Transcription
This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we've got major news right now as Greg Abbott has officially signed his maps in Texas into law. This is a further gerrymander, uh, beyond what the Republicans had already done. You have ongoing litigation in Texas over their unconstitutional maps. And so, how does this impact that ongoing litigation?
Yeah, so it's a great question, but first, I need everybody to subscribe to this channel and hit the bell to stay up to date on everything that Brian and I talk about. This is a very, very big and important case. What's going on in Texas, just to remind everyone, is that the Republicans gerrymandered their map, uh, after, after it already having been gerrymandered once. They have violated the rights of Black and Latino voters, uh, in, uh, we filed a lawsuit, uh, only six hours after the map was passed at 2 a.m. We filed a lawsuit by 8 a.m. And then we've been waiting to see when the governor would finally deign to sign this piece of legislation. You know, he, after all, he's the one who decided it was such an emergency, uh, that he had to call a special session and put this ahead of solving the real challenges of flooding and other things facing the citizens of Texas. He's the one who insisted that Democrats, when they left the state lawfully to break quorum, you know, had to be sued immediately. But anyway, he decided that he was going to take his sweet time, uh, to sign this bill. He has finally done so. Uh, uh, and we are full steam ahead in our lawsuit. We are full steam ahead in the preliminary injunction motion to try to block this map from the get-go so that, uh, even before we get to ballot, uh, uh, ballot qualification opening, you know, this map will be in the rearview mirror for 2026, uh, and not that the, not that the existing map, by the way, uh, does Democrats any favors, but it is certainly a lot better than the one that we're talking about now.
You know, you and I had spoken about the fact that you, uh, filed this lawsuit even before the maps had been in place. Um, does the fact that you had already filed that lawsuit speed up the process a little bit? Like, now, now that he's actually done the thing that, that kind of legitimizes the, the lawsuit, does the fact that you did it early save you any time?
Absolutely. I mean, that was the point, right? Uh, if we had waited to file the lawsuit till after he signed it, you know, essentially we'd be talking about today or yesterday being day zero, and, and, and we'd then be asking for a status conference hearing with the court, and then setting dates and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you know, we'd be filing our preliminary injunction motion. All of that's now been done. The court, the court has already held its first status conference, you know, and has set a timetable to have this matter briefed and argued so that it will be decided in advance of, like I said, that critical ballot, ballot qualification deadline that comes up relatively early. You know, it comes up in November in, uh, in Texas. So, we are all, we are, you know, full speed ahead here to try to, uh, to try to, uh, help, uh, prevent, uh, minority voters in Texas and all voters in Texas, frankly, Democrats, Republicans, independents, help, uh, spare them from this absolutely grotesque map.
Well, first of all, I, I think it should be known that you deserve a ton of credit here because the fact that you filed this lawsuit, I think, put a lot of pressure on Greg Abbott to actually go ahead and sign it and not dangle this thing until, you know, he gets too close to the election where then, even if you did try to litigate against it, Republicans could do in Texas what they had done in North Carolina and Louisiana and Alabama, is invoke this, this doctrine called Purcell, which is when you're too close to an election, the, the Purcell doctrine says that you can't take away the maps because it would cause too much chaos in the upcoming election. And so even though these maps would be unconstitutional, they have no choice but just to leave these maps in place and they can litigate them in the next cycle. Um, and that's a strategy that Republicans have relied on. But you, um, putting forward this lawsuit before he'd even signed these maps into place is likely what spurred him into action so that he didn't do that. So now the only reason that we have the opportunity to even fight against this thing is because you took decisive action quickly, which I think is especially important here. And for everybody watching, a small step that we can take to support Mark's work and his team's work as they're fighting these fight, fight fights on the front lines is to subscribe to Democracy Docket. It's his news outlet that I, that I follow on a daily basis. It's a great source of fearless independent journalism. I'm going to put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. If you are looking for a good independent media outlet to sub to support, this is the one.
Mark, to that point, you had mentioned, um, that the first order of business here, what you're seeking immediately before we even get into litigation about the merits of this case, is a preliminary injunction, and that would block the maps instantly. So, can you talk a little bit about the status of that effort?
Yeah, so, uh, the court has been made aware, obviously, of it because we filed it, and then there was a status conference. So, there is going to now be an expedited briefing and hearing schedule. So that'll take place over the course of the next couple of weeks. Then there will be an oral argument on it. But here's the thing that people need to keep in mind. When Donald Trump acts, he is, as he is typically very clumsy. He, you know, he, the same skills that that make him able to flood the zone in the political process by putting out a ton of information, a lot of it contradictory, a ton of noise, uh, uh, you know, misinformation, disinformation. That is the exactly the stuff that winds up costing him litigation. And it's one of the reasons why you see the courts being able to be an effective bulwark in many instances against what he is doing because his own words are being used against him. The words of Pam Bondi are being used against the Department of Justice's lawyers. Uh, the words of Pets, the words of Christ, right? So like the, the very sort of blunderbuss MAGA approach is exactly their undoing. And I think this is a good example of it. You read the pleadings that my team filed. If you look at, you know, why I think we have a very good chance of succeeding here, it is because Donald Trump insisted, presumably it was him, I assume, you know, it all comes from the White House, that his Department of Justice send a letter to the governor of Texas saying, "You need to do this special session because you need to undo these racial coalition districts, districts where you white voters and Black voters and Latino voters working together to elect their candidate of choice, which are overwhelmingly Democrats in those districts." And that stepped all over the sworn testimony of the legislators in Texas who had said the maps that were in place were not, in fact, drawn based on race. So here it is. They're saying, "Look, those, those coalition districts, those weren't based on race. That was just how the populations sorted out, uh, naturally." Then Donald Trump insists because he injects race into everything, uh, that that this letter gets sent, a bit then caught with that doubles down on it. So now we are in court basically saying, look, you know, they've undone these districts that the state of Texas said were naturally occurring, and they've undone it with racial intent. Like they've literally taken non-racial drawn districts and dismantled them based on race. Well, that violates the Constitution. And it is also, Brian, and this is really important, exactly the kind of claim that conservative justices are will be supportive of, right? Like I've won four cases in the Supreme Court. All of them have been racial gerrymandering cases. And to many people's surprise, like I tell them, you know, often times Clarence Thomas is on my side, has been on my side in those cases because I am accusing Republicans of using race in pernicious ways, and he doesn't think race should be used at all in this process. So, I really think, you know, this is an example of Donald Trump hurting the case, and I, that's why I have optimism that we will eventually prevail.
Is there, I mean, I was going to ask, is there any specific Supreme Court precedent that you can point to that directly relates to this case? And how, and how damning would that be for Republic, I mean, if if this is, if this is so analogous to cases that you've already won, numerous cases that you've already won at the Supreme Court, how damaging could that be to the prospects of Republicans winning in Texas?
Yeah. So, look, I mean, a couple of the cases are, you know, for, for the lawyer nerds out there. One is Cooper v. Harris out of North Carolina, probably the most applicable case to this. Uh, another Bthoon Hill, um, which is out of, uh, out of Virginia. And essentially what these cases say is that the, and all of them involve Republican legislators, is that the use of race solely for its own purpose. In other words, where it's not furthering the interests of the Voting Rights Act, or it's not, you know, it's not serving any other purpose, but you're simply racial sorting for the sake of racial sorting, offends the Constitution. And in those cases, they were coalitions. You know, the justice's coalition was pretty broad. It was the justices on the left and, and, and actually the most conservative justices who agreed with this. And I think that you could see something like that here because the state of Texas is going to have to defend these maps when they have essentially said, "We were reacting to a request from the Department of Justice to to use race to dismantle districts that had previously not been drawn based on race." So, how the hell does, how the hell does a conservative judge or a conservative justice approve of that? And, and again, I think it goes to just how poorly situated this White House is to to comment on things that wind up in court and how terrible it must be to litigate. Although I have no sympathy for the lawyers at this point who are defending the administration's actions, but obviously this would be a political earthquake, right? I mean, if we were to prevail in Texas, uh, and Brian, I believe, but you correct me if I'm wrong, the final version of the, the, the, uh, the ballot measure in California goes forward regardless of Texas, right? So, there was one point where it had to trigger. They've stripped out, they've stripped out that provision. I don't know whether it's because whether it's because they didn't know what shenanigans might be pulled in Texas or because there's other states that are going to pick up in Texas instead in the event that Texas did move, didn't move forward, like Florida, Missouri, and Indiana. But in any case, it's moot now because Texas's maps are signed.
Yeah. Now, look, we are also tracking to your point, um, uh, what's going on in Florida, Missouri, Indiana, and elsewhere. And, and, you know, I saw a report that, uh, you know, the governor of Missouri may call a special session as early as next week after Labor Day. Uh, and so we can't let the pressure up. And, and by that, Brian, I mean two things. Number one, we can't let the pressure up on the states that Republicans control. So I have said that I promised Texas that it would be sued, and I made that same promise to Missouri and Florida and Indiana. Like, if you engage in illegal gerrymandering of mid, midcycle districts, you are going to get sued. And I let my track record speak for itself on what the outcome of that will be. Um, but we also, Brian, can't let up on Democrats. And, you know, look, I am a Democrat. I'm a lifelong Democrat. I represent Democrats in my law practice very often. Uh, and I know, you know, you've done some really important interviews with the full spectrum of Democratic governors on this. And we need every Democrat, uh, to understand that we cannot play by a different set of rules. And too long, we have played by a different set of rules. So we also need to keep up the pressure there.
Yeah, that's a great point. And I've spoken with Nuome Pritsker, Wesmore, uh, Abigail Spanberger, uh, Mikey, Cheryl, and, uh, and, you know, I'm looking to speak with even more of them to try to get Jared Pus, another one, to get them on record, uh, committing to taking action that would actually meet the Republicans where they are and, and, um, prevent Democrats from doing what we've done so often, which is unilaterally disarm in deference to good governance that leaves us, you know, on the moral high ground, but in, in otherwise, uh, obscurity when it comes to actually wielding power. Um, I, I, I, I don't think that we gain much by being pure and right when the other party is actually, uh, you know, descending the United States into full-blown autocracy, stripping rights away from people, uh, sending the military into cities, uh, exacerbating the impacts of climate change, proliferating our streets with guns, and on and on. Um, I guess we think it's worse than that. I mean, it's not just that we don't do ourselves any good, but, you know, politicians need to understand that their voters don't take the time out of their day and go and vote. They don't take the time out of their day to to volunteer or to make donations or to put up yard signs because they just are in love with the individual, uh, person running for office. I mean, they may like them. They may think that they're a nice person, but they do those things because they believe that the person that they are supporting is going to make their lives better and make the lives of their communities better. And giving over power to Donald Trump by helping him rig the 2026 elections, whether it's through gerrymandering, voter suppression, election subversion, whatever it is. If, if you are letting that happen, then frankly, like you're not doing the thing your voters are doing to get you elected. Like it's not so that you can have a fancy title. It's not so you can have, you know, police, uh, protection. It's not so that you can get, you know, awards and recognized. It is, it is so that you can serve the people of your state or your congressional district or the country in the case of the presidency. And if they don't see you fighting for them, then, like I said, I, there's no reason for the voters to then show up for you. So I think it is more than it is not helping. I actually think it's harming. Like it is going to dampen Democratic enthusiasm in 2025 and 2026 and 2027 and 2028 if Democratic voters don't see their elected officials are willing to to maybe break a norm or be outside of their traditional comfort zone because you're asking, uh, the voters to get out of their comfort zones.
Right. Right. And by the way, all of the data backs up what you just said. The only governor who's who's actually put actions behind his words right now is Gavin Newsom. To his great credit, the polling that was just that was just released, I'm, I'll put right here on the screen what the polling looks like for all of the, uh, potential 2028 nominees. But right now, everybody has basically remained static. Gavin Newsom has gone from, you know, 11% to 13% in the beginning of this month. By three days ago, when they did the latest polling with Emerson College, Gavin Newsom went from 13% in the previous poll to 25%. So nearly doubled, doubled his support in just a couple of weeks because he's actually out there fighting. Uh, meanwhile, another, another data point that you can look at is Kamala Harris went from 26% to 11% because she's been absent. And so I think voters are responding to the fact that, you know, if, if you want, if you want someone to vote for you because you're willing to lead, then lead. Not just when it's politically convenient, not just when you've, you know, uh, um, figured out the exact opportune moment where you can where you can garner the most attention for the news cycle. Like, if you want to be a leader, get out there and prove it. Show us. Because I think people are responding to exactly that. Um, and, and conversely, the absence of politicians is also having an impact. This isn't, this goes beyond just, okay, what's the most strategic time for me to come out if I want to run for higher office. This is like, we're in it right now. If, if ever there was a moment to expend some political capital and show voters that you're willing, uh, to get out there and put your neck on the line and speak out on behalf of them, this is it. Like, I don't, I don't know what people are waiting for. If they want, if they want to move, politicians are self-interested. If they want to seek higher office in the future, now is a great moment to show us, uh, that you're willing to fight. Whether it's, whether it's because you want to seek higher office or not, this is a good time to actually stick your neck out there and, and show that you're willing to fight for something.
Yeah. And let me, let me say a word about that. You know, look, I am a lawyer. Uh, I was very happy. I had a pretty good life, you know, practicing law, fighting for voting rights, helping Democrats win elections, helping progressive organizations make real change in this world. But we got to the point where the threat from Donald Trump and from the Republicans meant that I needed to do more. And so, like Brian and I do this series, and that's like, you know, time out of my day. I enjoy doing it at some level, but I do it because I am helping to serve you, the people watching these videos, um, uh, to understand what's going on. So you can, you can do that. All of us have to play a part. That's something that's a role I can play. I started Democracy Docket. It does that as well. Brian has done incredibly important work in the interviews he does. But also look at how many video, look at how many young creators he supports. Look at how much he puts himself out there, you know, frankly, for no money and a lot of grief to help support another generation of people who will keep you informed. So, we all need to do our part. And that includes the politicians who, as Brian said, they need to do their part. It also includes you. And so, everyone watching this, I want you to do me a favor. I want you to share this video with a friend because you will help in doing that small thing. Help spread the word about what is important that is going on in Texas. What's important that is going on, uh, in, uh, in these other states. You may, you may teach someone that they need to, if they live in Missouri, they need to keep, uh, uh, on top of what's happening in their own state, or they may live in one of these blue states and they may learn that they need to call their governor or their state legislator to do something about redistricting. So do me a favor, hit the, hit the share button right now and share this video with your friends.
I appreciate that. And again, for anybody who's watching, if you are not yet signed up for Democracy Docket, it is one of the fastest growing independent news outlets, and for good reason. So, I'm going to put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Help elevate the voices that are doing the fighting out here. And nobody better exemplifies that than Mark and his team. I'm Brian Teller Cohen. I'm Mark Elias. This is Democracy Watch. [Music]