Transcription
This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we have major breaking news as it relates to you and your law firm. The Texas maps were just passed out of the state legislature. That's when you made your news. Can you explain what just happened?
Yep. Look, the Texas legislature thought they could pass these maps in the middle of the night at 2 a.m. and nobody would notice. Well, I'll tell you, my team, we noticed. We filed our lawsuit at 8 a.m. this morning. I told Texas that if they if they passed this map, they would get sued and they would lose. I've made good on the first of those promises. Let's see what happens with the second.
So, as it relates to these to these maps that were passed in Texas, a lot of folks are looking at what happened in Texas as the the the allegory to what's happening in California. And so, they'll say, well, if you can sue in Texas, how does that not open up California for a lawsuit as well?
Okay. So, first of all, let's just start with the fact that what Texas did was completely illegal, you know, and so so like before people start to say, well, Texas and then California and going to California, you know, what Texas did here was they reopened their maps to gerrymander what was already a gerrymander. They were already being sued by by my team and others over their first map. They made a worse racial gerrymander. Actually a pretty explicit racial jerrymander because after all it's Pam Bondi who sent a letter saying you know you need to reconfigure the racial composition of these districts. Uh I have a feeling that Ken Paxton's like right now pulling his hair out saying I really could live without Pam Bondi have done having done that. But it gave away the game. It gave away why they did this. They did this for racial reasons. They did this to disadvantage minority voters. That violates both the constitution as well as uh section two of the voting rights act.
But Brian, there's another part of this lawsuit that I think is super important. The legacy media has been has bought off on uh the the spin that Republicans have spread that somehow they have a get out of jail free card for midcycle redistric. That is not the case. And so this lawsuit also takes on the process they used to do midcycle redistricting and the way in which they use partisanship and race uh to do this. And we believe that that is not protected by prior rulings of the Supreme Court and leaves them exposed there as well.
So, can you talk a little bit about how California's process doesn't fall into the same uh the same trap that Texas did?
Yeah. So, obviously the California process is totally different. I mean, it is a uh a ballot initiative that's going to be voted on by the people of of California. So first of all, you know, the first map wasn't drawn as a partisan legis map by the legislature. It was actually drawn by a nonpartisan reition commission. This even here, the legislature itself is not responsible for the map. This will again be the people of California. I mean, obviously they passed the necessary legislation, but this is going to go to a popular referendum in the state of California. So on that metrics, it's very different. But the main reason why it's different is it's not a racial gerrymand like you know it's not like like California didn't get together and say hey we just got a letter from the Department of Justice ordering us or asking us to engage in racial sorting of voters because they don't like that Hispanics and black voters have as much political power as they do. And so the state of California didn't get that letter and and then Gavin Newsome say, "Oh, what? You know what? Let's now screw over minority voters, right? They didn't do that." So these are really are apples and oranges.
But I want to add one final point, and I think this goes to something that I think I've heard um Governor Nome say to you on your show. I think if you went to Gavin Newsome or you went to other Democratic governors and said, "Look, if the courts if if if we could wave a magic wand and the courts say no midcycle redistricting, would you take that deal?" I think you'd say yes. Like I mean, so in some sense, like I think if you're Gavin Newsome, like great, like they can't do it, we can't do it, Missouri can't do it, Florida can't do it, you know, like like no one can do it. Now again, I think that we cannot morally equate these. We can't legally equate them. But if if that were the results, if if people are going to criticize this lawsuit and say yes, but Mark, if you want everything, they could strike down all midcycle redistric. I guess yes, that's true. That is possible. But like I think that's a deal that any Democrat would take. And he certainly need a Democratic governor, right? I mean, look, it was there's only one party that tried to pass uh HR1, which included a provision that would ban gerrymandering nationwide. It was every single Democrat voted for that. Every Republican voted against it. There's no ambiguity as to where Democrats stand with regard to the the scourge that is gerrymandering. The difference is that Democrats are not looking to unilaterally disarm in the way that Republicans are hoping that Democrats will.
Um, just a note for the audience here. Look, uh, I have been I have been on a tear focused on the fighters. And there is nobody who exemplifies that better than Mark. And this lawsuit is another testament to exactly that. One small step completely free that we can all take to support his work is to sign up for his YouTube channel. It's completely free to subscribe. It's called Democracy Docket. I'm going to put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. If you're not yet subscribed, elevate his voice. Go ahead and subscribe.
You know, Brian, I'm glad you did that because people don't know, I watch Brian's channel every day. I mean, like literally, I watch every piece of content that he puts up. And it is unbelievably important at this time that all of you do as well because not only does it support a creator who is really doing frankly a public service. I mean doing a service to the whole country but it's also really informative. I mean the interviews he does with Gavin Newsome have been the most important interviews in my view in the fight for democracy. The interviews he did with the Texas legislators, the interviews done the the interviews he's done with Governor Pritsker, the interviews I've seen him do with Democratic House and Senate leaderships are really really informative and important. So, please make sure you are subscribed to his YouTube channel. Also, uh check him out on uh his social the other social media channels as well, which are also really great.
Well, thank you, Mark. Have other states lost uh similar cases um that that relate to the the crux of this case right here, which I I presume is section two of the Voting Rights Act.
Yeah. So, uh one of the things that really has frustrated me in the last few weeks about how the legacy media has covered Texas is they have sort of assumed that Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton and the Republicans are doing everything lawful. And I have no idea why, by the way, they would start with that assumption. I mean, what is it about Greg Abbott's past behavior, the Republican party's past behavior that Donald Trump instigates things? Like, what about past behavior lead you to believe that what they are doing is probably legal, right? It's not. I mean, what they are doing here is racially gerrymandering, violating section two, and also, we believe, violating one person, one vote in the way in which they are doing this midcycle redistricting. And if you ask about precedent, there is lots of precedent striking down maps for being racial gerrymandering. I ought to know. I sued and have I have sued and won four cases in the US Supreme Court striking down Republican maps for being racial gerrymanders. That is actually one of the claims that even conservative justices like Justice Thomas tends to be pretty hard on states around uh around racial gerrymandering. Section two, we have won. My my law firm won and argued in the Supreme Court the Alabama section 2 case that won. My law firm was involved in the Louisiana case that struck down Louisiana anam map under section two. So, you know, these are tried and trueue paths to strike down exactly the kinds of maps that Republicans have done here.
But in addition to that, and this is the thing that drives me crazy is, you know, the the lazy media says, "Oh, the Supreme Court has already said Texas can bid cycle redistric." No. What the Supreme Court said in 2006 was that where the a map the first map was drawn by a court that the legislature can midcycle redistric because the constitution preferences legislative drawn maps over court drawn maps. So essentially what they said is look Texas legislature didn't get a chance to draw its map in the early 2000s so we're going to let them do it in 2006. I thought that was a wrong decision. I think I still did his wrong decision. But that is quite different than what is happening here, which is that Greg Abbott already got his chance to do legislative redistricting for Congress and they did. They passed a horrific jerrymander and by the way an illegal map that we were already in court over, right? What they're doing here is taking a second bite at that apple. And the Supreme Court has never confronted that. And so this is going to be a a multi-prong fight against this effort uh both under the traditional claims for racial jarment and section two of the voting rights act, but also these other claims to see whether or not the Supreme Court really intended that Greg Abbott can now every two years optimize his map uh to screw over minority voters to help Republicans uh and uh or whether the Supreme Court wants to back away from that.
What are the implications in that ongoing lawsuit challenging Texas's maps prior to this?
So, look, I mean, this is now going to in some sense supersede those prior lawsuits. In other words, what we filed here was an amended complaint. We basically said, "Look, we were already before you. We'd like to change our complaint to address the new map." So, you know, there are parts of the old map that are still in place that didn't get touched entirely. So pieces of it will continue but really this is a really a new lawsuit. It is functionally uh a new lawsuit around what they have done here. If we win, it will stripe down uh the map uh uh virtually in its entirety as as it as it should be and force uh a and force a a redraw that would benefit uh minority voters, Hispanic and and black voters, but really also undo the the the horrific uh gerrymandering that we're seeing.
Does just a technical question here. Does amending your existing lawsuit does that allow the process to move forward a little bit quicker as opposed to starting from the very beginning?
Great point. Yeah, it does. And in fact, the court, you know, knew this was coming. You know, we've been very transparent about what we were planning on doing. Hence, I told Gabbit we'd sue him. Uh but but in more formal legalistic terms, the court knew this was coming. So, the court has already scheduled a status hearing on this for next week and we're going to be pressing for this to get pushed along as quickly as possible. And yes, as because it is part of an existing case, you know, it's the amendment of an existing case. There's already the players are already here, you know, the court judges judge is here, everybody's everybody's already assembled. So, this this should move much much faster.
In terms of speed, um what would be the ideal scenario for you? Would it be to get some type of injunction on the new maps that were just passed out of Texas?
Yeah. So, we're going to move for injunctive relief and all everything we're going to do is to get this resolved in time for 2026. Okay. You know, one of the one of the tenants that I have brought to this area of law now for more than a decade is uh that voters can lose through delay. Like, you know, and I'm not saying, by the way, there are not others uh other lawyers who have this mindset, but you know, I am very proud when I say that they passed the map at 2 a.m. and we had a lawsuit on file by 8 a.m. There's a reason I emphasize that. You know, when Georgia passed its big voter suppression law in 2021, we sued 6 minutes after the governor signed it. Here, we actually filed even before the governor signed it because he said he would he will. And uh and so we we you know I really believe that that those of us in the pro-democracy movement if we think we are better off taking uh uh you know sacrificing uh speed for completeness I think we're making a mistake. I think we need to understand that democracy is in peril today. Democracy will be in peril in 2026 and the prospect of getting more complete relief in 2029 is not worth it if what you are giving up is free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028. Right. Right.
Um, who who in in the event that you are successful, that this lawsuit is successful, and there is a situation put in front of us where Texas would have to redraw the maps, how do we have confidence in in a system where the folks in charge are the very folks who are redrawing maps in a way that that is that doesn't comport with section two of the voting rights act. Uh who have gerrymandered these maps to within an inch of their lives. Like how do you know that h like who would who would engage in this process so that it actually is fair and complies with uh the ruling set down by the judge?
So this is a great question and look this is where the court this is not a perfect process. The perfect process would be that the that the legislature wouldn't have done this. The perfect process would be that Republicans in the House who are now whining and crying. The congressional delegation from California are like crybab wetting their diapers as uh because they they now want there to be a ban on midcycle and partisan gerrymandering and and they had their chance, right? They had their chance at the federal level. So the ideal would be that they would have voted for the Freedom to Vote Act and they would have created a bipartisan vote out of the House that would have then put pressure on Republicans in the Senate. You know, everyone beats up on the fact that Democrats didn't break the filibuster. Look, I thought that they should have done with the filibuster as well. But let's not forget the reason why that was an issue is not a single Republican in the Senate was willing to vote for this. And so these Republicans who are now crying about it could have done something. And so ideally this we've done at the national level. It if if the court rules in striking down a map the first chance to fix it goes back to the legislature. Now we've seen circumstances though where the legislature can't politically it won't fix it because it has to pick winners and losers and it gets paralyzed and then the court draws the map. We've also seen circumstances in which the legislature does and I point you to Louisiana where everybody said, "Oh, you're going to win a section two case in Louisiana but it's not going to matter because Louisiana legislature does a redraw." Well, they did a redraw and created a second black opportunity district that has now resulted in another black member of Congress from Louisiana. So sometimes the courts will the constraints the courts will put on them in how they redraw the map are such that it's sort of cabins in their ability to do harm. But I, you know, it's not a perfect process. I would still urge Republicans to join with Democrats and pass a federal national solution to this. But it is time. The time has long since passed that Democrats should put our faith in Republicans. You know, anytime that that that that democracy rests on Republicans doing the right thing, you're you're you're heading down the wrong path. We need to fight fire with fire. If they bring a gun to the fight, we don't just not bring knives, we bring missiles. Like, we need to be full in full battle mode. That's the reason, Brian, why I always come to you first with these cases and news about this. It's the reason why your interviews that you've done, whether it's with Governor Nuomo or frankly or with Governor Pritsker or frankly across the board, have been so impactful because you are bringing the fight to this.
Well, I appreciate that and look, I I would echo that sentiment. Uh again, my focus here has been on elevating and platforming the fighters. There's nobody who better encapsulates that than you. This lawsuit is a testament to that again. So for everybody who's watching right now to reward the folks who are who are actually meeting this moment with the urgency urgency that it deserves. Uh one small step we can all take is to subscribe to Democracy Docet. I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. The link to my channel is on the screen as well. If you're not subscribed to both of them, go ahead and subscribe. Completely free. Great way to support our work and independent media more broadly. I'm Brian Teller Cohen. I'm Mark Elias. This is Democracy Watch.