►
From YouTube: NCSL Redistricting Seminar | Ask Today's Experts
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
Thank
you,
hello,
everybody,
and
welcome
to
ask
the
experts
it's
kind
of
fun,
to
see
many
of
your
faces
and
know
that
we
do
have
this
amazing
expertise
and
I
want
to
see
if
we
could
get
frank,
stragari
and
blake
gesselstein,
given
moderator
privileges
too.
That
way,
I
can
ask
them
questions
all
right,
so
it's
been
a
really
full
day
and
what
one
of
the
things
that
I've
taken
away
from
this
is
that
this
nation
has
the
expertise.
A
The
question
is:
can
we
share
it
with
each
other,
and
that
is
exactly
what
we're
doing
here.
So
I
really
love
that
piece
of
what's
going
on.
I
also
noticed
that
a
lot
of
the
expertise
that
we
brought
to
the
table
really
came
from
legislative
staff
people,
and
that
means
that
when
people
get
that
expertise
in
whatever
decade
it
is
and
then
they
share
it
around,
it
really
works.
A
So
I'm
pretty
impressed
with
legislative
staff
from
around
the
nation
and
in
terms
of
participants,
I
see
that
we
have
people
from
45
states
with
us,
so
that
makes
me
feel
really
good
too.
I
don't
know
if
ncsl
has
ever
done
anything
that
gets
over
45,
so
that's
pretty
much
at
the
top
of
the
heap.
A
What
we're
going
to
do
today
here
is
ask
christy
to
do
a
little
bit
about
upcoming
events,
then
a
quick
review
of
a
couple
of
agenda
things
and
then
we're
going
to
get
right
into
questions.
You're
welcome
to
put
questions
in
the
chat
box
right
now,
if
you'd
like
to
christy
fill
us
in
please.
B
B
That
series
will
be
held
on
each
friday
in
february,
so
keep
your
eye
out
for
more
information.
And,
lastly,
I
want
to
mention
that
the
elections
and
redistricting
team
holds
office
hours
twice
a
month.
This
is
a
virtual
meeting
for
you
to
speak
with
our
team
on
any
elections
and
redistricting
related
topics.
B
B
B
So
just
let
you
know
that
that
is
available
to
you.
Lastly,
and
just
a
reminder
that
all
sessions
except
friday's
optional
session
will
be
recorded
and
those
sessions
will
be
available
to
you
for
30
days
after
the
end
of
the
seminar.
So
you
don't
have
to
miss
a
thing
thanks
great.
A
Thank
you
christy.
I
mean
chrissy,
there's
a
couple
of
questions
in
the
chat
box
that
I
think
you
can
probably
answer
easily
then
what's
happening
next
in
terms
of
this
meeting
is
that
at
4
30
any
of
you
who
are
still
interested
in
making
choices
around
software
and
vendors
have
the
opportunity
to
see
four
of
them
in
operation.
A
So
for
those
who
need
that,
that's
going
to
be
the
coolest
thing
ever
for
those
of
you
who
don't
need
it.
It's
probably
a
must
miss.
So
you
get
to
decide
for
yourself,
and
tomorrow
morning
we
have
the
clerk
of
the
new
hampshire
senate,
who
will
lead
us
in
yoga
at
8,
8am
eastern
time?
No
8
am
mountain
time,
10
a.m.
Eastern
time
we've
seen
her
do
this
before,
and
we
had
clark,
benson
and
kim
brace
and
peter
watson
all
doing
yoga
with
her.
It
was
a
total
blast.
A
So
if
you
can
join
us
for
that,
that's
great.
However,
you
have
a
choice
at
that
point,
because
we
also
have
ncsl's
kurt
stedron
teaching
about
negotiations,
and
I
just
want
to
tell
you
that
if
you
think
that
people
on
zoom
are
a
little
flat
you're
wrong
because
kurt
is
so
alive,
so
both
of
those
are
great
options
you
get
to
decide
what
you're
going
to
do
and
then
tomorrow
night,
of
course
we
have
trivia
with
tim's
story,
extraordinaire
and
I'll
put
that
in
the
chat
box
in
a
minute.
A
So
with
that,
I'm
going
to
go
to
questions,
and
I
have
several
questions
about
the
census
james,
I
think
you're
there
and
if
that's
the
case
be
prepared.
A
The
first
is
that,
given
the
delays
in
receiving
pl
94-171
data,
what
are
the
options
or
best
practices
for
states
that
have
state
constitutional
deadlines
for
redistricting
that
will
be
impossible
to
meet
and
james?
Maybe
that's
actually
not
right
for
you.
Maybe
that's
more
of
a
jeff
weiss
question.
Jeff.
Can
you
come
off
mute
and
answer
that
one.
C
Sure
states
that
have
early
deadlines,
whether
they're
constitutional
or
statutory,
or
really
in
a
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place
on
this.
You
know
everybody
should
be
looking
at
their
end
date
in
terms
of
when
2022,
petitioning
or
qualifying
for
office
starts,
but
to
enact
your
plan
with
the
census.
C
Data
coming
as
late
as
june
or
july
will
present
a
problem
and
you
might
have
to
do
what
california
has
already
done
by
going
to
court
and
asking
your
state
supreme
court
or,
depending
on
your
state's
laws,
the
appropriate
court
for
relief.
California
had
to
have
their
first
iteration
of
plans
out
by.
I
believe
it
was
july.
C
15Th,
obviously
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
meet
that
deadline
with
late
data,
so
the
speaker
and
the
president
pro
tem
went
to
the
state
supreme
court
after
adjusting
some
of
the
dates
internally
through
statute
and
got
the
state
supreme
court
to
agree
to
extend
the
stat.
The
constitutional
deadline
from
july
15
to
december
15th
of
next
year
and
new
jersey
passed
a
constitutional
amendment
to
extend
redistricting
from
2021.
C
Since
virginia
and
new
jersey
are
early
2021
redistricting
states.
They
put
it
off
by
constitutional
amendment,
approved
by
the
voters
until
2023,
so
you
should
look
at
your
state's
laws,
your
state's
precedence
and
see
what
you
need
to
do
to
accommodate
the
dates,
the
timetables,
worst
cases
that
you
may
have
to
use
your
current
lines.
One
more
time.
It's
happened
in
mississippi
and
virginia
30
40
years
ago.
A
Wow,
okay,
coming
right
at
you
with
some
more
on
the
census.
Several
of
the
presentations
mentioned
concerns
that
the
census
data
may
not
be
accurate
enough
to
be
fit
for
use
and
that
this
issue
would
likely
be
litigated.
What,
if
anything,
should
states
do
about
this
concern
when
using
census
data
to
redistrict
in
2021
and
karen?
If
you're
there
I'll
call
on
you,
I'm
not
sure
that
you
are
otherwise
I'm
gonna
turn
to
I'm.
Looking
at
my
suspects
here,
frank.
Is
that
something
you
wanna
weigh
in
on?
You
don't
have.
D
To
okay,
sorry,
I'm
just
trying
to
hit
the
button
yeah
yeah!
You
know
I
I
that's
that's
something
that
I
don't
have.
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
thoughts
inside
about
to
be
honest
with
you,
it's
uncharted
territories.
I
mean
I,
I
actually
will
be
interested
in
hearing
from
james
just
to
hear
just
if
they're
having
any
administrative
conversations
internally,
but
he
can
talk
class.
A
A
Oh
great,
I
just
can't
see
you
on
my
screen
great
james.
Do
you
want
to
address
that?
Maybe
that
you
don't
feel
like
that's
right
for
you.
So
the
question
is
about
what,
if
anything,
should
states
do
about
the
concern
about
data
quality.
E
Yeah
I
mean
I,
I
can't
really
comment
on
the
issues
of
litigation
and
around
the
data
once
it's
published.
But
what
I
can
say
is
that
with
the
the
differential
privacy
one
one
thing
that
I
think
has
not
been
well
communicated
by
the
census
bureau
is
that
the
demonstration
data
sets
that
we've
been
producing.
E
We
did
the
initial
set
over
a
year
ago
for
people
to
look
at
so
that
people
could
look
for
and
apply
their
use
cases
and
try
to
identify
any
biases
they
might
have
seen
in
the
data
and
then
when
we
continue
to
to
improve
the
algorithms
that
are
behind
the
differential
privacy
mechanism.
E
E
So
I
think
that
that's
been
a
common
misconception
and
I
know
that
we're
working
very
hard
to
to
make
sure
that
when
the
data
is
finally
published,
it
will
be
fit
for
use
for
the
use
cases
that
we
consider
these.
These
primary
use
cases
such
as
redistricting
but.
A
Oh
got
it
got
it
karen,
I
think
you're
able
to
unmute
now.
Can
you
take
another
a
stab
at
that?
I
know
you
kind
of
addressed
it
earlier
today.
G
Yes,
thank
you
so
much
thanks
for
unmuting
me
and
thanks
for
this
question,
I
disagree
with
james
just
a
tiny
little
bit
about
whether
or
not
these
data
based
on
what
I
know
now
are
going
to
be
fit
for
use.
G
Unfortunately,
what
the
people
that
have
worked
with
these
demonstration
data
sets
have
found
is
that
there
are
significant
issues
with
these
data.
They
affect
various
jurisdictions,
and
one
use
case
that
I
am
personally
very
very
concerned
about
is
that
for
prison
populations.
California,
of
course,
has
to
reallocate
its
prison
populations.
G
So
there
is
an
automatic
error,
which
means
that
there's
probably
litigation
coming
our
way
and
that
just
does
not
sound
like
it's
fit
for
use
fit
for
use
means
that
I
can
actually
do
the
work
that
I
need
to
do
that.
The
legislature
has
asked
me
to
do
on
behalf
of
the
state
of
california
and
not
get
sued
right
out
the
door,
because
I
don't
have
proper
data
to
do
it.
G
So
I
think
what
states
can
do
is
talk
to
their
state
demographers
talk
to
the
many
groups
that
are
currently
working
on
raising
their
concerns
with
census,
open
that
dialogue
realize
that
the
census
is
not
over.
Give
the
senses
enough
time
to
revisit
their
disclosure
avoidance
system,
perhaps
come
up
with
different
methodologies
or
tune
up
this
particular
methodology
that
they
are
using
to
the
point
that
the
data
will
be
put
out
in
a
way
that
is
accurate,
significantly
more
accurate
than
what
we're
seeing
right
now.
So
we
need
more
demonstration
data.
A
You,
karen
I'm
going
to
come
back
to
you
frank
jump
in
again.
Please.
D
Oh
yeah,
I
I
just
want
to
make
one
point
specifically
too,
like
I
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
earlier
about
there's
a
lot
of
concerns
about
how
census
litigation
will
be
an
issue
in
the
upcoming
decade
and,
to
some
extent
this
might
be
a
little
bit
of
a
defensive
j
of
james
in
the
census.
D
But
you
know-
and
I
know
that
they're
working
hard
on
their
on
their
on
their
own
side
and
that.
But
you
know
we
obviously
there's
a
lot
of
legitimate
concerns.
Karen
just
raised,
you
know
a
couple
on
in
california,
so
we
just
probably
need
to
just
respect
the
process
as
much
as
we
can,
though,
too.
A
All
right,
I
appreciate
that
thought
and
I
think
that
for
me,
some
of
you
know
this
that
my
mantra
for
2020
was
stay
calm
and
my
mantra
for
2021
is
be
flexible
and
I
think
that's
what
we
have
to
do
in
regard
to
the
census.
We
will
adjust
in
some
way
or
other
to
do
what's
going
on,
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
little
doubt
that
they're
working
their
tails
off
over
there
that
just
got
some
major
things
to
deal
with.
Okay,
I
got
a
couple
more
things.
A
E
Well,
I
can
say
that
the
the
underlying
mapping
geographic
files,
we'll
start
getting
those
out
the
door
at
the
end
of
this
month
or
towards
the
22nd
of
this
month
and
we'll
have
that
delivered
to
all
50
states,
dc
and
puerto
rico,
no
later
than
february
28th,
and
I'm
quite
hopeful
that
we
might
even
be
able
to
do
it
to
finish
up
a
little
sooner
than
that
the
redistricting
data
itself.
It
is
still
a
work
in
progress,
those
of
you
who
tuned
into
the
census
session
earlier.
E
I
try
to
explain
the
point
that
you
know.
There's
two
things
that
we're
dealing
with.
One
is,
of
course,
with
the
pandemic
delays
and
the
redistricting
data
is
hooked
to
the
apportionment
data,
so
we
can't
actually
start
creating
the
redistricting
data
until
we
have
some
outputs
from
the
apportionment
process
and,
as
you
know,
from
the
recent
news
we
have
not
yet
made
or
have
not
yet
delivered
the
apportionment
data.
E
We
used
to
do
several
things
as
we
prepared
for
apportionment
that
were
also
for
preparing
for
redistricting,
but
it
was
only
used
for
the
redistricting
part
and
we've
had
to
decouple
those
so
that
we
only
focused
on
the
things
that
were
needed
for
apportionment,
so
we're
going
to
have
to
to
redesign
those
and
put
those
back
into
the
pipeline
to
make
sure
that
we're
producing
the
quality
redistricting
data
that
you
expect
from
the
census
bureau
after
we
get
the
quality
apportionment
numbers
out.
E
So
all
of
those
things
being
said,
it
is
going
to
be
a
difficult
and
challenging
operation
to
get
that
put
back
together,
I'm
very
hopeful
that
we
will
be
able
to
once
those
apportionment
numbers
come
out
and
we
have
the
certainty
of
the
inputs
that
we
need
that
we'll
be
prepared
to
very
shortly
afterwards.
Give
you
a
timeline
for
when
to
expect
the
redistricting
data.
A
You
know
james
earlier
today
I
had
to
write
something
up
for
legislative
leaders
about
the
census
and
what
I
realized
is
that
the
press
is
sort
of
saying
you
guys
are
taking
too
long
to
do
your
post-enumeration
processing.
But
I
in
what
I
was
trying
to
put
together,
I
realized
you've
actually
been
trying
to
shrink
it
from
a
five-month
process
to
a
three-month
process.
So
it
shouldn't
be
a
surprise
to
us,
but
there
are
some
anomalies
that
come
up
with
it.
A
So
you
know
if
you'd
had
the
full
five
months,
we
would
have
never
known.
This
would
have
all
been
behind
the
black
curtain.
I
think
we've
got
jerry
berry
on
the
line
and
I
want
to
ask
you
a
little
bit
more
about
criteria,
because
you
just
did
a
fabulous
presentation
for
us
on
that
two
questions,
maybe
just
one
I
thought
I
had
them
grouped.
Do
states
which
don't
list
redistricting
principles
such
as
compactness
or
community
of
interest
adhere
to
those
principles
when
they
re
when
they
draw
boundaries.
A
Great,
thank
you,
and
the
next
question
is
what
is
the
current
legal
state
of
affairs
regarding
prisoner
populations
and
congressional
redistricting,
and
I
can
just
go
ahead
and
say
that
seven
states
have
said
that
they
will
use
prisoner
reallocation.
That's
the
phrase
to
do
their
redistricting
this
coming
year
and
I
believe
in
all
seven
of
those
they
plan
to
do
it
for
congressional
and
for
legislative
lines.
Karen.
Can
you
tell
us
some
of
the
hurdles
or
points
that
states
that
are
new
to
that
process
will
need
to
be
thinking
about.
G
Yes,
of
course,
thank
you,
wendy
california
is
going
to
implement
this
process
for
the
first
time
this
round
of
redistricting,
and
some
of
the
issues
that
we
have
encountered
are
pretty
obvious,
probably
to
everybody.
On
this
call,
we
received
a
data
set
from
the
california
department
of
corrections
and
rehabilitation,
and
while
they
collect
data,
those
data
and
they
collect
data
on
their
inmate
populations
and
those
data
have
race
and
ethnicity
and
so
forth,
attached
to
them,
but
they
collect
these
data
differently
than
the
census
bureau.
G
So,
when
you're
trying
to
match
these
data
up,
then
with
the
data
that
we're
receiving
from
census,
this
is
disregarding
the
fact
that
differential
privacy
is
going
to
make
this
almost
impossible.
These
two
data
sets
will
not
match.
Furthermore,
what
we've
seen
is
that
many
of
the
previous
addresses
that
the
inmates
used
to
reside
at
before
they
were
incarcerated
are
perhaps
not
addresses
that
are
either
in
existence
or
they're
not
entered
properly.
G
They
may
not
be
in
existence
anymore,
so
there's
an
enormous
amount
of
data
cleaning
that
has
to
happen.
So
it's
just.
It's
basically
just
general
problems
that
you
run
into
when
you're
dealing
with
administrative
data,
and
I
could
only
urge
people
to
start
working
on
this
very
early
and
if
anybody
has
any
questions
or
again,
I
always
say
this:
if
anybody
wants
to
start
a
user
group
or
people
that
have
to
do
this,
please
just
contact.
Wendy
she'll
put
us
in
touch
with
each
other
and
we
can
work
through
these
issues
together.
A
And
james
I'm
going
to
come
to
you
in
just
a
moment,
but
I
do
want
to
say
that
there
is
support
from
the
couple
of
states
that
have
already
done
this.
That's
new
york
and
maryland.
If
my
memory
is
serving
me
at
this
point
and
there's
something
called
the
prisoner
policy
initiative
and
we
may
at
ncsl,
pull
together
people
staff
from
the
seven
states
that
plan
to
do
it
for
a
little
bit
of
an
exchange
about
this.
A
E
So
the
one
thing
that
we
changed
about
the
redistricting
data
set
for
this
decade
to
help
states
who,
who
have
that
state
statutory
obligation
to
make
these
reallocations
of
population
is
we're
providing
what
we
call
a
group
quarters
table
as
part
of
their
districting
data
set.
It's
a
table
that
identifies
a
group
quarter
by
group
quarter
type.
E
So
that
would
be
something
like
a
correctional
facility
for
adults,
military
barracks
student
housing,
all
of
which
come
into
play,
depending
on
which
state
you're
in
for
the
reallocation
obligation,
and
we
provide
that
at
the
individual
census,
block
level,
so
you'll
be
able
to
see
where
census
has
counted.
Those
group
quarters
you'll
be
able
to
see
what
the
population
the
census
reports
in
those
group
quarters
and
then
in
addition
to
that,
we're
also,
if
states
have
a
large
list
of
addresses-
and
they
want
to
take
advantage
of
the
census,
geocoding
service
that
we
have
externally.
E
It
has
a
10
000
address
limit,
but
for
states
that
are
working
on
redistricting,
we'll
allow
them
to
submit
their
their
through
a
secure
system.
Their
address
list,
that's
pre-formatted
to
us
and
we'll
run
it
on
the
back
side
on
the
server
against
that
same
geocoding
service.
So
they
don't
run
into
timing
out
issues
or
things
like
that
and
and
we'll
return
it
to
them.
The
way
that
that
system,
outputs,
the
the
geocoding
service.
So
that's
the
two
things
we're
going
to
help
people
who
are
trying
to
do
that.
Work.
A
That's
great
and
I
see
some
good
conversation
in
the
chat
jerry.
I
did
have
a
second
criteria,
one
for
you
can
objective
criteria:
compact
districts,
minimal,
split
of
municipalities,
avoiding
incumbent
contest,
strictly
applied,
created,
judicially,
manageable
standard
to
evaluate
a
proposed
map.
H
Wow,
there's
a
lot
to
that.
I
think
you
know
you
could
make
that
argument,
that
that
would
be
a
proper
standard
to
use,
but
you
know
whether
whether
courts
are
going
to
go
along
with
that.
I
don't
know
that.
There's
that
I
can
answer
that.
One.
A
Okay,
well
I
that
that's
totally
fine.
I
heard
about
that
in
pennsylvania
there
was
a
influential
citizen
who
said
look
I
know
how
to
measure
splits,
but
I
don't
know
how
to
measure
communities
of
interest.
So
I
recommend
you
pennsylvania,
just
use
these
measurable
ones
that
wasn't
the
way
it
ended
up
there,
but
I
remember
understanding
that
point
that
you
can
count
the
number
of
splits,
but
some
of
the
other
things
are
harder.
Blake,
I'm
going
to
come
to
you
next.
A
The
question
here
is:
can
rigorously
applied
objective
design
criteria,
wait
nope
wrong.
One
hang
on,
oh,
I
think
I
I
I
doubled
up.
Sorry
sorry
and
then
the
next
question
I've
got.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
right
for
you
blake
or
not
is
what
is
the
evidence
that
independent
commissions
draw
better
or
fairer
maps,
and
I
I
bring
that
to
you
knowing
that
tomorrow,
peter
watson
will
talk
about
that
at
some
length.
A
Blake,
do
you
have
you
may
not
have
the
power
to
unmute
yourself
yet.
I
A
I
A
good
question-
and
I
think
I
would
also
direct
people
to
peter
watson's
presentation
tomorrow.
I've
I've
heard
things
from
reform
advocates,
certainly
who
who
will
tell
you
about
all
the
the
reasons
that
that
state
processes
with
independent
commissions
have
been
preferable
or
drawn
better
maps,
but
it
sounds
like
peter
watson
has
done
a
more
thorough
and
kind
of
objective
analysis.
A
Yeah-
and
I
I'm
remembering
there
that
the
brennan
center
has
a
different
perspective,
but
I
can't
remember
what
it
is
they
measure
so
that
question
will
have
to
stay
a
little
bit
up
in
the
air,
but
we
will
quiz
peter
carefully
tomorrow,
wendy.
C
Can
I
just
mention
yeah,
please,
the
massachusetts
senate
and
house
did
a
a
joint
report
on
their
redistricting
after
2011
and
they
maintained
that
legislatures
often
do
a
better
job
than
commissions
and
end
up
in
less
litigation
than
commissions
and
that's
before
peter's
done
his
research
on
post
2010
activity.
But
my
own
research
informed
me
over
10
years
ago
that
state
legislative
plans
often
withstood
judicial
scrutiny.
More
than
commission
plans
did.
A
That's
been,
I'm
pretty
sure,
that's
what
peter's
is
going
to
show
or
that
they're
neck
and
neck.
I
don't
know
who's
a
good
person
for
this
question.
Can
a
state
pass
its
own
law
requiring
a
pre-clearance
trigger
mechanism
and
state-level
pre-clearance
office.
C
I
can
answer
that.
Okay,
new
york
actually
has
a
bill
pending
in
both
chambers
to
do
just
that
to
require
a
state
attorney
general
pre-clearance
process
for
voting
law
changes.
Maybe
corrine
can
speak
to
it,
but
california
also
has
its
own
voting
rights
act.
G
Just
agreeing
with
which,
if
we
have
the
california
voting
rights
act,
of
course,
that
is
basically
designed
to
look
at
jurisdictions,
local
jurisdictions
that
have
at-large
elections
that
have
significant
minority
populations
and
in
which
no
minority
member
of
the
minority
protected
minority
group
has
ever
been
able
to
get
elected
and
under
certain
circumstances,
you
can
force
that
jurisdiction
to
go
to
district-based
elections
and
what
it
basically
does
is.
It
differs
from
the
federal
voting
rights
act
in
that
it
does
away
with
the
geographic
compactness
criterion.
G
A
So
that's
an
interesting
question
and
it'll
be.
I
could
imagine
that
some
states
might
look
as
new
york
is
at
that
question
for
themselves.
I
do
want
to
say
that
anybody
else
who
wants
to
jump
in
you
do
need
to
put
it
in
the
chat.
So
I
know
to
be
able
to
get
you
to
have
the
ability
to
unmute
yourself
and
we
will
have
time
for
some
extra
questions.
I
still
have
two
or
three
more
here
from
earlier
in
the
day.
A
This
one
is
that
the
us
constitution
requires
that
the
states
have
a
republican
form
of
government.
Could
a
partisan
gerrymandered
to
create
a
single
party
state
go
so
far
to
allow
a
federal
challenge,
and
I
will
point
out
that
in
hawaii
the
senate
either
has
one
republican
or
zero
republicans
in
it
at
this
moment.
D
A
Could
a
partisan
gerrymander
to
create
a
single
party
state
go
so
far
that
it
would
allow
a
federal
challenge?
I
think
it's
saying.
Is
there
an
outer
limit
to
the
federal
allowance
of
that.
D
Would
be
an
interesting
provision
to
raise
a
challenge
under
the
federal
constitution?
For
I
mean
I
I
but
again,
I
think
it
comes
back
in
a
sense
to
the
fact
of
you
know.
If
it's,
if
it's
partisan,
gerrymandering
challenge
under
this
separate
provision,
I
I
I
would
have
to
think
that
the
courts
are
still
probably
not
going
to
be.
The
federal
courts
are
not
going
to
be
very
interested
in
wanting
to
hear
it.
D
Given
that
the
recent
decision
that
came
down
now,
you
know
that
was
that
was
based
under
a
different
provision
of
the
us
constitution,
of
course,
but
I
think
the
fact
that,
if
we're
just
talking
partisan
gerrymandering,
I
think
you're
going
to
see
a
lot
of
federal
courts
in
federal
court,
probably
not
want
to
hear
it,
but
yeah.
J
Yeah,
thank
you
for
letting
me
unmute.
I
asked
that
question
back
earlier
and
the
the
context
was
really
in
a
state
that's
fairly
closely
divided.
This
actually
was
something
that
came
up
when
numbers
were
looking
at
the
the
back
and
forth
with
guild
versus
with
whitford
in
wisconsin,
where
the
state
was
pretty
easily
divided.
J
It
was
pretty
clear
from
the
analysis
that
you
could
essentially
create
a
state
plan
that
was
invulnerable
even
to
a
very
strong
electoral
wave
and
essentially
lock
in
one
party's
control,
and
the
question
would
be
if
you,
rather
than
contest
wisconsin
on
a
first
or
fourteenth
amendment
claim,
why
not
contest
it
on
a
claim
that
they
had
essentially
violated
the
claim
that
they
still
had
a
republican
form
of
government,
because
the
party
could
never
change.
Even
if
you
had,
you
know
a
tremendous
wave
in
the
other
direction.
J
A
Well,
that's
very
helpful
to
have
the
context
for
it.
Thank
you
mike.
Let's
see
another
question
and
I'm
gonna
go
to
eugene
if
you're,
not
the
right
person,
for
it,
that's!
Okay!
How
do
you
respect
communities
of
interest
while
not
allowing
packing
and
cracking
that
secures
the
surrounding
districts
for
a
specific
party.
A
Gina,
are
you
able
to
answer
that
question
all
right?
Who
else
would
like
to
tackle
that
the
you've
got
to
respect
the
communities
of
interest,
but
you
also
shouldn't
be
packing
and
cracking.
I.
G
I
can
talk
about
it
a
little
bit
again
in
the
context
of
california
and
how
we
implemented
this
in
the
last
redistricting
packing
and
cracking
usually
refers
to
voting
rights
act,
compliance,
and
that
is
a
higher
criterion,
of
course,
in
in
every
state
than
preserving
communities
of
interest.
G
I
think
communities
of
interest
are
often
mis
misunderstood,
in
that
they
are
very
frequently
not
very
large.
Oftentimes
communities
of
interest
can
be
neighborhood
groups,
for
example,
or
neighborhoods.
For
that
matter.
You
know
historic
preservation
areas,
a
redevelopment
area
things
like
that.
Basically,
communities
of
interest
can
run
the
entire
gamut,
so
it
is
generally
possible,
I
think,
to
to
do
both
carefully.
G
I
think
that's
one
of
the
tricky
things
about
redistricting
that
comes
up
when
people
talk
about
automated
redistricting,
where
people
think
they
can
just
you
know
where
some
of
the
software
developers
think
they
can
just
throw
any
everything
into
one
one
pot,
and
then
it's
gonna
come
out.
Okay,
you
know
you
do
have
to
look
at
it
carefully
and
you
have
to
weigh
your
criteria
and
do
you
do
things
one
at
a
time
and
it
works
out.
Somehow
it's
not
easy,
but
it
does
work.
C
Wendy
yeah
is
a
supreme
court
case
that
discusses
that,
albeit
a
little
bit
prehistoric
in
1964.
I
recall
in
the
decision
right
versus
rockefeller.
It
was
alleged
that
the
creation
of
a
african-american
congressional
district
violated
the
14th
amendment.
I
believe
the
court
came
down
holding
that
of
harlem,
which
was
the
community
in
question,
was
a
naturally
occurring
community
of
interest.
A
F
Yeah
sure
I'd
like
to,
I
really
do
agree
with
what
karen
was
saying,
that
your
your
voting
rights
issues
and
things
like
that
would
take
priority
over
communities
of
interest.
I
think
those
are
the
legal
requirements
that
you
have
to
meet
when
you're
drawing
those
maps
that
doesn't
mean
you
would
just
not
look
for
those
communities
of
interest
and
we
do
rely
upon
a
lot
of
our
legislators
to
help
us
know
where
those
are
in
their
areas
and
their
districts.
So
they
can
guide
us
to
communities
that
should
be
held
together.
F
If
at
all
possible,
they
might
often
be
areas
that
are
not
an
incorporated
municipality
that
identify
as
just
a
local
region.
It
could
be
a
school
attendance
zones.
We
have
some
counties
where
that
really
is
a
big
deal
for
them
to
know
where
they,
their
children,
all
attend
the
same
high
school.
So
if
you
can
keep
them
in
one
district,
then
we
try
to
do
that,
but
I
do
think
that
comes
as
a
lower
priority
below
making
sure
that
you
comply
with
the
voting
rights
act.
C
Yeah
that
that's
true
that
the
voting
rights
act
will
always
preempt
any
state
or
local
criteria.
It
would
be
a
violation
of
a
federal
law.
D
And
all
and
all
and
I'll
do
the
other
shameless
plug
for
the
red
book
on
this.
One,
too,
is
that
I
think
one
of
the
points
that,
with
the
point
we're
making
here-
and
I
totally-
and
I
agree
with
gina-
is
that
communities
of
interest
is
considered
what
we
talked
about
in
the
red
book
to
be
an
emerging.
D
A
I
I
was
thinking
about
the
red
book
myself.
There
frank
things
that
we
knew
two
years
ago
are
slipping
out
of
my
brain,
but
they're
held
tight
in
that
book.
Gina.
Let
me
try
this
one
on
you
asking
for
best
advice
for
both
legislators,
nonpartisan
staff
and
the
public
to
prepare
for
a
legislature's
failure
to
draw
a
map
and
therefore
the
court
ultimately
drawing
one,
and
we
know
that
in
minnesota.
A
That's
what
happens
all
the
time
that
the
legislature
doesn't
last
two
or
three
decades
and
that
the
courts
have
to
step
in
so
here
you've
got
the
legislators,
the
nonpartisan
staff
and
the
public.
What
should
they
do
to
make
sure
they
get
it
over
the
finish
line?
So
courts
don't
have
to,
or
is
it
okay
to
just
let
it
happen.
F
Well,
I
mean,
I
think
that
would
be
your
last
resort.
You
don't
want
to
get
to
the
point
where
you
have
to
let
the
court
draw
your
map
so
making
sure
that
you
work
together
as
much
as
you
can
and
try,
and
I
know
as
non-partisan
staff
it's
hard
to
kind
of
mediate,
sometimes
but
sometimes
you're
in
the
role
of
trying
to
do
that,
to
help
steer
the
process
along
and
make
sure
that
there
is
a
map,
that's
passed.
F
F
You
still
want
to
go
through
the
process
and
be
involved
as
much
as
you
can
and
try
to
help.
Everyone
understand
that
it
will
be
better
for
them
to
adopt
a
map,
especially
if
you're
drawing
it
legislatively,
not
as
a
commission,
but
if
you're
a
legislature
drawing
the
map,
it's
better
for
you
to
draw
your
map
and
and
do
what
your
job
is
in
that
respect
than
to
just
let
the
court
have
it,
and
I
know
sometimes
it
happens
that
way,
but
do
your
best
to
try
and
work
through
the
issues
together.
A
Yeah,
it's
better!
If
you
can
get
it
done
on
your
own
and
then
I
would
think
that
if
it
is
going
to
the
court,
it's
good
for
you
to
be
a
friend
of
the
court,
and
I
mean
that
in
a
small
f
kind
of
a
way
to
give
whatever
support
or
data
you
might
be
able
to
have.
Peter
watson
would
be
an
interesting
person
to
talk
about
that
with
too,
because
he
is
from
minnesota,
where
they
do
that
on
a
regular
basis.
A
Blake,
we
have
a
question
about
what
are
some
model
strategies
for
seeking
and
obtaining
public
input
to
the
redistricting
process.
That
would
be,
for
instance,
how
to
get
maps
from
the
outside
and
structuring
public
hearings.
Anything
to
offer
on
that.
G
If
I
may
wendy
that
was
another
one
of
my
suggestions
for
ncsl
to
put
a
working
group
together
or
a
user
group
together
to
figure
this
out,
because
whatever
we've
done
in
the
past,
now
that
we're
in
covit,
I
think
you
know
everybody
needs
to
get
together
and
just
figure
out
how
we're
gonna
do
this
the
best
way
possible.
G
Clearly,
this
is
all
dragging
on
a
whole
lot
longer
than
we
had
anticipated,
and
so
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
hearings
that
are
going
to
be
over
zoom
or
some
other
technology.
So,
generally
speaking,
I
think
accepting
maps
in
whatever
way
shape
technology
that
you
can
is.
It
is
a
good
thing,
just
be
transparent,
you
know,
translate,
don't
have
people
show
up
and
then
have
them
scream
at
you
that
you
didn't.
G
You
know,
provide
translation
services,
just
kind
of
be
proactive
on
it.
Put
as
much
information
as
you
can
on
a
website
start
a
project
website
as
soon
as
possible,
and
I
think
the
more
information
you
can
provide
in
the
more
ways
you
can
provide
participation,
access
that
that
is
the
model.
So
for
us
again,
I
mentioned
this
earlier.
We
we
designed
we
designed
our
own
community
of
interest,
input
tool
for
california
that
our
commission
is
going
to
use.
So
that's
going
to
be
helpful.
G
I
think
now
that
people
can't
really
go
to
meetings.
It's
gonna
cut
down
on.
You
know
hand-drawn
tiny
little
neighborhoods
that
somebody
has
to
digitize.
So
you
know
look
at
what's
available,
there's
free
tools
out
there,
there's
free
koi
tools
out
there,
there's
redistricting
tools
out
there
and
you
know:
let's
do
a
user
group.
H
Well,
in
colorado,
we've
had
a
constitutional
requirement
that
we
hold
hearings
in
each
congressional
district
for
the
last
well,
since
1974
is
when
the
initiative
passed.
So
we
do
that,
but
I
will
caution
you
that
I
think
times
have
changed
and
even
10
years
ago
we
didn't
get
a
whole
lot
of
input
from
the
public.
H
Most
of
the
people
who
showed
up
at
those
meetings
were
from
the
political
parties
who
were
who
had
their
own
agenda
all
the
time.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
different
this
time,
because
a
it's
been
publicized
more
that
this
is
an
issue
around
the
country,
and
I
mean
the
ability
for
the
public
to
draw
maps
is
going
to
be
much
better
than
it
was
even
10
years
ago.
So
I
think
it's
one
of
those
emerging
issues
that
yes,
we're
going
to
have
to
deal
with.
I
Thank
you
wendy.
I
I'm
able
to
speak
now.
The
I
I
think
karen
and
jerry
made
a
lot
of
good
points.
Couple.
Other
things
I
mean
sort
of
rules
of
thumb
within
the
planning
community
is
to
to
try
and
go
where
the
people
are.
I
So
I
think
jerry's
point
about
actually
holding
meetings
in
congressional
districts
if
we
are
able
to
have
in-person
meetings,
but
you
know
some
congressional
districts
are
also
huge
so
to
to
think
about
really
trying
to
to
have
places
where,
where
people
can
meet
in
in
the
the
areas
where
they
live
thinking
about
hours,
you
know
if
you're
having
you're
holding
your
public
hearings
during
the
workday,
a
lot
of
folks
aren't
going
to
be
able
to
attend.
I
So
I
know
california
has
looked
at
having
meetings
at
different
times
of
the
day
and
week
and
just
generally
looking
at
blind
spots
if
it
does
end
up
that
that
things
are
still
virtual
through
this
process.
What
about
people
who
are
not
computer
savvy
so
thinking
through
the
the
the
folks
who
might
not
be
able
to
attend
or
participate,
given
the
channels
that
you're,
you
know,
are
sort
of
the
low-hanging
fruit
to
provide
and
moving
beyond
that.
A
Perfect
and
and
that
digital
divide
question
is
so
important
in
literally
everything
we're
managing
in
the
time
of
covid.
D
When
you
might
want
to
actually
even
hear
from
mike
juan
because
we
had
a,
we
had
a
a
competition
10
years
ago
in
the
state
of
ohio,
for
which
I
believe
might
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong,
you
were
the
winner
of
it
right.
D
J
Okay,
I'm
live
now.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
yeah.
Thank
you
frank.
You
are,
you
are
correct.
What's
interesting
is
that
was
unlike.
I
know
there
were
a
number
of
states
that
did
various
types
of
public
competitions
10
years
ago.
What
made
ohio
unique
because
I
looked
at
a
number
of
them
was
it
was.
It
was
very
much
judged
just
on
objective
criteria
and
that
made
it
very
different
a
lot
of
them.
J
They
put
up
panels
of
judges
to
judge
the
different
maps,
but
ohio
used,
objective
criteria
and
my
background,
besides
being
a
legislator
and
kind
of
getting
the
politics
of
it,
I
am
not
retired,
but
I'm
a
phd
physicist,
a
professor
of
physics
at
northern
illinois
university.
J
I
served
for
many
years
and
so
I
kind
of
used
what
I
knew
about
the
mathematics
to
really
try
to
optimize,
and
I
made
a
comment
that
in
chat
there's
a
paper
from
the
1970s
that,
for
all
these
people
say
well,
I
can
use
a
computer
to
draw
a
map
that,
in
fact
it's
been
mathematically,
proven
that
you
cannot
guarantee
the
best
solution
with
any
computer
program
theoretical
or
practical
a
computer.
On
the
other
hand-
and
this
is
where
what
happened
in
the
ohio
thing-
a
computer
makes
a
brilliant
judge.
J
J
So
you
you
have
to
know
what
the
limits
are
of
computability
and
objective
criteria
versus
subjective,
and
can
you
make
some
of
the
subjective
criteria
more
objective
when
you're
trying
to
compare
amounts?
It's
it's
a
really
difficult,
mathematical
problem.
That's
before
even
getting
into
how
do
I
deal
with
the
vra,
which
is
entirely
driven
by
subjective
court
cases.
A
Great
mike,
I
have
another
question
for
you,
but
I
do
want
to
call
everybody's
attention
to
the
chat
box.
We
do
have
some
ideas
about
how
to
help
people
who
don't
have
computers
be
able
to
participate
and,
as
always,
libraries
across
this
nation
are
holding
up
their
part
of
our
our
society.
So
mike.
My
question,
for
you
is
from
a
non-partisan
staff
person
who
asks
what
are
some
tips
for
dealing
with
hyper
partisanship
on
the
part
of
legislators
within
the
redistricting
process.
A
And
of
course
I
ask
you
this,
because
you
are
recently
retired
from
wearing
your
legislator
hat.
J
Sure,
no
it
it
in
redistricting,
it's
just
very
hard
because
you
know
not
only
did
I
serve
in
a
legislature
during
a
redistricting
cycle
that
was
entirely
partisan.
At
that
time
it
was.
I
was
in
the
minority
sides
where
we
weren't,
given
any
role
whatsoever,
and
it
was
you
know,
that's
just
the
way.
Illinois
historically
does
it,
but
I
also
worked
with
some
county
organizations
advising
them
as
well
on
redistricting
and
yeah.
J
There
was
a
comment,
and
I
I'd
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
my
notes
into
who
said
it,
but
I
think,
to
the
extent,
if
one
can
at
least
say
here
are
their
priorities,
and
I
know
a
lot
of
states
do
have
priorities
in
the
form
or
at
least
priorities
in
process.
How
is
this
going
to
proceed?
J
J
I
guess
almost
three
and
a
half
years
ago
when
we
did
automatic
voter
registration,
I
led
the
the
amendment
fight
there.
We
were
able
to
do
it
bipartisan
in
the
end,
was
unanimous
in
both
chambers.
A
I
don't
want
to
get
boos
like
that
again,
so
maybe
I'm
not
going
to
be
quite
so
ready
to
go
to
the
max.
Just
an
interesting
thought,
philip.
I
want
to
unmute
you
and
ask
you
you
put
something
cool
in
the
the
chat
box,
but
I've
already
forgotten
what
it
is.
Please
speak.
K
Hi,
thank
you
wendy.
I
I
just
wanted
to
bring
to
people's
attention
that,
aside
from
whatever
constitutional
or
statutory
deadlines,
they
might
have
that
there's
there's
a
whole
process
that
takes
place
after
the
lines
are
adopted,
there's
a
lot
of
administrative
work
that
goes
into
it
from
the
standpoint
of
the
elections,
officials
to
implement,
what's
been
done
and
oftentimes,
that's
forgotten
about
in
this
process,
and
I
just
want
people
to
be
cognizant
of
it.
K
I've
I've
spent
some
time
recently
working
at
a
board
of
elections
and
implementing
and
the
the
timelines
that's
often
permitted
is,
is
very
insufficient
to
make
sure
that
the
voters
are
properly
assigned
to
their
new
voting,
precincts
and
and
so
on
in
time
for
the
elections.
K
A
Well,
I
know
that
we
have
a
session
on
the
handoff
which
we
think
of
as
the
handoff
from
redistricters
to
local
election
officials
later
in
the
seminar
and
it's
something
after
working
on
getting
a
prisoner
data
prisoner
use
group
together
and
a
public
input
group
together.
The
third
thing
on
our
list
that
will
be
helping
out
with
redistricting
going
forward
is
to
look
at
that
handoff
can
gis
be
used.
A
I
mean
first
of
all,
are
we
sensitive
to
the
timing
and
that's
what
you're
asking,
but
are
we
sensitive
to
the
fact
that
we're
handing
data
off
in
a
way
that
may
not
be
usable
by
the
the
local
election
officials
when
they've
got
it?
So
I
really
appreciate
your
bringing
that
up
and
we
might
want
to
have
an
offline
question,
frank
and
jeff.
I
want
to
ask
you
this
question:
blacks
make
up
20
to
32
percent
of
the
population
in
alabama.
A
How
can
we
ensure
a
fair
process
with
an
accurate
distribution
of
seats?
Frank
first
and
then
then
jeff.
D
Well,
you
know
that
touches
on
a
little
bit,
I
think,
of
what
I
was
trying
to
explain
earlier.
When
we
were
talking
about
racial
gerrymandering.
You
know
the
I
was
reading
actually
a
little
bit
about
it
even
afterwards.
Again
too
is
that
the
courts
are
that
that
the
concept
of
having
a
majority
minority
district
made
up
of
a
certain
percentage
of
of
a
racial
population
is
being
frowned
upon
more
and
more,
and
the
courts
are
starting
to
steer
away
from
that
as
much
as
possible.
D
Now
you
know
there,
but
obviously
we
have
a
long
tradition
of
this,
a
precedent
in
the
state
that
requires
you
know
that
yeah
a
certain
population
to
have
the
ability
to
elect
a
person
of
one
of
a
candidate
of
its
choice,
though
too
so
having
an
affair.
Going
to
the
question
having
a
fair
map,
that's
distributing
those
that
population
of
the
state.
You
know
it's,
it's
it's
going
to
be
an
interesting
way.
It's
a
path
to
see
forward
on
it.
I
I'm
not
really
sure,
there's
an
easy
solution
to
it.
D
Right
now,
other
than
you
know,
trial
by
error,
they,
the
courts,
do
not
want
you
to
use
race
as
a
a
a
main
factor,
ultimately
in
drawing
a
district,
but
you
know
that
does
butt
up
against
a
little
bit
the
traditional
concept
of
a
majority
minority
district
and
so
jeff
you
you,
I
mean
you're
a
long
time
expert
on
this
as
well
too.
You
know
maybe
you'll
have
greater
insight
on
other
than
me
who
I
I
just
I'm,
I'm
not
really
sure.
There's
an
answer
to
it
right
now.
Well,.
C
The
only
effective
way
to
know
how
many
districts
to
draw
that
effectively
represent
minority
voters
is
to
do
the
racial
voting
analysis,
whether
it's
you
know
a
rich
regression
analysis.
The
king
analysis
for
each
separate
district,
you're
able
to
determine
in
advance
whether
you
have
racially
polarized
voting
and
the
number
of
minority
voters
are
necessary
to
draw
an
effective
district
which
could
be
50
percent
could
be
58.
C
There's
no
bright
line
number
and
the
mistake,
so
many
states
made
in
the
last
10
years
plus
was
to
draw
these
artificially
inflated
districts
that
then
ran
afoul
of
the
14th
amendment
and
strict
scrutiny.
C
So
you
know,
take
the
you
know
the
time
and
the
money
spend
the
money
to
do
a
racial
voting
analysis
to
see
whether
or
not
you
are
required
to
draw
districts
that
the
voting
rights
act
would
mandate.
I'll
just
mention
in
in
ohio
of
all
places,
frank
in
19
after
2000
a
lawsuit
was
brought
against
the
state
for
the
failure
to
create
enough
minority
districts
and
the
federal
court
ruled
based
on
having
the
the
plaintiffs
themselves.
I
was
one
of
the
plaintiff's
lawyers.
C
The
plaintiffs
were
unable
to
prove
legally
significant,
racially
polarized
voting
in
key
ohio
urban
areas
so
yeah
it.
It
might
be
a
complicated
issue,
but
the
the
math
is
all
there.
That's
going
to
tell
you
what
you
need
to
do.
My.
D
My
my
opinion
about
jeff
weiss
might
be
changing
now,
since
I
I'm
not
learning,
he
was
an
attorney
in
that
case,
but
no,
no,
but
I
think,
but
to
be
serious
though
I
think
what
the
key
two
words
that
he
said
in
that
answer
right
there,
too
was
in
advance.
I
think
that's
that's
really.
The
most
important
thing
to
know
is
have
that
study
or
analysis
done
well
in
advance
of
actually
finishing
any
lines.
F
I'd
like
to
chime
in
on
that
a
little
as
I
could
yes,
so
in
2011
we
had
a
situation
that
came
up
in
one
of
our
areas
where
we
did
have
a
concentration
of
minority
population,
and
we
had
three
majority
minority
house
districts
in
that
particular
municipality
in
that
county
and
that
they
elected
african-american
members
to
our
house.
So
we
looked
at
the
data
and
the
numbers
in
that
area,
and
we
could
tell
that
those
numbers
were
not.
There
had
not
been
much
growth
matter
of
fact.
F
F
Numbers
were
going
to
be
significantly
lower
than
what
they've
been
before
and
maybe
not
even
majority,
and
so
we
actually
approached
those
three
legislators
and
we
sat
down
with
them
and
we
explained
what
situation
was
and
we
let
them
offer
their
opinion
on
what
they
thought
that
those
districts
should
be
like.
Should
we
combine
them
and
try
to
make
two
majority
morty
districts
now
and
maybe
one
that
would
be
a
little
bit
of
a
swing
district
or
should
we
try
to
maintain
three?
I
mean:
where
did
they
have
thoughts
on?
F
If
those
were
would
be
electable
for
them
and
they
said
no
do
the
three,
and
so
we
did
the
three
and
they
were
barely
over
50
majority
minority,
but
all
three
incumbents
were
actually
reelected
in
those
districts.
So
I
think
getting
the
feedback
too.
Sometimes
from
the
members
of
the
minority
groups
that's
great
to
have
and
and
they
you
know,
they
definitely
have
insight
into
their
communities
and
what
they
rep
the
areas
they
represent
and
what
they
think
their
electability
is
for.
Those
difference.
A
That's
a
great
story.
I
really
appreciate
it
and
it's
also
a
good
lead
into
my
next
question,
which
I
have
queued
up
for
you
gina.
How
is
drawing
districts
protecting
incumbents,
different
than
part
drawing
partisan
maps
to
protect
an
incumbent's
seat?
So
what
I'm
not
sure?
I
fully
understand
that
they
came
in
earlier.
But
what
can
you
tell
us
about
drawing
with
the
intention
of
protecting
the
incumbent.
F
So
I
think
the
question
is
kind
of
maybe
leaning
towards
drawing
a
district
that
would
benefit
an
incumbent
or
that
would
be
to
their
advantage
as
opposed
to
not
pairing
two
incumbents
in
the
same
district.
Maybe
that's
what
they're
going
for
it
really
depends
on
that
being
one
of
your
criteria,
I
know
for
some
states:
that's
not
even
a
criteria
to
worry
about
incumbency.
F
If
it
is,
it
really
depends
on
how
much
input
incumbents
have
in
the
process
of
actually
drawing
the
maps.
I
don't
know
that.
I
don't
think
that
we
met
with
all
236
of
our
house
and
senate
members
before
to
get
their
opinions,
but
they
were
shown
maps
and
there
were
definitely
feedback.
F
So
I
don't
know
that
there's
quite
as
much
drawing
the
district
for
their
benefit
as
people
would
think
there
is,
but
as
far
as
looking
at
incumbency
and
trying
not
to
pair
them,
I
think
in
our
case
that
was
something
that
we
looked
at
kind
of
after
we
had
a
working
map
in
place
to
see,
then
how
many
incumbents
did
we
actually
pair?
F
We
knew
there
would
be
some
simply
because
we
had
growth
in
one
part
of
the
state
and
we
had
a
less
growth
or
loss
of
growth
than
another
part,
and
when
that
happens,
you're
naturally
going
to
have
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
draw
as
many
districts
there,
because
there's
just
no
population.
So
you
end
up
having
pairs
of
incumbents
there.
I
think
that
happened
for
us
about.
We
had
about
four
pairs
in
south
georgia,
and
then
we
had
additional
pairs
in
the
metro
area.
So
it
it
it's
going
to
happen.
F
I
think
you're
going
to
have
that
if
you're
looking
at
incumbent
protection
you're
going
to
see
that
you're
going
to
end
up
sometimes
having
to
pair
them,
but
it's
if
you're,
considering
that
at
all,
it
can
depend
on
your
priority.
If
you
want
to
do
that
at
the
beginning
or
if
you
want
to
just
look
at
it
after
the
fact.
Sometimes
it's
easier
to
look
at
it
after
the
fact
and
then
adjust
it.
If
you're
going
to
considering
kind
of
protection.
A
Very
interesting
jerry:
do
you
have
anything
extra
on
that
piece
to
throw
in
because
you've
also
drawn
actual
maps
where
actual
legislators
have
the
their
districts
on
the
chopping
block.
H
Well,
we've
certainly
had
to
face
that
with
the
rural
areas
of
colorado,
and
unfortunately
there
was
one
representative
who,
in
two
successive
rounds
of
redistricting,
was
paired
with
another
in
his
caucus
and
chose
not
to
run
until
we
have
term
limits
as
well.
So
who
is
able
to
ultimately
run
again.
But
it
is
an
issue
that
you
try
avoiding,
but
sometimes
it's
something
that
you
just
can't
avoid
got.
A
A
So
with
with
that
hesitation
in
mind
here
we
go
on
the
first
one
and
I
guess
I'm
going
to
ask
frank
and
jeff
to
each
respond
or
unless
anybody
else
wants
to
to
look
at
these,
given
the
change
in
control
of
the
us
senate,
what
do
you
see
as
the
possibilities
and
prospects
of
explicit
federal
legislation
about
redistricting.
D
Well,
I
I
I
I
will
let
jeff
talk
that
about
that
again,
but
we
hit
that
specifically
in
our
conversation
earlier
is
that
you
know
I
mean
basically,
these
are
based
upon
the
conversations
he's
had
separately
with
people,
but
apparently
there's
a
strong
possibility
that
there's
going
to
be
some
type
of
you
know
we're
going
to
see
hr1
from
the
last
congress,
like
all
over
again
and
potentially
with
some
voting.
D
In
it
re-emerging
which,
as
I
just
said
previously
in
our
conversation,
which
will
be
an
extremely
divisive
piece
of
legislation,
if
that
comes
about
but
jeff
you-
you
have
the
inside
track
more
so
than
I
do.
But
I
think
it's
definitely
something
that's
going
to
be
on
on
the
horizon.
C
Well,
as
we
were
all
busy
working
on
redistricting
for
the
last
several
hours
within
the
last
hour,
politico
new
york
times,
wall
street
journal
have
all
come
out
announcing
that
the
state
the
us
said
it
has
split
50
50,
giving
democrats
control
so
suffice
it
to
say
that
voting
rights
act
legislation
will
probably
make
their
way
through
well
through
both
chambers,
but
with
a
one
with
a
tied
senate
and
a
narrow
majority
in
the
house.
C
You
can't
predict
now
that
there
will
definitely
be
a
new
section.
Five
voting
rights
act
trigger
for
pre-clearance.
One
problem
in
the
bill,
which
I
pointed
out
to
you
know
the
congressional
staff
that
wrote
the
bill
is
that
they
don't
know
where
it
would
have
how
or
where
it
would
apply.
I
looked
at
my
own
home
state
of
new
york
and
asked
what
will
this
mean
for
new
york
and
no
one
knew.
C
I
think
the
bill
as
written
would
go
back
and
look
at
your
voting
rights
act.
Violations
over
a
25
year
period,
where
I
think,
10
or
15,
violations
somewhat
undefined
in
the
bill,
would
cause
the
state
to
fall
under
pre-clearance,
which
might
be
a
much
broader
sweep
than
what
section
5
had
under
the
1960s
formula
and
members
of
congress
are
going
to
look
at
it
in
terms
of
what
does
it
mean
for
my
district
or
my
state?
C
And
although
I
you
know,
I've
warned
the
congressional
drafters
about
those
kind
of
pitfalls.
Now
you
know
the
rubber
hits
the
road
members
are
going
to
want
to
know.
Will
this
put
my
entire
state
under
section
5,
and
these
are
questions
that
have
to
be
asked
that
might
then
drive.
You
know
where
the
vote
goes
and
and.
D
A
follow-up
to
that
really
quickly,
too.
You
know
the
whole
reason
why
section
five
was
invalidated
by
the
supreme
court.
I
don't
know
six
in
the
past
decade
was
because
the
the
data.
D
Had
not
effectively
been
updated
on
looking
back
looking
at
the
relevant
states
that
were
under
pre-clearance
in
a
number
of
decades,
and
so
you
know
I,
you
could
probably
tend
to
hear
what
my
opinion
is
about
this
type
of
thing
but
like
if,
if
they
are
really
going
at
this
from
a
standpoint
of
like
we
don't
even
necessarily
know
I,
I
would
have
to
believe
the
courts
are
not
going
to
be
that's
going
to
face
some
tough
scrutiny.
C
Just
my
two
cents,
the
supreme
court
knocked
out
the
section
five
trigger,
which
is
called
section
four,
because
it
used
very
specific
1960s
era
data
to
compensate
for
that
in
the
current
version
of
the
bill.
It
covers
a
clawback,
a
go
back
of
about
25
years
in
history,
which
would
mean
through
2021
making
it
much
more
current.
C
C
That's
12,
13
years
of
no
objections
under
section
5
before
it
was
knocked
out
in
2013..
So
there
will
be
a
lot
of
questions,
but
you
know
leave
it
that
you
know
for
a
number
of
reasons
we
need
not
get
into
now.
There
is
a
need
for
stronger
voting
rights
act
enforcement.
A
A
spirited
debate
or
a
huge,
an
even
broader
schism,
gina,
I'm
going
to
bring
the
last
question
to
you.
If
and
if
you're,
not
the
right
person,
you
could
you
can
say
so,
but
you
come
from
a
state
that
was
certainly
under
section
five.
A
Before
will
the
supreme
court
and
by
the
way,
if
anybody
wants
to
continue
talking,
I'm
gonna
just
open
the
floor
when
I'm
done
with
this,
but
will
the
supreme
court
has
now
constituted
continue
to
assume
that
compliance
with
section
two
of
the
vra
is
a
compelling
state
interest.
A
F
Well,
I
think
so
I
mean
it's
it's
our
understanding
that
section
two.
We
still
have
to
do
everything
to
comply
with
that.
So
I
don't
expect
that
there'll
be
any
change
in
that.
I'm
not
sure
if
that
answers
the
person's
question,
but
but
I
I
definitely
think
that
that
it
is
definitely
an
interest.
It's
definitely
one
we're
going
to
consider
and
have
to
consider
in
all
the
maps
we
draw
moving
forward.
I
don't
expect
there
to
be
any
change
in
that.
A
Right,
well
so,
are
there
any
people
who'd
like
to
share
in
a
a
comment,
as
opposed
to
a
question
at
this
point,
I
guess
I
need
to
see
a
raised
hand
for
that,
because
we
have
to
go
through
the
how
to
get
you
unmuted.
A
All
right,
I'm
going
to
say
that
we
are
good
to
go.
This
has
been
quite
the
day.
It's
been
quite
the
day
inside
of
our
little
meeting,
and
it's
been
quite
the
day
in
washington
after
yesterday
being
quite
the
day.
I
hope
that
everyone
sleeps
well
tonight
and
comes
back
tomorrow,
ready
for
digging
in
yet
again.
Let's
start
with
that
yoga,
a
good
calm
way
to
start
your
day
or
we
could
learn
to
negotiate
first
thing,
which
could
be
useful
in
the
redistricting
universe.