►
From YouTube: Elections and Redistricting Office Hours with Doug Smith
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
So
with
that
in
mind,
I
do
want
to
say
to
everybody:
this
is
a
great
time
to
ask
those
questions.
If
you
came
with
something
on
your
mind,
let
us
know
what
it
is.
You
can
put
it
in
the
chat
box.
You
can
just
ask
in
the
chat
box
to
be
able
to
ask
your
own
question
and
you
can
also
email
christy
at
christie.zamarimpa,
ncsl.org
she'll
put
that
in
the
chat
box
separately.
You
want
to
go
to
her
directly.
She
will
either
ask
those
questions
or
tell
me
that
I
should
ask
those
questions
anonymously.
A
A
The
first
is
mandy
zach,
we'll
be
talking
a
little
bit
about
ballot
measures
that
might
be
of
interest
to
this
group,
and
then
chrissy
will
share
with
us
about
one
of
the
cases
that
the
supreme
court
has
chosen
for
this
year
and
she'll
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
what
that
might
mean
for
campaign
finance
and
then
of
course,
again
anything
that
you
want
us
to
address,
and
you
know
you
guys
could
try
to
stump
us.
A
A
When
I
was
new
to
redistricting,
which
was
about
four
or
five
years
ago,
I
went
looking
for
a
book
that
would
kind
of
give
me
the
history
of
redistricting,
and
I
was
very
fortunate
to
find
a
book
written
by
a
real
historian,
and
I
have
it
with
me
right
this
minute
on
democracy's
doorstep
by
doug
lewis.
Excuse
me
douglas
is
somebody
else
I
know
by
doug
smith,
so
I
got
this
book
brought
it
home.
A
I
remember
the
the
couch
and
and
about
10
days
every
night
read
another
chapter
on
the
couch
and
it's
a
lot
of
what
I
learned
in
there
has
kind
of
stuck
with
me,
and
I
know
that
for
most
people
this
wouldn't
be
considered
a
page
turner,
but
you
all
are
kind
of
like
me
right
yeah,
you
know
you're
you're
in
the
elections
redistricting
world
and
a
little
on
the
nerdy
side.
A
I
think
I
can
say
that
about
most
people
who
work
in
legislatures,
so
you
also
might
enjoy
it,
and
you
will
know
after
today's
presentation
whether
this
is
going
to
be
the
book
for
you
in
it.
We
get
not
only
information
about
that
series
of
supreme
court
cases
that
you're
all
familiar
with
in
the
1960s
that
led
to
the
modern
era
of
redistricting.
A
So
with
that,
I
will
just
say
that
the
book
is
wonderful.
I
don't
really
know
doug
smith.
We
just
met
10
minutes
ago
in
the
green
room,
but
so
far
it's
been
fun
to
hear
what
he's
got
to
say.
So
the
floor
is
yours
for
about
20
minutes,
maybe
30
minutes
and
then
we'll
see
where
we
go
with
questions.
Take
it
away,
doug.
B
All
right
well,
thank
you
very
much
for
for
the
invitation
to
to
speak
with
you,
I'm
I'm.
I'm
always
always
happy
to
speak
with
redistricting
speak
about
redistricting
with
anyone
who
will
listen,
which
doesn't
happen
very
often,
so
it's
nice
to
find
a
find,
a
willing,
a
willing
audience
just
as
a
a
little
background
on
myself.
To
give
you
an
idea
of
how
I
I
ended
up.
Writing
this
book.
I,
as
wendy,
said
I'm
a
historian.
B
I
received
got
my
phd
at
the
university
of
virginia
and
my
training
was
really
in
the
history
of
the
american
south
and
my
early
work
sort
of
focused
on
on
segregation
and
sort
of
mid
20th
century
last
messages
of
jim
crow.
It
was
actually
in
this
capacity
and
looking
at
when,
when
in
the
1950s
1956
in
particular,
when
the
virginia
legislature
passed
a
series
of
school
closing
laws
as
a
response
to
the
brown
decision.
B
So
rather
than
integrating
the
school,
the
virginia
legislature
passed
the
laws
that
the
governor
had
to
close
any
schools
that
were
ordered,
desegregated
and
there's
a
strong
argument
to
be
made
that
the
the
vote
in
the
state
legislature,
which
was
very
close,
was
determined
by
the
fact
that
the
poor,
certain
portions
of
the
state
were
overrepresented
and
other
portions
of
the
state
were
underrepresented
in
the
legislature.
And
so
this
was
my
first
real
personal
exposure
to
the
idea
of
mal
apportionment.
B
B
And
so
when,
after
I
finished
my
dissertation,
my
first
book
and
I
was
looking
for
a
topic-
and
I
wanted
to
get
out
of
the
american
south
a
little
bit
and-
and
I
kept
coming
back
to
this-
this
notion
of
redistricting
and
mal
apportionment
in
particular,
and
I
initially
thought
I
was
going
to
be-
writing
a
book
that
mostly
focused
on
the
american
south,
since
that
was
my
training.
That
was
my
the
area
that
I
knew
best
and
I
quickly
discovered
that
mal
apportionment
was
a
national
issue.
B
Virtually
every
state
in
the
nation
by
the
1950s
and
60s
suffered
from
severe
male
abortion.
There
were
a
handful
of
exceptions
which
we
can
talk
about
later,
but
it
really
was
something
that
had
that
over
the
course
of
the
20th
century,
over
50
or
60
years
after
1900
had
really
become
more
and
more
ingrained
across
the
nation,
with
with
pretty
serious
consequences.
B
I
want
to
take
just
one
second
to
juxtapose,
mal
apportionment
with
gerrymandering,
of
course,
in
all
the
work
you
all
are
doing
now.
Gerrymandering
is
a
huge
topic.
It's
been
front
and
center
for
the
last
several
decades
and
of
course,
gerrymandering
has
been
around
you
know
for
for
centuries
that
the
term
itself
dates
back
to
1807.
B
But
what
I
would
say
is
that
in
the
1950s
the
gerrymandering
was
very
much
an
issue,
but
it
wasn't
nearly
as
important.
It
wasn't
to
get
the
political
result
that
one
desired
people
drawing
districts
didn't
have
to
resort
to
gerrymandering
as
much
if
they
could
just
stick
x,
number
of
people
in
one
district
and
an
entirely
different
number
of
people
in
a
different
district.
So,
while
gerrymandering
continued
to
be
used
to
get
for
partisan
gain,
it
wasn't
as
important
for
for
practitioners
of
redistricting,
as
as
it
became
after
the
one
person.
B
One
vote
decisions
and-
and
I
would
I've
always
been
mindful
one
of
my
sort
of
favorite-
I
should
favor.
It
may
not
be
the
right
word.
One
of
my
my
one
of
my
one
of
the
pieces
of
evidence
I
most
that
has
most
stuck
with
me-
was
a
newspaper
editorial
from
the
1960s
that
referred
to
the
twin
evil
of
male
apportionment
and
gerrymandering
sort
of
the
notion
that
both
of
these
are
responsible,
for
you
know
undercutting
majority
rule
in
the
united
states
and
sort
of
enforcing
a
system
of
minority
rule.
B
B
There
are
some
states
that
had
very
specific
state
constitutional
requirements
to
redistrict
every
10
years,
and
sometimes
it
just
didn't
happen
so
the
legislature,
for
whatever
reason,
would
just
choose
not
to
reapportion,
despite
a
constitutional
mandate,
to
do
so,
other
states
had
a
system
of
redistricting
that
was,
you
might
think
of
as
the
federal
model
it
did
more
closely.
B
You
know,
you
know
followed
congress
where
you
had
a
lower
branch
of
the
state
legislature
that
was
based
on
population
and
upper
branches
based
on
other
factors,
geography,
some
sort
of
combination
of
the
two,
and
so
as
populations
change
throughout
the
united
states.
Quite
dramatically,
you
know
from
the
19th
from
1900
to
1940,
1950
1960,
you
really
see
huge
shifts
in
where
people
live
and
the
redistricting
reapportionment
did
not
keep
up
with
those
ships,
and
so
you
have
every
10
years
increase.
B
You
know
the
issue
of
male
apportionment
gets
worse
and
worse
and
in
its
most
in
sort
of
crudest
terms,
this
is
often
painted
as
a
oral
sort
as
a
rural
versus
an
urban
issue
and
there's
certainly
elements
of
that,
and
we
shouldn't
pretend
that
that
doesn't
exist.
You
know
the
population
shifts
in
general
were
away
from
rural
areas
towards
urban
areas.
Urban
areas
were
also
where
you
had
the
large.
You
know
influx
of
populations
from
the
late
19th
and
early
20th
century
immigration
populations
that
tended
to
be.
B
You
know
disproportionately
southern
and
eastern
european,
as
opposed
to
northern
and
western
european,
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
change
taking
place
in
the
united
states
and
that's
reflected
in
who's
coming
to
the
country
who's
living
here.
B
How
those
people
are
are
counted
and
and
represented,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
be
really
careful
about
just
sort
of
thinking
about
malapportionment
and
kind
of
crude
rural
urban
terms
and
and
california,
where
I
now
live
and
have
lived
for
a
while
provides
actually
maybe
the
best
example,
because
the
california
constitution
of
1850
is
very
explicit
that
both
branches
of
the
state
legislature
have
to
be
based
on
population
and
that
worked
out
pretty
well
for
everybody
up
through
the
19th
century.
B
But
then,
by
by
the
turn
of
the
20th
century,
as
los
angeles
and
southern
california
began
to
vastly
outpace
san
francisco
and
northern
california,
you
had
it.
So
it
wasn't.
Just
rural
interests,
who
were
sort
of
you
know,
concerned
about
growing
urban
power,
but
it
was
also
northern
california
interests
that
didn't
like
what
was
going
on
with
growing
southern
california.
B
To
make
to
to
complicate
matters
even
more.
You
also
had
interest
urban
interest
in
southern
california
business
interests
that
actually
did
not
want
to
see
too
much
representation
amongst
the
populous,
which
was
largely
you
know,
working
class,
pro-labor
groups,
and
so
you
actually
had
this
very
interesting
dynamic
in
1926.
B
California
passed
a
referendum
in
which
they
changed
their
system
of
representation,
so
that
it
said
that
the
state
assembly
would
be
represented
based
on
population
as
it
had
been
since
1850.
But
the
state
senate
would
now
be
cons.
Apportioned
such
that
no
county
could
have
more
than
one
state.
Senator
and
no
state
senator
could
represent
more
than
three
counties
so,
and
that
was
in
place
from
1926
into
the
1960s.
B
And
so
what
that
meant
was
that
by
1960,
with
the
massive
growth
of
population
in
california,
that
by
1960
los
angeles
county
had
6
million
people
which
at
the
time,
constituted
40
of
the
population
and
had
one
state
senator
and
if
anybody's
ever
gone
skiing.
In
california,
I've
been
up
to
mammoth
mountain,
which
is
on
the
eastern
side
of
the
sierra
up
in
a
very
rural
part
of
the
state,
not
far
from
where
one
of
the
really
bad
wildfires
was
this
summer.
There's
three
counties
that
have
a
combined
population
of
14
000.
B
They
also
had
one
state
senator.
So
literally
you
had
you
know.
The
vote
of
somebody
in
in
mono
county
california
would
have
would
have
been
worth
the
wait
of
about
450
people
in
los
angeles,
in
the
state
senate,
and
so
again,
that's
an
extreme
example
that
that
was
that
was
sort
of
one
of
the
one
of
the
most
extreme
that
I
can
come
up
with
political
science
had
a
couple
different
ways
for
sort
of
measuring
mal
apportionment.
B
B
It
was
to
often
look
at
what
was
the
theoretical
minimum
number
of
people
who
could
represent
a
majority
of
the
state
legislature
and
and
that
that
in
itself
is
sort
of
a
complicated
one
which
we
could
talk
about
more
later,
but
I
won't
get
into
the
details
of
it
in
california
in
the
state
senate
as
a
result
of
this
measure,
theoretically,
less
than
12
of
the
people
could
elect
a
majority
of
the
state
senate.
B
So
again,
huge
huge
implications
there
and
and
what's
interesting,
is
that
you
had
business
interests
in
southern
california
who
fully
supported
this
because
again
they
saw
it
in
their
interest
to
that
a
more
rural,
more
conservative,
low-tax
legislature
was
in
their
interests,
and
so
they
considered
so
again
these
these.
These
easy
divisions
between
rural
and
urban
are
part
of
the
story,
but
they
don't
really
work
when
we
really
dig
and
drill
down,
I
think,
in
terms
of
you
know,
who's
who's
behind
the
different.
B
The
different
managers,
so
california
had
a
massive
mall
apportionment,
but
so
did
most
of
the
big
urban
industrial
states
of
the
you
know
the
northeast
midwest.
You
know
michigan
what
had
notoriously
effective
system
of
male
apportionment
where
it
was,
even
though
they
would
elect
democrats
governor
time
after
time,
it
became
almost
impossible
for
for
for
the
democrats
to
elect
a
majority
of
the
state
senate.
B
B
Now,
of
course,
if
the
state
legislature
is
male
abortion,
then
then
that
means
that
congressional
districts
are
going
to
be
male
portion
too,
or
at
least
there's
a
good
chance
for
it,
and
so
you
do
have
so
the
same.
To
the
same
extent,
that
state
legislatures
were
were
increasingly
malapportioned
throughout
by
the
mid
20th
century.
The
same
thing
happens
with
state
legislatures.
B
One
of
the
most
you
know,
clear-cut
examples
was
in
illinois
where,
finally,
in
1946,
the
supreme
court
issued
its
ruling
on
coburn
colgrove
versus
green,
which
was
a
congressional
male
apportionment
case
where
the
most
populous
congressional
district
in
illinois.
At
that
time,
which
was
northern
you
know,
sort
of
the
area
around
chicago
and
cook
county,
I
think,
had
900
000
people
in
it
and
there
was
a
district
in
downstate
illinois
with
100
000
people
in
it.
So
again
you
have
you
know.
B
Even
within
the
state
of
illinois,
one
person's
vote
counts
nine
times
what
somebody
else's
does
and
congressionally.
So
all
this
really
becomes.
The
situation
gets
worse
and
worse.
You
have
as
populations
after
world
war
ii
and
urban
areas
begin
to
really
swell
urban
leaders.
B
Municipal
leaders,
you
know,
boards
of
supervisors,
city
councils,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
grew
increasingly
frustrated
at
the
lack
of
funding.
For
you
know:
hospitals,
roads,
schools,
etc.
All
the
things
that
all
the
things
that
municipal
officials
need
in
part,
because
the
state
legislatures
are
so
overwhelmingly
controlled
by
by
more
rural
by
many
rural
interests
or
low
tax
interests,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
and
so
you
begin
to
have
the
sort
of
the
the
pushback
begins
really
in
the
late
1940s.
The
supreme
court,
though
in
coco
versus
green.
B
B
Federal
courts
had
no
business
being
involved
in
in
malapportionment
a
position
which,
essentially
is
what
the
supreme
court
has.
The
current
supreme
court
has
taken
with
regard
to
gerrymandering
right
now,
and
that
was
really
the
governing
philosophy
in
the
federal
courts
until
until
the
1960s,
so
you
had,
even
in
in
tennessee,
which
the
case
was
where
the
case
of
baker
b
carr
comes
from,
where
the
supreme
court
finally
decides
to
enter
the
political
thicket.
You
have
a
district
court
judge
acknowledging
I
mean
he
used
the
term
evil
as
a
legal
term.
B
You
know
that
there
was
he
recognized
that
that
male
apportionment
had
constituted
an
evil
and
and
yet
he
was
powerless
to
do
anything
about
it,
that
finally
changes
in
the
early
1960s
in
the
case
of
baker
b
carr,
when
the
supreme
court
agrees
to
hear
to
hear
arguments
in
the
tennessee
case.
Initially
I
mean
one
and
one
of
the
things,
that's
quite
fascinating.
For
me
as
a
historian
and
probably
as
a
it
may
have
been.
B
The
most
interesting
aspect
of
this,
from
just
purely
from
a
research
standpoint,
was
to
see
you
know
to
get
a
hold
of
sort
of
department
of
justice,
lister,
general's
memos
and
court
court
papers
to
see
how
quickly
the
conversation
around
mal
apportionment
changed
just
within
say
from
1962
to
1965,
and
so
I
think-
and
the
key
point
being
here
is
that
in
1962,
when
the
supreme
court
decided
to
hear
arguments
in
baker
b,
carr
and
the
case,
there
was
not.
What
would
the
standard
of
reapportion
would
be
this
the
case?
B
The
issue
there
was
just
whether
or
not
federal
courts
could
in
fact
hear
mal-apportionment
cases.
You
know
whether
or
not
the
court,
you
know
essentially
overturning
colebrook
versus
green
and
in
the
case
of
tennessee,
it's
interesting
tennessee.
Actually,
the
male
apportionment
was
severe,
but
tennessee
was
one
of
the
handful
of
cases
at
the
time
which
reapportioned
based
on
the
number
of
voters,
not
on
the
actual
population,
and
that
was
never
an
issue.
No
one,
no
one
at
the
time
in
that
case
ever
questioned
the
validity
of
that.
B
That
was
not
an
issue
in
in
the
bakery
carr
case,
but
what
was
at
issue
is
that,
however,
tennessee
counted
it
that
people
in
one
part
of
the
state
got
essentially
ten
votes
versus
someone
in
another
part
of
the
state
who
got
one
and
that
that
was
fundamentally
like
the
court
felt
that
this
was
a
an
issue
that
the
federal
courts
should.
B
In
fact,
it
may
in
fact
violate
the
equal
protection
clause
of
the
14th
amendment
and
therefore
the
federal
courts
should
in
fact
step
in-
and
at
least
listen
here
hear
the
case,
and
so
that
really
then
opened
the
floodgates
and
then,
in
a
matter
of
the
next
two
years.
I
I
don't
have
the
specific
statistic
in
front
of
me
right
now.
At
one
point
I
looked,
I
think
it
was
like
75
cases
from
around
the
country
dealing
with
both
state
and
legislative
and
congressional
male
apportionment
were
filed
and
began
to.
B
You
know,
turn
their
way
through
the
court
system,
and
it
took
two
years
finally
about
15
of
those
cases
made
their
way
to
the
supreme
court.
The
supreme
court
ultimately
heard
oral
arguments.
I
think
in
six
of
them-
and
this
is
another
one
which
is
sort
of
a
historical
footnote-
you
all
may
remember
a
couple
years
ago-
around
the
affordable
care
act.
I
think
the
court
spent
three
days
hearing
arguments
on
their
court.
You
know,
usually
they
just
hear
one
hour
of
arguments
on
a
case.
30
minutes
each
side,
affordable
care
act.
B
I
think
it
was
three
hours
over
three
days
with
the
reapportionment
cases.
It
was
something
like
20
hours
over
eight
days,
spread
out
over
the
entire
term,
because
different
cases
kept
reaching
the
court.
That
posed
the
question
in
different
in
different
ways.
So
it's
a
fascinating
and
it's
all.
The
recordings
are
all
there.
It's
so
there's
a
great
record,
but
the
issue
really.
It
was
not
clear.
When
the
court
first
began
hearing
these
cases,
how
far
the
court
would
go
in
terms
of
what
the
standard
should
be.
B
There
was
one
line
of
argument
that
certainly
the
states
it
would
be
reasonable
for
the
states
to
mimic
the
federal
government
and
to
have
one
branch
of
legislature
based
on
population
another
based
on
other
factors
and
in
fact,
one
of
those
again
great
sort
of
research
moments
in
earl
warren's
papers.
There
are
two
drafts
of
his
final
decision,
one,
which
only
goes
so
far
as
to
hold
that
and
then
there's
the
decision.
B
B
I
think
it
was
really
struggling
with
a
number
of
the
different
cases
that
had
reached
the
court
and
the
final
one
that
was
most
instructive,
came
from
colorado
where
colorado
had
was
called
the
colorado
plan
and
it
and
it
did
base
the
lower
branch
on
population
and
the
other
branch
based
on
the
upper
branch
based
on
a
variety
of
factors,
including
geography.
But
it
clearly
privileged
certain
mining
interests
and
ranching
interests.
B
And
so
I
think
there
was
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
about
whether
or
not
this
plan,
while
it
maybe
wasn't,
was-
was
more
equitable
than
a
number
of
other
states
that
it's
still
not
to
go
too
far,
and
so,
ultimately,
the
court,
I
think,
felt
that
there
was
no
standard
that
that
they
could
issue
other
than
you
know
a
fairly
strict,
one-person
one-vote
standard
in
both
branches.
That
would
make
sense.
Otherwise
there
was
always
going
to
be
back
and
forth,
and
and
where
do
you
draw
the
line?
B
Is
it
at
42
of
the
people
elect
the
majority
legislature?
Is
it
44
or
is
it
36
or
48?
You
know
how
many
people
is
the
right
number,
and
so
ultimately
they
they.
They
decided
this
issue
in
terms
of
one
person,
one
vote
in
both
branches
of
legislature.
B
It's
important
to
note
that
the
court
did
very
deliberately
choose
the
language
of
one
person,
one
vote
as
opposed
to
one
voter,
one
vote
in
a
related
case
a
year
before
that
actually
had
to
do
with
the
the
the
white.
The
the
primary
system
in
georgia,
william
o
douglas,
had
issued
an
opinion
in
which
he
initially
had
written
one
vote
or
one
vote
crossed
it
out,
wrote
one
person
one
vote
and
then
that
language
was
then
adopted
into
baker.
B
Sorry,
reynolds
v,
sims
and
and
lucas
v
colorado,
which
were
the
1964
cases
which
established
one
person
one
vote.
So
the
court
did
make
a
very
clear
determination
at
that
point.
That
person
rather
than
voter,
was
the
operative
term
that
they
would
that
they
would
use.
Let
me
just
say
very
briefly
and
sort
of
as
wendy
had
mentioned
this,
that
the
the
supreme
court
decisions
of
1964
did
open
up
a
wave
of
criticism,
but
also
a
lot
of
support.
B
I
mean
there
was
a
you
know,
an
enormous
amount
of
support,
amongst
especially,
as
you
might
expect,
urban
based
newspapers
and
media
groups,
legislators,
citizens,
etc,
and
then
a
wave
of
opposition
to
to
the
court's
decisions
which
did
actually
lead
to
a
campaign
to
call
a
constitutional
convention
when
they
were
back
upside.
First.
B
The
u.s
senate
on
three
occasions
tried
to
push
through
a
constitutional
amendment
to
overturn
the
decisions
and
they
got
more
than
50
votes
each
time,
but
never
could
get
two
thirds
and
then
led
by
everett
dirksen,
who
is
the
senator
from
illinois
and
the
the
republican
minority
leader
in
the
senate
at
the
time
launched
a
campaign
to
try
to
try
to
call
an
article
5
constitutional
convention,
which
of
course
has
never
happened
in
american
history.
B
But
it
is,
it
is
there
in
the
constitution,
it
says:
there's
two
ways
to
you
know:
there's
two
ways
to
amend
the
constitution:
one
is
to
pass
a
constitutional
amendment.
The
other
is
to
call
a
call
a
convention
and
and
have
it,
do
its
work
and
then
submit
then
submit
the
work
back
to
the
states
and
over
the
course
of
the
next
several
years
they
would
have
needed
34
states
to
call
a
convention.
You
need
three
quarters
and
they
got
as
many
as
32
states
at
one
point
in
time.
Now
it's
a
little.
B
It's
always
hard
to
know
whether
whether
it
was
really
that
close
to
being
called
because
some
of
the
states
had
then
rescinded
their
their
petitions
and
then
had
you
know,
changed
the
wording
and
but
there
were
32
states
at
one
point
in
time.
They
called
for
called
for
a
constitutional
convention
to
overturn
the
decisions
and
then,
but
as
the
one
person
one
vote
standard
began
to
be
implemented,
it
became
more
and
more
difficult
for
people
to
argue
with.
B
I
think
more
and
more
people
accepted
it
recognized
that
it
made
sense
that
it
was
you
know
in
terms
of
you
know,
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
a
functioning
democracy,
it
would
make
sense
that
that
these
guard
rails
were
in
place
and
then
everett
dirksen,
who
had
led
the
campaign,
actually
died,
sort
of
suddenly,
unexpectedly
and
and
that
sort
of
took
the
final
final
wind
out
of
the
effort.
B
If,
if
you
will
I'm
going
to
pause
there,
because
I
feel
like
I've
talked
enough,
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions
or
to
go
into
deeper
detail
on
any
aspect
of
this.
If
anyone
has
any
questions,
but
I'll
just
stop
there.
For
now,.
A
A
So
let
us
know
if
you'd
like
to
ask
but
doug
one
thing
that
crosses
my
mind
is
that
I'm
trying
to
make
comparisons
between
what
happened
in
the
1960s
and
where
we
are
now
and
one
was
that
the
affordable
care
act
was
enacted
and
lots
of
furor
about
that.
But
over
time
it
just
became
settled
law.
Is
that
a
good
comparison
to
how
the
implementation
of
one
person
one
vote,
caused
some
furor
and
then
it
just
settled
down,
and
maybe
there's
other
examples
like
that.
B
Yeah,
that's
a
really
good
question.
I
hadn't,
I
certainly
haven't.
I
haven't
thought
of
it
in
those
terms,
and
so
when
you
when
and
and
so
I'm,
I'm
speaking
totally
off
the
cuff
right
now,
I
suppose
I
mean
I
do
think
that
I
do
think
that
I
mean
I
guess
we
could
have
a
separate
argument,
whether
the
to
the
extent
to
which
the
affordable
care
act
is
truly
settled
law,
given
that
there
continue
to
be
efforts
to
you
know
to
overturn
it
or
under
undermine
aspects
of
it.
I
mean.
B
I
do
think
that
that
you
know
in
a
in
a
democracy,
there's
a
certain
logic
inherent
in
majority
rules,
and
I
think
that
the
system
was
so
broken
that
it
was
so
screaming
out
for
reform
that
you
know,
even
if
imperfect,
that
the
the
notion
of
one
person,
one
vote
made
sense
to
most
people,
I
mean
I
actually.
I
had
a
chance
to
ask
a
gentleman
who
was
who
was
earl,
warren's,
head
law
clerk
that
particular
year
and
who
worked
on
these
cases.
B
I
asked
in
this
issue
about
well.
Why
did
you
all
think
about
discuss?
You
know
bring?
You
know
addressing
gerrymandering
in
his
decisions.
Why
did
you
not?
He
said
I
said
yes,
there
was
definitely
a
discussion
about
that,
but
it
was
felt
that
that
wasn't
nearly
as
important
an
issue
and
that
that
would
be
better
left
for
another
day
and
of
course
here
we
are
55
years
later
and
and
it's
it's
still
there,
but
I
think
so
it's
it's
important.
B
I
think,
just
to
recognize
just
how
severe
male
apportionment
was
beyond
you
know
beyond
any
almost
anything
we
can
really
imagine
today
and
just
how
you
know
how
distorted
this
distorted
the
system
was
at
the
time
and,
as
I
said,
almost
every
state
in
the
country
I'm
trying
to
remember.
B
I
know
that,
like
there
were
five
states,
I
remember
identifying
that
that
massachusetts
was
one
I
think
wisconsin
west
virginia
oregon,
maybe
and
one
other
who
had
by
1960
had
fairly
equitable
apportionment
of
both
branches
of
legislature,
but
almost
every
other
state
in
the
country
at
least
one.
If
not
both
were
really
really
out
of
whack.
A
I
guess
another
thought
that
I
have
is
back
then
really
out
of
whack
was
nine
to
one
or
you
gave
us
some
other
numbers,
but
that's
the
one
that
I
got
now.
Courts
are
still
looking
at
what
is
reasonable
for
legislative
districts
and
is
something
under
10
deviation
that
would
be
1.1
to
1..
Is
that
always,
okay
or
or
sometimes
could
still
be
a
sign?
So
it's
almost
like
we
went
from
anything,
goes
nine
to
one
420
to
one
whatever
down
to
1.0001
right.
A
C
Yes,
I
would
yes
interesting
doug
it
was.
It
was
precisely
the
same
pattern
in
montana
that
that
you
were
outlining
in
colorado
that
went
there,
and
but
the
positive
spin-off
from
many
of
us
in
montana
was
that
it
was
so
bad
that
the
people
rose
up
and
redid
their
constitution,
and
it
benefited
not
only
in
redistricting.
C
But
redistricting
was
what
the
major
drive
behind
that
and
they
they
concluded
that
the
legislature's
inherent
conflicts
of
interest
require
that
a
citizen
commission,
and
they
they
established
the
five-person
citizen
commission,
which
was
the
third
in
the
country
and
has
been
going
on
ever
since
our
biggest
threat-
is
that
the
legislature
decided
to
follow
that
the
first
three
times
we've
done
it
and
now
that
the
next
three
times
we're
doing
it
here
at
least
half
of
the
legislature
has
decided
that
they
want
to
go
back
to
the
old
way,
and
so
it's
it's.
C
It's
a
con
constant
tension
and
and
the
the
first
time
that
we
we're
getting
to
get
our
congressional
district
back.
It
brings
all
those
forces
forward.
So
it's
interesting,
you
know.
A
I
I
should
have
commented
that
this
is
commissioner
lamson
from
montana,
so
he
knows
of
what
he
speaks.
Don't
you
want
to
make
any
comments
on
that.
B
C
Sure
hi
douglas.
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
talk.
It
was
really
interesting.
So
I
guess
I
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
comment
on
how
much
of
the
public
imagination
these
issues
have
actually
occupied.
So
you
know,
I
think
today
many
people
believe
that
the
general
public,
if
they
know
about
redistricting
at
all,
underestimates
the
effect
that
redistricting
may
have
on
representation
relative
to
other
things
that
are
a
little
bit
more
easily
understandable,
like
voting
rules
and
and
voter
access,
and
things
like
that.
C
So
you
know
with
these
critical
rulings
in
the
60s
coming
in
the
civil
rights
era
with
so
many
other
representational
issues
at
hand,
you
know
how
much
do
you
think
that
your
average
member
of
the
public
was
actually
thinking
about
registering
relative
to
all
the
other
issues?
You
know
how
much,
how
much
radio
coverage,
how
much
tv
coverage
did
these
you
know
mainstream
radio
and
tv
coverage?
Did
these
issues
actually
get
and
the
rulings.
B
Yeah,
that's
a
that's,
actually,
a
that's
a
great
question
and
and
something
I
did
spend
a
lot
of
time.
Thinking
about,
because
I
think
in
many
ways
the
you
know
the
the
one
one-person
one-vote
rulings
or
are
every
bit
as
important
for
for
for
the
for
our
democracy
as
the
civil
rights
act
or
the
voting
rights
act.
But
I
think
the
answer
question
is
very
little
to
none
in
terms,
certainly,
I
mean
especially
think
about
the
nightly
news.
B
Then
was
30
minutes
and
there
was
three
channels
and
you
know
they
wouldn't
have
you
know
the
you
know
to
wendy's
coming
earlier
about.
You
know
this
is
not
a
classic
page
turner,
although
there's
some
great
drama
in
the
courtroom,
but
it's
not
the
kind
of
stuff
that's
going
to
make
nightly
news.
There's
no,
no
question
about
it.
I
mean
this
is
sort
of
you
know
nerdy,
and
I
use
that
term
affectionately.
You
know
lawyerly.
These
are
lawyers
cases,
lawyers
bringing
this,
and
you
know
alabama
lawyers.
B
You
know
going
up
and
signing
up
a
few
of
their
friends
at
the
rotary
club
to
serve
as
plaintiffs
and
things.
You
know
things
like
that,
so
I
think
that
I
think
you
do
see
a
fair
amount
of
editorializing
in
the
major
newspapers
about
this
issue
as
it
becomes
more
and
more
of
an
issue,
and-
and
so
you
do,
I
think
there
is
a
a
growing
sense
throughout
the
50s
and
early
60s
that
there's
that
there's
a
real
problem
here.
B
You
know
groups
like
the
legal
women
voters
was
all
over
all
over
this
issue
and
made
this
one
of
their
primary.
You
know
some
great
materials
in
the
library
of
congress,
like
the
state
branches
of
the
league,
women
voters,
where
going
back
to
the
40s
in
different
states,
they're
tapping
into
this
and
figuring
out,
so
they
are
raising
general
awareness.
But
to
your
question
for
the
public
at
large,
I
would
say
not
very
many.
You
know
there
wasn't.
There
was
not.
B
This
was
not
an
issue
that
people
were
coming
home
from
work
and
talking
about
around
around
the
dinner
table,
but
I
think
that,
for
you
know
there
were
people
who
did
recognize
the
importance
of
this.
You
know
some
of
the.
I
think
it
was
walter
ruther.
You
know
one
of
some
of
the
labor
leaders
who
there
was
one
point
at
which
walter
ruther
was
was
offered
a
deal
on.
B
So
I
do
think
there's
in
there's
certain
areas
of
of
you
know:
people
who
are
engaged
politically,
who
are
involved,
who
understand
the
real
importance
of
this
and
of
of
a
more
equitable
apportionment,
but
for
the
average
for
the
average
american
viewer
coming
home
from
works,
and
you
might
who
might
be
watching
the
news
and
seeing
civil
rights
demonstrations
or
later
anti-war
demonstrations.
I
think
you
know
there
it's
it's
minuscule
compared
to
that.
A
B
Yeah
he
when,
when
earl
warren,
announced
his
retirement
in
1968,
he
actually
ended
up
serving
for
another
year,
but
he
was
asked.
You
know
what
is
the
most
important
decision
that
your
court
ever
handed
down
during
your
during
your
tenure.
He
said
the
reapportionment
decisions
were
first
and
then
brown
versus
board
in
the
segregation
decisions.
B
A
D
Okay,
like
yeah,
I
will
hi
good
afternoon
I'll
repeat
what
I
put
in
the
chat
box:
a
unique
story,
a
lay
friend
of
mine,
georgetown
university.
Professor
roy
schotland,
once
told
me
this
story
that
when
he
was
justice,
brennan's
clerk
in
the
early
60s
that
he
worked
with
brennan
to
determine
the
deviations
of
the
legislatures
or
congressional
districts
in
each
of
the
justices
home
states,
and
that
one
sunday
afternoon
he
was
driving
brennan
around
d.c
and
left
him
off
for
waiting
for
him
outside
justice,
tom
clark's
home.
D
And
when
I
think
when,
when
brennan
came
back
to
the
car,
he
told
roy
like
we've,
got
the
majority
now
for
finally
for
baker
versus
car,
and
it
was
based
what
he
told
me
in
part
on
bringing
the
message
home
to
each
of
the
justices
I'll
take
it.
Roy
is
no
longer
with
us
I'll
take
it
that
that
is
a
true
story,
and
it
was
an
interesting
one
that
all
politics
is
local.
D
B
I
had
not
heard
that
story,
but
I
do
know
mr
shotland's
name,
because
one
of
the
things
that
justice
brennan
did
was
he
had
his
clerks
at
the
end
of
every
year,
write
a
really
detailed,
essentially
a
really
detailed
history
of
the
most
important
cases
from
that
term,
and
so
one
of
the
best
one
of
the
best
accounts
we
have
of
baker
b
carr
and
of
what
happened
behind
the
scenes
is-
and
I
think
roy
shotland
that
might
have
been
the
one
of
the
clerk
who
authored
that
particular
memo
and
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
detail
in
the
the
baker
v
car
case
I
knew
initially
it
looked
like
it
was
either
gonna
be
a
fourth.
B
Well
initially
it
was
a
the
first
time
it
was
argued,
it
was
decided,
it
was
4-4
and
they
put
it
over
a
free
argument
and
then
it
looked
like
it
might
go
4-5
or
5-4,
either
way
and
and
tom
clark.
It
was
interesting
in
felix
frankfurter
who
was
the
most
vociferous
opponent
of
of
weighing
in
on
baker.
V,
carr
suggested
that
tom
clark
should
write
a
memo.
B
Tom
clark
initially
was
going
to
dissent
along
with
the
frankfurter,
and
he
suggested
that
tom
clark
write
a
a
memo
outlining
the
alternative,
alternative
avenues
of
of
relief
that
the
plaintiffs
might
seek,
and
tom
clark
apparently
sat
down
to
do
that
and
realized
that
there
weren't
any,
and
so
he
then
switched
his
vote
in
part
so
and
that
may
have
been
in
part
because
of
brennan's
brennan's
personal
lobbying
of
him
as
as
well.
So,
no
doubt
that
made
him.
D
I
I
taught
all
the
course
all
the
cases
you
just
mentioned
in
my
law
school
class
in
the
last
few
weeks
I
mentioned
after
peter
v,
carr
that
it's
said
that,
after
the
case
finally
was
decided,
justice
whitaker
resigned
from
the
court,
possibly
over
the
mental
stress
that
baker
b
carr
presented
and
that
justice
frankfurter
had
a
stroke
shortly
afterwards.
That's
that's
correct!
Well,.
B
And
whitaker
actually
whittaker
the
the
final
decision
of
bakery
car
was
6-2
because
whitaker
had
become
was
was
clearly
distressed
and
there
was
a
lot
of
evidence
that
baker
b
carr
was
sort
of
the
final.
He
was
getting
so
much
pressure
from
frankfurter
and
he
was
really
torn
about
the
decision
and
frankfurter
was
really
leaning
on
him
heavily
and,
and
he
had
a
heart,
so
he
he
did
end
up
not
taking
part
in
the
final
decision
because
he
had
already
gone
into
the
hospital
at
that
point
in
time.
D
Yeah,
when
you
look
at
the
early
cases,
this
even
takes
us
into
the
1980s
how
justices
used
the
same
set
of
facts,
but
had
totally
polar
views
of
how
to
decide
cases
as
late
as
mobile
versus
boldin
in
1982,
where
you
had
stewart
on
one
side
and
white
on
the
other.
Also
just
mentioned
my
last
comment,
I
think
I
used
your
book
a
few
years
ago.
I
did
an
article
on
robert
f,
kennedy's
attorney
general
and
redistricting
and
mentioned
the
gray
versus
sanders
case,
which
I
think
you
talked
about.
B
That's
yeah
gravy
sanders,
one
that
I
mentioned
when
william
douglas
wrote,
the
opinion
and,
and
that
was
sort
of
when
the
court
struck
down
george's
county
unit
system,
which
is
really
how
which
was
not
technically
a
male
apportionment
case.
But,
as
you
know,
it
was
essentially
it's
sort
of
it.
It's
essentially
the
same
issue
and
that's
when
he
used
the
word
the
term
one
person
one
vote
right.
Well,
that's
fine!
I
would
love
for
you
because
I've
always
been
fascinated
by
the
kennedy
justice
department.
A
So
my
thought
is
that
maybe
we
keep
you
doug
and
we
we
go,
do
a
couple
of
other
things
and
then
anybody
who
would
like
to
stay
and
continue
this
conversation
about
the
history
stay
on
board
and
then
many
of
us
need
to
you
know,
go
off
and
do
other
things
we
understand.
Are
you
good
with
that?
Doug.