I
I
think
mark
got
it
exactly
right.
Is
you
sometimes
hear
people
use
declaratives
that
you
can
do
anything?
You
know
the
door
is
shut
and,
as
you
said,
the
door
tends
to
get
unshut
when
the
pendulum
swings
too
far,
so
you
can
imagine
a
world
in
which
a
a
state,
you
know
that
doesn't
exist.
Okay,
no
one!
C
No,
no
current
state,
no
current
legislature
in
mind
in
which
one
party
decides
to
redistrict
the
state
to
create
non-contiguous
districts
and
simply
hopscotches
around
the
state,
picking
up
pieces
of
voters
for
the
explicit
purpose
of
redistricting,
a
hundred
percent
of
the
districts
at
every
level
to
benefit
one
party
on
an
enduring
basis.
C
Right
like
we
have
the
courts,
haven't
confronted
that.
So
I
don't
know
how
mark
you
ended
it
by
saying
you
know:
do
yourself
a
favor,
but
but
you
know,
there's
never
an
absolute.
The
door
is
never
absolutely
shut
to
anything.
There
is
always
going
to
be
this.
There
is
always
going
to
be
this
outer
limit
that
causes
even
very
conservative
courts
or
very
liberal
courts
to
feel
like
you
know
what
you've
gotten
two
you're,
either
slicing
it
too
thin
one
way
or
you're
slicing
it
too
fat.
The
other
way.
A
It's
great
to
watch
the
two
of
you
think
this
through
and
find
so
much
common
ground.
If
we
could
demonstrate
bipartisanship
at
all
levels,
that
would
be
just
wonderful
but
but
miss
braden.
I
want
to
ask
you
one
more
thing
just
to
clarify
before
we
move
on
you
mentioned.
Population
deviation
and
some
of
us
on
the
call
know
what
you're
talking
about
some
of
us.
Don't
so
could
you
just
describe
how
it
is
that
population
deviation
could
be
used
as
a
partisan,
german,
gender.
B
Sure
it's
not
possible
in
the
context
of
congressional
redistricting,
because
the
courts
are
not
going
to
let
you
have
any
meaningful
deviation
between
congressional
districts.
In
fact,
my
clients,
my
advice
to
them,
is
generally
you
know
what
the
population
deviation
between
the
largest
and
smallest
congressional
district
to
exceed
those
that
you
can
count.
B
So
you
get
a
perfect
number
and
from
that
perfect
number,
the
courts
have
generally
permitted
a
five
percent
up
and
a
five
percent
down.
So
you
get
a
range
of
ten
percent
and
that
there
were
some
people
who
thought
that
was
a
safe
harbor.
It's
not
a
safe
harbor,
but
it
does
generally,
if
somebody's
going
to
object
to
that
they're
going
to
have
to
come
up
with
some
reason
to
object
to
that.
Generally,
the
court's
going
to
reject
claims
that
those
don't
comply
with
the
one
person
one
vote
requirement
so
long
as
10
range.
B
If
there
are
so,
but
it
is
clearly
possible
that
you
could
use
that
range
of
deviation
in
a
manner
that
a
court
would
have
problems
with
as
an
example.
The
easiest
example
would
be
racial
if
you
decided
that
you
wanted
to
disadvantage
the
minority
group
or
any
racial
group
and
decided
that
all
those
districts
would
be
overpopulated
and
the
other
ones
would
be
underpopulated.
That
would
be
a
pretty
easy
case
to
make
in
court
both
on
a
racial
basis
and
on
a
population
basis.
That's
not
an
acceptable
basis
for
the
deviation.
A
What
I'm
getting
out
of
that
is
congress.
We
got
to
have
it
down
to
just
a
handful
of
people
and
at
the
state
there's
a
little
more
flexibility,
but
don't
use
it
for
partisan
advantage
or
racial
advantage
or
otherwise
you'll
be
in
court.
Great,
all
right
now,
next
question:
I'm
also
going
to
go
to
you,
mr
braden,
and
that
has
to
do
with
reform
in
this
most
recent
decade.
Since
2010
there
have
been
a
handful
of
states
that
have
adopted
new
processes.
We've
got
utah,
michigan,
new
york,
ohio,
colorado
and
virginia.
A
B
Well,
it's
certainly
a
lot
of
change
in
the
decade
how
the
change
is
going
to
work.
I
mean
the
devil's
in
the
details.
Let's
be
candid,
some
reform
will
work
the
way
the
people
who
drafted
it
thought
it
was
going
to
work
a
lot
of
it
will
not
work
that
way.
So
I
it's
it's
absolute
devil
in
the
details.
B
A
Understood.
Thank
you,
mr
elias.
C
It's
not
mark
mark-
and
I
are
not
used
to
this,
but
I
actually
completely
agree
with
everything
he
said.
You
know
florida
passed.
You
know
by
ballot
initiative
the
fair
district
amendments.
We
were
litigating
in
florida
for
years
and
years
over
what
what
you
know,
what
the
outcome
of
it
was.
It
ultimately
led
to
it.
You
know,
went
back
to
the
legislature
got
struck
down.
The
map
got
struck
down,
went
back
to
the
legislature.
C
Ultimately,
court
court
ordered
you
know
you,
you
are
going
to
legislatures
and
states
that
change
the
manner
in
which
they
redistrict
are
are
inevitably
going
to
have
one
side
or
the
other
either
mark
is
going
to
be
unhappy
with
the
way
the
state
has
interpreted
it
or
I'm
going
to
be
unhappy
with
the
way
it's
been
interpreted.
So
I
anticipate
that
you
know
you
will
see
yeah
I
get
asked
a
lot.
C
Is
there
going
to
be
a
lot
of
redistricting
litigation
and
I
say:
there's
always
a
lot
of
redistricting
litigation
and
we
are
becoming
a
more
litigious
society
around
politics.
Generally,
just
look
at
the
last
election
and
how
much
litigation
there
was
there
versus
prior
elections,
but
certainly
wherever
you
have
changes
in
process,
you
inevitably
have
disagreements
about
what
that
process
will
mean.
B
A
Maybe
there
isn't
any
more
because
you're
putting
them
all
to
work
all
right,
and
then
I
want
to
talk
about
redistricting
as
a
state
function,
and
yet
we
and
we
know
that,
whether
it's
a
commission
or
it's
the
legislature,
the
state,
is
doing
the
redistricting
for
congress
and
for
legislative
seats.
That's
that's
clear,
but
we
do
sometimes
hear
that
there's
a
lot
of
national
influence
in
this
that
the
parties
are
either
making
strong
suggestions
or
handing
off
actual
maps.
A
So
what
do
you
think
about
the
role
of
political
parties
or
their
affiliates
playing
in
map
drawing?
Oh
and
mr
eliza?
Why
don't
you
go
first.
C
Yeah,
so
look,
there
is
always
going
to
be
an
interest
by
political
actors,
whether
the
political
actors
be
the
the
national
party
committees,
whether
they
be
organizations
that
are
not
technically
party
committees,
but
have
a
particular
influence
or
interest
in
in
the
the
redistricting
process,
or
the
results
of
the
registering
process
and
they're
going
to
have
they're
going
to
have
an
interest
in
providing
resources,
whether
they
be
financial
resources
or
technical
resources,
maps
map,
drawing
ability
and
the
like.
That
is
a
that
is
a
reality.
C
We
saw
that
frankly,
following
the
2010
election
redistricting
cycle,
we
saw
earlier
than
that,
but
we
definitely
saw
it
in
you
know
in
earnest
following
2010,
and
I
expect
that
that
will
that
will
continue.
It
is
part
of
a
larger,
a
larger
secular
trend
in
politics,
for
there
to
be
more
nationalized
interest
and
resources
brought
to
bear
on
things
that
historically
had
not
been
been
as
focused
on.
Look
at
the
look
at
the
absolute
growth
in
money
that
now
is
spent
on
judicial
elections.
C
Look
at
the
amount
of
money
that
are
spent
on
state
legislative
elections
relative
to
where
they
were
10
years
ago
or
15
years
ago.
So
I
expect
that
you
will
continue
to
see
that
that
process
continue
to
flourish
and
you
will
have
more
nationalized
resources.
I
still
think
when
it
comes
to
the
actual
districting.
C
There
is
still
so
much
that
of
it.
That
is
locally
driven
by
the
the
the
peculiarities
of
individual
states
and
individual
communities
within
individual
states
that
it's
it's
hard
for
that
to
ever
become
entirely
just
nationalized.
Just
because
there
is
such
intense
local
interest
in.
You
know
whether,
if
you're
in
you
know
this
county,
whether
you
are
grouped
with
a
neighboring
county
or
not,
or
whether
you're
split
or
not,
that
those
interests
sometimes
transcend
frankly
partisan
interests
and
they
certainly
transcend
national
partisan
interests.
So.
A
B
B
To
wyoming,
but
but
in
the
other
states
the
there
are
going
to
be
a
lot
of
congressional
members
who
are
going
to
add
you
to
their
christmas
card
list.
If
you
weren't
on
it
before
that,
you
know
sure
they're,
the
national
parties
in
various
national
political
interests
are
interested
in
who
gets
elected
to
congress
and
and
they're
interested
who
gets
elected
to
state
legislatures,
which
means
they're
interested
in
how
the
lines
are
drawn.
In
the
end,
the
real
power,
of
course
lies
in
the
hands
of
the
folks
with
at
the
local
level.
B
So
it's
it's
a
process
in
which
resources
and
help
is
certainly
maybe
help
you
don't
even
want
is
coming
from
the
national
level,
but
I
think
you
can
rest
assured.
I
don't
see
the
power
actually
changing.
This
is
not
one
of
those
situations
where,
in
fact,
all
the
national
parties
in
favor
of
x
well
and
people
on
the
ground
are
in
favor
of
why
people
on
the
ground
who
are
in
favor
of
y
are
going
to
get.
Why?
B
A
I,
like
that
and
tim
story.
Our
executive
director
has
said
to
me
a
number
of
times
that
this
is
one
opportunity
for
legislatures
to
get
some
love
but
or
possibly
some
coin
back
from
their
congressional
delegation.
So
it's
an
opportunity
to
get
what
you
need
by
by
listening
to
what
it
is
that
they
want.
We
have
lots
and
lots
of
questions
that
have
come
in
from
the
audience,
so
I'm
going
to
shift
into
that
gear
and
the
first
one
is
for
you,
mr
elias.
A
C
C
Have
been
a
lot
of
reforms
that
have
been
proposed,
and
certainly
the
the
notion
of
independent
registration
commissions
goes
a
long
way
towards
towards
doing
that.
Interestingly,
you
know
when
courts
draw
maps,
they
tend
to
be
fairly
nonpartisan,
there's
a
reluctance
on
the
part.
Of
course.
C
It's
interesting
every
court
that
I've
ever
been
before,
laments
and,
in
some
sense
resents
the
fact
that
it
is
put
in
the
job
of
drawing
a
map,
but
state
judges
actually
do
a
pretty
good
job,
and
I
think
that
not
that
we
want
to
move
this
from
being
a
legislative
judicial
function.
C
I
don't
think
that
would
be
desirable
and
I
I
think
it
would
distort
the
judiciary
and
all
of
that,
but
I
do
think
there
is
something
to
the
process
that
the
led
that
the
courts
oftentimes
use,
that
legislatures
can
learn
from
so
number
one
is.
They
tend
to
hire
non-partisan,
truly
non-partisan,
special
masters
to
draw
maps,
and
I
think
you
know
in
some
ways
you
know
even
more
than
a
commission
of
of
non-part
of
bipartisan.
C
Finding
those
people
in
your
state
who-
and
it's
going
to
be
cultural
to
the
state
that
you
feel
like
can
can
do
that
is
one-
is
one
idea
that
I
think
has
not
been
fully
fleshed
out.
This
idea
of
sort
of
super
experts
who
are
who
are
truly
not
have
no
partisan
stake
in
the
outcome
of
of
maps.
The
second
thing
that
courts
oftentimes
do
is
they
are.
C
They
have
extensive
input
from
the
from
the
from
the
from
the
general
public
and
they
feel
accountable
to
answering
the
questions
as
to
why
they
did
or
didn't.
You
know,
one
of
the
things
about
judicial
decision
writing
decision
making
is
that
they
feel
compelled
to
write
and
offer
written
explanations.
C
And
again
this
is
not
I'm
just
I
want
to
be
100
clear.
I
am
not
suggesting
that
we
that
we
turn
things
over
to
courts,
but
I
think
that
that
process
by
making
making
whoever
draws
the
map
present
a
detail,
not
a
floor
statement,
but
a
detailed.
C
You
know
explanation
as
to
why
this
alternative
decision
was
made
versus
that
decision
would
would
coupled
with
some
outside
nonpartisan
person
handling
the
pen.
You
know,
I
always
say
the
person
who
the
person
who
first
decides
where
to
put
the
pen
on
the
piece
of
paper
has
made
one
of
the
most
consequential
decisions.
I
think
those
are
two
ideas
that
that
I've
been
kicking
around.
A
All
right:
well,
I,
like
that
mark,
do
you
want
to
ask
that.
B
Yeah,
I
probably
this
is
where
we
do
diverge.
I
I
will
confess
to
being
one
of
the
originators
of
the
partisan
gerrymandering
claims
back
a
long
time
ago,
and
I
sort
of
had
a
belief
that
we
could
get
take
partisanship
out
of
the
line
drawing
process.
B
I
am
now
a
sadder
of
a
wiser
girl,
the
quote
from
the
music
man
that
I
I
don't
believe
that
what
happens
is
that
you
move
a
partisan
process.
You
don't
make
the
process
non-partisan
by
moving
it
somewhere
else.
You
just
make
wherever
you
moved
it
to
you
turn
it
into
a
political,
slash,
partisan
body,
the
issues,
people
who
are
knowledgeable
enough
to
draw
lines.
B
You
know
and
look
at
the
issues
have
have
views
and
agendas,
and
and-
and
so
your
view
as
to
how
representation
can
be
and
should
be
done,
has
has
consequences
and
if
you're
smart
enough
to
know
how
to
do
it,
you
understand
the
consequences
of
doing
that,
and
I
and
I
just
don't
see
the
three
blind
monkeys
drawing
the
lines.
B
So
I
I
think
my
problem
now
with
the
partisan
gerrymandering
litigation
is
it
tends
to
partisanize
our
courts.
I
mean
we're
spending
a
lot
of
money
on
supreme
court,
races
in
a
partisan
sense
spending
a
lot
of
money
on
supreme
court
races.
Now
there
are
other
things
involved
here
toward
other
issues,
but
a
lot
of
the
money
is
being
spent
because,
oh,
we
think
these
folks
may
influence
a
line,
drawing
process
so
we're
turning
what
we
perceive
to
be
judicial
bodies
and
giving
to
them
a
political
task.
B
I
think
that's
generally,
it
may
be
unavoidable
on
occasion.
It
certainly
is
unavoidable
in
the
in
in
certain
circumstances,
but
I'm
I'm
very
concerned
about
eroding
the
credibility
of
the
justiciary
on
making
them
make
partisan
decisions
what
appear
to
be
partisan
decisions
to
people.
So
I
I
it's
not
an
approach
that
I
am
much
in
favor
of
I'm
certainly
wildly
opposed
to
non-partisan
commissions.
B
C
C
There
is
an
entirely
partisan
process
and
an
entirely
non-partisan
process,
and
the
folks
who
defend
the
former
only
ever
pick
a
fight
with
the
latter,
and
so
let's
just
stipulate
for
a
second
that
I
that
mark
is
right,
that
you
can
never
take
partisanship
entirely
out
of
the
process.
What,
if
I
told
you,
we
could
take
it
98
out
of
the
process
or
90
percent
out
of
the
process.
C
A
So
that
makes
me
want
to
ask
about
systems
that
maybe
fall
in
that
continuum
and
ohio
comes
to
mind
where
they
now
have
the
legislature
the
opportunity
to
do
the
redistricting,
and
then
it
can
go
to
a
commission,
and
then
it
can
come
back
again
and
and
utah
comes
to
mind
too,
where
they've
decided
to
have
a
commission
give
the
maps
to
the
legislature
to
adopt.
So
these
are
two
systems
where
the
legislature
continues
to
have
a
role,
and
I
think
virginia
too,
where
you'll
have
some
legislators
on
the
commission?
B
It's
never
clear
on
how
the
recipe
works.
To
finish
the
cake,
and
in
these
these
cases
I
we
just
don't
know
I
mean,
let's
let
me
use
an
example.
I
don't
want
to
offend
anybody
from
the
great
state
of
california,
but
the
commission
in
california.
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
think
it's
been
hijacked
by
the
democratic
party,
and
so
it's
just
another
vehicle
to
draw
the
lines
totally
controlled
by
the
democratic
party.
B
I
think
there
are
lots
of
people
who
thought
in
the
last
cycle
and
they
went
to
court
a
number
of
times
who
thought
that
the
arizona
commission
was
hijacked
by
the
democratic
party,
so
we
can
argue
about
whether
either
one
of
those
is
true
or
not,
but
there's
certainly
significant
people
who
thought
they
were
true,
and
there
was
certainly
plenty
of
litigation
in
arizona
over
that
point.
So
the
the
question
is:
is
the
devil's
in
the
details?
How
does
it
actually
work?
B
Is
it
a
system
that
appears
to
be
nonpartisan
but
really
isn't
where
the
people
who
are
non-partisan
actually
are
nonpartisan?
In
a
sense,
but
in
fact
we
have
to
present
particular
political
points
of
view.
I
mean,
let's
be
candid,
I
look
at
a
lot
of
litigation.
I
see
the
league
of
women
voters
described
as
a
non-partisan
organization,
yet
I
see
it
on
the
other
side
of
the
v
for
me
and
lots
of
what
I
would
consider
to
be
partisan
litigation.
B
A
Well,
I
think
it
was
remarkable
that
ohio
came
up
with
something
that
was
an
unusual
new
process
and
with
something
that
only
happens
every
10
years,
it's
hard
to
get
much
of
a
track
record
and
do
the
research
on
it.
A
I
want
to
move
on
for
you,
mr
elias,
on
this
question:
is
it
possible
for
partisan
line
drawing
to
backfire
because
of
demographic
change?
I'm
thinking
of
the
ring
of
atlanta
suburbs
that
flipped
in
2018.
and
oh,
I
need
to
tell
you,
I'm
fairly
sure,
that's
from
a
reporter
from
stateline.
C
Yes,
it
can,
and
it
does
now.
Having
said
that,
I
want
to
qualify
that
it
does
less
than
you
think
right.
So
one
of
the
one
of
the
one
of
the
challenges
is
that
the
technology
and
the
analytics
are
outstripping
the
the
demographic
ability
to
flip
districts.
So
it
still
happens
right.
There
are
demographic
changes
in
districts
that
are
swift
enough,
that
you
see
and
you
you
do
see
a
flipping
of
of
of
districts
outside
of
atlanta.
C
We
saw
this
a
lot
in
in
particularly
in
districts
that
were
drawn
in
exurbs
that
were
drawn
to
be
safe
or
safe
republican
seats,
and
then
those
excerpts
quickly
got
very,
very
democratic,
very
fast.
We
just
saw
the
results
in
the
senate
election
in
georgia
last
night
and
I
suspect,
when
you
dig
into
that
data,
you're
going
to
be
shocked
at
the
shift
of
of
voting
behavior
in
some
of
the
atlanta
exims
forget
about
suburbs.
C
So
yes,
that
that
can
happen
that
you,
but,
but
I
don't
want
to
understate
the
ability
of
using
sophisticated
analytics
and
using
sophisticated
techniques
and
drawing
maps
technology
is
able
to
create
ever
more
enduring
gerrymanders.
C
That
will
withstand
even
those
shifts,
and
there
is
fundamentally
a
democracy
issue
at
stake
when
we
have
to
count
on
severe
demographic
shifts
to
undo
thwarting
the
essentially
will
of
the
voters
right.
So
so
there's
something
in
that
question
that
says:
well,
isn't
it
true
that
it?
I
think
I
would
say
it
is
not
that
it
backfires
it
is
that
it
can
be
overcome.
B
Sure
I
mean
you
know
the
the
first
case
in
the
united
states,
where
we
looked
at
the
issue
of
partisan
gerrymandering
in
the
litigation.
Sense
was
out
of
indiana
abandonment,
v
davis
and
two
years,
and
shockingly
enough,
I
was
on
the
side
of
the
of
of
the
court.
Taking
that
case
and
and
throwing
out
what
was
not
throwing
out
but
arguing
about
the
judiciability
of
what
was
designed
to
be
a
republican
gerrymander,
of
course,
come
the
next
election
following
the
case.
B
Both
the
plans,
the
democrats
took
over
a
majority,
so
it
failed
there's
a
good
deal
of
tension
in
the
line,
drawing
process
between,
what's
in
the
interest
of
individual
members
and
the
interest
of
electing
more
members
of
their
party.
So
there's
that
piece
to
it
and
that's
a
very
strong
piece
of
tension.
B
Anyone
involved
in
the
line
drawing
process
is
familiar
with
the
member
who
wants
a
60
district
quote-unquote
under
some
type
of
theory
of
partisanship
versus
a
55
percent
district
and
those
issues
push
against
the
the
process.
The
other
thing
that
pushes
against
the
process
is
what
I
think
is
pretty
evident,
which
is
the
coalitions
that
underlie
both
the
political
parties
seem
to
me
to
be
changing
significantly.
B
B
I'm
not
sure
it
isn't
the
case
on
the
democratic
party
side,
I
mean
the
person
who's.
Second,
seeking
the
nomination
for
the
democratic
party
was
somebody
who
said
he
wasn't
a
democrat.
He
was
a
socialist,
so
I
mean
those
types
of
different
coalitions
make
the
line
drawing
process
difficult
going
forward.
I
mean
we
can
we'll
probably
talk
some
about
racial
issues
and
ethnic
issues,
but
both
those
seem
to
be
those
coalitions.
B
A
Think
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
it's
hard
to
build
something
that
when
all
of
the
parts
are
moving
at
the
same
time,
population
is
shifting
coalitions
are
shifting.
Demographics
are
shifting,
politics
is
shifting,
so
it's
a
little
tricky.
I
went
back
up
to
where
we
were
before
on
reform,
because
we
had
a
question
from
julia
jackson,
who
is
a
legislative
staff
person
in
colorado,
and
she
says
our
commissions
in
colorado
passed
the
legislature
unanimously
and
then
were
subsequently
adopted
by
the
state's
voters.
A
C
I
mean
it
probably
gives
a
it
probably
would
give
state
courts
more
pause
at
a
practical
level
to
want
to
throw
it
out,
but
you
know
any
any
party
can
bring
a
lawsuit
whether
they
you
know.
I
don't
think
that
by
political
party
I
mean
a
litigant
withstanding
can
bring
a
lawsuit
even
against
a
popular
law.
A
Well,
julia,
I
appreciate
that
question
because
you
know
I'm
a
voter
in
colorado
as
well,
so
we'll
be
watching
how
that
unfolds.
The
next
question
shifts
us
a
little
bit
to
what
is
the
role
of
the
minority
party,
so
sheila
tyson
asks
alabama.
Legislature
is
under
republican
control.
How
can
dem
democrats
have
a
meaningful
contribution
during
redistricting
and
just
to
make
this
even
playing
field?
Let's
take
new
mexico
where
the
legislature
is
in
democratic
hands
and
the
question
would
be
the
same.
How
can
the
republicans
have
a
meaningful
role.
C
So
I
think
that
in
large
measure
goes
back
to
the
very
first
question
that
mark-
and
I
answered,
which
is,
it
is
ultimately
going
to
be
incumbent
on
the
legislative
majority
to
have
a
process
that
is
open
and
transparent
and
part
of
being
open
and
transparent
involves
how
you
treat
the
voters,
how
you
treat
interest
groups,
but
equally,
if
not
more
important,
is
how
do
you
treat
the
the
full
legislature?
Do
you
treat
it
as
as
the
only
thing
that
matters
is
the
majority
parties
thoughts?
Or
do
you
do?
C
You
include
the
minority?
C
Equally
importantly-
and
this
I
think
was
frankly,
one
of
the
real
one
of
the
real
losses
at
the
federal
level
in
congress
was
the
adoption
by
republicans
of
the
so-called
hastert
rule,
which
was
that
every
law
that
got
passed
had
to
be
a
majority
of
the
marriage
of
the
majority
it
had
to
be.
It
had
to
be
able
to
be
passed
without
democratic
support
and
that
I
think,
cuts
out
the
role
of
the
minority
to
such
an
extent
that
I
think
it
fails.
C
What
I'll
call
the
braden
the
braden
transparency
rule.
You
know.
I
think
that
a
a
legislat,
a
legislature
should
account
for
the
idea
that
there
are
going
to
be
bipartisan
bills.
There
are
going
to
be
bills
that
that
will
rely
on
menard
on
the
on
the
non-majority
party
to
play
a
meaningful
role
in
both
input
and
in
compromise
and
in
passage,
and
so
I
think
that
that
is
in
the
first
instance,
stands
on
the
on
the
responsibility
of
the
majority
when
you're
in
the
minority
and
the
majority
is
not
taking
that
approach.
C
I
think
your
your
role.
Your
role
is
to
shine
a
spotlight
is
to
is
to
make
public
and
to
stand
up,
and
I
thought
that
the
the
democrats,
in
a
case
that
mark
and
I
were
on
opposite
sides.
C
I
thought
the
democrats
in
virginia
did
an
incredibly
important
public
good
in
public
service
in
the
way
in
which
they
highlighted
some
of
the
infirmities
of
the
of
the
virginia
redistricting
that
ultimately
led
a
court
to
rely
on
that
on
many
of
those
floor
statements
and
activities
and
striking
those
maps
down
as
on
as
unconstitutional
racial
gerrymanders.
C
So
there
is
a
role
for
the
minority
to
play
where
you
have
a
recalcitrant
majority
that
is
not
inclusive
and
is
not,
is
not
taking
their
input
seriously
and
where
they're
they're
not
being
transparent.
Oftentimes.
The
minority
party
can
force
a
level
of
transparency
and
raise
issues
that
will
allow
for
more
meaningful
court
review.
B
Sure
I
mean
basically
a
couple:
different
approaches
are
not
mutually
exclusive.
The
first
one,
of
course,
is
accommodating
those
interests
of
the
minority
party
that
you
can
accommodate
that,
don't
frankly,
have
any
partisan
impact
or
might
have
an
impact
that
that
is
beneficial
to
the
functioning
of
the
of
the
government,
an
example
I
mean
there
are
no
surprise
some
members
of
the
legislature
who
are
more
important
than
other
members
of
the
legislature.
B
Brilliant.
You
know
not
everyone's
equal,
some
are
more
productive
members.
They
have
more
seniority,
they
have
more
they're,
more
effective
folks
who
are
doing
this
in
a
thoughtful
way.
B
They
don't
want
to
generally
want
to
remove
the
minority
leader's
seat
now.
Maybe
there
are
circumstances
where
that
happens,
but
usually
what
you
want
to
do
is
you
want
to
be
thinking
about?
Okay,
what
happens
the
day
after
tomorrow,
after
the
next
election
and
how
you
draw
the
lines,
has
an
impact
on
that.
Certainly,
there's
no
reason
there's
use
virginia
as
an
example.
B
You
know
there
are
people
who
want
a
local
elementary
school
in
their
district
because
that's
where
their
kids
go
and
whether
you
draw
the
line
that
includes
the
elementary
school
or
doesn't
include
elementary
school
may
have
no
effect
on
anyone
other
than
that
particular
member
and
there's.
So
so,
like
everything
in
in
this
process,
there's
always
going
to
be
some
degree
of
accommodation
that
you
can
should
do
it's
frankly
harder
to
attack
in
a
plan
where
you've
accommodated
certain
people's
interests,
the
fewer
plaintiffs
that
are
available.
It
helps
you
some.
B
It
doesn't
eliminate
all
of
them.
Then,
of
course
the
other
one
is
frankly
forcing
them
to
say
certain.
You
know
if
you're
in
the
minority
you're
going
to
make
shine
a
light
on
what
the
majority
is
doing,
if
you
think
that
exposes
them
to
a
difficult
position
in
litigation.
So
if
they're
drawing
a
line
for
a
particular
reason-
and
you
can
point
that
out
that
you
might
think
improves
your
position.
B
You
know
there
are
state
constitutional
provisions
limiting
drawing
plans
and
if
the
majority
is
doing
something
that
you
think
contravenes
those
state
requirements,
that's
something
that
you
can,
for
you
know
come
up
with
an
alternative.
This
shows,
oh
by
the
way
this
district
could
have
been
more
compact.
This
district
didn't
have
to
divide
this
many
political
subdivisions.
A
Coming
back
to
mr
elias-
and
your
last
comment
makes
me
want
to
bring
this
question
to
the
four
it
comes
from
anthony
del
colo
from
the
delaware
senate.
He
asks:
are
there
words
and
statutes
that,
as
a
practical
matter
will
have
no
meaning,
for
example,
a
mandate
against
districts
that
unduly
advantage
one
person
or
party?
So
do
we
sometimes
put
things
in
the
constitution
or
a
statute
that
become
unfathomable
and
mr
braden?
Why
don't
you
go
first.
B
B
Because
we
all
have
a
different
definition
of
fare,
if
you're
going
to
put
in
a
line
that
says
well,
we
we
need
to
have
compact
districts.
We
need
to
divide
as
few
political
subdivisions
as
it's
physically
possible
to
do
under
the
other
requirement.
There's
a
there
are
things
that
you
can
put
in
to
the
law
into
the
process
that
are
reasonably
not
always
totally,
but
at
least
reasonably
definable.
C
C
C
I
find
it
to
be
among
the
least
enforceable,
because
people
don't
really
know
how
to
balance
it
or
what
it
means
versus
other
things.
I
think
saying
that
districts
should
that
districts
should
be
drawn
fairly
or
with
I
forget
the
what
was
the
what
was
the
language.
C
Unduly
favor
of
disfavor
our
courts
judge
that
kind
of
standard
every
day
like
come
to
one
of
my
voting
rights
cases
sometime,
you
know
where
we're
talking
about.
You
know
the
right
burdening
the
right
to
vote
right.
It's
a
balancing
test
under
the
anderson
verdict
principle
where
we
balance
what
are
the
interests
of
the
state
in
administering
its
elections
and
preventing
fraud
against?
What
is
the
burden
on
the
voter?
Is
it
a
severe
voter
burden
on
the
voter,
or
is
it
a
moderate
burden
on
the
voter?
C
These
kinds
of
balancing
tests
are
what
courts
do
every
day
in
due
process
cases
in
right
to
votes
cases
so
asking
whether
it
unduly
favors
well
sure
at
first
there'll,
be
litigation,
there's
always
going
to
be
litigation
at
first.
That's
where
I
agree
with
mark
whatever
you
do,
there's
going
to
be
litigation
at
first,
but
soon
enough,
the
courts
will
establish
a
standard
as
to
what
it
means
to
unduly
advantage.
C
One
party,
or
the
other,
they
may
say
unduly
means
intent
that
if
you
intend
to
do
it,
it's
undo,
they
may
say
that
it's
based
on
a
ratio
of
of
the
total
population
to
the
number
of
districts
people
want
like
there
are
any
number
of
ways
that
courts
can
define
that
out.
We've
seen
that
in
north
carolina
and
pennsylvania,
mark's
objection
to
north
carolina
and
pennsylvania,
I
think,
is
a
fair
one.
C
I
don't
agree
with
it,
but
it's
a
fair
one,
which
is
that
that
it
was
the
identity
of
the
judges
that
changed
the
standard,
but
indeed
it
did
change
the
standard.
There
is
a
standard
now
in
pennsylvania.
There
is
a
standard
now
in
in
north
carolina
and
it
will
be
judicially
administered
and
the
legislatures
will
be
able
to
understand
it
well
enough
to
draw
districts.
Yes,
there
will
be
litigation,
but
there
will
always
be
litigation
in
in
these
kinds
of
cases
and
there's
nothing
special
about
that.
So
I
say
in
delaware:
go
for
it.
A
All
right:
well,
that
was
fascinating
to
get
that
I
am
going
to
bring
us
to
a
close
in
about
five
minutes
six
minutes,
but
I
I
have
a
couple
more
things
to
to
do
before
I.
C
B
Well,
I'll
just
be
real,
quick
on
it,
I
mean
I,
I
just
think
the
unduly
standard
is
really
just
a
another
way
of
saying
you
know
how
much
partisanship
is
too
much
partisanship,
and
you
know
how
spicy
is
the
food.
Is
it
too
spicy
and
those
strike
me
in
the
end
of
being
basically
political
decision
making
rather
than
judicial.
B
I
understand
that
that
that
type
of
language
we
see
a
lot
in
in
in
other
judicial
situations,
but
when,
when
the
decision
is
purely
political,
then
we're
changing
what
is
a
judicial
process
into
a
political
process?
I
just
you
know,
you're
exactly
right.
The
the
pennsylvania
supreme
court
seems
to
have
established
some
type
of
standard.
I'm
not
sure
I
really
understand
it
on
on
partisanship
in
the
drawing
of
congressional
districts.
B
B
I
don't
remember
the
exact
number
to
switch
a
hundred
percent,
so
I
just
I'm
I'm
you
know,
maybe
I'm
pollyanna
keeping
it
out
of
the
courtrooms
as
much
as
possible
at
least
leaves
you
with
the
the
you're
not
bare
ass,
naked
partisan,
well,
asking
the
court
to
make
what
are
essentially
political
decisions.
This
plan
doesn't
elect
enough.
A
So
I
want
to
say
that
I
love
the
fact
that
pollyanna
said
a
naughty
word.
Just
now,
mike
mike
had
asked
a
question
about
whether
independent
commissions
do
better
or
less
well
than
legislatures,
and
what
I
want
to
say
to
you
mike
is
that
peter
watson
has
a
answer
to
that
and
he
will
be
sharing
it
with
us
at
the
audit,
the
class,
which
is,
I
believe
tomorrow
afternoon,
and
you
can
reach
him
in
the
meantime.
A
Probably
if
you
want
more
on
that,
but
there's
more
than
one
way
to
do
it,
but
he's
got
a
pretty
cool
way
and
then
I
do
want
to
come
to
one
more
question
from
carol
sawicki
from
north
dakota.
She
says:
north
dakota
requires
open
meeting
slash
records.
However,
the
redistricting
process
has
been
closed
to
the
public,
citing
proprietary
concerns
about
the
interim
maps.
Is
this
a
common
issue.
C
Don't
know
it
is
cloaked
in
confidentiality.
I
think
there
is
a
certain
amount.
Look,
here's
the
deal
legislatures
pass
laws
about
open
records
and
open
meetings,
and
it
you
know
they
can't
hide
behind
behind.
A
Got
it
okay,
I
like
that,
so
then,
for
both
of
you
and
I'll
start
with
you,
mr
braden,
my
question
is:
what
would
you
recommend
if
you
could
just
choose
one
thing
to
help
a
state?
If
not,
I
was
gonna
say
to
not
get
sued.
You've
now
taught
me
that
that's
not
possible,
but
to
have
the
the
the
case
thrown
out
quickly.
B
You
know
try
to
build
as
large
a
coalition
as
possible
for
your
plan
go
out
to
the
obvious
potential
litigants
and
see
if
you
can
satisfy
their
desires.
I
mean
certainly
reaching
out
to
minority
interests,
racial
ethnic
minority
interests.
B
If
you
get
them
to
buy
on
to
your
plans,
it
doesn't
eliminate
litigation,
but
it
lessens
the
chance,
for
them
creates
something
that
the
minority
parties
involved
can
can
are
sullen,
but
not
liticious.
C
I
think
mark
gives
good
advice
there.
I'll
add
only
one
more
thing
just
objectively,
and
this
maybe
is
in
the
bipartisan
spirit,
so
I'll
I'll
I'll
offer
this
to
republican
legislators.
Listening
in
the
last
round
of
redistricting,
I
litigated
four
cases
to
the
u.s
supreme
court
and
won
all
of
them
all
of
them
involved
a
common
fact
pattern
republican
legislators
who
are
engaged
in
a
partisan,
I'm
not
a
person,
I'm
sorry
republican
legislators.
C
Well,
maybe
they
were
involved
in
a
partisan
effort,
but
republican
legislators
who
passed
a
map
for
their
own
purposes,
cloaked
themselves
in
the
in
fealty
to
the
voting
rights
act
when
in
fact
that
wasn't
it
wasn't
what
was
happening,
and
so,
if
you,
if
you,
you
have
an
obligation
to
abide
by
the
nation's
anti-discrimination
and
voting
laws,
and
that
means
actually
following
the
voting
rights
act,
it
doesn't
mean
issuing
a
press
release
that
you
comply
with
the
voting
rights
act.
C
So
if
you
don't
want
to
get
sued,
I
would
suggest
doing
a
thorough
section
to
analysis.
If
you
have
vra
districts
not
engaged
in
permissible
racial
gerrymandering,
because
that
will
those
claims
are
alive
and
well
in
the
us
supreme
court.
In
fact,
they
enjoyed
the
support
of
several
conservative
justices.
C
A
And
that's
great
because
we
do
have
a
session
on
that
tomorrow.
Mr
braden
thoughts
on
how
to
have
your
cases
get
thrown
out
because
you
did
such
a
great
job
of
redistricting.
B
I
you
know
it's
you're
going
to
have
litigation,
it's
always
better
to
litigate
from
the
position
that
people
looking
in
from
the
outside
sort
of
think.
Oh,
this
all
makes
sense,
so
try
to
have
something
that
you
can
articulate
as
to
why
you
did
x
and
y
that
you're
comfortable
articulating
it's
easier.
B
You
know
there
are
lots
of
things
that
influence
lawsuits
rather
than
a
strict
reading
of
the
law.
So
it's
you
want
to
be
in
an
equitably
attractive
position
if
you
possibly
can
and
I'll
give
you.
My
final
piece
of
advice,
which
is
the
interocular
test,
is
very
important.
What
it
looks
like
has
a
huge
impact
on
how
you
sell
it
to
the
public.
A
All
right,
well,
that
was
fabulous.
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
while
we
were
chatting
richard
ledbeter
from
esri
put
in
the
box,
something
about
independent
voters,
we've
been
talking
about
bipartisanship
here
and
we
talked
about
whether
pennsylvania
was
what
it
did
for
the
two
parties,
and
he
makes
the
point
that
not
everybody
is
a
member
of
those
two
parties,
so
just
another
thing
to
keep
in
mind
as
we
go
forward.
A
I
want
to
thank
you
both,
and
I
want
to
imagine
that
everybody
out
in
the
audience
is
applauding
along
with
me
for
you.
You
can't
see
them,
but
I
think
that
this
did
turn
out
to
be
a
really
good
conversation.
I
love
the
mark
show,
I
hope
we
can
do
mark
show
second
season
at
another
time
and
for
those
of
you
who
are
with
us
next
up
is
all
about
criteria
that
starts
in
15
minutes
with
that
stay
well
and
let's
be
in
touch.