Transcription
This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we have watched as Greg Abbott has called a special legislative session to further gerrymander Texas's maps. Uh, and this is in advance of the next election. But you've actually broken something with your team at Democracy Docket that may cause, at at least, a major headache, but at worst, uh, perjury charges for somebody involved in the Texas legislature, the Republican conference in that legislature. Can you explain the situation here?
Yeah. So, the Democracy Docket uh reporters, they compared what Greg Abbott relied on to call this special session, which was a letter sent by the Department of Justice, okay? Sent by Harit Dylan, Pam Bondi, the folks there, uh, to Greg Abbott saying, "Your maps need to be redrawn because race was used, uh, to draw at least four of the districts." And, you know, I had my skepticism. I know you had your skepticism that this letter was not somehow being used as a pretense by Abbott to call, you know, to call a special session. But in any event, that's what Greg Abbott relied on.
Well, it turns out that the reporters at Democracy Now went through the trial transcripts of the ongoing redistricting litigation in that state and found several instances in which the uh the state senator responsible for drawing the maps uh made very, very clear that race was not considered at all in the in the drawing of those maps. So essentially, uh, you have the the state of Texas defending its existing maps, which are being challenged for improperly discriminating against black and Hispanic voters. The defense that this the state senator in the state of Texas offered is, "Oh no, no, that couldn't have been the case because we didn't use race in drawing the districts." Well, now that that DOJ has sent this letter saying that these maps need to be set aside because race was used, and Greg Abbott used that as the basis, called a special session. They've got a lot of explaining to do. The state of Texas has got a lot of explaining to do.
Uh, a different set of plaintiffs uh have filed a motion uh to reopen the testimony in that case to depose or otherwise hear from this state senator who made these claims that are now seemingly at odds with what Greg Abbott is relying on in calling a special session. And uh the court has ordered the state of Texas to file a response to that motion uh by the end of today. So you have a Republican Texas state senator who went under oath and said that the maps did not rely on race. Race wasn't a factor in drawing these maps. But now you have, so that's on one hand. And then you have the DOJ who had come forward and said that Texas's maps have to be revisited because they were drawn with race in mind. And so that was the the the pretense behind which Greg Abbott called this special legislative session. He says, "Oh, well, look, it's out of our hands. We have to. The DOJ asked us to do this because the maps were drawn with race in mind and we couldn't have that." Well, now somebody here is lying.
So, it's either Greg Abbott and the DOJ who are lying about about race being a factor, or you've got a Republican state senator in Texas who testified under oath that race wasn't used as a factor. And if it turns out that she was lying, well, then isn't she isn't she open to perjury charges at the end of this?
Yeah. So, she said uh several times, "I drew the maps blind to race." Okay? You cannot get any clearer than that. Like, there's no wiggle. There's no wiggle there, right? "I drew the maps blind of race" is simply inconsistent with the idea that race was used to draw four districts. By the way, let me point out the four districts that DOJ focused on are all districts held by Democrats. Surprise, surprise. Surprise, surprise, right? It is four districts held by Democrats. And what DOJ said to the state of Texas was this: "Therefore, this makes the the map illegal, and if you don't redistrict now, we are going to sue you." And so Greg Abbott said, "Well, we have no choice but to call a special session. It's not that we're doing this for political reasons. We're doing this because these maps were illegal because we used race and we'd otherwise be sued."
So this is seemingly irreconcilable. We're going to hear from the state of Texas how they tried to uh how they tried to uh, you know, sort of figure this out. But I suspect that this was a left hand, right hand. You know, that Greg Abbott wanted the fig leaf of DOJ saying that they had to do this so that in the middle of when Texas is in the middle of absolute horrific tragedy of human life where these floods have killed people, Greg Abbott wanted to say, "I was not indifferent to that. I had my hands were forced. We were called out for drawing these districts based on race." And so that's why I called the special session. But like you said, you've got testimony under oath in a different case in which Democrats and progressive organizations and voting rights groups and advocates for racial minorities have been criticizing the state of Texas for years now in court for discriminating against black and Hispanic voters by saying that race was used. And the state of Texas was saying, "No, no, no, no, race was used. It was drawn blind to race." Right.
So, I just don't know, you know, what they're going to say, but we're going to find out at the end of today, and we will be posting on Democracy Docket when we have their answer what it is.
Great. And if and for folks who are looking to get that information as soon as we do have an update, if you're not yet subscribed to Democracy Docket, which is the news outlet Mark founded to focus on everything voting and elections, please make sure to sign up. I'll put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Mark, so isn't it true then that in this instance, if Greg Abbott does want to move forward with this idea that the reason he has to redraw the maps is because they were drawn with race in mind, won't that throw this Texas state senator under the bus because then that ex then that kind of exposes her to to to perjury?
I mean, the only, I mean, look, it throws it, look, it throws her under the bus. It frankly throws not just her, it throws their entire case. Yeah. The like they've been Texas has been being sued now in a series of lawsuits that have been aggressively litigated over the course of the last three years. Okay? And in those cases, a variety of plaintiffs have accused the state of Texas of impermissibly using race to disadvantage minority voters. Okay? That is the background of why this state senator issued such a blanket statement repeatedly because she was defending this map against the the uh the legal challenges brought by these uh communities uh that had been disadvantaged by it. And so this the same map that they're trying to say should that they were trying to say should stand because race wasn't a factor, now they're trying to now those same people realizing that they can jerrymander further are saying, "In fact, race was too much of a factor, and so this map has to be undone." But the fact that it that it was blind to race was the whole reason, was the whole um was what their whole case was propped up on to begin with. Right.
And why this map was used in 2022, why this map was used in 2024, why they wanted until very until a few days ago to use it again in 2026. Like this is a scandal that goes beyond one state senator testifying and the potential consequences of that. This goes to who else in the Texas government who filed these briefs? Who else in the the Texas AG's office who filed these briefs? Who was signing off saying over and over again, telling federal judges that there was no use of race? That this was race, this was drawn race blind? Who was responsible for saying that when now apparently the state of Texas is prepared to say, "No, in fact, not one, not two, not three, but at least four districts were drawn using race." You know, something's not right here. And I strongly suspect that this this this state senator, her answer is not going to be, "Well, it was just me alone." Yeah. Yeah.
So, to that point then, I mean, a lot of people have legal exposure. Is this the kind of thing where, you know, if somebody said one thing to the courts and then has a completely different position, does that give them legal, is that something that we've seen precedent hold in the past where folks who have said one thing to the court and then completely change their position suddenly they they do have legal exposure themselves?
Yeah. Look, this could affect the legal exposure of individuals. This could affect the ethics of of people involved. I'm not saying I'm not jumping to conclusion that it does. I'm just saying like that is that is in the ambit and it ultimately could expose folks to sanctions from the court, right? I mean, the judges are not the judge, judge is not going to be thrilled that they went through an entire trial and received false testimony, right? Only to find out that the trial may need to be redone or reopened or evidence is this grounds to reopen these trials? Absolutely. That is what this motion is that we're waiting on a response for. What the plaintiffs have said who filed this motion on an emergency basis is that uh new evidence reveals that witnesses potentially falsely testified that the Texas congressional map was drawn without consideration of race, and that this is flatly contradictory to what uh Abbott Abbott uh approvingly cited about the DOJ letter. And then they go on to say in their motion, "One or the other is false, and plaintiffs and the court are entitled to probe whether key witnesses truthfully testified at deposition and trial on the central question of this case, given the new evidence." I mean, this is a potential game-changer in the cases that have been going on. This is a potential game-changer in Greg Abbott's theory about why there needs to be uh a special session. Uh this is this potentially will have huge ramifications across the board for what the map looks like in Texas, and not in the way in which the White House and Pam Bondi and the Republicans in Congress who have hoisted this on the state of Texas intended.
So we've talked we've spoken about the legal exposure that these individuals might have, the extent to which they might be sanctioned. Um that all notwithstanding, what about the maps themselves? I understand that this might be a situation where they can't move forward with their effort to to change the maps. But are the maps that are in place even valid right now if if this process plays itself out and we find out that in fact some folks did lie?
No, potentially not. That's that's the point, right? I mean, the the the whole thing here is that the plaintiffs who have been litigating this case. Their whole point is that the maps that were passed by the Texas legislature in 2021 were illegal and unconstitutional because they discriminated against minority voters. Okay? That that that is the lawsuit that has been going on here. And like I said, the judges are not going to be amused that they went through years of discovery and months and months and then had a trial and you know, hearings upon hearings and trial only to find out that it that the central issue according to this these plaintiffs there may there may have been false testimony.
Yeah. Now again, it maybe there wasn't false testimony, and then what it is, is Abbott's reliance on this letter gets called into question. And I would say there is then a national scandal and I would argue a potential constitutional crisis if it turns out that the Department of Justice somehow purposely sent a false letter to the governor of Texas in order to instigate a political process to benefit the party of Donald Trump. Now, that may not sound like anything new, but I'm telling you, that is a new low if that's what it came to be for the Department of Justice. And I suspect one way or another, these judges are going to want to get to the bottom of it. You know, was this letter on the up and up to begin with? Or was this state senator correct in what she was saying? It was drawn not based on race, but that somehow this letter then gets generated. You know, how did this letter get generated? What is the basis of the claim that race was used? And was Greg Abbott in on that? Was he confused by it? Was he distracted? Was this all just a series of misunderstandings? I don't know. But it certainly doesn't look good. And that's why I think the court has asked for such a quick turnaround. You know, judges are not usually in the business of of reopening testimony. That is an extraordinary ask. And the fact that the judge here has asked for a briefing on such an or a response on such an expedited basis suggests this judge wants to know what the hell is going on.
And finally, let's finish off with this. Gavin Newsom was asked uh about this situation and suggested that California might be in a position to respond if in if in fact, you know, lawsuit notwithstanding, if in fact Texas does go through by yet again perverting this process and and further gerrymandering their their maps, that there are opportunities for California to be able to do the same. California currently has an independent redistricting commission, but that it is kind of a weapon on standby in the event that it needs to be deployed. Can I have your reaction to that?
Yeah, good for Gavin Newsom. I mean, look, I I I've said this before, and I'm sure you get the negative comments when I say it, but I'm going to say it again. You know, we cannot have a system in which Democrats play by one set of rules and Republicans by another. And that is what we have right now in redistricting. Everyone needs to understand that California has an independent redistricting commission. New Jersey has an independent process which is a little bit different. New York has um uh has rules against uh partisan gerrymandering and and an independent commission that that in the first draws map. Virginia, a state that Democrats may very well control and have controlled before, uh moved to special masters to avoid uh uh claims of partisan gerrymandering. I could go state after state, Colorado. I could go on and on about Democratic states that have essentially not taken advantage of their ability to draw partisan gerrymanders, but rather have put their faith in less partisan or nonpartisan or bipartisan processes. And I am here to tell you, we are not going to survive this era if every Republican state moves to the most extreme, grotesque form of gerrymandering because to be clear, the map in Texas is already an impermissible gerrymander. What they are talking about do is taking a a gross gerrymander and making it a grotesque gerrymander. And if that is allowed to take place in Republican state after Republican state after Republican state, and Democrats continue to play by a different set of rules, we're simply not going to have a democracy. We're going to have an autocracy. And so kudos to Gavin Newsom for saying he, for one, is not going to stand by it. And California is obviously the largest uh uh number of seats uh where Democrats could really make a difference.
Yeah. I I look, I don't think you're going to get much pushback from my audience. I have been saying for as long as I can remember that unilaterally disarming is not the way uh that Democrats are going to achieve any power. Um and the fact that we do it so frequently has been why Republicans have felt so emboldened to carry out these these schemes like they are right now. Um so I I do hope that we see it not just from California. I don't want to just see tit for tat. I want to see the governor of California, the governor of New Jersey, the governor of New York, anywhere where we have the ability to deploy some weapons um uh electorally speaking for them to come out and say, "You want to do this? Get ready for, you know, us to respond in a way that will far exceed what you're going to do in Texas. You want to start, you want to try to steal four seats from Democrats in Texas, great. Let's try to flip 10 between the states that we have." And and this way it will actually show some fight on the left to prevent to off to serve as a deterrent for these Republicans that think at this point that they can just do anything without any pushback. Uh that Democrats are never going to respond to anything that they do because it's clearly the idea that they have right now.
So look um we will of course um continue watching this. I know that you're going to cover this as soon as you have any update on the judicial front. So again, recommend anybody who's watching right now, if you want to get that update as soon as it breaks, please sign up for Democracy Docket, the news outlet Mark Bark founded to focus on everything voting and elections. I'm going to put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. I'm Brian Teller Cohen. I'm Mark Elias. This is Democracy Watch. [Music]