►
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
Well,
welcome
everybody
to
how
the
2020
cycle
will
be
different
and
it's
fair
to
say
that
every
cycle
has
been
different
over
the
course
the
years
with
something
that
stands
out
and-
and
nobody
can
really
predict
with
great
accuracy.
What
will
be
the
big
issue
this
year,
but
if
any
two
people
could
do
that,
that
would
be
jeff
weiss
and
frank
strigari.
Now
these
two
people
are
two
out
of
the
three
key
editors,
basically
writers
of
the
redistricting
law.
2020
book
and
one
is
a
democrat.
That's
jeff
and
one
is
republican.
A
That's
frank,
but
what's
really
amazing
is
that,
as
we
put
that
book
together,
jeff
and
frank
agreed
on
95
of
what
was
the
lay
of
the
law
and
the
other
five
percent
we
decided
to
leave
out
of
the
book
basically
and
they've
become
like
close
buddies
as
far
as
I
can
tell,
and
it's
always
fun
when
we
get
to
work
with
them
as
a
team.
I
think
of
them
as
the
frank
and
jeff
show,
in
fact,
so
with
that.
B
Okay,
well,
thank
you,
wendy
and
good
morning,
everybody
across
the
nation.
It's
unfortunate
that
we
of
course
can't
meet
in
washington
dc,
where
we
otherwise
probably
would
have
been
meeting
in
person,
but
there's
enough
going
on
in
washington
today
that
we
can
share
the
zoom
internet
waves
to
do
this
from
our
offices
or
homes
across
the
country.
Frank-
and
I
are
going
to
take
the
opening
session
this
morning
to
talk
about
how
the
2020
redistricting
cycle
will
be
different
from
our
perspectives.
B
Having
worked
on
redistricting
in
the
past,
some
practical
advice,
some
do's
and
don'ts,
some
of
the
things
that
we
expect
could
happen
and
a
lot
based
on
so
much
that's
just
unprecedented
that
we
haven't
seen
before,
given
the
pandemic,
the
census
and
all
the
other
things
surrounding
politics.
In
the
past
year,
I'm
in
entering
my
fifth
redistricting
cycle.
C
Well,
it's
a
pleasure
to
be
here
once
again
with
my
good
friend.
Jeff
weiss
sharing
the
computer
and
stage
with
him,
because
it's
obviously
he's
someone
who,
of
course
has
a
long
history
and
wealth
of
knowledge
which
dwarfs
myself.
This
is
my
second
cycle
that
I
will
be
through
in
the
ohio
senate
here
and
a
lot.
A
lot
has
changed,
we're
going
to
try
to
figure
out
and
explain
to
you.
B
Okay,
great
well
we're
going
to
go
for
about
a
little
over
half
an
hour
with
our
presentation
and
the
powerpoint
that
we'll
be
using
will
be
made
available
to
all
the
participants
watching
today
and
watching
after
the
session
is
over.
When
we're
finished,
wendy
underhill
will
come
back
on
and
we'll
deal
with
questions
and
answers.
I
guess
they'll
be
posted
in
the
chat
room.
So
I'll
start,
you
advance
our
slide.
B
B
You
know
we've
all
heard
about
the
efficiency
gap
in
the
wisconsin
gerrymandering
cases,
you're
going
to
find
the
maps
that
you're
drawing
to
be
checked
so
thoroughly
by
political
parties
by
civic
groups
by
voting
rights
groups
by
the
media
that
the
the
microscope
is
going
to
be
really
a
huge
huge
one
that
we
haven't
seen
before.
That
redistricting
is
no
longer
the
back
room
process
that
no
one
really
understood
or
knew
about.
The
public
is
going
to
be
much
more
aware
of
the
process.
B
We've
seen
so
much
litigation
in
so
many
states
throughout
the
past
decade,
there's
always
been
litigation
that
might
last
10
years
in
some
states,
but
we've
never
seen
so
many
cases
and
so
many
cases
that
were
brought
towards
the
end
of
the
decade
that
were
successful,
that
you
know
you're
going
to
really
have
a
a
much
different
public
involvement
process
here.
So
you
need
to
provide
more
opportunities
for
public
engagement.
B
More
of
your
members
are
also
going
to
be
interested
in
the
process.
I
noticed
from
the
registration
list
there
for
this
meeting.
There
were
many
many
new
members
of
legislatures
registering
for
this
session,
something
that
I
haven't
seen
before.
This
is
literally
their
first
week
in
office
and
they're
spending
the
money
to
watch.
This
show
for
three
days
so
you're
going
to
see
much
more
involvement,
you're
also
going
to
see,
along
with
involvement,
more
oversight
and
more
litigation.
B
If
the
process
doesn't
go
well,
we're
going
to
try
to
add
for
you
some
of
the
do's
and
don'ts
and
best
practices,
but
you
can
be
assured
that
the
the
national
parties,
the
civil
rights
groups,
the
voting
rights
groups,
are
much
more
geared
up
to
look
at
the
process
to
get
involved
in
the
process
and
to
challenge
the
process.
If
we
see
that
there's
a
back
room,
redistricting
going
on
in
your
state,
go
on
to
the
next
slide.
C
Sure,
and
and
I'll
just
just
dovetail
a
little
bit
off
of
what
you
just
were
explaining
to,
and
just
reiterate
that
I
think
that
yeah
this
is
going
to
be
a
cycle
where
the
public
will
have
more
access
and
scrutiny
than
than
ever
before.
You
know,
they're
the
what
I
would
say,
one
of
the
positives
from
the
last
decades
worth
of
litigation
and
activities.
That
happened
was
that
I
think
the
general
public
is
more
aware
of
what
redistricting
actually
even
is.
C
You
know
earlier
in
the
in
the
past
decade,
what
was
probably
one
of
the
more
groundbreaking
landmark
decisions
was
the
fact
that,
in
the
alabama
shelby
county
case
in
the
united
states
supreme
court,
the
united
states
supreme
court
struck
down
and
said
that
the
section
5
pre-clearance
provision,
the
voting
rights
act
was
no
longer
applicable
because
it
was
outdated
and
effectively
unconstitutional
and
for
the
handful
of
folks.
That
may
not
know
exactly
what
section
five
pre-clearance
is
effectively
when
there
was
nine
states.
C
C
This
decade
will
be
coming
in
the
form
of
the
census.
I
think
the
census
and
the
census
issue
is
going
to
be
heavily
litigated
in
the
upcoming
decade
and
you're,
going
to
see
a
lot
of
challenges
to
it
for
a
variety
of
different
reasons,
some
of
which
have
already
been
pending,
and
they
already
started
about
a
year
or
two
ago,
and
because
of
the
different
questions
that
are
getting
asked
and
questions
that
continue
to
keep
getting
asked.
C
B
B
B
C
B
Let
me
just
also
mention
moving
on
differential
privacy
if
you're
not
aware
of
that
differential
privacy
is
the
census
bureau's
method
to
ensure
that
individual
respondents
to
the
census
that
their
data
is
kept
confidential
and
what
they
do
to
ensure
this.
Is
that,
given
a
piece
of
census,
geography,
let's
say
a
census
block,
they
add
noise
to
the
data.
B
They
essentially
move
a
few
people
out
of
a
census,
block
or
piece
of
geography
and
move
other
people
in
so
that
it
becomes
impossible
to
putting
a
very
simply
hack
the
numbers
to
see
who's
there
by
mixing
it
up
a
bit.
But
what
the
studies
have
found
is
that
differential
privacy
could
impact
the
pl9171
data.
B
That's
used
to
draw
the
lines
in
a
way
that
might
impact
seriously
impact
fair
representation,
one
person,
one
vote
and,
of
course,
congressional
districts
must
be
of
equal
population
in
most
states
and
by
moving
people
in
and
out
of
census.
Geography
could
change
the
one-person
one-vote
standard
and
we've
also
found
that,
in
the
reviews
of
differential
privacy
that
there's
an
impact
on
minority
communities
and
rural
communities
that
we're
finding
subtractions
of
people,
I
know
in
utah
a
few
months
back.
B
The
study
was
done
on
the
impact
of
differential
privacy
using
the
current
legislative
lines,
and
I
think
an
entire
community
disappeared
in
a
rural
part
of
the
state.
Differential
privacy
is
not
a
partisan
issue.
It's
not
one
developed
by
by
the
trump
administration,
but
simply
the
census,
bureau's
internal
method
of
dealing
with
the
need
to
maintain
privacy-
and
I
think,
after
january,
20th
with
a
new
administration
and
with
an
awful
lot
of
public
review
over
this
issue,
we'll
get
a
better
understanding
of
how
the
census
bureau
plans
to
deal
with
it.
B
Let
me
close
that
on
new
legal
trends.
Just
by
mentioning
racial
gerrymandering,
the
court,
the
supreme
court
has
ruled
several
times
during
the
past
decade
that
you
cannot
simply
draw
districts
to
maximize
minority
representation
by
packing
districts,
with
an
arbitrary
number
of
asian-american,
black
or
latino
voters,
and
that
I've
said
this
many
times
to
states.
I've
worked
in
that
you
need
to
determine
through
judicially
recognized
legal
research
using
having
racial
voting
analysis
done
before
a
plan
is
enacted
to
know
exactly
what
the
population
for
minority
voters
needs
to
be
before
a
district
is
created.
B
You
simply
cannot
willy-nilly,
set,
let's
say,
55
percent
as
the
standard
for
minority
voting
age
populations
in
districts,
so
we
might
not
see
at
the
federal
level
racial
gerrymandering.
We
expect
to
see
I'm
sorry,
partisan
gerrymandering,
but
we
do
expect
to
see
in
state
courts
and
in
federal
and
state
courts.
Racial
gerrymandering
challenges
brought
if
there
is
arbitrary
packing
without
justifiable
reason.
That
reason
usually
is
to
comply
with
section
two
of
the
voting
rights
act.
You'll
learn
more
about
the
next
two
days.
B
The
last
thing
we
might
be
seeing
this
this
decade
are
challenges
to
congressional
commissions.
The
supreme
court
held
in
an
arizona
challenge
against
the
the
state's
redistricting
commission
used
to
redraw
congressional
districts
that
the
constitution
has
plain
language
that
says
that
the
legislature
shall
draw
congressional
districts.
Yet
the
supreme
court
held
that
the
voters
by
referendum
could
themselves
change
the
way
a
state
redraws
its
congressional
districts.
That
not
need
be
just
the
legislature
that
the
voters
by
referendum
also
can
legislate,
and
several
justices
raise
the
question
that
this
might
be.
B
Something
they'd
want
to
look
at
again.
So
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
we
see
a
challenge
coming
from
a
state
with
a
completely
independent
congressional
commission-
and
I
say
completely
independent-
I
mean
where
the
commission's
plan
is
final
and
it
does
not
go
back
to
the
legislature
for
further
review.
C
Yeah
I'll
just
talk
briefly
about
the
racial
gerrymandering
issue.
I
think
jeff,
you,
you
summed
it
up
very
well.
I
think
one
of
the
interesting
questions
that
will
have
to
still
be
sorted
out
to
some
extent
is.
There
was
another
case
in
the
us
supreme
court
cooper
versus
harris.
It
was
a
case
out
of
north
carolina
that
struck
down
two
two
district,
two
congressional
districts
for
on
as
being
unconstitutional
racial
gerrymanders.
C
The
interesting
thing
about
that
decision
was
that
it
talked
it
went
into
a
lot
of
discussion
about.
Is
there
a
different?
I
mean
is
what
is
the
real
true
line
between
partisan
gerrymandering
arguments
versus
racial
gerrymandering
arguments,
and
then
you
know,
because
the
argument
that
was
being
made
was
that
north
carolina
drew
one
of
the
districts
for
political
reasons,
but
the
effect
of
that,
of
course,
was
that
it
had
it.
C
So
that
case
was
an
interesting
one
to
me,
because
I
feel
like
the
the
the
story
isn't
over
yet
about
racial
gerrymandering
and
the
direction
that
those
type
of
cases
can
go
in.
So
that's
one
of
the
things
we'll
have
to
wait
and
see
what
happens,
but
we
can
probably
go
on
to
the
next
slide
from
there.
Then.
C
We
reformed
the
legislative
apportionment
process
and
the
congressional
redistricting
process
and
voters
overwhelmingly
approved
those
provisions.
We
didn't.
We
didn't
adopt
a
truly
independent
commission
because
we
already
had
a
commission
in
place
when
it
relate
when,
as
it
relates
to
legislative
districts.
C
But
what
we
did
was
we
increased
the
size
of
the
commission
and
required
a
certain
percentage
of
the
vote
needing
to
be
minority
approved
about
districts
and
put
a
whole
bunch
of
different
rules,
at
least
on
the
congressional
district
side.
That
ohio,
for
example-
and
I
know
jeff
will
you
know,
be
able
to
attest
to
new
york-
is
that
are
two
states
in
which
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
of
new
rules
in
place
and
I'm
not
really
necessarily
sure
exactly
how.
C
If
anybody
can
predict
how
these
rules
are
are
going
to
be
interpreted
and
put
into
place.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
another
reason
why
you'll
see
various
suits
being
brought
in
the
state
courts,
in
particular
about
these,
because
these
are
going
to
be
state
law
questions,
at
least
from
my
perspective,
that
you'll
see,
but
there
was
definitely
a
handful
of
states
that
whether
it
was
through
ballot
initiatives
from
the
voters
or
whether
it
was
the
legislature
that
submitted
them
to
the
voters.
C
You
know
new
commissions
have
been
formed
and,
as
jeff
was
speaking
to,
then
you
know
whether
that's
going
to
raise
a
question
about
a
new
again
about
the
the
constitutionality
of
them
we'll
wait
and
see.
But
this
is
something
to
definitely
keep
an
eye
on
going
forward
about
how
these
different
commissions
will
actually
operate
in
the
various
rules
that
they
created,
which
are
all
across
the
board
in
different
states-
mathematical
formulas,
I'll
segue,
into
jeff
with
this
one.
But
I
think
that
one
of
the
this
is
constantly
evolving.
C
From
my
perspective
is
that
as
the
courts
have
become
more
involved
over
time
with
you
know,
hearing
redistricting,
congressional
redistricting
or
legislative
redistricting
cases,
you
know
the
the
more
academic
more.
You
know,
expert
driven
involvement.
There
has
been
in
these
cases
to
to
to
show
that
there's
a
there
might
be
a
better
way
to
handle
redistricting
when
it
comes
to
using
more
of
a
academic,
math
formula
as
as
compared
to
using
maybe
some
more
of
the
traditional
customary
standards
when
it
comes
to
redistricting.
B
You
know
get
this
to
a
large
degree
and
they're
able
to
understand
the
math
that
is
all
new
to
us,
so
we're
all
on
notice
that
we've
got
to
work
with
the
the
the
the
new
methodologies
that
are
out
there
with
the
mathematical
community,
that's
new
to
redistricting,
but
has
made
its
mark
we're
going
to
hear
from
moon
duchen
from
tufts
university.
I
believe
tomorrow,
who's
pioneered
many
of
these
initiatives
and
I
won't
try
to
touch
on
too
much
of
it.
Now.
B
But
I'll
close
this
page
with
mentioning
that
the
mathematical
formulas
lead
to
what
are
called
now
ensemble
plans
where
algorithms
and
computers
are
you
know,
based
on
algorithms
or
drawing
plans
that
look
at
compactness,
contiguity
community
of
interest,
voting
rights,
act
and
you'll
have
total
kinds
of
analyses
available
for
legislators
and
courts
and
commissions
to
review
that
hadn't
been
around
before
we're.
Gonna
need
to
pick
up
the
pace
a
little
bit,
and
most
of
you
who
might
be
veterans
are
probably
a
remember.
The
late
tom
hoffler
a
I
just.
B
Tom
hoffler,
the
republican
national
committee,
long-time
redistricting
guru,
so
we
we
thought
we
would
go
back
to
a
few
of
the
things
that
tom
hoffler
taught
us
at
ncsl
sessions.
In
years
back
frank,
were
you
going
to
open
up,
or
was
I
going
to
do
that
on
this
page?
You
take
the
lead
on
these,
sir
okay.
Well,
redistricting
often
brings
out
the
worst
in
people.
B
What
our
job
is
this
coming
decade
next
this
year
next
year,
is
to
bring
out
the
best
in
people,
but,
as
you
all
know,
being
legislators
or
staff
or
commission
members,
everybody
looks
out
for
their
own
district
and
the
worst
might
come
out.
So
we
have
to
try
to
avoid
that
tom
also
talked
about
redistricting
being
like
a
british
foreign
policy,
no
permanent
allies,
no
permanent
enemies,
and
that
we
should
also
expect
the
unexpected.
B
B
I've
seen
political
careers
ruined
by
plans
where
the
legislators
are
still
in
office
years
later,
things
was
worked
out
right
and
I'll
close
here.
My
part
by
just
mentioning
security
is
more
important
than
you
think
make
sure
everything
you
do
is
secured.
I'm
not
saying
this
in
the
sense
of
being
non-transparent
simply
that
you've
got
to
make
sure
your
computer
data
your
office,
your
operation,
your
employees,
have
a
secure
process
in
which
to
work,
frank.
C
Yeah-
and
I
think
that
the
the
one
point
that
you
made
above
was
things,
don't
go
and
expect
as
expected
or
as
planned.
Ever
is
a
good.
I
think
also
honestly
point
that
was
a
dovetail
off
of
the
mathematical
formulas
concept
as
well.
The
the
one
thing
a
mathematical
formula
can't
do.
Is
it
can't
it
there's?
No
politics
involved
in
athletic
formulas.
Some
would
say:
that's
a
good
thing.
C
Someone
said
that's
a
bad
thing,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
this
process
is
always
going
to
involve
some
level
of
politics,
which
means
that
there's
going
to
be
something
that
you'll
you
won't
expect.
So
I
think
that
concept
is,
you
know,
runs
throughout
a
lot
of
what
what's
going
to
be
happening
here
over
the
next
couple
or
ten
years
loose
slip
sink
ships.
You
know
this
is
actually
interesting,
honestly
humorous
to
me,
because
there
was
a
couple
statements
that
were
made
in
ohio.
C
You
know
ten
years
ago,
of
course
taken
out
of
context,
but
you
know
that
obviously
come
back
and
get
cited
in
court
documents,
seven
years
later,
that
seven
years
later
you
sit
there
and
say
you
know.
Did
we
really
need
to
say
that?
And
then
there
was
also
the
infamous
statement
that
I
think
was
made
in
the
north
carolina
case.
That
was,
I
think
it
was.
C
I
think
people
are
going
to
be
a
lot
more
serious
when
it
comes
to
any
statements
they
make
about
these
issues,
which
of
course
means
don't
you
know,
don't
it
just
say,
make
sure
you're
only
talking
about
things
that
you
don't
want
to
see
in
the
newspaper
the
next
day,
personal
email
accounts
yeah,
as
we've
known
for
a
long
time,
both
as
we've
seen
at
the
federal
and
the
state
level.
Those
are
going
to
be
discoverable
just
like
your
state.
C
Emails
are
and
don't
be
cute
or
funny
and
when
obviously
just
like,
I
was
talking
about
previously
too
and
then
I
will
continue
on
the
next
page
here
and
say
you
know,
here's
the
things
to
do
as
you
can
imagine.
The
the
things
that
should
be
done
is
have
a
have
a
process
open
and
transparent.
We
put
that
into
our
constitution
here
in
ohio
to
ensure
that,
because
I
think
everybody
on
this
zoom
call-
and
everyone
throughout
this
country
says
that
the
process
needs
to
be
open
and
transparent.
C
Probably
in
the
past,
it
is,
it
probably
hasn't
been
to
the
degree
it
needed
to
be,
but
the
more
open
transparent
is
the
better
and
obviously
you
know
that
means
talking
to
as
many
involving
as
many
legislators
as
as
possible
into
the
conversation,
including
the
minority
party,
which
was
one
of
the
key
elements
to
the
reforms
that
ohio
did
over
the
last
decade
was
requiring
a
certain
amount
over
minority
support
for
any
plan.
That's
submitted
because
you
know
the
more
inclusive
there.
C
You
know
the
every
legislator
is
in
the
process,
the
more
confidence
that
the
public
is
going
to
have
in
the
in
the
districts
and
the
better
districts.
You
probably
will
get
drawn
too,
and
you
know
having
the
public
and
the
media,
and
everyone
else,
of
course,
is
a
positive
thing
to
do
too
scheduling,
hearings
and
meetings
at
times
that
are
accessible
to
everyone,
obviously
something
that
I
think
all
legislatures
should
be
doing
in
every
instance,
especially
you
know
with
redistricting
too,
and
you
know
scheduling
public
input
before
the
final
vote.
B
B
The
princeton
gerrymandering
project
has
developed
an
entire
software
program,
called
representable,
where
you
can
draw
districts
based
on
what
communities
themselves
think
districts
ought
to
be
shaped
like
and
that
all
comes
out
of
an
effective
outreach
strategy.
It's
also
critical
to
maintain
an
open
and
robust
useful
website.
You
know
just
don't
post
the
current
map,
the
relative,
the
relevant
statute.
B
B
You
don't
want
to
simply
say
here's
a
shapefile
and
then
post
it,
but
not
explain
to
some
of
the
public
how
to
work
with
the
shapefile.
You
can't
simply
take
a
shapefile
on
a
website
and
say
here:
take
the
data
you've
got
it.
You've
got
to
work
with
the
software
as
well,
so
your
website
has
to
be
all
inclusive,
active
and
updated
frequently,
that
is
the
public's
main
portal.
To
talking
with
you
to
communicating
and
to
develop
the
outreach
that
you
need.
B
B
Take
the
time
during
war,
debate
or
commission
debate
to
walk
through
or
talk
through
every
district
in
your
chamber,
be
it
senate
or
assembly
or
house
of
representatives
or
congressional
district
plan
and
explain
how
district
one
is
is
legal
because
it
meets
the
following
criteria.
If
you
can't
do
that,
then
it
might
be.
Your
own
fault,
if
you
lose
a
challenge
later,
every
district
has
to
be
based
on
some
kind
of
constitutional
or
legal
criteria
that
your
state
or
locality
directs.
B
B
B
Consequences
follow,
don't
do
a
few
of
the
things
that
we
saw
from
10
years
ago,
requiring
legislators
or
staff
to
sign
secrecy.
Oaths
david
daley
in
his
excellent
book.
Reviewing
the
the
post-2010
process
talks
about
states
where
legislators
were
required
to
sign
an
oath
that
what
they
were
looking
at
or
discussing
amongst
themselves
was
was
private
sworn
to
secrecy.
That
is
the
antithesis
of
an
open
and
transparent
process.
B
Whether
they're,
after
the
shape
after
the
the
elected
official
who
represents
that
district,
that
also
is
going
to
make
its
way
into
court.
Now
I
once
thought:
instead
of
worked
in
of
naming
districts
after
sports
heroes,
maybe
a
little
bit
different,
but
again
don't
be
cute.
Don't
try
to
don't
do
things
now,
you're
going
to
regret
later
by
seeing
what
you
tweeted
or
wrote
in
a
memo
make
it
to
the
front
page
of
the
papers
tomorrow
or
someone
else's
tweet
this
afternoon,
frank.
C
C
The
reason
why
that
is
so
important
helps
explain
how
you
know
this
process
in
redistricting.
In
fact,
in
federal
courts
in
particular
have
been
state
courts
too,
is
not
immute.
There's
it's.
The
discovery
process
is
going
to
get
into
a
lot
of
different
areas.
Issues
we
had
legislators
deposed
in
ohio
here
over
the
past
decade,
various
states
provide,
I
would
say,
somewhat
limited
privileges
and
immunity
when
it
comes
to
discovering
emails
documents
that
for
state
legislators
that
members
of
congress
at
the
federal
level
would
otherwise
have
so
state
legislators.
C
C
The
next
point
is
that
you
know
if
you're
going
to
send
out
emails,
they
they
should
be
emails
that
are
objective
and
informative
and
part
of
the
legislative
process
and
not
the
type
of
emails
that
have,
I,
I
would
suggest
opinion
or
conversation
or
that
are
written
in
conversation
style,
because
those
are
the
type
of
discoverable
documents
that
will
come
back
and
be
part
of
litigation
that
it's
just
not
necessary
to
have
to
deal
with.
When
it's
not
necessary,
I
mean
a
map
or
a
district.
C
That's
getting
drawn
doesn't
have
any
bearing
on
what
somebody
thinks
about
an
opinion
or
what
kind
of
conversation
they're
having
in
an
email.
So
just
understand
that
you
know
there's
limited
role
for
emails,
and
then
this
one
is
very
near
and
dear
to
my
heart
is:
don't
use
off-site
hotel
or
offices
to
draw
maps
that
was
for
the
redistricting
walks
on
this
zoom
call
and
the
folks
who
are
familiar
with
ohio's
case.
C
You
know
rented
for
probably
a
couple
months
and
it
was
used
as
sort
of
the
the
place
where
maps
were
getting
drawn.
It
was
done
for
that
reason
for
a
variety
of
very
legitimate
purposes,
and
you
know
it
doesn't
sound
like
it,
but
it's
a
very
legitimate
purpose,
but
it
was
not
a
good
idea
and
calling
it
the
bunker
or
using
it
and
actually
trying
to
have
that
as
office.
Space
is
something
that
ohio
will
definitely
not
be
doing
this
time
around.
So.
B
B
Frank
mentioned
how
section
5
of
the
voting
rights
act
was
the
trigger
was
vacated
in
the
shelby
case
in
2013
well,
depending
on
the
outcome
of
the
us
senate
leadership.
Once
we
hear
what
happens
in
georgia,
if
we
know
that
the
the
white
house
and
the
house
are
under
democratic
control,
if
the
senate
goes
democratic,
I
would
put
money
down
that
h.r
one.
B
A
billion
reintroduced
in
the
house
of
representatives
earlier
this
week
covers
a
number
of
voting
rights
type
issues,
one
of
which
would
create
a
new
trigger
a
revised
trigger
for
section
five.
The
bill
that
was
being
considered
has
a
much
more
broader
and
comprehensive
trigger
I've.
I've
asked
congressional
staff
if
they
did
a
run
to
see
which
jurisdictions
would
fall
under
a
new
section
five
trigger,
and
they
they
had
not
considered
that.
B
But
I
think
the
trigger
being
discussed
is
a
broader
one
than
the
one
enacted
in
1965
and
something
that
states
ought
to
look
at,
because
no
one
has
determined
what
that
coverage
could
mean
in
any
individual
state.
But
it
would
not
be
surprising
if
the
congress,
if
it's
under
democratic
control,
does
create
a
new
trigger
an
acts
in
time
where
the
department
of
justice
can
implement
it
by
the
summer
or
fall
of
this
year,
putting
a
number
of
states
back
under
pre-clearance
we're
also
looking
at
differential
privacy.
B
C
We
talked
about
that
a
little
bit
already,
so,
let's
touch
upon
it
briefly
again,
is
that
you
know
the
if
there
are
further
delays
like
the
one
that
jeff
just
describes
just
earlier
this
year.
You
know
it's
going
to
be
running
up
against
the
timelines
that
are
that
are
set
out
specifically
in
state
law
and
and
how
that
can
play
out
and
be
affecting
the
plans.
B
C
B
Close
by
saying
that,
because
of
the
delay
in
receipt
of
census
data,
probably
until
sometime
mid-year,
this
does
give
everybody
time
that
you
off
often
hadn't
had
in
the
past
to
really
look
at
the
your
census
data
to
look
to
see
where
how
your
census
counting
went
last
year,
where
there
might
be
weaknesses
in
your
census,
data.
A
look
at
differential
privacy,
the
what
it
might
mean
for
your
state
engage
with
ncsl
and
with
wendy
underhill
on
differential
privacy
on
the
impact
of
census
data
delivery.
B
A
Great
frank
and
jeff
that
was
absolutely
a
fabulous
introduction
for
everything
else.
That's
going
to
come
on
this
meeting,
I
mean
you
hit
on
racial
gerrymandering
and
you
hit
on
the
census
and
the
delays
and
the
differential
primacy
and
you
hit
on
privilege
and
you
hit
on
the
legal
issues.
That
was
fabulous.
So
if
anything
needs
to
be
addressed
further,
we
do
have
other
sessions
for
it
down
the
road.
I've
got
a
bunch
of
questions.
A
My
thought
about
this
is
to
ask
them
just
to
one
or
the
other
of
you
and
if
the
other
one
really
needs
to
chime
in
that'll,
be
just
great.
But
let's
do
that?
Oh
wait.
One
more
thing
youtube
both
said.
Don't
be
cute,
don't
be
funny.
I
got
to
tell
this
audience
that
when
we
did
that
red
book
together
and
we
were
on
those
weekly
calls,
while
it
was
hard
work,
we
laughed
and
laughed
and
laughed
so
you
two
are
pretty
funny
people,
but
you're.
A
Also,
we
do
have
the
ability
to
go
five
or
ten
minutes
over
time,
so
just
know
we're
going
to
just
keep
rolling
with
these
questions.
First,
one
jeff
is
for
you.
It
comes
from
john
flateau
who's,
one
of
your
new
commissioners
in
new
york.
He
asks
about
what
is
the
definition
of
partisan
data
because,
as
you
know,
that
commission
isn't
supposed
to
be
using
it.
B
B
A
C
Well,
yeah
I
mean
there's
I
mean
the
voting
rights
act
is
still
applicable
in
certain
contexts
to
the
redistricting
plans.
I
mean,
as
for
what
a
voting
right
district
is.
I
don't
know
if
I've
ever
really
necessarily
heard
about
that
one
but
jeff.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
if
you
want
to
win
like,
but
but
there's
still
this,
the
the
act
is
still
applicable
other
than
the
fact
that
states
don't
have
to
get
pre-clearance
anymore
and
and-
and
that
was
specifically
what
I
was
speaking
to
but
jeff.
Why
don't?
B
50
percent
plus
votes
cohesively.
They
vote
for
the
same
kinds
of
candidates
and
third,
that
there
is
racially
a
high
level
of
racially
polarized
voting.
Then,
if
you
meet
those
three
requirements,
a
court
then
looks
at
what's
called
the
totality
test
to
look
at
the
socioeconomic
conditions
in
that
area.
If
all
of
that
is
met,
a
court
is
going
to
direct
you
to
draw
a
minority
district.
You
might
want
to
call
the
voting
rights
act
district.
B
You
could
also
draw
those
voluntarily
voluntarily
without
going
to
court
by
doing
racial
polarized
voting
analysis
before
you
enact
a
plan
to
know
whether
you're
doing
the
right
thing
or
not.
What
you
cannot
do
this
is
where
racial
gerrymandering
comes
in
is
simply
draw
districts
willy-nilly
at
55
or
51
minority
voting
age
population
and
call
them
minority
voting
age.
I'm
sorry
voting
rights
act
districts.
You
can't
do
that.
B
C
Jeff,
thank
you
for
that
clarification,
but
but
and
that's
that
that
was
actually
one
of
the
issues
I
was
speaking
to
earlier
about
that
decision.
That
came
out
the
u.s
supreme
court.
That
sort
of
began
to
maybe
confuse
the
issue
a
little
bit
from
my
perspective,
honestly
when
they
started
talking
about
politics
versus
racial
gerrymandering
and
so
just
just
an
ever
evolving
issue.
But
thank
you
jeff
for
that
clarification.
A
And
I'll
I'll
add
here
senator
clark
that-
and
I
think
you
know
this
already-
the
supreme
court
decision
on
shelby
county
more
or
less
neutered,
the
section
five,
but
it
didn't
neuter
section
two
and
that's
why
it's
still
very
important
to
do
the
racial
analysis
and
be
sure
that
you're
drawing
a
effective
districts
in
the
places
where
that
would
be
required.
Frank,
I
have
a
question
for
you.
It's
specifically
for
you
by
name.
It
comes
from
alex
ebert
he's
a
bloomberg
reporter.
A
When
you
hear
the
question,
if
you
decide
you
want
to
take
it
offline,
that's
fine
too!
Mr
strigari.
Will
the
requirements
in
state
laws
like
those
in
ohio,
prohibit
maps
be
being
drawn
to
advantage
one
political
party
and
will
that
lead
to
more
conservatively
drawn
maps
that
don't
as
stridently
advantage
one
party
over
another
out
of
the
assumption
that
they
more
likely
hold
up
in
court?
So
basically,
I
think:
do
you
think
that
you'll
get
a
more
bipartisan
outcome
based
on
what
ohio
has
done?
At
least
that's
my
interpretation.
C
The
the
the
answer
to
that
last
part
of
the
question-
absolutely
yes,
because
we
have
to
I
mean,
even
if
we
don't
we're
going
to
have
a
short-term,
four-year
map
which
nobody's
going
to
want
to
do
around
here
to
answer
alex's
first
part
of
his
question:
ohio.
We
we
didn't,
we
didn't,
we
didn't
adopt
a
rule
in
the
constitution.
Specifically
that
spoke
to
like
you,
cannot
pass
a
map
or
pass
a
district
that
advantages.
C
One
party
now
we
we
we
had
a
little
bit
of
a
a
good
practice,
type
of
rule
that
that
was
that
spoke
to
that
issue
more
generally
in
one
of
the
other
rules,
but
there
are
other
states
in
particular
that
have
that
provision
expressly
in
their
con
in
their
constitution.
Now-
and
you
know
I
I-
I
think
that
it
could
affect
the
republican
party
better
worse
and
I
think
it
could
affect
the
democrat
party
better
or
worse.
C
I
just
think
that
it's
going
to
be
state
specific
and
that's
why
you
know
the
specific
languages
you're
going
to
be
getting
used
and
applied
and
how
it's
going
to
be
getting
interpreted
by
the
state
courts
in
those
respective
states
is
going
to
be
something
that
we
can't
predict
right
now,
because
we
just
don't
know
how
it's
going
to
play
out.
But
you
know
for
good
faith.
You
know
fair
maps.
C
A
Great
great-
and
I
I
we
do
have
extra
time,
but
I
am
going
to
privilege
questions
that
come
from
legislators
or
legislative
staff.
So
again
priority
number
one
for
us.
So
jeff.
Could
you
answer
this
one,
please
from
senator
boland
from
south
dakota.
If
hr
one
were
to
pass
by
the
current
congress,
when
would
it
become
effective
and
then
just
add
in
what
hr
one
would
do
please
in
regards
hr1.
B
B
Then
the
question
becomes:
would
the
justice
department
be
up
and
running
in
time
to
have
a
pre-clearance
process
with
regulations
and
guidelines
in
place
and
staffing
at
doj
to
require
states
to
go
back
before
it
by,
let's
say
the
the
fall
of
this
year,
which
would
be
the
earliest
that
any
state
could
really
have
a
plan?
If
census
data
is
deliberated
by
july
and
that's
an
open
question,
but
congress
wisdom
could
set
the
deadline
on
the
effective
date.
Just
states
set
effective
dates
in
state
legislation.
C
Yeah
and
I'll
just
follow
up
on
that
too,
I
mean.
Obviously
you
know
I've
spoken
to
jeff
a
little
bit
about
this
already,
and
you
know
I,
of
course
you
know,
have
my
own
personal
opinion
about
you
know
any
legislation
like
that,
but
that
will
be
a
very
divisive,
partisan
issue
debate
that
will
go
on
in
congress
and
obviously,
if
one
party
of
course
is
going
to
be
controlling
the
process,
you
know
they
that
they
can
pass
what
it
wants
to
pass.
B
I'll
just
say
I
guess
it
was
2008
if
I
recall
correctly,
when
the
voting
rights
act,
no
2006,
when
the
voting
rights
act
was
last
re-reauthorized
that
there
was
wide
bipartisan
support
to
extend
the
then
section
five
trigger
formula
that
a
lead
sponsor
was
the
then
house,
judiciary,
chair
republican,
congressman
james
sensenbrenner
of
wisconsin.
Certainly
the
house
and
senate
memberships
and
ships
have
changed
considerably
since
2006
so
and
there
are
tight,
obviously
very
tight
majorities.
Should
both
chambers
be
democratic,
but
I'm
just
putting
everybody
on
notice
that
this
could
happen.
A
And
I
think
we
can
tag
on
to
that
that
ncsl
will
be
watching
both
hr
1
and
hr
4,
like
a
hawk,
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
election
stuff
in
the
hr
one
as
well
frank
next
up
for
you.
This
comes
from
brent
woodcocks
from
from
north
carolina's
legislature.
What
do
you
foresee,
as
the
consequences
of
state
courts,
likely
adopting
different
partisan
gerrymandering
legal
standards,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
the
drawing
of
congressional
districts?.
C
C
You
know
reviewing
redistricting
maps
and
it's
it's
always.
It's
always
been
a
political
issue.
It's
going
to
be
a
political
issue,
and
now
it's
going
to
be
a
political
issue,
even
when
the
courts
are
going
to
be
deciding
it
now,
apparently,
but
it's
going
to
just
lead
to
very
a
lot
of
varying
outcomes.
A
B
The
political
parties
outside
organizations
often
have
the
ability,
if
you
have
a
shape
file,
that's
a
universal
method,
a
universal
computer
map
of
a
district
to
add
other
kinds
of
data
to
evaluate
a
plan.
So
if
the,
if
the
legislature
is
limited
on
what
data
it
can
use,
other
outside
entities
could
analyze
the
data
by
adding
partisan
turnout,
data
or
other
kinds
of
census,
databases
to
gauge
a
district
independently
of
the
legislature.
B
You
know
the
the
move
towards
better
reform
and
independent
redistricting
would
suggest
not
using
partisan
data.
So
that's
going
to
be
a
state-by-state
basis
and
a
party
by
party
you
know
decision
to
consider,
but
a
shape
file
gives
you
the
ability
to
pop
it
into
the
software
you're
using
and
then
add
other
data
sets
to
it
and
you
can
make
decisions
independently
on
your
own.
A
Great
frank:
can
you
answer
commissioner's
question
about
best
practices
for
virtual
hearings
and
so
listening,
public
engagement
and
I'll?
Give
you
just
a
second
to
think
about
that.
We
do
have
a
session
on
that
coming
up
on.
Is
it
on
thursday?
I
think
so.
That's
one
place.
People
can
go
anything.
You
want
to
share
frank.
C
Yeah,
it's
a
good
question.
I
mean
you
know
we're
all
adapting
to
virtual
hearings
and
we've
been
adapting
to
some
extent
in
ohio
for
a
while.
Now,
and
you
know,
if
there's
the
first
thing
that
came
into
my
head
was
access
to
to
information
because
sitting
behind
a
computer
talking
to
people
about
something,
doesn't
necessarily
show
or
indicate
to
them
all
the
information
or
documents
you
might
have
sitting
on
your
desk
having
access
to
and
so
whatever
whatever
it
may
be.
C
The
the
communication
and
the
exchange
of
information
is
gonna,
be,
I
think,
very
vital,
because
if
it's
going
to
be
virtual,
the
people
on
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum
need
to
have
the
same
type
of
access
to
the
information
that
somebody
on
the
other
side
of
the
computer
is
dealing
with,
but
yeah
yeah,
I
think
wendy.
As
you
said,
I
imagine
they're
going
to
get
into
more
detail
about
that
soon,
but
yeah
it's
it's
going
to
it's
an
evolving
concept.
B
If
I
could
add
to
that,
many
of
us
who
work
on
redistricting
often
aren't
part
of
the
mainstream
of
what
legislatures
do
every
day
and
often
new
staff
are
hired
to
work
on
redistricting
that
are
not
part
of
the
overall
legislative
staff
process
are
just
new
to
it.
So
you
really
ought
to
prepare
to
conduct
your
entire
redistricting
process
virtually
not
in
person,
and
that
means
you
need
to
do
a
lot
of
research
on
both
how
to
map
hold
hearings.
Do
outreach
everything
imaginable.
B
You
know
via
zoom,
internet
telephone
other
other
means
and
yeah.
We
can
spend
an
entire
hour
on
that
alone,
but
the
message
I'm
giving
is
that
you
should
set
aside
or
plan
for
live
hearings
and
travel
for
the
latter
part
of
this
year,
but
also
prepare
that
you
may
never
use
to
get
that
budget
spent.
B
A
That's
a
good
good
point
and
we
do
have
one
of
the
questions
we
can
ask
the
vendors
later
today
is
what
kind
of
public
access
is
available
to
them.
Senator
clark,
I
want
you
to
know
that
on
the
is
there
a
specific
ensemble
methodologies
that
it's
generally
accepted.
The
answer
is
no
there's
more
than
one
way
to
do
it.
Moon
duchen
will
be
with
us
tomorrow.
I
believe
and
she's
someone
who
might
be
able
to
address
that
in
more
detail,
or
I
can
help
put
that
together
after
the
fact
and
jeff.
A
I
want
to
just
ask
you
one
more
question
and
then
we're
going
to
close
out,
and
I
see
why
I
might
be
missing
something
here,
but
we'll
we'll
take
a
look
jeff.
The
question
for
you
is
the
current
legal
state
of
affairs
regarding
prisoner
populations.
I
am
if
you
want
any
help
on
that.
I
might
have
something
extra
well.
B
A
Great,
so
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
jeff
and
frank
for
the
work
you
did
all
decade
long
and
the
work
you
did
to
make
this
a
really
fun
presentation,
with
the
two
of
you
going
back
and
forth.
That
was
really
great.
So
if
you
could
imagine
that
everybody
out
there
in
virtual
land
is
clapping
for
you
that
that's
what's
happening
right
now
and.
B
A
We're
gonna
sign
off
on
this
one,
and
the
next
thing
up
is
the
census
and
your
data
set.
That
starts,
I
believe,
at
12
15
eastern
time,
and
you
should
find
the
link
for
that
at
the
bottom
of
the
very
page
you're
on
or
you
can
go
back
to
the
lobby
and
then
come
back
in
anything
else
before
we
sign
off
those.