Hello my name is corey soon and welcome to our facebook life in the communications associate at the campaign legal Center and I'm joined here by my colleague Paul Smith, vice President of litigation strategy for the campaign, legal Center and we're here to talk today about the winter the wisconsin redistricting case that was before the Supreme court on Tuesday and Paul was the mitigate your who argued the case on trial and he's gonna talk to us about what he saw and heard and what you said, Paul is Supreme court dollar if you ask some broadcast television, host that's the name that he earned on Tuesday and he has been names. One of the decade's most influential lawyers by the National law Journal and so we're gonna talk about the winter and high States for democracy without further ado, call, please tell us some of the details of the case and why it's so important for our democracy. Heavy to get the food is a case about gerrymandering in this state legislative districts the Assembly district and wisconsin uh Jerry During his the process, where politicians manipulate the district lines for something like the Legislature for seats in Congress, uh in such a way that they can kinda predetermined who's gonna win most of the of the seats and wisconsin in 20 11. They did a very effective job. This is the Republicans, have happen to be empower that point um the testament that is so reliably and extremely biased in that uh effectively decided who's gonna control the state Legislature and that's the state for the entire 10 years that the natural being effects me to read the draw these maps every 10 years after a senses uh and so this man past 10 years it's been running for seven years and new. Basically, the Republicans have guaranteed themselves a Super majority of the district's uh, regardless of how the people vote, whether they get 40 percent point six percent of voters into the 20 12 or 52 percent of voters. They did last time so as the same answer Republicans and a Super majority of the seats. Thank you so Oh, and some of our viewers don't really know how a case emerges and presents to be heard by the Supreme court. How does that process we're call what you have to have a lower court phase in this case of the case filed in federal court in wisconsin of the these kinds of cases involving state wide redistricting story with special court called the three judge federal district courts. You have a trial and we didn't ever try last year in, for the three judges at certain on Hello Richard uh at the end of the trial is a really but the majority of those three judges that the map was unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of people's political point of view. Uh against the Democratic members of the the people of the Democratic party in wisconsin and then what happens in this kind of cases. They go directly to the Supreme court the Supreme court doesn't have trial that doesn't have witnesses because everything like that, it takes Legal issues and decides them so filed long briefs called Greece, but there, along that telling the court of why the why you should win the case. Uh and then you have the argument with just what happened last Tuesday, which last in our actually very short, that might surprise to the viewers and you could argue about this cases for quite a long time with the court gives you an hour half hour side and you're up there and, basically, while it's the The label is your are you into that basically, your answer their questions. 95 percent of the time uh. They ask you very hard questions in a controversial case is gonna be justices on both sides in a funny way. It's the way they talk to each other by to counsel through the lawyers try to make points about the weaknesses of your case that baby another Justice will pick up on like for example, when Justice roberts calling the social science, we do yeah scientific return 50 listen, legal triple party one of our now he didn't make reference to it of with the tested. We had propose for measuring how extremely gerrymander is social science associate logical. Godly book uh. I didn't take that is that we did something in this part but yeah. We had strong support from other justices and we actually think that the social science is our strength in the States, for the first time in one of these cases, we have very good measures of how extreme the gerrymander is, which allow U two say this is the worst gerrymander the country in the last 10 years or one of the five worst over the last 50 years and that that I think, will give the court hope. Hopefully will give the court more confidence that can draw the line between really bad back growing into sort of politics as usual, yeah what makes this trial different than the last one that was on parts and gerrymandering that made it before the corner. We have a couple of cases in the past on this issue, the court has never been fully comfortable and knowing that it's gonna be able to draw the line. It doesn't think that it make sense to The state Legislature, Super all these district maps that they can't consider politics at all because they're politician to know they're not gonna do that uh and we have a tradition going back couple hundred years of letting the law makers grow their own district which is a kind of continual American thing to do it's not done anywhere else, but getting that what the court is ask for us, is a way to a separate the really extreme gerrymander that is fundamentally anti Democratic, like the method wisconsin from more model Just love the reason political gamesmanship that have been going on for a long time and what alternatives out there to politicians drawing the lines. Um happen consider or and acted by other States. Some States. They take it away from the politicians, all together and you have the commissions their non partisan um the do this process without taking into account political advantage for other part of their California Arizona. I will a number of places A very strong, very small percentage of States, uh and so what we're saying is even in those States where the politicians still have depend to draw the map. There are gonna be some constitutional with how much they can discriminate against the political posts and the constitutional amendments better at playing this case are which ones well, we are arguing that a math discriminate based on your political point of view, violate your first amendment rights is free speech problem right and discriminate against you and under the fourteenth amendment uh protection course which is the fundamental protection against discrimination that is applied for race to The nation general information in this case political discrimination, great so can you just take you late for our viewers. What a vision of victory would look like and what kind of effects that would have map. If we win the case in the court upholds the judgement against wisconsin um. What it'll mean, as it will finally have some meaningful limitation of the ability of natural ours to use the natural process to decided advances they're on the state, regardless of what voters think for the next 10 years Uh they will know that if they go too far, their risk of having your bathroom now by court, uh and I think that makes the process much more fair and much more Democratic. Uh you will eliminate partisanship in the process, but it'll certainly moderated quite a bit. If we lose then I think that's pretty much the last gasp of the hope that the course we're gonna do something about this problem, just at the moment when gerrymandering is about to get worse is get new technology applied to a very polarized elect Do it this week when they we do all the maps and 20 21 it's gonna be really remarkable. Uh how much German there will be at the corner said we're just not gonna do anything about it. It's not our problem. You somebody else needs to fix it at that point. The politicians won't fix it because everyone is doing it and they kinda like it, like uh so the only remedy is going to be for their efforts by concerned citizens to find a way to force their state to have a non partisan Commission, but that's not the easiest thing to do in a lot of places cuz you can't get things on the ballot without the consent of the Legislature, a lot of places but you know with enough political organizing uh That could be a meaningful kind of popular push for reform. State by state will take many years, but it could be done. Hopefully. Uh we can um do something with the speed court first of this put a dent in the problem court has unique chance to reign in gerrymandering and, let's hope that they take this opportunity to do so. I join you in that home. Thank you fought um and for our viewers. You want more information and want to stay up to date on the case in the months Me please go to campaign legal Center dot, org in the top right corner hit, get updates sign up for e-mails um. We won't bother you too much. I promise image and also follow us on facebook and we'll be providing updates on facebook so thank you for tuning in to buy but