Transcription
I've been litigating voting and election cases for more than 30 years. And during that time, I have been involved in some of the biggest ones. And I've also seen my fair share that have frankly gone off the rails, but I've never seen one like what we are watching take place in Texas where after Republicans redrew their congressional map, a lawsuit was filed, it won, and boy, then the fireworks really started. So sit back, grab something to drink because this is going to be a ride. But before we get into any of that, subscribe to this channel to stay informed about how you can defend democracy.
So, all of this started, as you no doubt remember, when Donald Trump insisted that Texas redraw its congressional map in the middle of the decade. It is called midcycle redistricting. Donald Trump thought he was being smarter than everybody else by pressuring Texas after Texas. He pressured Missouri and North Carolina. Uh, he has tried to pressure uh Indiana so far without success. Florida uh is going to undoubtedly do his bidding and he set up a bit of a chain reaction, right? We saw California on the Democratic side. It redrew its map through the legis uh through the ballot initiative process rather. Uh, we've seen Virginia start to take its steps uh forward uh to redraw its map. And anyway, we've been watching this go back and forth, but the cornerstone of all of this, like the place that it all starts and that everything else is kind of like an addition to or chain reaction to is Texas. But I got to tell you, there isn't any chance that Donald Trump had in mind, the debacle that Republicans have created in the state of Texas as they tried to gerrymander this map.
The problem for Republicans began when the Department of Justice sent a letter to the state of Texas saying, "You need to redraw your maps." And you need to redraw them because the maps that are in place that the state of Texas drew in 2021 used race impermissibly to create so-called coalition districts. Now, coalition districts are where the state tries to meet the Voting Rights Act by combining more than one racial group together, but where the racial groups oftentimes vote in harmony with one another. So, for example, you might have a place where there are not a sufficient number of black voters to create a Voting Rights Act district, but if you pair them with, for example, Hispanic voters, there are enough. So there has been a legal debate over the years about whether or not the Voting Rights Act permits or requires or is neutral on the question of coalition districts.
So the Department of Justice sends this letter to Texas saying, "Hey, the map you drew in 2021 impermissibly created these districts, okay, these coalition districts." The problem is that the state of Texas was in the middle of a trial when they got this letter. And it was a trial about these very districts. And the state of Texas's experts and the state of Texas's state legislators who had drawn these maps testified under oath that in fact they had not used race to create any of these districts. That in fact these were not coalition districts that were created by the state. That to the extent there were black voters and Hispanic voters and white voters and Asian-American voters, whatever the coalition is, they were naturally occurring. They were just people who happened to live near one another. And in fact, the map drawer, a Republican legislator, went so far as to swear under oath that she didn't even have racial data available. It was not turned on her computer when she drew the maps. Now, she testified this way because it was a defense against the claims that were being made in that case by groups that were challenging the 2021 map. It is against that backdrop that in drops the crackerjack legal team from the Department of Justice that sends this letter to the state of Texas that says these coalition districts were created by the state and are unconstitutional.
So now the state of Texas has a problem. On the one hand it has a letter that says these were impermissible coalition districts created by the state. On the other hand, it has the sworn testimony of the state legislature saying, "I never use race at all." So, what did Greg Abbott do? Well, being the coward that he is, being the sycophant of Donald Trump that he is, he of course embraces the letter from the Department of Justice. And so when the midcycle redistricting kicks off, this letter was intended to be a prop to give Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, a reason for out of the blue calling a special session to redistrict. So that's how the special session kicks off and the next thing you know it, there is a new map that has been created and lo and behold, this new map destroys the coalition districts. Right? So it actually accomplishes the goal that the Department of Justice laid out, which was undo these coalition districts. The problem again is that it was undoing districts that were not created artificially by the map drawers. These were districts in which various citizens of different ethnic groups just happened to be living near one another. And so when this new map is introduced in the legislature, it is a racial gerrymander.
Now what do I mean by that? A racial gerrymander is any time race is used as the predominant factor in moving a significant number of voters of a particular race into a district or out of a district. Okay, that is the definition of racial gerrymandering under the existing Supreme Court law. So if you have a district and you move a significant number of black voters in on purpose or you move a significant number of Hispanic voters out on purpose, that is a racial gerrymander. Now there are certain circumstances, for example, compliance with the Voting Rights Act where that may have to be done. But it at least raises a question. It at least raises a suspicion that something bad has happened because under existing Supreme Court precedent, using race as the predominant factor to shuffle voters in and out of a district based solely on their race is suspect. It is forbidden under most circumstances.
So, here's the state of Texas. It is trying to meet what Donald Trump wants. It has this letter from the Department of Justice that it should have just said, "This is garbage. Go away." But instead, the legislature embraces, the governor embraces, and we now know the map drawer embraces. So, everybody is paying homage to this dumb letter that Pam Bondi's Department of Justice sends in order to do Donald Trump's bidding. So, the map gets passed and what happens next is a lawsuit is filed. Actually, a whole bunch of lawsuits are filed. My law firm actually filed the first of these lawsuits. So, if you remember, the Texas legislature drew this map and it passed it in the middle of the night at like 2 a.m. or something. By 8:00 a.m. the next morning, my law firm had filed the first lawsuit or the first amended complaint to be technically accurate, uh, challenging this. But then there were a whole bunch of other groups that were also involved in the first case, some that were not, that also filed lawsuits.
This is a good time, by the way, to remind you that all of this background I'm telling you, you would know if you were a subscriber to Democracy Docket. Democracy Docket has covered this Texas redistricting case from gavel to gavel, from first introduction of bill to final passage. There is no news outlet in the country regardless of size, regardless of resources, that has dedicated as much coverage in depth to every twist and turn as Democracy Docket. We had a reporter in the courtroom for 10 days following the hear- following the hearings that took place in this case when the legacy media was nowhere to be found. You know, legacy media is off cover and other stuff. So, please do me a favor. Click on the link in the description below to become a Democracy Docket subscriber today. There are free options. There are premium options. What matters is that you choose one that works for you and you stay informed.
All right. So these lawsuits get filed and the claims among others are that the Texas legislature and the governor racially gerrymandered in violation of the Constitution because we know that the 2021 map was drawn without any racial considerations because that's what the map drawer told us. And we know that the attorney general sent a letter saying you needed to dismantle these coalition districts. And we know that Greg Abbott said, "Yep, that's what we're going to do." And that is in fact what the map drawer did. So lawsuits get filed and this case is set for a hearing for 10 days in El Paso, Texas. Remember I said that the legacy media was nowhere to be found. Probably if this trial were in Austin or Dallas, maybe they would have been there. Certainly if it was held in Los Angeles, California or New York or Washington D.C., they would have been there. But Democracy Docket was there.
So both sides call witnesses and the map drawer himself uh is called to testify to try to defend uh this map on non-racial grounds. There are legislators called. I mean, it is quite an epic hearing. Uh, I called it a mini-trial because 10 days is long enough that it deserves to be called a mini-trial. Technically, it was a preliminary injunction hearing. But whatever you call it, it was a big, big deal. And I wrote about this and I begged you, I pleaded with you, don't believe the hype that this is a done deal. Donald Trump wants you to think that it's done. Republicans want you to think there is nothing that can be done to unwind the damage they have done in Texas. And I was writing and writing and speaking and saying, "Just give us a chance. Like, we've got lawyers, we've got legal arguments. We may not win. We could lose, but we could win." And before you buy into the legacy media's desire to pronounce that Donald Trump is all powerful and Republicans are running the table in redistricting, before you buy into that corporate media nonsense, give us a chance. Let this play out.
So the hearing takes place and again, I'm like pretty optimistic. I'm like, "Look, you know, I followed this democracy and followed it and I think there's a really good chance we're going to win." Legacy Media now, this is a done deal. Donald Trump all powerful. Then a blockbuster ruling. Earlier this week, the three-judge panel issued the majority opinion and struck down the gerrymandered districts on exactly the grounds that I predicted. The map, the court said, was the product of an impermissible movement of voters based on race in and out of districts. And they did not believe the map drawer's testimony to the contrary. So they said, "Essentially, we weighed all the evidence, we judged the credibility of all the witnesses, which is exactly what trial courts are supposed to do, and we have come to the conclusion that race was the predominant factor in undoing these coalition districts." The net result of that is that the state of Texas was blocked, enjoined as the legal term, from using the 2025 redrawn maps and the 2021 pre-existing maps were put back in place. That was a really big deal.
Now, this would be worthy of this video if the story ended there, but it doesn't. So, like I said at the beginning, buckle in because this is the twist and turn you didn't see coming. On Wednesday, after the majority opinion was already released, we get the dissenting opinion. Now, normally those come out at the same time, but sometimes they don't, particularly when courts have to move fast. They will sometimes issue the majority opinion first and then you'll have a dissent later. It's not common, but it's not unusual. It certainly didn't raise any red flags. After all, the majority opinion had been written by a district court judge who had been appointed to the bench by Donald Trump. It was joined by another judge who was appointed by a Democratic president. And the dissenting judge, the judge that didn't join that majority opinion, uh, was appointed by Ronald Reagan. He is one of the oldest judges on the federal bench uh and uh uh is a well-known conservative on the Fifth Circuit. So, the fact that he hadn't yet issued his dissenting opinion, you know, we figured we'd get it, but it wasn't really going to matter. What was going to matter next was going to be a race to the U.S. Supreme Court because the state of Texas was clearly, and they announced as much, going to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court to try to block this blocking, right? So, so essentially undo the stay of the use of the 2025 map. So, that's where my attention was. That's where my legal team's attention was. That's where the press was. That's where Democracy Docket's coverage was. And you should check all that coverage out on their website.
But then we got the dissent. And honestly, I've never read a dissenting opinion quite like this one. I mean, if I tell you it is the most intemperate judicial opinion that I have ever read, it's the most intemperate judicial opinion that I ever, ever read by a lot. It opens by absolutely torching the judge who wrote the majority opinion in very personal terms. This is not the usual, "like my colleague, this and the dissent, the majority says that." This is a scathing attack, a personal attack by this dissenting judge against the Trump-appointed judge, the judge that was appointed to the bench and confirmed uh who had been appointed by Donald Trump, torching them and just calling him unethical, calling him every possible name in the book and going into great detail about the discourteousness and the injustices and the slight fights. I mean, I'm going to spare you all of that, but suffice to say, there's a lot of that. And that would be an unusual opinion to read. Like, normally judges, even when they disagree strongly, they may say, "I strongly dissent." They may say, "You know, I think that the majority opinion is wrong, that it is misguided." Like, there's coded language that judges use. And this goes well beyond that. But if that's all it was, it wouldn't merit that much of a discussion.
But then as I'm reading, I get to a section where all of a sudden this dissenting judge is discussing George Soros. Yeah. Yeah. Right. George Soros, you know, the financier billionaire. Yeah. You know, the guy who is like the object of right-wing fever dream conspiracies. Yeah. That guy. All of a sudden, his name appears and I'm thinking, "I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What? What does George Soros have to do with this?" But George Soros, as far as I know, like lives in New York. Like has something to do with Texas? Like he, he doesn't have anything to do with redistricting. So, I'm thinking, "Okay, well, maybe this is just like a letting off steam kind of thing." And I keep reading and there's more and more about George Soros. And then I get to a section that is not just about George Soros, but it's about me and George Soros.
"The Elias Law Group draws from the Soros coffers to counsel for the instant Gonzalez plaintiffs. David Fox is a partner at Elias, which 'has collected more than $104 million dollars from Democrat party committees and donors, including Mr. Soros.' Firm chair Mark Elias formed entities, 'tucked inside large existing nonprofits' that 'raised tens of millions of dollars from some of the richest donors on the left, including from foundations funded by Mr. Soros.' On a silver platter, Judge Brown hands Soros a victory at the expense of the people of Texas and the rule of law."
Judge Brown won't tell you that. This is just batshit crazy. I mean, like, I don't know any way to put it. Like, I wish I had a legal term. Like, maybe someone can translate that into Latin and put it in the comments and then we can use that phrase instead. It is true that we represent the Gonzalez plaintiffs, a group of 13 voters, Hispanic and black voters, who had the courage to take on the state of Texas and bring this case. I have no earthly idea what that has to do with George Soros. I have no earthly idea why he is saying that that my law firm has collected more than $104 million from the Democrat, which is, by the way, the Democratic Party. You know, showing a little bit of something there, that I formed entities, quote, tucked inside large existing nonprofits that raised tens of millions of dollars. I, I mean, what does any of this, if even if it's true, what does any of this have to do with whether or not the state of Texas impermissibly used race as the predominant factor in moving a significant number of voters into a district or out of a district based on their race? Right? I started by giving you that legal test because there's nothing in this about that legal test. Like, what does he mean that on a silver platter, Judge Brown? Judge Brown, by the way, is the uh federal district court judge who was appointed by Donald Trump who wrote the majority opinion. Hands Soros a victory at the expense of the people of Texas and the rule of law. How is this a victory for Soros? Like, how is it that my firm's involvement in representing the Democratic Party in unrelated cases, right? In this case, we were representing a group of voters. The Democratic Party didn't have anything to do with, they weren't paying for this case. They were not the plaintiffs in this case. I don't know what that has to do with this, but I definitely don't understand why George Soros's name keeps coming up over and over and over. In fact, if you look at the entire opinion, George Soros's name is mentioned 17 times. 17 times in a judicial opinion about a redistricting map in the state of Texas in which George Soros is not a party. We can all have a pretty good idea why all of a sudden the Elias Law Group, Mark Elias, is all of a sudden randomly in a court decision alongside the name George Soros. I'm just going to leave it there and let you all speculate as to what Mr. Soros and I may have in common other than the fact that we are both outspoken champions of democracy. He is a billionaire. I am not. He is in finance. I am not. I am a lawyer. As far as I know, he is not. I know he supports a lot of progressive causes and for that he deserves a medal. He does not deserve to be vilified. George Soros is a true American hero and the fact that his name gets used as an epithet in this opinion is an absolute disgrace. It should not be tolerated and it is part of what makes this entire case so unbelievably crazy.
Remember I said at the beginning, I've been involved in a lot of litigation and never anything quite like this. This is part of the reason why I've never been involved in anything like this because, I mean, what do you do with this? What do you do with this if you are a lawyer like me trying to get justice for your clients? What do you do with this if you are the judge, you know, Judge Brown, like, like you've just been attacked as essentially a tool of George Soros. And by the way, that's among the nicest things that that the that is [clears throat] written about the trial judge who wrote the opinion here. What does he do with that? Does he respond? Does he find an opportunity in another court pleading to write something about this? What do you do if you are one of the voters, a black or Hispanic voter in the state of Texas who are simply looking for the vindication of your constitutional rights? What do you do? What do you do with the fact that a judge has somehow connected your cause for civil rights, your cause for fair voting maps, your cause to not be discriminated against based on race? What do you do when the dissent impugns the entirety of the case based on the fact that Mr. Soros is a prominent funder of Democrats and progressive causes and that your law firm has some connection to George Soros in some way and the Democratic Party in some way and represents other nonprofits in some way? Like, what do you do with that? And what does it say about justice in America today? That this is what's on the mind of a federal court of appeals judge when he doesn't like the outcome of a case. You know, it's one thing for him to pick a fight with the other judges. I have no idea who sent what email to whom. I have no idea whether he was slighted or not slighted by a federal district court judge or court of appeals judge who were in the majority. I wasn't part of that. What I do know is that interjecting into that dispute that he may have with those judges, this kind of low-level suggestion of impropriety. I mean, I don't even know what's impropriety. You know, I, I, I, I posted on social media, and I'm going to put on the screen what I posted on social media right after, right after I saw this. I wrote, "In an unhinged dissent in our Texas redistricting victory, a Republican-appointed judge seems to believe that George Soros and I did well. I'm not sure what, but he is very mad, bigly." I don't really know what it is that I was accused of in the language that you saw. I'm not really sure I know what George Soros was accused of in the language you saw, but it has no place in this case. It's a disservice to the federal judiciary and now it is going to be on the plate of the U.S. Supreme Court.
So, let's go back. Remember I said that after they lost, Texas said they were going to appeal and they were going to bring this directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. That's their right, you know, like I've got no, I've got no beef with them, uh, taking an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That's that's how the law works. These cases do not go through the court of appeals. They don't go to the Fifth Circuit. So for people who say, "What about the Fifth Circuit?" These are three-judge panel courts that go directly from the three-judge panel to the U.S. Supreme Court. So you know, like I'm fine with that. I understand that. And my legal team and the other lawyers for the other plaintiffs will be prepared to defend the majority opinion uh in the U.S. Supreme Court. But what does the U.S. Supreme Court do with this dissent? Right? Because normally when you go up on appeal, if there is a dissent, you anchor your appeal in the dissent, right? Because after all, you attracted the vote of a federal judge. And so it's a good place to start when you're pitching your case to the U.S. Supreme Court that there was a federal judge that agreed with you. In the normal course, like basic strategy would be the state of Texas would take this dissent and sort of package it around into their argument and cite it and say that this judge was right and the other two judges were wrong. Okay, that that's that's kind of like appellate, appellate emergency procedure 101. What does it say to Texas do with this? And what do the Supreme Court justices do with this? I mean, if you're a Supreme Court justice and you want to be seen as even-handed, right? You want to be seen as, you know, not putting your thumb on the scale for either party and just calling balls and strikes as you see them. What do you do with the fact that this was the dissent? Right. The dissent was in no small measure that George Soros seems to have an enormous amount of control over a lot of people in this case, including the lawyers at the law firm that filed the very first challenge to the Texas map. Not the original Texas map, but the 2025 redraw. Like, if you're a Supreme Court justice, do you just like ignore that and be like, "Look, I'm just going to like pretend I never read this"? Are you going to feel like you have to address it on either side? Right? Like whether you affirm or you reverse, like, do you feel like you need to deal with it or do you just stay silent? I think this is going to put the court in a really awkward spot. I'm not going to predict what they do. I don't predict what the, what Supreme Courts do. I know this: we are right on the law and the state of Texas has a really difficult uh [snorts] battle in front of it because trial courts get enormous amounts of deference for their findings of facts. And so when the, when the trial court said this map was drawn, you know, based on race and we don't believe the map drawer when he said contrary, like the Supreme Court is kind of stuck with that as the conclusion that they need to work from. So, this is not going to be an easy case for the state of Texas to turn around on appeal.
Now, look, I get it. Before any of you start throwing things at your computer screen or TV and say, "Mark, how can you be so naive?" I know what the odds are. I know the challenges. Believe me, no one knows better than I what it is like to bring cases that in which the weight of democracy is on your shoulders, in which the the the difference between the outcome of elections hinges on your arguments and your ability to persuade judges and justices that probably don't agree with you on much ideologically. I know what that's like. I represented President Biden and the DNC in 60 cases after the 2020 election, beating Donald Trump and his allies like a drum. But in any one of those, if we had lost, the results might have looked very, very different. I have been involved in hundreds and hundreds of cases. I've argued and won four racial gerrymandering cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. So, I know what the challenges are here. I also know this: the justices are not going to want to associate themselves with this. I cannot imagine that there is a majority of this court that is going to want to say that the state of Texas should be allowed to use its map notwithstanding the evidence that was adduced to trial and the findings of fact that were found by the the the the two of the three judges on the three-judge panel because George Soros and Mark Elias have some kind of shadowy relationship to one another. Like that is not going to happen. I don't believe that there will be a single justice on the Supreme Court who's going to buy into that nonsense. But the eyes of the world are going to be watching. The eyes of people who care about free and fair elections will be watching. I suspect many of you will be watching. And by the way, it's a really good time to click the subscribe button to this channel because when we have updates, I promise you, you're going to get them on this channel. And also hit the bell to make sure you're alerted when there's new content.
So, we're going to all watch as this case moves up. We're going to watch and see whether the majority on the court defends itself, whether this district court judge who was appointed, as I mentioned before, by President Trump, whether he feels the need to explain both the parts in which he is personally attacked on kind of an ad hominem basis and the parts that are what I can only describe as unhinged, or whether he just says, "You know what? I, my opinion speaks for itself and this goes up." But everyone's going to be watching this. And it is a big deal. And it is a big deal not just in the state of Texas. It is a big deal because if Donald Trump's plan to subvert democracy fails in Texas, it will have a domino effect throughout the rest of the map. I mean, remember, Republicans already lost one big one in Utah. You know, I, it's not a case I was involved in, but kudos to the folks who brought that case. And so Utah's effort to gerrymander its map got undone, and so that's now a plus one for Democrats as a result. Then, of course, you have California, and that's plus five. Now, the California map is under attack. The California map is being sued. The Republicans are suing the Cal- the California map. By the way, they've already brought four cases and lost, but this one that's in federal court is the big one. May not be the last one, but it's probably the biggest one. My law firm uh has intervened in this case on behalf of the Democratic Party. You know, on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. We do represent multiple clients, different clients in different cases. That's what a law firm does. We try to provide the best representation we can to all of our clients, whether they be individuals, organizations, interest groups, Democratic party organizations, pro-voting groups. Like, that is the job. That is our ethical obligation. That is the job of of our law firm. And we do a hell of a good job at it. I would put our win-loss record against anyone's and I will not stand by and allow anyone to suggest that we win these cases for any reason other than we do an excellent job in providing client legal services. We give everything we have to every case for every client. Doesn't mean we always win. Sometimes we lose, but it's not for lack of fight. And it certainly has nothing to do with some kind of conspiracy theory involving anyone, including George Soros. That's what we're all going to be watching. We're going to be watching Texas. We're going to be watching to see whether Republicans are able to block any of these activities in California. They've tried to block the Virginia legislature from going forward. My law firm has been involved in defeating that effort. We'll also be looking at other states where Republicans are moving forward, where we are still in court. And I'd ask you for the same thing that I asked you for in Texas. You don't have to believe we'll win, but have an open mind. You know, I have a pretty good track record of telling you when I think we have a real shot. And more often than not, when I say we have a real shot, I actually can come back to you later and say, "Look, we won." And don't look so surprised when that happens. Because I'm not going to tell you that we have a real shot at a case if we don't. Like, I don't waste people's time that way. I don't waste court time that way. I don't bring cases for some other message. We bring cases because we think that we have a good case on the merits that we can win. And so we're suing Missouri over their illegal map. We're suing North Carolina under a racial gerrymander theory. Very similar theory to Texas. Different facts, but same theory. And don't count us out. We might win one of those or both of them. If Florida goes forward with its illegal and and unconstitutional gerrymander, we will sue them and we will win. If Indiana reverses course, if New Hampshire reverses course, if Nebraska reverses course, if any of, if Kansas reverses course, if any of these states decide they're going to capitulate to Donald Trump and [snorts] actually redraw their maps, what my message to them is that if you step an inch, a centimeter, a millimeter over the line of the law, you will get sued and we will do everything we can to defeat you in court to vindicate the rights of your citizens and your voters. That's my promise to them and it is my promise to you.
It is the reason I founded Democracy Docket in 2020 because there was not a news outlet that was giving you real-time news information and analysis about what is happening to democracy in court, particularly around elections, voting, redistricting, and doing it with in-depth expertise and a pro-democracy lens. Now, pro-democracy lens doesn't mean we don't describe the facts as they are. I mean, the facts are the facts. What it means is that we are not beholden to any corporation. There is no billionaire backer pulling the strings. There is no venture capital money. The Democracy Docket team grows because you support them. They are able to put out more content because you become subscribers or paying members. We're able to build up this channel for the same reasons and because you subscribe to this channel. My ask to you now is the same one I have at the beginning. Give us a chance to win in court. Don't buy into the cynicism of the legacy media. Don't let the pundits that seem oh so cool by being totally down on Democrats. Don't let, don't believe them. Don't give the cynics the benefit of the doubt. Give the people who are fighting the benefit of the doubt. Give the people who are providing hope the benefit of the doubt. And you know what? When you do that, you will help create more hope and more opportunities and the next thing you know it, we've struck down the map in Texas. That's my ask for you today is not to let the cynics win. To follow these redistricting cases with an open mind that there is an opportunity and a possibility that justice will be done for these voters and for the American people. That Donald Trump is stoppable. He is not impervious. Go look at what time Louis the Epstein files. This guy is on a losing streak and he's losing in court as he always has. He's an election denier first because he keeps losing in court. Now he's losing in redistricting cases. His Department of Justice is sabotaging his own states in redistricting cases. So I just ask you, give us the benefit of the doubt, keep hopeful, and most importantly, share this information with your friends, your families, your clients, your your customers. You know, we're coming upon the holiday season and people always ask me what they can do. One thing you could do is you could share this video with a friend. You could share Democracy Docket. If you subscribe, you can share that with your friends. You can send them to the website. You can share this pro-democracy content. You can share the good news about what is happening and the bad. Not just the good news, but the bad because we need to know what the challenges ahead are. But you can share this complete picture and have them then share it. And if we all do that, if we all become more educated, if we all understand what is happening in court, that a Trump appointee struck down the Texas map, that another Republican judge wrote an unhinged opinion. If you know that, it is powerful. It makes you better messengers and contextualizers for what is happening for our democracy.
So, I want to thank you for watching this video. I want to thank you for everything you are doing in your work and your daily lives to fight for democracy. [music]