►
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
We
are
now
in
the
courts
policy
and
the
future
of
redistricting
session.
You
can
tell
by
that
name.
We
weren't
quite
sure
what
to
call
it
and
we
didn't
come
up
with
something
any
too
clever
on
it,
but
there
you
go.
It
gives
you
a
little
bit
of
the
parameters
we'll
be
looking
at,
and
this
session
is
a
little
different
than
some
of
the
others,
because
the
folks
that
we
have
on
it
are
not
legislators
who
draw
maps.
Commissioners
who
draw
maps
litigators,
maybe
I'm
wrong.
A
They
can
tell
us
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
don't
think
of
them
as
litigators
in
regards
to
the
maps
and
most
of
the
other
sessions,
it's
been
those
sets
of
folk
or
legislative
staff.
So
what
we've
got
here
is
people
who
I
would
think
of
as
outside,
who
have
been
paying
a
huge
amount
of
attention
all
of
the
details
about
redistricting
and
can
speak
to
it
from
that
perspective
of
the
law
or
outside
groups
interests
in
this.
So
it's
going
to
be
a
good
conversation,
I'm
fairly
sure.
A
I
do
want
to
say
that
if
you
don't
get
your
questions
answered
on
this,
we
do
have
the
ask
the
experts
later
on
today
and
it
is
possible
that
some
of
our
panelists
today
will
be
able
to
join
us
for
that.
You
can
put
those
questions
in
the
box
in
the
lobby
if
you
want
to
or
just
bring
them
along
and
ask
them
out
loud
any
way
you
want
to
do
it.
We
do
have,
of
course,
a
q
a
here
for
you
today
for
this
session,
so
I'm
with
that
rebecca.
A
I
think
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
you.
Rebecca
green
runs
the
election
law
program
at
william
and
mary.
We
work
very
closely
together
on
a
variety
of
things,
but
particularly
election
emergencies,
and
by
that
I
was
thinking
of
floods
and
cyber
security,
that's
the
general
context
and
pandemics.
So
if
you
want
to
know
anything
about
that,
go
to
rebecca
or
me
and
we'll
be
happy
to
talk
further
about
that
so
rebecca
with
that
go
ahead
and
take
it
away.
B
B
So
first,
michael
lee
serves
as
a
senior
counsel
at
the
brennan
center's
democracy
program,
focusing
on
redistricting
walter
olsen
is
senior
fellow
at
the
cato
institute's
robert
a
levy
center
for
constitutional
studies,
so
welcome
to
both
of
you
I'm
so
I'm
so
glad
to
have
you
here
and
since
time
is
short,
I
think
we
should
get
right
into
it.
So
we
know
that
partisan
gerrymandering
claims,
at
least
at
the
federal
court,
may
no
longer
be
brought
and
some
wonder
and
worry
whether
this
will
unleash
a
sort
of
hyper-partisan
redistricting.
B
This
round,
and
one
of
the
remaining
tools
to
address
partisan
gerrymandering
is
state
law.
In
fact,
chief
justice
roberts,
in
his
opinion,
noted
that
there
are
sort
of
state
law
claims
that
can
still
be
brought,
even
though
they
can
no
longer
be
brought
in
federal
court.
So
I
guess
I
wanted
to
start
there
and
ask
you
each
to
comment
on
how
much
play
you
think
state
law,
particularly
state
constitutional
law,
might
get
in
policing,
partisan
gerrymandering.
B
So
I
didn't
have
a
particular
order
order
in
mind,
but
maybe
walter,
let's
start
with
you
you're
from
maryland,
where
you
know
there's
a
lot
a
lot
going
on
in
this
front.
C
I
I'm
from
maryland
estates
whose
constitution
doesn't
have
that
much
to
say
about
the
issue,
so
we
are
probably
not
going
to
be
emulating,
pennsylvania
or
north
carolina.
Those
are
the
two
states
where
there
have
been
interesting
and
far-reaching
state
supreme
court
decisions
based
on
their
own
state
constitutions
and
in
ways
that
do
not
simply
echo
and
pick
up
the
comparable
claims
in
the
federal
constitution,
and
I
recommend
everyone,
a
great
article,
I
think,
was
in
pen
law
review
a
few
years
ago.
C
One
of
the
co-authors
was
ben
williams,
a
name
familiar
to
ncsl
on
what
can
happen
in
the
courts.
It's
a
very
shrewd
analysis
and
it
I
generally
agree
with
what
may
have
been
pessimism
by
the
authors,
that
this
is
likely
to
affect
only
a
few
situations
for
a
number
of
reasons.
First,
it's
only
a
minority
of
states
that
have
separate
language
like
free
and
fair
for
a
lot
of
states.
C
They
do
consciously
hitch
their
interpretation
of
terms
like
equal
protection
to
what
the
federal
supreme
court
has
done,
which
would
rule
out
intervention
here.
But
there
are
certain
things
to
look
for.
The
article
pointed
out.
One
is
where
you've
got
a
state
supreme
court
that
is
politically
at
odds
with
its
legislature,
certainly
true
of
both
north
carolina
and
pennsylvania,
and
there
are
some
other
things
to
look
at
it's.
There
aren't
going
to
be
all
that
many
states.
C
We
all
know
that
state
supreme
courts
and
state
judiciaries
in
general
are
a
little
more
political
than
federal
equivalence
and
that
cuts
a
couple
of
different
ways
here.
They
don't
necessarily
want
to
get
their
legislature
terribly
mad
at
them.
They
don't
want
to
start
a
big
war
that
the
legislature
might
have
weapons
to
pursue
and
they
don't
always
have
the
language
and
when
they
do
have
the
language.
The
thing
about
free
and
fair
is
that
it's
so
much
like
a
blank
check.
C
Judges
are
often
reluctant
to
use
a
blank
check
if
the
guidance
were
clearer,
exactly
what
it
meant.
Sometimes
they're
bolder
about
using
it,
but
when
it
could
mean
anything,
they
worry
that
it
will
be
attacked
as
well
as.
D
B
D
Yeah
I
in
general
agree
with
walter
with
a
little
bit
of
a
twist,
which
is,
I
think,
you're,
certainly
going
to
see
more
people
try
to
bring
claims
in
state
court
of
the
cycle
and
drawing
on
not
only
on
the
free
and
equal
elections
clauses
that
are
in
some
state
constitutions,
but
perhaps
other
parts
of
state
constitutions
that
might
be
interpreted
to
have
something
to
say
about
partisan
gerrymandering,
because
there
there
is
this
rich,
almost
untapped
state
law,
constitutional
tradition.
D
You
know
we
tend
to
litigate
everything
in
federal
court,
because
that's
what
we've
done
for
the
last
50
years.
But
you
know
there
is
this
rich
tradition
out
there
that
in
many
ways
is
new
territory
that
people
might
find
something
there.
But
of
course
a
lot
will
depend
on
the
state
courts
right.
You
know
some
state
courts
are
going
to
be
much
more
politicized
and
not
willing
to
go
there.
D
Some
state
courts
are
going
to
be
more
conservative
in
their
approach,
but
some
state
courts
will
be,
you
know,
might
might
you
know
branch
out,
especially
since
you
have
these
very
two,
well-written
opinions
out
of
pennsylvania
and
north
carolina-
that
that
sort
of
set
some
precedent
right
about
how
you
would
do
this
right?
There
is
a
road
map
now,
and
so
you
know,
I
do
think
that
people
are
gonna,
perhaps
try
to
go
down
that
road.
D
The
one
thing
I
will
say
that
there
there
are
a
couple
of
states
like
ohio
in
particular
that
has
you
know
much
more
specific
language,
interstate
constitution,
about
partisan
fairness,
and
you
know
florida
also
has
some
very
strong
language
and
in
those
states
you
know
you
might
see
litigation
brought
on
those
very
specific
clauses.
B
So
the
only
thing
I
think
I
would
add
to
those
comments
is
that
it's
not
just
a
question
of
necessarily
the
courts
and
their
willingness
to
take
up
this
language.
I
think
it's
also
a
factor
here.
How
egregious
the
process
is.
So
you
know
if
a
state
follows
the
wisconsin
model
and
decides
to
do.
You
know
hotel
room
redistricting,
where
people
are
signing
confidentiality
agreements
and
then
produces
a
map
that
is
egregiously,
unfair
and
that
may
raise
the
stakes
in
terms
of
state
courts
being
willing
to.
B
You
know
read
into
some
of
the
language
in
their
state
law
to
police
that
behavior.
So
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
put
in
a
plug,
for
you
know
trying
to
be
conscientious
about
how
you
approach
the
process.
B
Right
great,
all
right,
let's
move
on
the
next
thing
I
thought
we'd
talk
about
is
the
likelihood
that
the
supreme
court
will
find
section
two
of
the
voting
rights
act
which
protects
minority
communities,
ability
to
elect
the
candidate
of
their
choice
unconstitutional,
and
I
guess
you
know
the
first
question
is
like:
do
you
think
that
that's
likely
and
then
the
sort
of
follow-up
is
what
what
the
impact
of
such
a
finding
would
be
on
state
line,
drawing
processes
going
forward.
B
So
obviously
they
haven't,
they
haven't
found
section
two
to
be
unconstitutional
yet,
but
I
guess,
is
there
any
advice
or
thinking
that
you
wanted
to
sort
of
inject
into
the
conversation
for
people
who
are
thinking
about
drawing
the
lines?
This
time.
D
Well,
I
I
I'm
skeptical
that
that
is
going
to
happen
for
a
couple
of
reasons.
One
is
that
I
think
when
people
bring
section
two
cases,
but
the
groups
that
bring
those
are
oftentimes
very
aware
of
the
you
know
the
potential
coming
up
against
the
constitutional
issue,
and
so
when
they
bring
cases,
you
know,
there's
a
lot
that
goes
in
to
deciding
whether
you
want
to
bring
the
cases
they're
not
brought
willy-nilly,
and
so
people
hire
experts
in
advance.
D
I
mean
you
know,
so
you
really
don't
see
a
lot
of
that
litigation,
and
so
I
think
the
the
awareness
of
the
civil
rights
community
to
about
the
potential
constitutional
issues
means
that
they
don't
push
the
boundaries
as
much
now,
we'll
see
whether
some
of
the
section
two
cases
that
are
brought
by
political
parties
or
other
more
politically
affiliated
groups
are
more
willing
to
sort
of
take
a
you
know,
hail
mary
at
something,
but
even
then
I
I
don't
think
that
it's
likely
for
a
second
reason,
which
is
that
the
supreme
court
has
made
section
two
claims
really
hard
right.
D
There's
a
lot
of
off
ramps
for
section
two.
You
can
say
that
there's
not
polarized
voting
or
that
you
know
you
can't
do
a
coalition,
because
there's
not
cohesion
among
minority
groups
or
that
the
district
is
not
compact.
I
mean
there's
just
a
lot
of
off-ramps
yeah,
so.
C
I
agree
with
everything
that
michael
has
said.
I
realized
that
there
is,
I
guess,
in
justice,
clarence
thomas
and
perhaps
only
in
him,
sometimes
joined
by
justice
toledo.
There
is
a
desire
to
go
much
further
in
applying
constitutional
controls,
because
on
some
level
of
conservative
principle,
they
do
object,
but
they
have
not
shown
any
signs
of
assembling
a
majority,
and
I
don't
think
that
will
happen
anytime
soon.
Part
of
it
is.
C
The
court
is
closely
sensitive
to
where
public
opinion
is-
and
I
think
have
settled
on
both
minority
majority
districts
and
on
some
of
the
other
things
that
section
two
covers
they're
not
far
from
what
the
public
wants.
It
would
not
be
comfortable
with
a
complete
strike
down.
C
It
is
comfortable
with
the
fairly
tight
controls
that
existing
cases
and
and
doctrines
provide
on
that,
and
I
don't
think
that
the
addition
of
one
or
two
more
republican
justices,
especially
with
everyone
feeling
that
it's
high
tied,
is
the
time
they're
going
to
do
a
sudden
change.
Of
course,
knowing
that
the
course
might
just
be
changed
again
in
a
couple
of
years,
when
your
justice
is
joined,.
B
Yeah,
I
guess
I
I
think
I
agree
with
you
both
the
pause
that
I
have
is
the
idea
that
you
know
there
might
be
a
test
case
sort
of
jinned
up,
particularly
for
this
purpose.
You
know
we
saw
this
happen,
for
example
in
the
area
of
affirmative
action
right,
and
this
is
sort
of
a
similar
complaint
right
that
you're
giving
minority
groups.
You
know
a
leg
up
and
you
shouldn't
be
right.
B
That's
kind
of
the
the
crux
of
the
of
the
constitutional
argument
against
what
congress
has
done
with
section
two,
so
I
wonder
whether
you
think
that's
possible
that
that
you
know
there.
You
know,
I
agree
with
you,
michael
that
you
know
the
voting
rights
community
is
sensitive
to
this
and
and
proceeds
carefully,
but
is
it
possible
that
we
could
see
sort
of
I
mean
that's
how
that's
how
shelby
county
came
down
right,
so
is
there
any
possibility
of
that
kind
of
a
situation.
D
I
I
suppose,
although
it's
not
clear
to
me,
that
there
is,
you
know
a
political
advantage
to
doing
this
right.
I
mean,
I
do
think
even
republicans
have
learned
to
live
with
majority
minority
districts
in
part
because
they
concentrate
a
large
number
of
democrats
in
a
district.
That's
overwhelmingly
democratic
and
like,
if
you
some
the
purpose
of
undoing.
D
C
With
shelby
county,
I
would
have
brought
it
up
if
you
hadn't,
because
shelby
county
came
as
a
surprise
and
a
shock
to
some,
and
they
were
looking
around
for
other
ways
in
which
the
ground
might
shift
and
the
attitude
of
the
conservative
justices
toward
some
of
these
things
is
often
related
to
a
timeline.
C
I
mean
think
of
racial
preference
in
university
admissions
and
other
things
where
the
idea
is
that
in
principle,
they
believe
that
it
eventually
should
end,
but
that
keeps
being
put
off
and
put
off
40
years.
50
years.
C
Shelby
county
was
on
one
side
of
this,
in
that
the
getting
on
to
that
list
of
states
that
had
to
pre-clear
was
done
as
long
ago
as
1970,
et
cetera,
really
putting
a
strain
on
this
sense
that
we
are
tapering
off
we're
not
ending,
but
we're
gradually
tapering
off,
not
so
with
section
two
section,
two
also
aside
from
not
being
burdened
by
that
time
element
section
two
applies
equally
to
the
entire
country,
making
it
much
less
vulnerable
to
the
appeal
that
you've
decided
divided
the
country
into
zone
a
and
zone
b
arbitrarily.
C
It
once
made
sense,
but
that
arbitrary
division
of
two
forms
of
governance
is
intrinsically
obnoxious
to
the
constitution.
These
are
arguments
that
I
think
in
the
case
of
shelby
county,
are
well
received
in
federalist
society
circles.
Don't
get
any
attraction
if
you're
attacking
section
two.
B
Section
five
is
very
different
than
section
two,
because
section
two
applies
throughout
the
country.
If
there
you
don't
have
this
sort
of
uneven
application.
That's
awesome
great,
so
we're
getting
we're
getting
some
questions
in
the
in
the
chat
section
about
the
census.
B
So
let's
turn
right
to
that,
because
I
know
that
there
is
a
lot
of
interest
in
this
issue,
so
we've
seen
a
lot
of
tumult
with
respect
to
the
census
in
large
part
because
changes
this
administration
has
pushed
for
have
combined
with
delays
as
a
consequence
of
running
into
trying
to
run
a
census
during
a
pandemic.
So
I
guess,
let
me
just
throw
it
to
you:
should
we
expect
cases
relating
to
the
quality
of
the
data
to
come
down?
B
What
is
there
to
say
about
the
timing
of
the
data
and
potential
litigation
and
then
there's
sort
of
this
third
piece
about
whether
whether
or
not
data
might
be
produced
relating
to
undocumented
residents
and
how
that
might
play?
I
guess
that's
a
huge,
a
huge
set
of
questions,
but
does
anyone
want
to
start
a
census
conversation
in
terms
of
what
we
can
expect
for
litigation.
D
D
Like
you
know,
texas
loses
three
seats
or
whatever
I
mean
that
I
don't
think
that's
likely,
but
you
know
like
if
it's
at
that
level
or
whether
it's
really
more
at
the
block
level
and
it
sort
of
doesn't
affect
the
number
of
seats
that
you
get
in
the
overall
population,
but
really
just
affects
your
just
your
ability
to
draw,
for
example,
section
two
districts
and
the
like.
So
there
is
some
possibility
of
a
challenge.
What
that
would
be.
D
I
think
you
know
it
just
really
depends
on
what
we
get,
and
you
know
that
relates
to
the
timing,
which
is
like
very
uncertain
now,
especially
with
the
new
administration
coming
in
whether
there's
a
review
of
that,
and
then
you
know
there
might
be
you
know
in
the
likewise.
I
guess
you
know
the
citizenship
file,
like
you
know
that
will
not
be
produced
until
you
know
after
january
20th,
and
so
you
know
it's
unclear
that
that
would
be
produced
so,
but
we
will
see.
B
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
you
know
well
assuming
that,
assuming
that
all
we're
handling
is
a
delay,
it
won't,
it
won't
it's
unlikely
and
I'm
curious
whether
you
guys
agree
if,
if
all
we're
dealing
with
is
a
delay,
it's
not
a
question
of
litigation.
It's
just
a
question
of
states.
You
know
coping
with
that
delay
right,
I
mean
there's.
No,
we
we
can't
expect
to
see
litigation
involving.
D
D
If,
depending
on
how
late
the
data
comes
out
and
I've,
I've
heard
rumors
that
it
might
be
as
late
as
august,
you
know
for
the
block
level
data
which
really
like
starts
to
bump
it
up
against
states.
You
know
primary
filing
deadlines
for
the
2022
cycle,
and
so
you
might
have
to
make
a
bunch
of
changes
and
some
you
know
there
aren't
too
many
states
where
you
have
to
change.
You
have
to
do
two
drastic
things,
but
you
might
have
to
restrict
a
special
session.
D
You
might
have
to
do
things
like
that,
all
of
which
is
right
for
abuse,
and
things
like
that-
and
you
know
you
know
like
there-
could
be
some
litigation
around
that.
But
you
know
you
know,
I
don't
think
he
would
like
to
do
it
we'll
get
the
data
when
we
get
the
data,
when
the
bureau
is
full
well
and
ready
to
release
it,
and
you
know
there,
they
haven't
said
anything
that
you
know.
Maybe
you've
heard
something
in
the
earlier
sessions,
but
I
don't
know
anything.
B
Well,
we're
here
in
virginia
right:
we,
we
are
one
of
the
two
states
that
has
off
your
elections,
so
I'll
get
august
will
be
a
very
would
throw
a
bomb
into
the
process.
So
hopefully,
hopefully
we
won't.
We
will
go,
go
down
that
road
right.
So
another
question
that
I
wanted
to
ask
you
guys
about
has
to
do
with
racial
gerrymandering.
B
So
in
the
last
cycle
we
saw
several
cases
that
involved
racial
targets,
so,
for
example,
in
alabama
legislative
black
caucus,
the
alabama
legislature
decided
to
keep
the
same
percent
of
their
minorities
in
their
majority
minority
districts
and
in
in
bethune
hill
in
virginia.
B
We
saw
the
state
legislature
decide
that
they
all
of
their
majority
minority
districts,
were
going
to
have
a
floor
of
55
percent
minorities
in
their
majority
minority
districts
and
in
both
cases
the
u.s
supreme
court
was
very
unhappy
with
sort
of
these
fixed
racial
targets,
and
I
guess,
given
this,
I'm
curious,
if
you
guys
want
to
weigh
in
on
whether
or
not
there'll
be
racial
gerrymandering
suits
going
forward.
Since
it's
it's
fairly,
I
think
safe
to
say
that
that
no
legislature
will
attempt
that
type
of
racial
target.
B
So
so
racial
gerrymandering
cases
have
gone.
This
kind
of
meandering
crazy
route
between
you
know
the
shaw
line
and
then
and
then
where
we
are
today-
and
I
guess
I'm
just
curious
for
your
take
on
the
next
decade
of
racial
gerrymandering,
litigation.
C
Well,
the
court:
on
the
one
hand,
the
supreme
court
has
been
unable
to
really
stabilize
this
area
in
such
a
way
that
it
doesn't
have
to
keep
taking
new
cases,
and
so
that's
the
bad
news,
at
least
if
you
work
on
the
supreme
court.
However,
in
both
the
bethune
hill
case
from
virginia
and
the
alabama
case,
there
are
signs
that
some
of
the
questions
that
once
divided
the
court
don't
divide
the
court
as
much
there.
There
really
seems
to
be
a
consensus.
C
It
started
with
conservatives,
but
the
liberal
wing
has
joined
in
that
it
is
improper
to
have
too
much
attention
to
race
and
now
the
question
is
where
to
draw
the
line,
but
blatantly
race-based
things
that
go
beyond
what
is
tailored
or
what
is
implied
by
the
accepted
parts
of
the
voting
rights
act
are
going
to
get
close
scrutiny
and
no
one
was
defending
them
in
a
case
like
bethune
hill.
C
Although
the
high
court
was
divided
on
the
alabama
case,
it
was
over
a
side
issue
and
they
didn't
seem
to
be
too
divided
on
the
overuse
of
race
issues.
So
yeah
we
are
in
a
new
age.
In
that
sense,
and
that
they
have
reached
more
agreement
that
you
can't
go
too
far
in
that
direction,
that
probably
won't
change.
Just
because
biden
adds
a
couple
more
appointees
to
the
court.
D
C
D
I
think
so
I
I
agree
that
there
won't
be
these
like
55
percent
targets
in
part,
because
those
targets
were
supposedly
to
justify
to
to
in
order
to
comply
with
section
5
of
the
voting
rights
act
which
we
don't
have,
but
but
I
do
think
that
there
will
be
racial
gerrymandering
this
cycle,
if
the
excuse
will
just
be
different,
it'll,
be
we'll
work
at
a
racial
way
gerrymander,
and
the
reasons
that
we
racially
gerrymandered
was
politics
that
we
were
trying
to
favor,
republicans
or
democrats
more
really
more
republicans,
and
that
the
excuse
was
in
that,
and
that
will
be
the
excuse
for
using
you
know
for
racial
gerrymandering
or
the
claims
will
be
that
you
used
race
as
the
tool
to
get
there,
because
the
reality
is
in
many
pla
places
in
the
country
in
the
south.
D
In
particular,
you
can't
do
an
aggressive,
partisan
gerrymander
without
using
race,
because
there
just
really
aren't
enough
white
democrats
right.
You
know
there
are
white
democrats,
but
they
they
live.
You
know
really
in
close
proximity
to
white
republicans,
sometimes
in
the
same
house
right,
and
so
you
know,
unless
you're
going
to
go
and
figure
out
a
way
to
draw
the
line
down
somebody's
bed
to
gerrymander
white
voters.
D
It's
not
it's
really
hard,
and
so
the
easier
way
to
do
it
is
to
gerrymander
on
the
basis
of
race,
in
order
to
achieve
a
political
effect
that
will
be
challenged
as
a
racial
gerrymander
and
we'll
get
to
see
how
a
footnote
in
the
cooper
vs
harris
opinion
holds
out.
Where
justice
kagan
says.
Well,
you
you
might
be
able
to
like
do
things
for
political
reasons,
but
you
can't
use
race
as
a
tool
to
get
there
right.
D
B
Let's
just
hope
that
bed
gerrymandering
does
not
become
a
term
of
art
in
the
next
decade.
This
is
a
direct
appeal
to
the
to
the
legislators
or
the
line
drawers
listening
in.
Let's
not,
let's
not
go
there.
Let's
see
so
we
have
witnessed
a
lot
of
tomo
with
respect.
Oh
sorry,
I
just
asked
that
question.
B
I
apologize
my
my
questions
are
out
of
order,
so
the
next
question
that
we've
got
on
our
list
is:
do
you
anticipate
any
suits
based
on
state
attempts
to
use
something
other
than
total
population
to
equalize
districts?
You
know
this,
of
course,
an
even
well
versus
abbott.
Several
years
ago
we
saw
this
question
arise,
and
the
court's
answer
was
that
it's
okay
for
states
to
use
total
population,
but
didn't
quite
answer
the
question
of
whether
or
not
it
would
be
possible
or
constitutional
to
use
something
else.
B
So
I
guess
whether
I'm
asking
whether
you
think
the
court
as
it's
currently
constituted
will
have
a
tolerance
for
district
drawing
that
uses
something
other
than
total
population
for
state
lines.
D
B
D
And
you
know
there
are
a
limited
number
of
states
where
you
you
might
see
this
happen
right.
I
mean
you
sort
of
need,
like
you
know,
a
combination
of
of
people
who
decide
like
this
would
be
a
good
strategy
plus
you
know,
there's
no
limits
in
your
constitution
on
doing
it
right,
because
we're
talking
about
legislative
districts,
not
congressional
districts.
D
You
won't
see
that
in
a
lot
of
places,
but
there
are
some
places
where
people
might
try
it
if
it's
advantageous,
but
you
know
you
know
I
would,
in
which
case
I
would
expect
those
to
be
challenged,
but
not
necessarily
on
the
one
person
one
vote
basis
right
I
mean
I
think
that
that
will
be
a
claim,
but
you
know
in
many
cases
people
will
argue
that
that
choice
itself
is
discriminatory
against
communities
of
color
and
therefore
violates
the
voting
rights
act.
And
so
you
know,
I
think,
there's
lots
of
reasons.
D
You
know,
I
think
anybody
who
would
try.
It
would
be
inviting
a
firestorm
of
litigation
which
doesn't
mean
that
somebody
won't
try
it
it's.
I
I
suspect
it's
probably
more
likely
that
if
people
try
this,
it
will
be
at
the
local
level.
You
know
a
county
board
or
city
council
rather
than
say
the
texas
senate.
C
You
know
we
certainly
have
seen
in
the
literature
on
prison,
redistricting
and
a
couple
of
other
areas
that
you
get
into
wacky
situations,
sometimes
with
small
jurisdictions
in
which
the
existence
of
an
institution
means
that
it
really
makes
a
huge
difference
to
the
representation
of,
let's
say,
city,
council
districts
or
county
supervisory
districts
to
count
or
to
not
count
some
optional
group
and
therefore
there's
a
strong
political
incentive
and
sometimes
a
strong
public
demand
to
vary
from
the
usual
practice,
even
while
the
case
from
texas.
C
I
always
find
it
interesting
when
seemingly
controversial
cases
come
out
unanimous
as
with
the
ones
we
were
talking
about
a
minute
ago,
and
if
the
world
did
raise
some
heat
level,
it
was
about
whether
it
was
okay
for
to
count
the
whole
population,
including
illegal
immigrants,
but
it
was
unanimous
when
it
came
out.
I
think
it
was
eight
to
zero
and
that
reflected
some
combination
of
the
liberal
wing
of
the
courts.
Thinking
you
know.
C
Yes,
this
is
fine
on
all
sorts
of
different
philosophical
grounds
and
some,
I
think,
influence
from
the
conservative
wing
saying
leave
states
alone.
This
is
a
long-standing
practice.
You
know
we're
not
going
to
invite
the
courts
to
start
meddling
with
something
that
is
commonly
done.
That
won't
necessarily
be
the
alignment
when
the
types
of
cases
that
michael
talks
about
reach
the
court,
if
they
ever
do
right.
D
Right,
I
will
say,
like
it's,
also
not
clear
to
me,
like
that.
You
know,
like
the
the
majority
of
people
who
would
be
excluded,
you
know
bears
repeating,
would
be
children
right.
I
mean
there.
There
actually
are.
There
are
some
non-citizens,
but
you
know
in
most
states,
including
even
in
texas.
Right
I
mean
you
know
the
majority
of
people
who,
if
you
do
eligible
voter,
a
portion
of
it,
would
be
children,
people
under
18
and
that
that
hurts
like
you
know,
suburban
republicans
as
much
as
it
does.
D
You
know
you
know
latino,
so
it's
not
clear
to
me
that
it's
politically
wise
or
would
have
the
political
support
from
everybody
that
you
would
need
to
pass
it.
But
you
know
very
true.
B
Interesting,
you
know
you
mentioned
prison
gerrymandering.
I
guess
I
wanted
to
just
throw
in
a
quick,
quick
question
about
that,
because
we
have
seen
prison,
gerrymandering
cases,
sort
of
spotting
the
landscape
for
the
past.
Excuse
me
several
decades
and
I'm
wondering
where
that
all
stands
and
if
you
can
help
our
audience
understand
that
issue
and
and
sort
of
you
know
where
the
courts
are
likely
to
go
with
it
or
where
they
have
gone
with
it
and
where
we're
left
and
whether
you
see
any
any
litigation
likely
in
the
next
decade.
C
Well,
the
question
is
whether
redistricting
has
to
or
or
may
or
must
not
count
prisoners
at
in
the
location
of
the
prisons
they're
in,
even
though
they
cannot
obviously
in
most
states
go
there,
and
I
think
it's
pretty
well
established
that
states
can
adopt
the
type
of
reform
that
we
have
in
maryland.
New
york
has-
and
I
believe
some
states
never
needed
to
adopt
this
because
they
were
all
along
pursuing
a
different
policy,
but
in
maryland
the
case
that
I
know
best,
there
is
a
redistribution
phase.
C
After
the
census,
numbers
come
in
the
prisoners
in
western
maryland
or
other
large
prison
sites
are
redistributed
to
the
last
place
they
lived
before.
C
They
were
incarcerated
and,
as
you
can
imagine,
this
raises
some
interesting
questions
with
people
who
might
never
have
had
any
particular
connection
to
a
place
where
they
were
in
a
a
short-term
rental
or
who
might
indeed
have
lived
out
of
state.
But
the
and
there's
also
a
practical
issue
which
not
everyone
anticipated,
but
but
they
they
do
see,
which
is
that
it
slows
down
the
availability
of
usable
census
numbers
and,
with
other
things,
contributing
to
a
delay.
This
can
make
the
headaches
worse.
C
I
think
some
litigators
would
like
to
develop
litigation
that
requires
states
to
do
this
rather
than
allocating
prisoners
to
the
counties
of
the
prisons,
and
I
really
don't
see
the
supreme
court
forcing
states
to
adopt
that
policy
they
don't
want
to.
I
think
the
practice
will
continue
to
have
momentum
as
a
matter
of
legislative
reform,
but
I
can't
see
the
supreme
court
ordering
it
currently.
Michael.
Am
I
wrong.
D
D
No,
I
I,
I
think,
you're
right
all
that
I
I
do
think
this
issue,
but
has
the
potential
for
that
for
going
away,
because
I
you
know
congress
could
simply
pass
a
law
that
said
like
when
you
take
the
when
you
do
the
2030
census
put
people
where
they
were
before
right
I
mean,
and-
and
that
is
something
that
can
be
done
and
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
momentum
for
for
doing
that,
and
so
I
you
know,
I
would
expect
that
that
would
be
a
fairly
easy
and
uncontroversial
fix
in
part,
because
this
issue
really
plays
out
more
at
the
local
government
level
than
it
does.
D
You
know
at
the
congressional
level
or
even
the
state
legislative
level,
I
mean
it
doesn't
really
that
much
of
a
impact
on
representation.
It
has
some,
but
it
doesn't
have
that
much
impact.
You
know
it's.
It's
really
worth
the
local
level,
and
so
you
know
I
either
the
census.
Bureau
itself
would
change
the
usual
residence
or
which
they
came
close
to
doing
the
cycle
or
congress
will
tell
the
census
bureau
to
do
so
and
and
they'll
just
work
with.
D
You
know
prisons
to
to
you
know,
get
the
data
right
because
was
one
thing
I
learned
in
all
of
this
is
like
you
know,
but
if
you're
incarcerated,
you
actually
don't
fill
out
the
census,
the
prison
fills
it
out
for
you
right
and
that
the
challenge
for
them
is
they
don't?
You
know
they
need
many
pieces
of
data
about
you
if
you're
incarcerated,
like
how
long
you're
supposed
to
be
there,
whether
you're,
dangerous
or
not,
you
know,
but
they
actually
don't
need
your
former
address.
So
they
don't
keep
it
it's.
D
Yeah
yeah
well
in
louisiana
they,
you
know
the
census
bureau
was
told
like
if
we
we
had
to
come
up
with
the
old
addresses
for
people.
We
have
them,
but
we
have
to
go
to
like
paper
files
to
like
pull
them
out
one
by
one,
because
you
would
never
need
to
know
like
you
never
need
to
type
into
a
computer
like
where's.
D
Where
did
rebecca
green
live
before
when
you
get
out
right,
you
know,
and
so,
but
but
given
enough
time
and
given
some
congressional
funding,
you
know,
I
think
you
know
the
states
could
easily
do
this.
They
would
just
need
a
little
bit
of
help.
B
I
I
yeah
I,
I
wrote
a
paper
called
the
surveillance
gap
which
just
sort
of
you
know
looked
at
this
issue,
and
here
we
are
in
a
surveillance
state.
It's
amazing
how
hard
sometimes
it
is
to
find
data
on
people,
but
could
could
the
could
the
census
sort
of
on
its
own
without
a
congressional
mandate,
decide
to
you
know
just
to
to
do
this
differently
or
it
could.
D
Yeah
they
they
asked,
you
know
they
did
a
notice
and
comment
a
few
years
ago
and
they
got
like
overwhelming
comments
saying
you
should
definitely
count
people
where
they
were
before.
You
know
like
for
people
incarcerated
new
york
state,
like
all
the
prisons,
are
upstate
yeah
most
of
prisoners
from
down
state.
Nobody
says
like
I
should
I
really
like
being
you
know,
upstate,
and
when
I
was
at
prison,
I'm
going
to
stay
here.
They
all
go
back
to
new
york
city,
so
I
mean
they.
D
Could
you
know
you
know
I,
you
know
the
census
bureau
could
clearly
do
it.
You
know
just
just
like
change
the
rules
on
where
you
count
college
students
and
the
people
living
overseas
and
military
and
stuff
like
that
they
could
easily
change
this.
B
If
they
ever
recover
from
this
round,
maybe
they'll
make
something
because
we'll
see.
Well,
I
guess
you
know,
I'm
gonna
we've
been
getting
some
interesting
questions
which
we'll
get
to
in
a
second,
and
please
do
if
you've
got
questions,
throw
them
out.
I
guess
they're
not
coming
directly
to
me,
but
they're,
being
they're
being
trans
transmitted
over
to
our
to
our
screen,
but
before
we
get
to
the
audience
questions,
I
guess
I
I
wanted
to
ask
this
last
question,
which
is
you
know
here?
We
are.
B
B
You
know
there
is
hr1,
which
has
a
very
long
section
on
redistricting
reform,
and
I
guess
I'm
curious
what
you
guys
think
in
terms
of
whether
redistricting
reform
will
be
first
on
the
agenda.
And
second,
you
know
what
it
will
look
like
in
light
of
what
we've
all
been
experiencing
in
the
last
few
days.
D
Well,
I
think
it
depends
on
what
joe
manchin
thinks
right,
because,
even
though
there
is
a
democratic
majority
of
the
senate
right
you're
still
right
now,
we
are
still
at
a
60-vote
landscape
and,
like
you
know,
I
think
what
reform
looks
like
will
depend
on
like
what
seems
acceptable
to
60
senators,
and
you
know
I
I
it's
not
clear
to
me
like
even
the
stuff.
That's
in
there
like
a
lot
of
hr1,
you
know
commands
like
60
60
votes,
you
know,
and
so
you
know,
but
there
clearly
are
things
you
could
do.
D
You
could
mandate
an
independent
commissions
or
you
would
just
simply
pass.
You
know
a
criteria
bill
or
simply
a
ban
on
partisan
gerrymandering
like
almost
like
two
sentences.
Right
and
you
know
all
of
that
is
sort
of
out
there,
but
you
know
it
sort
of
depends
on
what
you
can
get
60
votes
on
right.
You
know,
I
do
know,
it
won't
be
independent
commissions
for
this
cycle,
because
you
know
independent
commissions
take
about
a
year
to
set
up
and
that's
where.
C
And
I
have
some
comments
also,
which
is
first.
I
think
that
hr
one
is
more
an
organizing
bill
and
a
statement
bill
than
it
is
a
list
of
things
that
are
actually
likely
to
get
passed,
even
in
a
significantly
more
democratic
congress
than
currently
and
on
redistricting.
Specifically,
I
find
it
strange.
I
believe
that
hr1
concentrates
on
the
single
idea
that
would
be
hardest
to
get
past
the
john
roberts
court,
which
is
requiring
every
state
to
have
independent
commissions.
C
Now,
as
we
remember
back
when
the
challenge
to
arizona's
came
up,
it
was
a
very
close
run
thing.
I
think
it
was
five
to
four
that
it
was
even
constitutional.
Let
alone
could
be
made
mandatory
to
change
around
a
state
structure
create
this,
the
so-called
fourth
branch,
typically
disfavored
by
conservatives
and
the
by
the
skin
of
its
teeth.
It
was
ruled
to
be
at
least
constitutional,
because
the
voters
of
arizona
had
explicitly
endorsed
the
idea.
C
Now
the
question
is:
if
no
one
in
the
state
likes
the
idea,
can
congress
come
in
and
alter
the
state
machinery.
B
C
Runs
immediately
into
the
question
of
commandeering
that
people
will
remember
from
the
obamacare
case
the
nfib
versus
sebelius,
in
which
the
court,
including
elena
kagan,
there's
a
cross,
partisan
or
cross
ideological
group
of
justices
said
that
you
can't
just
commandeer
the
machinery
of
states
to
make
them
ban
this
or
make
them
create
a
bureau
of
that
there
are
real
limits
on
how
much
the
federal
government
can
do.
So.
I
had
those
of
you
who
want
to
check
on
twitter.
C
B
Yeah
yeah,
it
does
seem
it
would
seem
extraordinary,
given
that
the
article
two
powers
seem
relatively
straightforward,
you
know
if
you
don't
have
the
people's
voice
in
the
mix,
so
I
think
I
agree
with
you
in
terms
of
where
the
quote
would
likely
be.
C
C
That,
on
the
other
front,
something
like
congressional
prescription
of
standards
like
compactness
stands
on
some
relatively
firm
constitutional
ground.
The
constitution
has
language
right
there
saying
that
congress
can
make
those
sorts
of
regulations.
It
stands
on
firm,
historical
ground
because
there
were
a
few
decades
in
which
congress
did
prescribe
compactness
and-
and
it
also
is
of
all
the
different
things
you
could
propose.
C
I
think,
has
the
best
prospects
of
commanding
genuine
bipartisan
support,
the
sort
of
things
that
not
only
would
not
lose
necessarily
mansion
or
senator
cinema
of
arizona,
but
might
get
a
bunch
of
republicans
to
agree.
Yes,
it's
time
for
at
least
a
compactness
prescription,
and
maybe
a
couple
of
others
too.
B
Well,
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
people
listening
heard
moon
duchen,
give
her
talk
about
the
problematic
nature
of
compactness
requirements,
but
well
that's
that's.
I
guess
for
another
session
and
just
to
be
clear
that
would
those
congressional
mandates
would
only
be
with
respect
to
congressional
districts.
Is
that
exactly.
D
So
some
people
have
suggested
that
you
might
use
the
guaranteed
clause
to
to
go
further.
But
I'm
not
sure
you
know
if,
if
the
existing
hr1
sort
of
seems
a
little
bit
with
the
courts
like,
I
think
like
that
might
be
a
more
aggressive
use,
and
I
I'm
almost
certain
that
that
does
not
get
60
votes
regardless
of
what
you
think
of
it.
So.
C
The
guarantee
clause
for
those
who
were
struck
by
that
is
the
language
in
the
constitution,
guaranteeing
every
state
a
republican
foreign
government
and
it
is
almost
never
used.
I
won't
say
absolutely
never,
but
the
usual
rule
is
that
if
you
have
to
fall
back
on
the
guarantee
clause
as
a
reason
for
something
it's
not
going
to
happen,
you're.
B
You're
reaching
you're
reaching
for
the
stars
well
great,
so
so
that
was
sort
of
the
end
of
my
list
of
questions
that
I
had
so
I'm
going
to
just
peek
over
peek
over
to
the
chat
and
see
what
you
guys
are
asking
about.
B
So
there's
definitely
some
questions
about
the
timing
of
the
census,
which
I
think
we
covered.
Although
there
was
there
was
one
question
down
here.
How
do
you
think
courts
will
react
to
states
requesting
delays
in
redistricting
due
to
data
delivery,
delay
similar
to
how
the
california
state
supreme
court
recently
extended
the
constitutional
deadline.
D
I'm
not
sure
I
understand
the
question
fully,
but
if
I,
if
I
but
I
I
will
answer
what
I
think
is
the
question
which
is
you
know,
I
you
know
like
the
reality
is
that
states
are
going
to
have
to
figure
out
how
to
redistrict,
because
once
the
data
comes
out,
the
districts
will
be
unconstitutional
right.
D
They
won't
have
an
equal
number
of
people,
and
so
either
states
will
figure
out
a
way
to
do
redistricting
or
somebody
will
file
a
one-person
one-vote
case
at
court
and
a
court
will
draw
a
temporary
map
to
put
in
place
to
use
right.
I
mean,
I
don't
think,
with
the
exception,
perhaps
of
virginia,
which
isn't
an
unusual
position
of
having
audio
elections.
D
B
C
I
agree
and
the
when
there
are
unavoidable
delays
and
legislatures
adopt
in
good
faith.
Courts
are
pretty
forgiving
about
deadlines.
As
far
as
I
can
tell
in
this
litigation,
and
they
almost
have
to
be
because
what
are
the
remedies?
They
can't
call
off
the
election,
they
can't
postpone
the
election
in
in
most
cases
and
and
they
can't
use
the
old
maps,
so
they
have
to
try
to
work
with
a
legislature
unless
they
sense.
The
legislature
is
not
bringing
proper
motors
to
the
table.
D
Yeah
but
the
legislatures
have
an
incentive
to
figure
this
out
right
I
mean
because
they
don't
they
don't
want
courts
to
draw
yeah
they
don't
they
don't
want
courts
to
draw
the
maps
and-
and
you
know
I
think
you
know
like
you
know
and
not
figuring
out
now.
Beans,
like
you
know,
potentially
like
bigger
changes
like
you
might
have
to
move
your
primary.
You
might
you
know.
D
All
of
that
is
very
you
know,
disruptive,
but
you
know
maybe
unavoidable,
but
you
know
it's
better
to
figure
it
out
now,
even
though
we
don't
know
all
the
like,
when
the
data
is
going
to
come
out
and
to
just
wait.
B
Yeah,
so
ben
williams
is
very
helpfully
clarifying
that
the
reference
is
to
state
constitutional
or
statutory
deadlines
to
redistricting
and
how
the
data
might
come
out
after
those
state
deadlines,
and
he
noticed
he
noted
that
the
california
supreme
court
temporarily
suspended
that
state's
constitutional
deadline
after
the
legislature
and
the
commission
jointly
filed
before
the
state
supreme
court.
So
I
guess
the
question:
is
there.
D
Are
there
are
a
handful
of
states
where
you
might
you
know
they're
in
the
constitution,
which
is
harder?
You
know
a
statutory
deadline,
I
think,
is
relatively
easy
to
sort
of
adjust,
but
the
constitutional
deadlines
are
trickier.
Like
you
know,
in
illinois,
like
you
know,
you
know
they're
a
couple
of
states
like
illinois,
where,
if
you
don't
meet
the
deadline,
it
goes
to
a
backup
process
right.
You
know
it's
not.
You
know
it's
not
just
that.
There's
no
map,
it
goes
to
a
backup
process
and
illinois.
D
B
D
Well
per
you
know,
I
I
think
that
sort
of
assumes
that
there's
a
retrogression
standard
sort
of
in
place,
which
we
don't
have
right
now,
because
we
don't
have
section
5
for
the
voting
rights
act,
but
assuming
that
there
there
is
section
5
of
the
voting
rights
act
at
some
point
because
kai
you
know,
when
you're
talking
about
things
that
might
get
60
votes,
like
you
know,
like,
I
do
think.
D
B
Let's,
actually
let
me
just
let
me
just
step
back
for
just
one
second,
before
you
finish
just
to
make
sure
everyone's
on
the
same
page,
so
the
retrogression
standard
applied
only
under
section
five,
which
of
course
the
the
court
abolished
in
shelby
county.
So
so,
technically
speaking,
there's
no.
There
is
no
retrogression
standard
right
now,
because
no
states
are
subject
to
pre-clearance.
B
So
what
what
michael
was
suggesting
is
that
perhaps,
if
congress
were
to
sort
of
come
up
with
a
new
formula
that
applied
to
some
number
of
states
quickly,
I
guess
that
than
they
would
then
they
would
potentially
be
subject
to
retrogression
if
they
were
a
covered
jurisdiction.
Is
that
am
I
right
there.
D
That's
right
I
mean
and
to
answer
the
question
of
the
you
know,
the
the
the
question
is
under
regression:
whether
you
have
an
ability
to
elect
it.
If
you
can
elect
at
a
lower
level
than
this
super
pac
district,
then
I
think
you're
you're,
fine
right
I
mean
you
can
go
down.
I
mean
there's
nothing
that
requires
you
to
maintain
the
percentage.
As
we
learned
from
the
racial
gerrymandering
cases
last
decade,
you
don't
have
to
maintain
a
district
at
52
or
55.
B
So
the
defense,
in
other
words,
would
be
if
you
had
a
55
district
in
in
2011
and
in
2021
you
had
say
a
45
percent
district
that
could
still
elect
a
candidate
of
its
choice.
Then
you
wouldn't
be
retrogressing
right
right.
That's
the
argument.
C
And
I
would
also
add,
assuming
that
they
for,
for
whatever
reason
that
they
want
to
avoid
a
charge
of
retrogression
and
want
to
avoid
having
fewer
minority
seats.
The
question
from
kim
brace
was:
will
the
will
this
prevent
democrats
from
dismantling
the
republican
drawn
pack
districts?
And
I
think
I
can
be
confident
saying?
No.
It
wouldn't
prevent
that
because,
even
if
you
preserve
the
same
number
of
minority
majority
districts,
you
don't
have
to
live
with
the
ridiculous
stuff.
The
republicans
may
have
done
with
all
the
rest
of
them.
Now.
B
Right
yeah,
I
think
you're
you're
you're
free
on
that
front,
and
I
think
that
there's
actually
a
really
great
question.
I'm
excited
to
ask
you
guys
for
your
thoughts
on
the
question
is:
could
the
panelists
address
predictions
that
there
will
be
legal
challenges
to
legislatures
undertaking
redistricting,
based
on
arguments
that
the
quality
of
the
census
data
is
insufficient?.
B
Sure
so,
basically,
what
they're
asking
is
is:
can
someone
can
states
or
people?
Sorry
sue
based
on
the
argument
that
the
the
census
data
is?
Is
data
poor,
in
other
words,
that
the
census
did
a
poor
job
of
calculating
the
total
population?
Because
of
because
of
real
problems
in
the
process
during
the
pandemic?
Is
there
is
it?
Can
you
bring
suit
for
poor.
D
Data,
well
I
mean
there's
a
couple
of
avenues.
Right
I
mean
one
is
like
challenging
the
census
itself
and
it's
a
little
unclear
what
the
remedy
would
be
there
because
we're
not
going
to
redo
the
census
right
I
mean,
I
think,
that
that's
sort
of
like
that's,
really
clear,
but
there
might
be
other
remedies
it's
you
know,
but
there
could.
D
Maybe
but
it's
sort
of
hard
to
like
you
know,
but
since
this
was
time
to
be
april,
1st
2020
right
I
mean
it's
sort
of
like
people
have
moved
around
like
sort
of
like
a
little
bit.
I
do
think
that
there
is
some
possibility
that
you
know
it's
not
not
all
states
require
you
to
use
a
census
data
right.
I
mean
that's
customary
because
it's
the
best
data,
but
there's
really
nothing
in
most
state
laws.
D
That
say
like
you
must
use
census
data
and
if
there's
some
better
data
out
there,
then
maybe
what
you
do.
Is
you
get
people
in
state
court?
Saying,
like
you
know
really,
you
know
like
you,
should
forget
experts
and
how
you
know
kind
of
figure
out
what
the
population
really
would
be,
and
so
you
know
you
know.
I
think
the
action
is
more
likely
to
be
in
state
court.
So
you
could
see
something
like
saying
gosh.
You
know
you
really
didn't
quite
get
it
right
and
you
know
so.
That's
my
take.
C
On
that,
it's
sometimes
suggested
that,
because
it's
often
imagined
that
there's
an
undercount
of
particular
types
of
like
immigrant
communities
or
or
people
who
may
be
shy
about
speaking
to
census
that
it
should
be
possible
to
bring
in
expert
witnesses
and
order
adjustments
based
on
presumed
undercurrent.
You
know
boost
this
area
by
10
in
this
other
area
by
only
two
percent.
I
can't
imagine
the
current
supreme
court
taking
a
welcoming
view
toward
this
it.
I
think
they
would
go
with
no.
C
If
you're
gonna
use
census
figures,
you
have
to
use
the
actual
ones,
because
there's
too
much
potential
for
mischief
in
moving
off
the
verifiable
data
set.
B
I
wonder
how
much
of
that-
and
this
is
totally
speculation,
but
I
wonder
how
much
of
that,
because
I
totally
agree
with
you,
walter
that
that's
a
probably
a
pond
that
the
supreme
court
would
not
like
to
wait
in,
but
I
wonder
if
it
if
the
census
numbers
come
out
and
they're
ridiculously
egregious
in
places
provably
false.
You
know.
I
wonder,
I
wonder
whether
you
know
there
there
would
be
more
of
an
issue.
C
Well,
could
I
be
flippant
and
and
say
that
what
what
it?
What
does
the
court
expect
to
do
when
there
is
a
piece
of
evidence
submitted,
part
of
which
can't
possibly
be
true,
but
there's
no
counterpiece
of
evidence
that
can
be
accepted?
It
goes
ahead
and
accepts
it,
and
just
as
a
falsehood
stipulated
between
the
two
parties
to
a
suit
magically
becomes
truth
for
purposes
of
proceeding
with
the
case.
So
it's
clear
there
are
going
to
be
errors
in
the
census.
C
Nonetheless,
we
need
a
data
set
to
rely
on.
We
need
the
legal
certainty
and
so
those
those
errors
that
touched
with
some
sort
of
wand
and
become
truths
for
the
purpose
of
using
them.
This
time.
B
What
do
you
think,
michael?
Let's,
let's
leave
a
little
hypo
since
I'm
a
law
prof?
This
is
my
thing:
let's
imagine
that
the
census
data
comes
out
and
there's
a
jurisdiction
where
it's
provably
under
counting
a
minority
community
by
a
drastic
amount
and
the
and
the
question
before
the
court
is:
do
we
go
with
these
wrong
numbers
because
we
have
nothing
else
or
do
we
do
we
address
this?
What
what
do
you
think
that.
A
D
So
inside
joke
there,
so
you
know,
I
think
it's
an
interest.
You
know
from
a
one
person
one
vote
standpoint
assuming
that
you
have
a
one
person
vote
problem
right
that
the
the
problem
with
what
this
creates
is
a
one-person
one-vote
problem.
You
know,
I
think
it's
a
jump
ball
right.
I
mean,
I
think,
like
you
know,
in
the
initial
instance,
it's
a
question
of
state
law.
D
Whether
state
law
allows
you
to
adjust,
you
know
this
or
whatever,
but
then,
of
course
you
have
to
comply
with
the
one
person
when
vote
mandates
of
the
federal
constitution,
and
I
think
you
know
I
think
it
it
could
depend.
You
know.
I
say
all
of
that
like
just
wanted
to
clarify,
like
you
know,
like
you
know
their
their
their
data
problems.
That
result
would
result
in
like
not
be
able
to
draw
districts
that
are
compliant
with
one
person
would
vote
but
they're.
D
You
know
the
data
sets
we
use
it's
you
know
in
in
a
slightly
analogous
con
text,
so
whether
courts
are
willing
to
sort
of
say
my
gosh.
You
know
that's
some
sort
of
guidance
for
how
we
should
treat
this.
B
And
sort
of
also
building
off
of
walter's
point.
The
census
has
always
been
sort
of
a
fiction
right,
I
mean
it
uses
extrapolated
data
and
and
and
as
you
said,
michael,
you
know
it's
it's
based
on.
You
know
a
point
in
time
that
is
no
longer
even
relevant
to
begin
with
when
by
the
time
you're
drawing
lines.
So
so
maybe
it
is
the
fiction
that
the
court
is
going
to
stick
with,
at
least
for
question,
at
least
for
the
purposes
of
the
one
person
one
vote.
Did
you
want
to
add
anything
walter?
B
C
No,
I
think
fiction
is
a
good
word,
because
they
need
to
assume
something
they
can't
let
it
be
too
easily
manipulated.
C
D
I
I
will
just
say
this:
I
mean
it's
not
clear
to
me
that
the
groups
that
might
bring
these
cases
will
want
to
bring
them
right
because,
like
you
know,
if
you're
saying
like
gosh,
you
can
change
the
census
data
right,
the
census
data
normally
is
the
gold
standard
right.
It's
it's.
You
know
they
spent
billions
of
dollars
on
this
decade,
preparing
for
it
it's
a
gold
standard
and
the
idea
that
you
could
just
easily
adjust
data.
D
I'm
not
sure,
is
something
that
you
know
the
voting
rights
community
itself
would
want
right.
You
know-
and
so
it's
not
clear
to
me
that
people
will
bring
suits
about
this
or
try
to
get
this
done,
but
they
might
right.
You
know
it's
sort
of
a
trade-off
about,
like
you
know
getting
something
now
versus
like
you
know,
having
a
different.
You
know
having
the
right
rule
for
the
next
five
decades.
B
Yeah
and
someone
very
helpfully
put
in
the
chat
the
census
bureau
has
established
procedure
for
correcting
errors
after
the
counts
are
released.
It's
called
the
count.
Question
resolution
cqr
process
time
for
all
to
bone
up
on
how
to
use
it.
Thank
you,
peter
watson.
That's
super
helpful
yeah,
I
mean
that's
true.
There's
going
to
be
an
administrative
process
for
correcting
errors,
so
so
you
can't
march
directly
to
court.
B
I
assume
until
that's
all
been
that's
all
they've
gone
through,
so
we
do
have
five
more
minutes
and
I
don't
see
any
other
questions
in
the
queue.
So,
if
I'll
jump
in
with
a
couple
more
well,
the
first
question
I
guess
I
have
is:
is
there
anything
that
we've
left
off
the
table
that
you
know
you
wanted
to
talk
about
with
respect
to
what
we
can
expect
from
litigation?
I
mean
the
last
decade
was
pretty
intense.
B
In
terms
of
you
know,
I
mean
I
actually
I
I
would
paper
sort
of
trying
to
track
how
much
redistricting
litigation
we
saw
over
the
last
decade.
Of
course
it
didn't
end
until
just
maybe
even
a
few
few
months
ago.
B
Right,
I
mean
it
went
all
the
way
through
the
decade,
and
I
guess
I
wonder
what
your
thoughts
are
in
terms
of
whether
we're
likely
to
see
as
litigious
a
decade
to
come
when
it
comes
to
the
lines
that
are
going
to
be
drawn
this
year
and
and
whether
or
not
you
think
some
of
the
cases
that
have
come
down
will
have
any
impact
on.
You
know
whether
we're
going
to
have
just
a
decade's
worth
of
you
know:
slugfest
in
the
courts
over
the
lines
that
we're
about
to
draw.
D
Well,
I
do
think
that
the
landscape
looks
better
in
compared
to
2011
right
because
of
2011.
It
took
place
right
after
the
tea
party
way
that
you
had
a
single
party
control
in
a
bunch
of
states
where
you
hadn't
before
and
particularly
in
the
midwest
plus
pennsylvania,
and
there
was
really
aggressive
line
drawing,
but
this
time
you
know
those
states
are
mostly
better.
You
know.
Michigan
now
has
an
independent
commission
wisconsin,
you
have
a
democratic
governor
who
can
veto
maps.
Ohio.
Has
some
reforms
we'll
see
how
well
they
work?
D
Pennsylvania
has
a
democratic
governor,
you
know,
and,
and
the
like,
you
know,
I
think
the
hot
spots
are
likely
this
decade
to
be
in
the
south,
like
north
carolina
florida,
georgia,
texas,
try
to
be
in
particular
because
they're,
fast,
growing
and,
and
you
know,
demographically,
changing
and
also
like
really
politically
competitive.
So
you
know
like
you
need
to
do
something,
and
so
and
in
those
places
you
know
the
claims
are
going
to
intersect
as
they
always
do
with
race.
D
Right
because,
like
you
can't
gerrymander
for
political
reasons,
without
you
know
using
race,
and
so
you
know,
you're
gonna
have
a
lot
of
litigation
around
that
so
that
you
know,
but
you
know
like
texas,
and
north
carolina
are
no
strangers
to
having
litigation
for
all
of
the
decade.
One
of
my
favorite
things,
which
I
have
in
my
office
in
new
york,
is
this
voter
card
from
when
I
lived
in
texas.
D
That
said,
like
disregard
old
voter
card,
redistricting
changes
right,
you
know,
and
so
something
that
we're
you
know
those
states
are
very
used
to,
and
I
expect
it
will
continue
this.
This
ticket.
B
So
there
so
there
are
some
states
where
they
may
be
on
the
hook
and
other
states
where
it's
gonna,
it's
probably
gonna,
be
same
old
same
old.
What.
C
C
C
The
republican
national
committee
said
there
should
be
a
constitutional
remedy
for
partisan
gerrymandering
and
the
democrats
were
brushing
it
off
saying
oh
much
ado
about
nothing,
no
reason
for
the
courts
to
get
involved
because,
of
course
the
will
was
at
the
opposite
side
of
the
turn.
California
had
a
gloriously
successful
from
their
point
of
view,
democratic
gerrymandered
and
the
republicans
said
not
organized
now.
I
agree
with
michael
the
republican
edge,
which
was
so
conspicuous
ten
years
ago,
has
been
dulled
somewhat.
C
C
At
least,
I
hope
so
I'll
also
point
out
moving
over
to
racial
gerrymandering,
it's
very
clear
that
social
trends,
which
are
more
afoot
in
some
parts
of
the
country
than
others,
but
which
include
the
emergence
of
multi-minorities,
certainly
in
maryland,
it
becomes
a
major
issue
that
there
are
large
hispanic
and
large
asian
areas,
much
harder
to
do
the
typical
analysis
on
that,
and
also
the
progress
of
integration.
C
B
Well,
I
guess
it
would
be
appropriate
to
end
a
session
on
redistricting
litigation
with
a
bit
of
a
prayer
that
you
know
you
you
line
drawers
really
get
this
right
and
we're
not
stuck
in
court
for
a
decade.
So
so
I
think
with
that
hopeful
thought
I'll.
Just
thank
you
guys
so
much
walter
and
michael
for
guiding
us
through
this
very
complex
area
and
a
lot
of
unknowns.
B
I
guess
coming
down
the
pike
in
terms
of
the
census
and
other
other
issues,
but
thank
you
both
so
much,
and
I
I
do
want
to
just
put
in
a
plug
before
this
session
came
on
walter
mentioned
that
he
was
going
to
be
doing
a
podcast
at
cato
on
the
topic
of
what
does
a
sedition
and
insurrection
exactly
mean,
and
so
perhaps
to
sort
of
shift
gears
you
might
you
might
tune
into
his
podcast
if
you're,
if
you're
interested
in
listening,
which
I
understand
will
be
out
probably
later
today.
B
So
with
that,
I
will
thank
you
both
so
much
and
thank
our
audience
for
their
for
their
time.