1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:01,000 Okay. 2 00:00:01,000 --> 00:00:04,000 It does look like a problem. 3 00:00:04,000 --> 00:00:05,000 Yeah. 4 00:00:05,000 --> 00:00:08,000 Good morning everyone. 5 00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:11,000 I'm Matt and I'm just going to go to Marshall. 6 00:00:11,000 --> 00:00:14,000 This is a few minutes since I've been facing there. 7 00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:19,000 I'm going to please be sure to go check and call around the site. 8 00:00:19,000 --> 00:00:22,000 There's a little bit of a protocol. 9 00:00:22,000 --> 00:00:27,000 If you've had any comment or food, it's not allowed with an ear ear. 10 00:00:27,000 --> 00:00:31,000 It's not put that way or anything like that. 11 00:00:31,000 --> 00:00:33,000 The water is okay. 12 00:00:33,000 --> 00:00:36,000 Other than that, food is right. 13 00:00:36,000 --> 00:00:39,000 When the dust has come out. 14 00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:42,000 So we are talking about greenhouse. 15 00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:45,000 We're talking about food. 16 00:00:45,000 --> 00:00:48,000 We've got one example. 17 00:00:48,000 --> 00:00:50,000 There's a little bit of this. 18 00:00:50,000 --> 00:00:51,000 Any questions? 19 00:00:51,000 --> 00:00:53,000 Oh, this is the ear. 20 00:00:53,000 --> 00:00:55,000 There's a little bit of this. 21 00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:57,000 There's a little bit of this. 22 00:00:57,000 --> 00:00:59,000 There's a little bit of this. 23 00:00:59,000 --> 00:01:01,000 There's a little bit of this. 24 00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:03,000 There's a little bit of this. 25 00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:05,000 There's a little bit of this. 26 00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:07,000 There's a little bit of this. 27 00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:09,000 There's a little bit of this. 28 00:01:09,000 --> 00:01:11,000 There's a little bit of this. 29 00:01:11,000 --> 00:01:13,000 There's a little bit of this. 30 00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:14,000 There's a little bit of this. 31 00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:15,000 There's a little bit of this. 32 00:01:15,000 --> 00:01:16,000 There's a little bit of this. 33 00:01:16,000 --> 00:01:17,000 There's a little bit of this. 34 00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:18,000 There's a little bit of this. 35 00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:19,000 There's a little bit of this. 36 00:01:19,000 --> 00:01:20,000 There's a little bit of this. 37 00:01:20,000 --> 00:01:44,000 There's a little bit of this. 38 00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:58,480 the 39 00:03:28,480 --> 00:03:29,480 Okay. 40 00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:30,480 Okay. 41 00:03:30,480 --> 00:03:31,480 Okay. 42 00:03:31,480 --> 00:03:32,480 Okay. 43 00:03:32,480 --> 00:03:33,480 Okay. 44 00:03:33,480 --> 00:03:34,480 Okay. 45 00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:35,480 Okay. 46 00:03:35,480 --> 00:03:36,480 Okay. 47 00:03:36,480 --> 00:03:37,480 Okay. 48 00:03:37,480 --> 00:03:38,480 Okay. 49 00:03:38,480 --> 00:03:39,480 Okay. 50 00:03:39,480 --> 00:03:40,480 Okay. 51 00:03:40,480 --> 00:03:41,480 Okay. 52 00:03:41,480 --> 00:03:42,480 Okay. 53 00:03:42,480 --> 00:03:43,480 Okay. 54 00:03:43,480 --> 00:03:44,480 Okay. 55 00:03:44,480 --> 00:03:45,480 Okay. 56 00:03:45,480 --> 00:03:46,480 Okay. 57 00:03:46,480 --> 00:03:47,480 Okay. 58 00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:48,480 Okay. 59 00:03:48,480 --> 00:03:49,480 Okay. 60 00:03:49,480 --> 00:03:50,480 Okay. 61 00:03:50,480 --> 00:03:51,480 Okay. 62 00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:52,480 Okay. 63 00:03:52,480 --> 00:03:53,480 Okay. 64 00:03:53,480 --> 00:03:54,480 Okay. 65 00:03:54,480 --> 00:03:55,480 Okay. 66 00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:56,480 Okay. 67 00:03:56,480 --> 00:03:57,480 Okay. 68 00:03:57,480 --> 00:03:58,480 Okay. 69 00:03:58,480 --> 00:03:59,480 Okay. 70 00:03:59,480 --> 00:04:00,480 Okay. 71 00:04:00,480 --> 00:04:01,480 Okay. 72 00:04:01,480 --> 00:04:02,480 Okay. 73 00:04:02,480 --> 00:04:03,480 Okay. 74 00:04:03,480 --> 00:04:04,480 Okay. 75 00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:05,480 Okay. 76 00:04:05,480 --> 00:04:06,480 Okay. 77 00:04:06,480 --> 00:04:07,480 Okay. 78 00:04:07,480 --> 00:04:08,480 Okay. 79 00:04:08,480 --> 00:04:09,480 Okay. 80 00:04:09,480 --> 00:04:10,480 Okay. 81 00:04:10,480 --> 00:04:11,480 Okay. 82 00:04:11,480 --> 00:04:12,480 Okay. 83 00:04:12,480 --> 00:04:13,480 Okay. 84 00:04:13,480 --> 00:04:14,480 Okay. 85 00:04:14,480 --> 00:04:15,480 Okay. 86 00:04:15,480 --> 00:04:16,480 Okay. 87 00:04:16,480 --> 00:04:18,480 Okay. 88 00:04:18,480 --> 00:04:27,480 Okay. 89 00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:35,480 Okay. 90 00:04:35,480 --> 00:04:42,480 Okay. 91 00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:43,480 Okay. 92 00:04:43,480 --> 00:04:44,480 Okay. 93 00:04:44,480 --> 00:04:46,480 I think that's a good experience. 94 00:04:46,480 --> 00:04:48,480 I think that's a great experience. 95 00:04:48,480 --> 00:04:50,480 I think that's a great experience. 96 00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:52,480 I think that's a great experience. 97 00:04:52,480 --> 00:04:54,480 I think that's a great experience. 98 00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:56,480 I think that's a great experience. 99 00:04:56,480 --> 00:04:58,480 I think that's a great experience. 100 00:04:58,480 --> 00:05:00,480 I think that's a great experience. 101 00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:02,480 I think that's a great experience. 102 00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:04,480 I think that's a great experience. 103 00:05:04,480 --> 00:05:06,480 I think that's a great experience. 104 00:05:06,480 --> 00:05:08,480 I think that's a great experience. 105 00:05:08,480 --> 00:05:10,480 I think that's a great experience. 106 00:05:10,480 --> 00:05:12,480 That's a great experience. 107 00:05:12,480 --> 00:05:13,520 I think that's a great experience. 108 00:05:13,520 --> 00:05:15,520 I think that's a great experience. 109 00:05:15,520 --> 00:05:17,520 I think that would be an brand new thing. 110 00:05:17,520 --> 00:05:21,840 I think that would be an 111 00:05:21,840 --> 00:05:23,520 awesome experience this year. 112 00:05:23,520 --> 00:05:27,040 I know. 113 00:05:27,040 --> 00:05:28,640 Isn't it really fun now? 114 00:05:28,640 --> 00:05:32,640 I know. 115 00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:34,720 It's fun now. 116 00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:37,200 It ends actually while the store is asleep. 117 00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:39,440 This is what we are doing in our Engineering experience. 118 00:05:39,440 --> 00:05:41,440 I'm hearting a lot of people. 119 00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:45,440 They wouldn't have had a lot of time to do that. 120 00:05:45,440 --> 00:05:48,440 I would like to thank you very much for that. 121 00:05:48,440 --> 00:05:49,440 Thank you. 122 00:05:49,440 --> 00:05:50,440 Thank you. 123 00:05:50,440 --> 00:05:51,440 Thank you. 124 00:05:51,440 --> 00:05:52,440 Thank you. 125 00:05:52,440 --> 00:05:53,440 Thank you. 126 00:05:53,440 --> 00:05:54,440 Thank you. 127 00:05:54,440 --> 00:05:55,440 Thank you. 128 00:05:55,440 --> 00:05:56,440 Thank you. 129 00:05:56,440 --> 00:05:57,440 Thank you. 130 00:05:57,440 --> 00:05:58,440 Thank you. 131 00:05:58,440 --> 00:05:59,440 Thank you. 132 00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:00,440 Thank you. 133 00:06:00,440 --> 00:06:01,440 Thank you. 134 00:06:01,440 --> 00:06:02,440 Thank you. 135 00:06:02,440 --> 00:06:03,440 Thank you. 136 00:06:03,440 --> 00:06:04,440 Thank you. 137 00:06:04,440 --> 00:06:05,440 Thank you. 138 00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:06,440 Thank you. 139 00:06:06,440 --> 00:06:07,440 Thank you. 140 00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:08,440 Thank you. 141 00:06:08,440 --> 00:06:09,440 Thank you. 142 00:06:09,440 --> 00:06:10,440 Thank you. 143 00:06:10,440 --> 00:06:11,440 Thank you. 144 00:06:11,440 --> 00:06:12,440 Thank you. 145 00:06:12,440 --> 00:06:13,440 Thank you. 146 00:06:13,440 --> 00:06:14,440 Thank you. 147 00:06:14,440 --> 00:06:15,440 Thank you. 148 00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:16,440 Thank you. 149 00:06:16,440 --> 00:06:17,440 Thank you. 150 00:06:17,440 --> 00:06:18,440 Thank you. 151 00:06:18,440 --> 00:06:19,440 Thank you. 152 00:06:19,440 --> 00:06:20,440 Thank you. 153 00:06:20,440 --> 00:06:21,440 Thank you. 154 00:06:21,440 --> 00:06:22,440 Thank you. 155 00:06:22,440 --> 00:06:23,440 Thank you. 156 00:06:23,440 --> 00:06:24,440 Thank you. 157 00:06:24,440 --> 00:06:25,440 Thank you. 158 00:06:25,440 --> 00:06:26,440 Thank you. 159 00:06:26,440 --> 00:06:27,440 Thank you. 160 00:06:27,440 --> 00:06:28,440 Thank you. 161 00:06:28,440 --> 00:06:29,440 Thank you. 162 00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:31,440 Thank you. 163 00:06:31,440 --> 00:06:32,440 Thank you. 164 00:06:32,440 --> 00:06:33,440 Thank you. 165 00:06:33,440 --> 00:06:34,440 Thank you. 166 00:06:34,440 --> 00:06:35,440 Thank you. 167 00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:36,440 Thank you. 168 00:06:36,440 --> 00:06:37,440 Thank you. 169 00:06:37,440 --> 00:06:38,440 Thank you. 170 00:06:38,440 --> 00:06:39,440 Thank you. 171 00:06:39,440 --> 00:06:40,440 Thank you. 172 00:06:40,440 --> 00:06:41,440 Thank you. 173 00:06:41,440 --> 00:06:42,440 Thank you. 174 00:06:42,440 --> 00:06:43,440 Thank you. 175 00:06:43,440 --> 00:06:44,440 Thank you. 176 00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:45,440 Thank you. 177 00:06:45,440 --> 00:06:46,440 Thank you. 178 00:06:46,440 --> 00:06:47,440 Thank you. 179 00:06:47,440 --> 00:06:48,440 Thank you. 180 00:06:48,440 --> 00:06:49,440 Thank you. 181 00:06:49,440 --> 00:06:50,440 Thank you. 182 00:06:50,440 --> 00:06:51,440 Thank you. 183 00:06:51,440 --> 00:06:52,440 Thank you. 184 00:06:52,440 --> 00:06:53,440 Thank you. 185 00:06:53,440 --> 00:06:54,440 Thank you. 186 00:06:55,440 --> 00:06:56,440 Thank you. 187 00:06:56,440 --> 00:06:57,440 Thank you. 188 00:06:57,440 --> 00:06:58,440 Thank you. 189 00:06:58,440 --> 00:06:59,440 Thank you. 190 00:06:59,440 --> 00:07:00,440 Thank you. 191 00:07:00,440 --> 00:07:01,440 Thank you. 192 00:07:01,440 --> 00:07:02,440 Thank you. 193 00:07:02,440 --> 00:07:03,440 Thank you. 194 00:07:03,440 --> 00:07:04,440 Thank you. 195 00:07:04,440 --> 00:07:05,440 Thank you. 196 00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:06,440 Thank you. 197 00:07:06,440 --> 00:07:07,440 Thank you. 198 00:07:07,440 --> 00:07:08,440 Thank you. 199 00:07:08,440 --> 00:07:09,440 Thank you. 200 00:07:09,440 --> 00:07:10,440 Thank you. 201 00:07:10,440 --> 00:07:11,440 Thank you. 202 00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:12,440 Thank you. 203 00:07:12,440 --> 00:07:13,440 Thank you. 204 00:07:13,440 --> 00:07:14,440 Thank you. 205 00:07:14,440 --> 00:07:15,440 Thank you. 206 00:07:15,440 --> 00:07:16,440 Thank you. 207 00:07:16,440 --> 00:07:17,440 Thank you. 208 00:07:17,440 --> 00:07:18,440 Thank you. 209 00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:19,440 Thank you. 210 00:07:19,440 --> 00:07:20,440 Thank you. 211 00:07:21,440 --> 00:07:22,440 Thank you. 212 00:07:22,440 --> 00:07:23,440 Thank you. 213 00:07:23,440 --> 00:07:24,440 Thank you. 214 00:07:24,440 --> 00:07:25,440 Thank you. 215 00:07:25,440 --> 00:07:26,440 Thank you. 216 00:07:26,440 --> 00:07:27,440 Thank you. 217 00:07:27,440 --> 00:07:28,440 Thank you. 218 00:07:28,440 --> 00:07:29,440 Thank you. 219 00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:30,440 Thank you. 220 00:07:30,440 --> 00:07:31,440 Thank you. 221 00:07:31,440 --> 00:07:32,440 Thank you. 222 00:07:32,440 --> 00:07:33,440 Thank you. 223 00:07:33,440 --> 00:07:34,440 Thank you. 224 00:07:34,440 --> 00:07:35,440 Thank you. 225 00:07:35,440 --> 00:07:36,440 Thank you. 226 00:07:36,440 --> 00:07:37,440 Thank you. 227 00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:38,440 Thank you. 228 00:07:38,440 --> 00:07:39,440 Thank you. 229 00:07:39,440 --> 00:07:40,440 Thank you. 230 00:07:40,440 --> 00:07:41,440 Thank you. 231 00:07:41,440 --> 00:07:42,440 Thank you. 232 00:07:42,440 --> 00:07:43,440 Thank you. 233 00:07:43,440 --> 00:07:44,440 Thank you. 234 00:07:44,440 --> 00:07:45,440 Thank you. 235 00:07:45,440 --> 00:07:46,440 Thank you. 236 00:07:47,440 --> 00:07:48,440 Thank you. 237 00:07:48,440 --> 00:07:49,440 Thank you. 238 00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:50,440 Thank you. 239 00:07:50,440 --> 00:07:51,440 Thank you. 240 00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:52,440 Thank you. 241 00:07:52,440 --> 00:07:53,440 Thank you. 242 00:07:53,440 --> 00:07:54,440 Thank you. 243 00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:55,440 Thank you. 244 00:07:55,440 --> 00:07:56,440 Thank you. 245 00:07:56,440 --> 00:07:57,440 Thank you. 246 00:07:57,440 --> 00:07:58,440 Thank you. 247 00:07:58,440 --> 00:07:59,440 Thank you. 248 00:07:59,440 --> 00:08:00,440 Thank you. 249 00:08:00,440 --> 00:08:01,440 Thank you. 250 00:08:01,440 --> 00:08:02,440 Thank you. 251 00:08:02,440 --> 00:08:03,440 Thank you. 252 00:08:03,440 --> 00:08:04,440 Thank you. 253 00:08:04,440 --> 00:08:05,440 Thank you. 254 00:08:05,440 --> 00:08:06,440 Thank you. 255 00:08:06,440 --> 00:08:07,440 Thank you. 256 00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:08,440 Thank you. 257 00:08:08,440 --> 00:08:09,440 Thank you. 258 00:08:09,440 --> 00:08:10,440 Thank you. 259 00:08:10,440 --> 00:08:11,440 Thank you. 260 00:08:11,440 --> 00:08:12,440 Thank you. 261 00:08:13,440 --> 00:08:14,440 Thank you. 262 00:08:14,440 --> 00:08:15,440 Thank you. 263 00:08:15,440 --> 00:08:16,440 Thank you. 264 00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:17,440 Thank you. 265 00:08:17,440 --> 00:08:18,440 Thank you. 266 00:08:18,440 --> 00:08:19,440 Thank you. 267 00:08:19,440 --> 00:08:20,440 Thank you. 268 00:08:20,440 --> 00:08:21,440 Thank you. 269 00:08:21,440 --> 00:08:22,440 Thank you. 270 00:08:22,440 --> 00:08:23,440 Thank you. 271 00:08:23,440 --> 00:08:24,440 Thank you. 272 00:08:24,440 --> 00:08:25,440 Thank you. 273 00:08:25,440 --> 00:08:26,440 Thank you. 274 00:08:26,440 --> 00:08:27,440 Thank you. 275 00:08:27,440 --> 00:08:28,440 Thank you. 276 00:08:28,440 --> 00:08:29,440 Thank you. 277 00:08:29,440 --> 00:08:30,440 Thank you. 278 00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:31,440 Thank you. 279 00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:32,440 Thank you. 280 00:08:32,440 --> 00:08:33,440 Thank you. 281 00:08:33,440 --> 00:08:34,440 Thank you. 282 00:08:34,440 --> 00:08:35,440 Thank you. 283 00:08:35,440 --> 00:08:36,440 Thank you. 284 00:08:36,440 --> 00:08:37,440 Thank you. 285 00:08:37,440 --> 00:08:38,440 Thank you. 286 00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:40,440 Thank you. 287 00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:41,440 Thank you. 288 00:08:41,440 --> 00:08:42,440 Thank you. 289 00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:43,440 Thank you. 290 00:08:43,440 --> 00:08:44,440 Thank you. 291 00:08:44,440 --> 00:08:45,440 Thank you. 292 00:08:45,440 --> 00:08:46,440 Thank you. 293 00:08:46,440 --> 00:08:47,440 Thank you. 294 00:08:47,440 --> 00:08:48,440 Thank you. 295 00:08:48,440 --> 00:08:49,440 Thank you. 296 00:08:49,440 --> 00:08:50,440 Thank you. 297 00:08:50,440 --> 00:08:51,440 Thank you. 298 00:08:51,440 --> 00:08:52,440 Thank you. 299 00:08:52,440 --> 00:08:53,440 Thank you. 300 00:08:53,440 --> 00:08:54,440 Thank you. 301 00:08:54,440 --> 00:08:55,440 Thank you. 302 00:08:55,440 --> 00:08:56,440 Thank you. 303 00:08:56,440 --> 00:08:57,440 Thank you. 304 00:08:57,440 --> 00:08:58,440 Thank you. 305 00:08:58,440 --> 00:08:59,440 Thank you. 306 00:08:59,440 --> 00:09:00,440 Thank you. 307 00:09:00,440 --> 00:09:01,440 Thank you. 308 00:09:01,440 --> 00:09:02,440 Thank you. 309 00:09:02,440 --> 00:09:03,440 Thank you. 310 00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:04,440 Thank you. 311 00:09:04,440 --> 00:09:05,440 Thank you. 312 00:09:06,440 --> 00:09:07,440 Thank you. 313 00:09:07,440 --> 00:09:08,440 Thank you. 314 00:09:08,440 --> 00:09:09,440 Thank you. 315 00:09:09,440 --> 00:09:10,440 Thank you. 316 00:09:10,440 --> 00:09:11,440 Thank you. 317 00:09:11,440 --> 00:09:12,440 Thank you. 318 00:09:12,440 --> 00:09:13,440 Thank you. 319 00:09:13,440 --> 00:09:14,440 Thank you. 320 00:09:14,440 --> 00:09:15,440 Thank you. 321 00:09:15,440 --> 00:09:16,440 Thank you. 322 00:09:16,440 --> 00:09:17,440 Thank you. 323 00:09:17,440 --> 00:09:18,440 Thank you. 324 00:09:18,440 --> 00:09:19,440 Thank you. 325 00:09:19,440 --> 00:09:20,440 Thank you. 326 00:09:20,440 --> 00:09:21,440 Thank you. 327 00:09:21,440 --> 00:09:22,440 Thank you. 328 00:09:22,440 --> 00:09:23,440 Thank you. 329 00:09:23,440 --> 00:09:24,440 Thank you. 330 00:09:24,440 --> 00:09:25,440 Thank you. 331 00:09:25,440 --> 00:09:26,440 Thank you. 332 00:09:26,440 --> 00:09:27,440 Thank you. 333 00:09:27,440 --> 00:09:28,440 Thank you. 334 00:09:28,440 --> 00:09:29,440 Thank you. 335 00:09:29,440 --> 00:09:30,440 Thank you. 336 00:09:30,440 --> 00:09:31,440 Thank you. 337 00:09:32,440 --> 00:09:33,440 Thank you. 338 00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:34,440 Thank you. 339 00:09:34,440 --> 00:09:35,440 Thank you. 340 00:09:35,440 --> 00:09:36,440 Thank you. 341 00:09:36,440 --> 00:09:37,440 Thank you. 342 00:09:37,440 --> 00:09:38,440 Thank you. 343 00:09:38,440 --> 00:09:39,440 Thank you. 344 00:09:39,440 --> 00:09:40,440 Thank you. 345 00:09:40,440 --> 00:09:41,440 Thank you. 346 00:09:41,440 --> 00:09:42,440 Thank you. 347 00:09:42,440 --> 00:09:43,440 Thank you. 348 00:09:43,440 --> 00:09:44,440 Thank you. 349 00:09:44,440 --> 00:09:45,440 Thank you. 350 00:09:45,440 --> 00:09:46,440 Thank you. 351 00:09:46,440 --> 00:09:47,440 Thank you. 352 00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:48,440 Thank you. 353 00:09:48,440 --> 00:09:49,440 Thank you. 354 00:09:49,440 --> 00:09:50,440 Thank you. 355 00:09:50,440 --> 00:09:51,440 Thank you. 356 00:09:51,440 --> 00:09:52,440 Thank you. 357 00:09:52,440 --> 00:09:53,440 Thank you. 358 00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:54,440 Thank you. 359 00:09:54,440 --> 00:09:55,440 Thank you. 360 00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:56,440 Thank you. 361 00:09:57,440 --> 00:09:58,440 Thank you. 362 00:09:58,440 --> 00:09:59,440 Thank you. 363 00:09:59,440 --> 00:10:00,440 Thank you. 364 00:10:00,440 --> 00:10:01,440 Thank you. 365 00:10:01,440 --> 00:10:02,440 Thank you. 366 00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:03,440 Thank you. 367 00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:04,440 Thank you. 368 00:10:04,440 --> 00:10:05,440 Thank you. 369 00:10:05,440 --> 00:10:06,440 Thank you. 370 00:10:06,440 --> 00:10:07,440 Thank you. 371 00:10:07,440 --> 00:10:08,440 Thank you. 372 00:10:08,440 --> 00:10:09,440 Thank you. 373 00:10:09,440 --> 00:10:10,440 Thank you. 374 00:10:10,440 --> 00:10:11,440 Thank you. 375 00:10:11,440 --> 00:10:12,440 Thank you. 376 00:10:12,440 --> 00:10:13,440 Thank you. 377 00:10:13,440 --> 00:10:14,440 Thank you. 378 00:10:14,440 --> 00:10:15,440 Thank you. 379 00:10:15,440 --> 00:10:16,440 Thank you. 380 00:10:16,440 --> 00:10:17,440 Thank you. 381 00:10:17,440 --> 00:10:18,440 Thank you. 382 00:10:18,440 --> 00:10:19,440 Thank you. 383 00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:20,440 Thank you. 384 00:10:20,440 --> 00:10:21,440 Thank you. 385 00:10:21,440 --> 00:10:22,440 Thank you. 386 00:10:23,440 --> 00:10:24,440 Thank you. 387 00:10:24,440 --> 00:10:25,440 Thank you. 388 00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:26,440 Thank you. 389 00:10:26,440 --> 00:10:27,440 Thank you. 390 00:10:27,440 --> 00:10:28,440 Thank you. 391 00:10:28,440 --> 00:10:29,440 Thank you. 392 00:10:29,440 --> 00:10:30,440 Thank you. 393 00:10:30,440 --> 00:10:31,440 Thank you. 394 00:10:31,440 --> 00:10:32,440 Thank you. 395 00:10:32,440 --> 00:10:33,440 Thank you. 396 00:10:33,440 --> 00:10:34,440 Thank you. 397 00:10:34,440 --> 00:10:35,440 Thank you. 398 00:10:35,440 --> 00:10:36,440 Thank you. 399 00:10:36,440 --> 00:10:37,440 Thank you. 400 00:10:37,440 --> 00:10:38,440 Thank you. 401 00:10:38,440 --> 00:10:39,440 Thank you. 402 00:10:39,440 --> 00:10:40,440 Thank you. 403 00:10:40,440 --> 00:10:41,440 Thank you. 404 00:10:41,440 --> 00:10:42,440 Thank you. 405 00:10:42,440 --> 00:10:43,440 Thank you. 406 00:10:43,440 --> 00:10:44,440 Thank you. 407 00:10:44,440 --> 00:10:45,440 Thank you. 408 00:10:45,440 --> 00:10:46,440 Thank you. 409 00:10:46,440 --> 00:10:47,440 Thank you. 410 00:10:47,440 --> 00:10:48,440 Thank you. 411 00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:50,440 Thank you. 412 00:10:50,440 --> 00:10:51,440 Thank you. 413 00:10:51,440 --> 00:10:52,440 Thank you. 414 00:10:52,440 --> 00:10:53,440 Thank you. 415 00:10:53,440 --> 00:10:54,440 Thank you. 416 00:10:54,440 --> 00:10:55,440 Thank you. 417 00:10:55,440 --> 00:10:56,440 Thank you. 418 00:10:56,440 --> 00:10:57,440 Thank you. 419 00:10:57,440 --> 00:10:58,440 Thank you. 420 00:10:58,440 --> 00:10:59,440 Thank you. 421 00:10:59,440 --> 00:11:00,440 Thank you. 422 00:11:00,440 --> 00:11:01,440 Thank you. 423 00:11:01,440 --> 00:11:02,440 Thank you. 424 00:11:02,440 --> 00:11:03,440 Thank you. 425 00:11:03,440 --> 00:11:04,440 Thank you. 426 00:11:04,440 --> 00:11:05,440 Thank you. 427 00:11:05,440 --> 00:11:06,440 Thank you. 428 00:11:06,440 --> 00:11:07,440 Thank you. 429 00:11:07,440 --> 00:11:08,440 Thank you. 430 00:11:08,440 --> 00:11:09,440 Thank you. 431 00:11:09,440 --> 00:11:10,440 Thank you. 432 00:11:10,440 --> 00:11:11,440 Thank you. 433 00:11:11,440 --> 00:11:12,440 Thank you. 434 00:11:12,440 --> 00:11:13,440 Thank you. 435 00:11:13,440 --> 00:11:14,440 Thank you. 436 00:11:15,440 --> 00:11:16,440 Thank you. 437 00:11:16,440 --> 00:11:17,440 Thank you. 438 00:11:17,440 --> 00:11:18,440 Thank you. 439 00:11:18,440 --> 00:11:19,440 Thank you. 440 00:11:19,440 --> 00:11:20,440 Thank you. 441 00:11:20,440 --> 00:11:21,440 Thank you. 442 00:11:21,440 --> 00:11:22,440 Thank you. 443 00:11:22,440 --> 00:11:23,440 Thank you. 444 00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:24,440 Thank you. 445 00:11:24,440 --> 00:11:25,440 Thank you. 446 00:11:25,440 --> 00:11:26,440 Thank you. 447 00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:27,440 Thank you. 448 00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:28,440 Thank you. 449 00:11:28,440 --> 00:11:29,440 Thank you. 450 00:11:29,440 --> 00:11:30,440 Thank you. 451 00:11:30,440 --> 00:11:31,440 Thank you. 452 00:11:31,440 --> 00:11:32,440 Thank you. 453 00:11:32,440 --> 00:11:33,440 Thank you. 454 00:11:33,440 --> 00:11:34,440 Thank you. 455 00:11:34,440 --> 00:11:35,440 Thank you. 456 00:11:35,440 --> 00:11:36,440 Thank you. 457 00:11:36,440 --> 00:11:37,440 Thank you. 458 00:11:37,440 --> 00:11:38,440 Thank you. 459 00:11:38,440 --> 00:11:39,440 Thank you. 460 00:11:39,440 --> 00:11:40,440 Thank you. 461 00:11:40,440 --> 00:11:41,440 Thank you. 462 00:11:41,440 --> 00:11:42,440 Thank you. 463 00:11:43,440 --> 00:11:44,440 Thank you. 464 00:11:44,440 --> 00:11:45,440 Thank you. 465 00:11:45,440 --> 00:11:46,440 Thank you. 466 00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:47,440 Thank you. 467 00:11:47,440 --> 00:11:48,440 Thank you. 468 00:11:48,440 --> 00:11:49,440 Thank you. 469 00:11:49,440 --> 00:11:50,440 Thank you. 470 00:11:50,440 --> 00:11:51,440 Thank you. 471 00:11:51,440 --> 00:11:52,440 Thank you. 472 00:11:52,440 --> 00:11:53,440 Thank you. 473 00:11:53,440 --> 00:11:54,440 Thank you. 474 00:11:54,440 --> 00:11:55,440 Thank you. 475 00:11:55,440 --> 00:11:56,440 Thank you. 476 00:11:56,440 --> 00:11:57,440 Thank you. 477 00:11:57,440 --> 00:11:58,440 Thank you. 478 00:11:58,440 --> 00:11:59,440 Thank you. 479 00:11:59,440 --> 00:12:00,440 Thank you. 480 00:12:00,440 --> 00:12:01,440 Thank you. 481 00:12:01,440 --> 00:12:02,440 Thank you. 482 00:12:02,440 --> 00:12:03,440 Thank you. 483 00:12:03,440 --> 00:12:04,440 Thank you. 484 00:12:04,440 --> 00:12:05,440 Thank you. 485 00:12:05,440 --> 00:12:06,440 Thank you. 486 00:12:06,440 --> 00:12:07,440 Thank you. 487 00:12:07,440 --> 00:12:08,440 Thank you. 488 00:12:09,440 --> 00:12:10,440 All rise. 489 00:12:10,440 --> 00:12:12,440 Harry Harry Harry. 490 00:12:12,440 --> 00:12:15,440 The Wisconsin Supreme Court is now in session. 491 00:12:15,440 --> 00:12:19,440 The honorable Chief Justice Joe Kiroshki-Pursady. 492 00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:21,440 Your silence is in. 493 00:12:21,440 --> 00:12:22,440 Good morning everybody. 494 00:12:22,440 --> 00:12:31,440 Go ahead and have a seat. 495 00:12:31,440 --> 00:12:33,440 Welcome to everybody. 496 00:12:34,440 --> 00:12:41,440 I just want to go through a couple of administrative things before we start today. 497 00:12:41,440 --> 00:12:46,440 Number one, Justice Dowd is having a speaker issue. 498 00:12:46,440 --> 00:12:51,440 Not to get too personal. 499 00:12:51,440 --> 00:12:55,440 So we've turned the volume up on the sound system. 500 00:12:55,440 --> 00:12:58,440 I think it's, I hope it's loud enough. 501 00:12:58,440 --> 00:13:02,440 You just be really mindful of that when you're at the podium and you're speaking into the 502 00:13:02,440 --> 00:13:03,440 speaker. 503 00:13:03,440 --> 00:13:08,160 And if we can't hear you, I might just stop you and say, please raise the volume a little 504 00:13:08,160 --> 00:13:09,160 bit. 505 00:13:09,160 --> 00:13:12,440 Or as I would say to my kids, use your inside scream. 506 00:13:12,440 --> 00:13:20,800 The second thing, as it relates to timing, there's a number of you that are arguing on 507 00:13:20,800 --> 00:13:25,840 this side of the table, especially, I want to make sure that everyone gets their questions 508 00:13:25,840 --> 00:13:31,440 answered and that you have a chance to answer those questions without feeling unduly rushed. 509 00:13:31,440 --> 00:13:38,720 So we'll use the lights as guide posts, but we won't have strict adherence to them within 510 00:13:38,720 --> 00:13:41,920 reason. 511 00:13:41,920 --> 00:13:45,720 Having said that, we may go over the time. 512 00:13:45,720 --> 00:13:50,640 I'm going to be mindful of what time it is on the clock and take breaks. 513 00:13:50,640 --> 00:13:55,800 I want to try to mitigate misery in this room as much as possible for everyone involved. 514 00:13:55,800 --> 00:13:59,560 So if I stop you in the middle, I'm going to try to stop anyone in the middle of a point 515 00:13:59,560 --> 00:14:03,640 or an argument, but it's possible that it might stop you in the middle of your argument 516 00:14:03,640 --> 00:14:08,720 depending on where we are, I'm just letting you know that ahead of time, just because 517 00:14:08,720 --> 00:14:14,720 I want to be able to try to keep it pretty close to 90 minutes. 518 00:14:14,720 --> 00:14:20,320 I think that is all I have preliminarily, so the first case that we have today is Elizabeth 519 00:14:20,320 --> 00:14:33,000 Bothfeld versus the Wisconsin Elections Commission, and may I please have the appearances? 520 00:14:33,000 --> 00:14:36,760 And I believe you're appearing pro-hakviche, yes, okay. 521 00:14:36,760 --> 00:14:40,960 Welcome to the Wisconsin State Bar for the purposes of today's hearing. 522 00:14:40,960 --> 00:14:56,240 Good morning, and welcome to the Wisconsin State Bar for the purposes of today's hearing. 523 00:14:56,240 --> 00:15:06,160 Good morning, and this is what I have for timing, at least according to my sheet, is 524 00:15:06,160 --> 00:15:12,760 25 minutes followed by 10, 10, 10, and then back to you for five. 525 00:15:12,760 --> 00:15:24,360 All right, we are ready when you are. 526 00:15:24,360 --> 00:15:25,360 Thank you, Your Honors. 527 00:15:25,360 --> 00:15:28,680 Good morning, Madam Chief Justice, and may it please the court. 528 00:15:28,680 --> 00:15:33,520 Wisconsin's congressional map was adopted based on the methodology that this court has 529 00:15:33,520 --> 00:15:35,320 since overruled. 530 00:15:35,320 --> 00:15:37,840 The map is therefore unlawful. 531 00:15:37,840 --> 00:15:43,600 The Bothfeld plaintiff's separation of powers claim rests on three basic pillars that have 532 00:15:43,600 --> 00:15:46,960 already been established by this court. 533 00:15:46,960 --> 00:15:52,600 One, the map was adopted pursuant to a least change mandate. 534 00:15:52,600 --> 00:15:58,480 This court said so in Johnson 2, where it selected the map because it quote, most complies 535 00:15:58,480 --> 00:16:01,400 with our least change directive. 536 00:16:01,760 --> 00:16:06,840 Two, least change is no longer good law. 537 00:16:06,840 --> 00:16:12,280 This court said so in Clark, where it explained that least change is incompatible with the 538 00:16:12,280 --> 00:16:19,400 judiciary's institutional obligations of neutrality and independence and expressly overruled 539 00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:24,680 any portions of Johnson that mandate a least change approach. 540 00:16:24,680 --> 00:16:30,880 And three, this court has the power to right this wrong. 541 00:16:30,880 --> 00:16:36,880 Clark itself rejected virtually identical procedural obstacles and objections that 542 00:16:36,880 --> 00:16:43,320 interveners advance here and confirmed that this court can and should require a lawful 543 00:16:43,320 --> 00:16:48,000 replacement for an unlawful court-drawn map going forward. 544 00:16:48,000 --> 00:16:51,920 Council, I want to take you from Johnson 2 to Johnson 1, okay? 545 00:16:51,920 --> 00:16:56,000 Are you asking us to overturn Johnson 1? 546 00:16:56,000 --> 00:17:01,760 I believe this court has already overruled the basis of Johnson 1, the least change map 547 00:17:01,760 --> 00:17:07,840 that was the direction from Johnson 1, and it also overturned the map that was drawn pursuant 548 00:17:07,840 --> 00:17:12,600 to that, I think by the logic, because it overturned the logic of the least change map, 549 00:17:12,600 --> 00:17:16,720 we are now asking the court to finish that job and actually apply that to the ongoing 550 00:17:16,720 --> 00:17:18,920 injunction that applies for congressional districts. 551 00:17:18,920 --> 00:17:24,120 So some of us might think maybe Johnson 1 was only addressed in part. 552 00:17:24,600 --> 00:17:29,720 Do you want to go on with that argument and tell us why you think it's already been overturned? 553 00:17:29,720 --> 00:17:34,400 I mean, I think what this court did not mince any words in Clark when it said, we are here 554 00:17:34,400 --> 00:17:41,400 by overruling any portion of Johnson 1, 2, or 3, that mandates a least change approach. 555 00:17:41,400 --> 00:17:47,680 So there was nothing, there's nothing ambiguous about what it was doing when it talked about 556 00:17:47,680 --> 00:17:53,560 wherever you find least change, whether it was mandated in Johnson 1 or adhered to in 557 00:17:53,600 --> 00:17:57,520 Johnson 2, all of that has been overruled by this court. 558 00:17:57,520 --> 00:18:02,280 So now the question is where you have just a single least change map left standing. 559 00:18:02,280 --> 00:18:06,680 There's only one least change map left standing in Wisconsin. 560 00:18:06,680 --> 00:18:07,680 Are we going with that map? 561 00:18:07,680 --> 00:18:09,600 Is essentially resting on legal quicksand. 562 00:18:09,600 --> 00:18:13,320 Let me push on that, Council. 563 00:18:13,320 --> 00:18:15,240 So that's not what Clark said. 564 00:18:15,240 --> 00:18:19,200 Clark did not say that least change could not be applied, right? 565 00:18:19,200 --> 00:18:20,200 Would you agree with that? 566 00:18:20,280 --> 00:18:24,640 Clark said that least change could be considered as part of traditional districting criteria, 567 00:18:24,640 --> 00:18:29,720 but it could not be the mandate that overarches or drives the drawing of the map. 568 00:18:29,720 --> 00:18:34,440 The court said it was overruled to the extent it was mandated as the methodology. 569 00:18:34,440 --> 00:18:39,000 Did not say that least change was always an impermissible methodology. 570 00:18:39,000 --> 00:18:39,640 Isn't that right? 571 00:18:39,640 --> 00:18:40,600 Correct, John, I did not. 572 00:18:40,600 --> 00:18:48,200 So that means that Johnson 1, that the holding in Johnson 1 is still good, that doesn't disturb 573 00:18:48,200 --> 00:18:49,040 that at all. 574 00:18:49,040 --> 00:18:55,000 There's nothing about Clark that overturned the use of least change as methodology. 575 00:18:55,000 --> 00:18:57,280 Clark just doesn't control that. 576 00:18:57,280 --> 00:19:02,280 It's true that this court decided it was going to adopt a different remedial program for 577 00:19:02,280 --> 00:19:07,680 a new map in Clark if it ever got there, which it never did, but it didn't disturb the use 578 00:19:07,680 --> 00:19:10,560 of it or say that that was somehow illegal. 579 00:19:10,560 --> 00:19:14,480 That's a different argument you're making here today than was addressed in Clark, wouldn't 580 00:19:14,480 --> 00:19:15,480 you say? 581 00:19:15,560 --> 00:19:20,480 I believe that this court actually did explain why least change was not just wrong in principle 582 00:19:20,480 --> 00:19:22,800 or policy, but wrong as a matter of law. 583 00:19:22,800 --> 00:19:27,960 So let me talk a little bit about you frame your argument as a purely separation of powers 584 00:19:27,960 --> 00:19:30,440 argument. 585 00:19:30,440 --> 00:19:35,520 Would you agree that the United States Constitution gives the power to the legislature to draft 586 00:19:35,520 --> 00:19:37,320 congressional districts? 587 00:19:37,320 --> 00:19:38,320 It does. 588 00:19:38,320 --> 00:19:42,320 It primarily gives that power to the legislative branches and to the political process, but 589 00:19:42,320 --> 00:19:46,440 the political process failed this decade and has not been able to produce an inactive 590 00:19:46,440 --> 00:19:47,440 map. 591 00:19:47,440 --> 00:19:49,640 I understand that, right? 592 00:19:49,640 --> 00:19:56,760 But your argument is premised on the idea that in order to vindicate the separation 593 00:19:56,760 --> 00:20:04,640 of powers, the judiciary needs to take for itself the power that has been constitutionally 594 00:20:04,640 --> 00:20:09,840 given to the legislature, because when we did least change, as you acknowledge, we were 595 00:20:10,080 --> 00:20:16,240 deferring to the last democratically enacted maps that were put into law, right? 596 00:20:16,240 --> 00:20:21,440 So they were based on the 2011 maps, which were passed by the legislature, signed by 597 00:20:21,440 --> 00:20:22,440 the governor. 598 00:20:22,440 --> 00:20:23,440 They're in the statute books. 599 00:20:23,440 --> 00:20:24,840 In fact, they're still there. 600 00:20:24,840 --> 00:20:26,320 They were still enacted law. 601 00:20:26,320 --> 00:20:30,880 In this court said, we're going to defer to the policy judgments of the legislature. 602 00:20:30,880 --> 00:20:33,840 We're not going to put our own policy judgments there. 603 00:20:33,840 --> 00:20:37,640 Which the United States Constitution says that's the legislature's prerogative to do that. 604 00:20:37,680 --> 00:20:42,200 And you're saying it's a violation of the separation of powers for this court to not 605 00:20:42,200 --> 00:20:46,320 take that power for itself, but to defer to the legislature? 606 00:20:46,320 --> 00:20:49,800 That is quite a creative argument to me. 607 00:20:49,800 --> 00:20:53,760 In your honor, it's only a creative in the sense that this court has already made that 608 00:20:53,760 --> 00:20:55,320 argument in Clark. 609 00:20:55,320 --> 00:20:58,240 So two points in response to your question, your honor. 610 00:20:58,240 --> 00:21:01,400 One is the court did not take any redistricting power here. 611 00:21:01,400 --> 00:21:07,360 The redistricting power was given, was assigned to this court because the political process 612 00:21:07,360 --> 00:21:08,360 failed. 613 00:21:08,360 --> 00:21:10,560 This court had no choice but to engage in judicial redistricting. 614 00:21:10,560 --> 00:21:18,080 Your argument is that when this court deferred to the decision of the legislature, that it 615 00:21:18,080 --> 00:21:25,640 violated the separation of powers, when the Constitution gives those powers to the legislature 616 00:21:25,640 --> 00:21:27,480 in the first instance. 617 00:21:27,480 --> 00:21:30,840 And your honor, my argument is that Clark has already made that holding. 618 00:21:30,880 --> 00:21:35,480 So when this court, in all of this court's debate about the least changed principle and 619 00:21:35,480 --> 00:21:40,200 the consideration of partisan effects, the conversation has stemmed around, has centered 620 00:21:40,200 --> 00:21:46,600 on what is the judiciary's role in redistricting, vis-a-vis the other political branches. 621 00:21:46,600 --> 00:21:52,120 And in Johnson One, the court specifically invoked separation of powers to justify the 622 00:21:52,120 --> 00:21:57,800 least change approach and argue that it was necessary to preserve the institutional legitimacy 623 00:21:57,800 --> 00:21:58,960 of the court. 624 00:21:59,000 --> 00:22:04,840 In Justice Dallas, Dallas dissent in Johnson One, the dissent also argued against least 625 00:22:04,840 --> 00:22:10,800 change, again using the terms of separation of powers, saying that this court cannot start 626 00:22:10,800 --> 00:22:16,400 with the prior maps and maintain judicial neutrality consistent with our role as a nonpartisan 627 00:22:16,400 --> 00:22:17,720 institution. 628 00:22:17,720 --> 00:22:22,560 So when Clark came in and talked about, well, now what is given, what we've now, what the 629 00:22:22,560 --> 00:22:28,840 court ruled in Clark, what is the court's role in redistricting when it is, when the 630 00:22:28,880 --> 00:22:33,320 task falls to it, and Clark made very clear, and if the court will allow, if I can just 631 00:22:33,320 --> 00:22:38,800 quote from paragraph 71 of Clark, it speaks in the terms of separation of powers. 632 00:22:38,800 --> 00:22:44,920 It bears repeating that courts can and should hold themselves to a different standard than 633 00:22:44,920 --> 00:22:49,520 the legislature regarding the partisanship of remedial maps. 634 00:22:49,520 --> 00:22:55,480 As a politically neutral and independent institution, we will take care to avoid selecting remedial 635 00:22:55,480 --> 00:22:59,760 maps designed to advantage one political party over another. 636 00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:07,240 Importantly, however, it is not possible to remain neutral and independent by failing 637 00:23:07,240 --> 00:23:11,440 to consider partisan impact entirely. 638 00:23:11,440 --> 00:23:17,280 By the very terms of Clark that I just read your honor, it was not possible for this court 639 00:23:17,280 --> 00:23:24,120 to abide by the judiciary's twin duties of neutrality and independence by applying least 640 00:23:24,120 --> 00:23:29,960 change and adopting all the partisan effects of the previous map and not considering its 641 00:23:29,960 --> 00:23:31,600 own role in redistricting. 642 00:23:31,600 --> 00:23:35,760 So least change, do you think least change is always problematic? 643 00:23:35,760 --> 00:23:39,880 So for example, let's say you weren't here challenging the congressional maps, but you 644 00:23:39,880 --> 00:23:47,560 were here challenging the legislative districts that have now been recently enacted into law. 645 00:23:47,560 --> 00:23:53,400 So if we applied least change to that, we would defer to the recently enacted maps that were 646 00:23:53,400 --> 00:23:56,120 signed into law. 647 00:23:56,120 --> 00:23:59,800 When passed by the Republican legislature signed by the Democratic governor, lots of fighting, 648 00:23:59,800 --> 00:24:03,520 obviously this court got in the middle of all that with Clark. 649 00:24:03,520 --> 00:24:09,320 But your argument would, that would be unconstitutional to simply defer to the policy choices of the 650 00:24:09,320 --> 00:24:14,200 legislature and signed by the governor with regard to legislative maps. 651 00:24:14,200 --> 00:24:19,600 Well, our argument is that blind deference is unconstitutional and in contrary to the 652 00:24:19,600 --> 00:24:20,600 principles in Clark. 653 00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:24,760 In the example that your honor mentioned, where there is actually a legislative enactment 654 00:24:24,760 --> 00:24:28,880 to consider and defer to, courts have often held in the redistricting context that you 655 00:24:28,880 --> 00:24:33,640 can defer to the policy choices of the legislature to the extent they don't otherwise violate 656 00:24:33,640 --> 00:24:34,640 the law. 657 00:24:34,640 --> 00:24:39,040 Now here, there was no policy choice of the legislature in effect. 658 00:24:39,040 --> 00:24:43,920 The old map had expired, everybody came into this court and agreed that it was no longer 659 00:24:43,920 --> 00:24:47,960 operative law, and the question was, what is there left to defer to? 660 00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:51,720 Well, that's not, the maps don't expire. 661 00:24:51,720 --> 00:24:56,440 It was declared unconstitutional to the extent it was no longer reflecting proportion of 662 00:24:56,440 --> 00:24:59,920 population, which United States mandate is required. 663 00:24:59,920 --> 00:25:03,320 The Wisconsin Constitution says nothing about congressional redistricting. 664 00:25:03,320 --> 00:25:05,560 It's still law, it's still in the books, it didn't go away. 665 00:25:05,560 --> 00:25:10,200 The only thing we were trying to do was remedy a constitutional wrong, which was simply proportional 666 00:25:10,200 --> 00:25:11,280 representation. 667 00:25:11,280 --> 00:25:15,040 There was no, there's no expiration date on the law. 668 00:25:15,040 --> 00:25:19,960 I mean, as a matter of federal constitutional law, that map could not remain in effect going 669 00:25:19,960 --> 00:25:20,960 forward. 670 00:25:20,960 --> 00:25:24,360 There was a constitutional sunset, and every party that came into this court acknowledged 671 00:25:24,360 --> 00:25:25,360 that. 672 00:25:25,360 --> 00:25:30,600 And when this court remedied the malapportionment violation, our argument is that per the discussion 673 00:25:30,600 --> 00:25:35,360 in Clark and per the holding in Clark, it ended up creating a brand new legal violation 674 00:25:35,360 --> 00:25:41,240 by really veering outside the judicial lane of neutrality and independence by adhering 675 00:25:41,240 --> 00:25:45,640 to a previous legislature's policy views and failing to consider the part as an impact 676 00:25:45,640 --> 00:25:46,640 of its own decision. 677 00:25:46,640 --> 00:25:47,640 So, Council, I'm going to talk. 678 00:25:47,640 --> 00:25:48,640 I was going to- 679 00:25:48,640 --> 00:25:51,040 It's just to take it or instill going? 680 00:25:51,040 --> 00:25:53,040 No, but I was going to- 681 00:25:53,040 --> 00:25:54,040 Okay. 682 00:25:54,040 --> 00:25:55,040 Council, I have a question. 683 00:25:55,040 --> 00:25:59,080 I'm going to pull you back to Johnson One, okay? 684 00:25:59,080 --> 00:26:03,240 And I think that there's clearly a difference of opinion as to whether or not Johnson One 685 00:26:03,240 --> 00:26:05,440 has been overruled. 686 00:26:05,440 --> 00:26:11,040 Let's assume for the sake of this argument right now that it has not. 687 00:26:11,040 --> 00:26:16,840 Are you asking us then to overrule Johnson One regarding partisan gerrymandering? 688 00:26:16,840 --> 00:26:19,280 Yes or no? 689 00:26:19,280 --> 00:26:23,720 So I want to make very clear, Your Honor, that we have two claims before this court. 690 00:26:23,720 --> 00:26:24,720 We know. 691 00:26:24,720 --> 00:26:27,720 So, claimed on is the separation of powers claim, which I think we've been talking about here. 692 00:26:27,720 --> 00:26:33,160 And when I talk about overruling what Clark has overruled in Johnson, it's expressly overruled 693 00:26:33,160 --> 00:26:36,120 the least changed principle in Johnson about how to remedy it. 694 00:26:36,120 --> 00:26:37,600 Let's talk about the partisan gerrymandering claim. 695 00:26:37,600 --> 00:26:41,960 So the question about the partisan gerrymandering claim, which is our alternative claim. 696 00:26:41,960 --> 00:26:46,520 Our argument there is that there was never actually a holding in Johnson One about partisan 697 00:26:46,520 --> 00:26:50,000 gerrymandering saying that it is or is not just dishable. 698 00:26:50,000 --> 00:26:54,480 And that is because there was no partisan gerrymandering claim before Johnson One. 699 00:26:54,480 --> 00:26:59,120 While the court does, I believe in paragraph eight of Johnson One, say that it is not a 700 00:26:59,120 --> 00:27:04,720 cognizable claim, that portion of Johnson One garnered only three votes from this court 701 00:27:04,720 --> 00:27:06,840 and was not a majority opinion. 702 00:27:06,840 --> 00:27:11,680 The only majority opinion from this court on the issue of partisan gerrymandering was 703 00:27:11,680 --> 00:27:16,760 in Clark when the court specifically said that partisan gerrymandering remains an important 704 00:27:16,760 --> 00:27:19,720 and unresolved issue of Wisconsin law. 705 00:27:19,720 --> 00:27:24,680 And it specifically said it was not deciding whether or not such claims were just dishable. 706 00:27:24,680 --> 00:27:28,920 So there is nothing, I don't believe there's anything in Johnson to overturn and to the 707 00:27:28,920 --> 00:27:33,600 extent that there was, Clark has already done it by making the this court's holding clear. 708 00:27:34,000 --> 00:27:42,800 All right, well, I'm looking at the congressman's brief, specifically pages 42, 43, 44. 709 00:27:42,800 --> 00:27:51,520 When I look at page 43, the second full paragraph, it talks about that it's unsurprising that 710 00:27:51,520 --> 00:27:56,760 nothing in this court's precedent establishes judicially manageable standards to adjudicate 711 00:27:56,760 --> 00:28:00,040 the plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claims. 712 00:28:00,040 --> 00:28:03,480 And then some pretty compelling arguments are made. 713 00:28:03,480 --> 00:28:05,280 Can you please respond to those? 714 00:28:05,280 --> 00:28:09,080 So there's kind of two issues when it comes to partisan gerrymandering. 715 00:28:09,080 --> 00:28:11,680 One is has this court already kind of closed the door on that? 716 00:28:11,680 --> 00:28:13,160 Our answer to that is no. 717 00:28:13,160 --> 00:28:14,560 This court's answer to that is no. 718 00:28:14,560 --> 00:28:17,000 And Clark had said it was an unresolved legal issue. 719 00:28:17,000 --> 00:28:20,920 And then the next question is, well, now that it is unresolved, how should we resolve 720 00:28:20,920 --> 00:28:21,920 it? 721 00:28:21,920 --> 00:28:25,080 Is it a legally cognizable claim that has judicially manageable standards? 722 00:28:25,080 --> 00:28:28,000 And our answer to that is absolutely yes. 723 00:28:28,000 --> 00:28:32,840 The fact that the Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court has said that it's not just dishable 724 00:28:32,840 --> 00:28:37,240 under federal law does not make, undeclate that it's not just dishable under state law. 725 00:28:37,240 --> 00:28:42,000 Ten other state courts have found partisan gerrymandering, just dishable, under constitutional 726 00:28:42,000 --> 00:28:46,080 provisions very similar to the ones that we rely upon here in Wisconsin. 727 00:28:46,080 --> 00:28:50,920 There's no reason why Wisconsin could not adopt that, any one of those models that the 728 00:28:50,920 --> 00:28:55,200 other state courts have adopted to make sure that it is protecting what is in Wisconsin 729 00:28:55,200 --> 00:29:01,040 a far more robust right to democratic self-governance than is provided in the US Constitution. 730 00:29:01,040 --> 00:29:04,880 Do those other states have the same constitutional language? 731 00:29:04,880 --> 00:29:10,640 Many of them do, your honor, for instance, in states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, 732 00:29:10,640 --> 00:29:15,720 they had what we called free and equal elections clauses, which are very similar to the provisions 733 00:29:15,720 --> 00:29:18,360 that we cite here, specifically the free government clause. 734 00:29:18,360 --> 00:29:23,120 And in other states, such as New Mexico or Alaska, they rely on their state equal protection 735 00:29:23,120 --> 00:29:24,120 clauses. 736 00:29:24,120 --> 00:29:30,320 And here in Article 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, we're looking at Section 1, 3, 4, and 22, 737 00:29:30,320 --> 00:29:34,840 equal protection, free speech, free association, and free government provisions. 738 00:29:34,840 --> 00:29:41,440 All of these provide independent and combined bases to find this fundamental principle of 739 00:29:41,440 --> 00:29:43,080 democratic self-governance. 740 00:29:43,080 --> 00:29:47,080 And all of them provide a basis to say that partisan gerrymandering is antithetical to 741 00:29:47,080 --> 00:29:48,640 those fundamental principles. 742 00:29:48,640 --> 00:29:53,440 So going back to that, then do you conceive of Article 1, Section 1 of the Wisconsin 743 00:29:53,440 --> 00:29:57,520 Constitution as an equal protection provision? 744 00:29:57,600 --> 00:29:58,600 I do, your honor. 745 00:29:58,600 --> 00:30:03,360 I think we've been viewing the idea that the citizens are entitled to equal treatment 746 00:30:03,360 --> 00:30:07,560 under the law and cannot be arbitrarily treated based on their viewpoint, based on their 747 00:30:07,560 --> 00:30:12,720 residence, and that's how we are envisioning this claim as well, in addition to the free. 748 00:30:12,720 --> 00:30:15,800 Do we then need to consider tiers of scrutiny? 749 00:30:15,800 --> 00:30:20,800 I believe under this courts, so look, there are many ways that this court can, yes, so 750 00:30:20,800 --> 00:30:24,520 if this court is going to conceive of this solely as an equal protection violation, then 751 00:30:24,560 --> 00:30:27,480 you're going to have to think about what are the appropriate tiers of scrutiny. 752 00:30:27,480 --> 00:30:31,200 But then again, but here again, there are many models for how to do this. 753 00:30:31,200 --> 00:30:35,720 Justice Kagan's dissent in Rucho, which was then the same model was followed in states 754 00:30:35,720 --> 00:30:40,760 like New Mexico and Alaska, where she basically provides a fundamental equal protection analysis. 755 00:30:40,760 --> 00:30:46,440 Let's look at predominance when it comes to partisan vote dilution, the predominant 756 00:30:46,440 --> 00:30:52,360 purpose, was that in fact the effect of the map, and is there any legislative justification 757 00:30:52,400 --> 00:30:57,640 outside of sheer partisan dominance that would justify the configuration of these districts? 758 00:30:57,640 --> 00:31:00,560 Is that the test that you're asking us to adopt? 759 00:31:00,560 --> 00:31:05,720 So we are not pressing one specific test, we believe that this court has at its disposal, 760 00:31:05,720 --> 00:31:08,320 the opportunity to look at any different, any model that it wants. 761 00:31:08,320 --> 00:31:12,360 We have specifically pointed to the model from Pennsylvania, which is more of a traditional 762 00:31:12,360 --> 00:31:17,800 subordination test and effects based test, but that is not the only way to map onto this 763 00:31:17,800 --> 00:31:18,800 claim. 764 00:31:18,800 --> 00:31:22,480 But based on the one that's in New Mexico, based on the one that's in Justice Kagan's 765 00:31:22,480 --> 00:31:26,640 dissent, what are you recommending that we do? 766 00:31:26,640 --> 00:31:30,760 What we have recommended in our papers is the test that's provided in Pennsylvania. 767 00:31:30,760 --> 00:31:36,400 We think that's the most clear, it's a traditional subordination test, the extent to which traditional 768 00:31:36,400 --> 00:31:40,940 districting principles have been subordinated to partisan advantage and partisan gain. 769 00:31:40,940 --> 00:31:45,600 And the court has many in Pennsylvania, outlines a number of tools that courts can use as 770 00:31:45,640 --> 00:31:49,840 both direct and circumstantial evidence to decide whether or not, essentially, the way 771 00:31:49,840 --> 00:31:55,720 the map is drawn, stacks the deck in favor of one party or another to an extreme degree, 772 00:31:55,720 --> 00:31:59,880 such that the decision is essentially made before a single ballot has been cast. 773 00:31:59,880 --> 00:32:08,080 So if I'm understanding that method, are you only looking at a single map, or are as 774 00:32:08,080 --> 00:32:13,600 opposed to if I think about Justice Kagan's dissent in Rucho, or if she's talking about 775 00:32:13,600 --> 00:32:17,560 looking at, I think she uses an example of a thousand maps, and looking at where they 776 00:32:17,560 --> 00:32:24,000 are on the curve, I'm not quite understanding if you adopt the punch of, if you're asking 777 00:32:24,000 --> 00:32:26,760 us to adopt the punch of any model, if we adopt that model, what does that look like 778 00:32:26,760 --> 00:32:27,760 exactly? 779 00:32:27,760 --> 00:32:32,600 Are we just looking at the one map that is in front of us, or are we comparing it to 780 00:32:32,600 --> 00:32:33,600 other maps? 781 00:32:33,600 --> 00:32:37,240 So absolutely your honor, so obviously there's only one map in front of the court when it 782 00:32:37,240 --> 00:32:42,400 comes to what we are, how we can prove that, how somebody can prove a partisan gerrymandering 783 00:32:42,400 --> 00:32:45,600 claim, there are many different evidentiary ways to do that. 784 00:32:45,600 --> 00:32:50,960 One of those that's typically used in partisan gerrymandering claims is this, the simulations 785 00:32:50,960 --> 00:32:51,960 approach, right? 786 00:32:51,960 --> 00:32:57,400 The using multiple maps to show would this ever have occurred based on the political, natural 787 00:32:57,400 --> 00:33:02,320 political geography of the state, or was there some undue partisan intent that really was 788 00:33:02,320 --> 00:33:03,320 skewing the map? 789 00:33:03,320 --> 00:33:06,400 Well I understand that, but if I understand the Pennsylvania model, you're looking at 790 00:33:06,400 --> 00:33:12,280 the map that is created and you're saying, has it been, has the, we're, if you're rank 791 00:33:12,280 --> 00:33:17,040 ordering why you, why you created the map you did, is it subordinate to the constitutional 792 00:33:17,040 --> 00:33:18,600 requirements or is it not? 793 00:33:18,600 --> 00:33:23,280 I'm asking, are you just looking at that one map and at those requirements as it relates 794 00:33:23,280 --> 00:33:24,280 to that one map? 795 00:33:24,280 --> 00:33:27,760 I understand that you can look at a thousand maps, I understand you can look, we could 796 00:33:27,760 --> 00:33:32,080 look at more than that, right, easily today. 797 00:33:32,080 --> 00:33:37,520 But I'm not, I just want to make sure I understand how you envision that process, how that process, 798 00:33:37,520 --> 00:33:41,880 if we adopted it, would work in the trial court in this case. 799 00:33:41,880 --> 00:33:45,280 So I think the way it would work following the Pennsylvania model, which by the way is 800 00:33:45,280 --> 00:33:49,760 spelled out really chapter and verse in that opinion, is that the court would essentially 801 00:33:49,760 --> 00:33:56,160 look at the traditional districting criteria, the objective political geography of the state 802 00:33:56,240 --> 00:34:01,880 and ask, to what extent do the district lines veer from the traditional districting, to 803 00:34:01,880 --> 00:34:07,760 subordinate those, those traditional districting principles in service of some part as an advantage. 804 00:34:07,760 --> 00:34:12,080 And the way you answer that question is by looking at evidence from computer simulation 805 00:34:12,080 --> 00:34:16,720 maps, looking at statistics like the efficiency gap that shows wasted votes. 806 00:34:16,720 --> 00:34:21,160 There are a number of models at the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania recognized that are able 807 00:34:21,160 --> 00:34:25,080 to provide that evidence so we know what we're looking for when we're looking at this one 808 00:34:25,080 --> 00:34:26,080 map. 809 00:34:26,080 --> 00:34:33,720 So I'm advocating for that instead of the intent, effects and causation test that Justice 810 00:34:33,720 --> 00:34:36,800 Kagan talked about in her Rucho descent. 811 00:34:36,800 --> 00:34:41,560 So Your Honor, I don't want to overstate our advocacy for one model over another. 812 00:34:41,560 --> 00:34:47,920 At this point, our number one argument is that this court can strike down this map as a matter 813 00:34:47,920 --> 00:34:51,480 of law based on the law, it's already drafted in Clark. 814 00:34:51,480 --> 00:34:55,560 But if the court decides to go down the partisan gerrymandering route, our argument there is 815 00:34:55,560 --> 00:34:59,800 that that is actually, that is not, that is a traditional route that many states have 816 00:34:59,800 --> 00:35:00,800 followed. 817 00:35:00,800 --> 00:35:04,320 And this court can choose whatever it deems to be the best test that it sounds fit. 818 00:35:04,320 --> 00:35:08,120 So I have suggested the Pennsylvania one, I believe that that the way that model has worked 819 00:35:08,120 --> 00:35:09,880 out is very clear. 820 00:35:09,880 --> 00:35:13,800 But the one that is provided by Justice Kagan's descent and has been used in states like New 821 00:35:13,800 --> 00:35:19,160 Mexico is equally justiciable, is it standard, that is easily comprehended by courts and 822 00:35:19,160 --> 00:35:20,840 applied by courts at all levels. 823 00:35:20,920 --> 00:35:29,400 Yeah, I don't want to overstate the importance to us of figuring out which path we should 824 00:35:29,400 --> 00:35:32,160 take in order to get this right. 825 00:35:32,160 --> 00:35:38,720 So, Council, can I pull you, are you, I'm sorry, are you? 826 00:35:38,720 --> 00:35:39,720 I was just musing. 827 00:35:39,720 --> 00:35:44,840 You were just musing, okay, that's what we do periodically, you'll notice. 828 00:35:44,840 --> 00:35:51,520 I would like to get back to the concept of justiciability, say that 20 times fast, 829 00:35:51,520 --> 00:35:56,440 and look at our Constitution, what our Constitution says. 830 00:35:56,440 --> 00:36:03,320 And you look at Article 1, Section 1, that people are sovereign, that government has 831 00:36:03,320 --> 00:36:09,600 no power except through the consent of the governed. 832 00:36:10,480 --> 00:36:19,040 We are interested as a state court in looking at these maps as whether they present a constitutional 833 00:36:19,040 --> 00:36:26,440 harm to these principles of self-representation, of sovereignty of the people of the state 834 00:36:26,440 --> 00:36:31,360 of Wisconsin, which is some through lines, throughout our Constitution, it's a beautiful 835 00:36:31,360 --> 00:36:39,080 Constitution with very rich words, and it makes very clear that the people have the power, 836 00:36:39,080 --> 00:36:41,600 not the politicians, it is the people. 837 00:36:41,600 --> 00:36:49,080 So, when we're looking at justiciability, why we are so focused on what test do we apply, 838 00:36:49,080 --> 00:36:54,520 assuming it's cognizable, right, assuming this claim, and you're saying it is, because 839 00:36:54,520 --> 00:36:59,520 of these provisions in our state Constitution, so we have equal protection. 840 00:36:59,520 --> 00:37:01,600 We have inherent rights. 841 00:37:01,600 --> 00:37:08,240 We have free speech, the right to assembly, this court has a role in remedying wrongs. 842 00:37:08,800 --> 00:37:11,760 So, what else are we looking at in terms of a test? 843 00:37:11,760 --> 00:37:16,520 We have, you've identified, there's these different tests out there, ten states have 844 00:37:16,520 --> 00:37:19,040 adopted some form of these tests. 845 00:37:19,040 --> 00:37:23,520 We certainly want to make sure the test is manageable. 846 00:37:23,520 --> 00:37:26,680 We want to make sure it's neutral. 847 00:37:26,680 --> 00:37:33,040 But what other guidance do you suggest this court looked to when we are measuring whether 848 00:37:33,040 --> 00:37:37,160 this map presents a constitutional harm? 849 00:37:37,200 --> 00:37:41,640 I believe your honor, and I appreciate exactly what you said, I agree that the Wisconsin 850 00:37:41,640 --> 00:37:46,720 Constitution makes no mistake that democratic self-governance is the very foundation. 851 00:37:46,720 --> 00:37:52,760 And so, there is a wrong under with the Wisconsin Constitution that requires a remedy if the 852 00:37:52,760 --> 00:37:55,360 court decides to go down the partisan gerrymandering approach. 853 00:37:55,360 --> 00:38:00,800 And when it comes to what the test can be, like I said, we have advocated for the Pennsylvania 854 00:38:00,800 --> 00:38:05,720 approach, which we believe is actually the most straightforward and easily easy to administer, 855 00:38:05,720 --> 00:38:09,800 but I'm not trying to dissuade the court from what I think is also a straightforward 856 00:38:09,800 --> 00:38:10,800 and easy to administer. 857 00:38:10,800 --> 00:38:15,320 Well, let me ask you about that, because if you look at New Mexico, which I would say 858 00:38:15,320 --> 00:38:23,440 has some very similar provisions on the sovereignty of the people, on the government having to 859 00:38:23,440 --> 00:38:30,280 have the consent of the governed, they also apply a causation piece. 860 00:38:30,280 --> 00:38:34,440 And that is because we recognize, I don't think anybody on this panel would say, the 861 00:38:34,440 --> 00:38:38,000 state does not, that nobody would dispute. 862 00:38:38,000 --> 00:38:44,640 The state has an important constitutional role in redistricting. 863 00:38:44,640 --> 00:38:50,720 And so, isn't it, shouldn't it, wouldn't it be prudent of us to not just apply intent 864 00:38:50,720 --> 00:38:56,000 effects, but then to give the state the opportunity to present, if there is a legitimate interest 865 00:38:56,000 --> 00:39:00,960 that perhaps we're not thinking of, because that recognizes that the state does have important 866 00:39:00,960 --> 00:39:02,800 role in redistricting. 867 00:39:02,840 --> 00:39:06,320 I agree with that, Your Honor, and I think this court's equal protection jurisprudence 868 00:39:06,320 --> 00:39:09,960 makes clear that the question would then be posed to the state, is there a legitimate 869 00:39:09,960 --> 00:39:14,160 interest that justifies this deviation? 870 00:39:14,160 --> 00:39:18,520 And I think actually under either test that this court adopts, the state would be given 871 00:39:18,520 --> 00:39:24,240 that opportunity to prove that, no, no, what you're seeing from the data and from the evidence 872 00:39:24,240 --> 00:39:29,280 is not the result of partisan gamesmanship, but is actually the result of some other legitimate 873 00:39:29,280 --> 00:39:30,280 criteria. 874 00:39:30,280 --> 00:39:32,080 I believe that the state would have that ability. 875 00:39:32,120 --> 00:39:37,080 I don't think that the, I think either of these tests are difficult for plaintiffs to 876 00:39:37,080 --> 00:39:43,000 prove intentionally difficult, and, but I think ultimately manageable for the court to decide 877 00:39:43,000 --> 00:39:47,360 to make sure that it's not just striking down maps willy nilly, but is actually applying 878 00:39:47,360 --> 00:39:49,960 a chapter in verse exactly what the rules are. 879 00:39:49,960 --> 00:39:57,600 I have just one more question on this issue, and that is, do we not use in judging this, 880 00:39:57,640 --> 00:40:02,680 just disability, do we not use the same data that the map makers used? 881 00:40:02,680 --> 00:40:05,400 I mean, is that why it's quantifiable? 882 00:40:05,400 --> 00:40:11,840 Because map makers are able to distill down to the household and predict what is, what 883 00:40:11,840 --> 00:40:17,360 is the, not, we don't have party registration here, but what is the likely affiliation here? 884 00:40:17,360 --> 00:40:23,960 And so does it make it quantifiable in this context because we have the data now that 885 00:40:23,960 --> 00:40:29,680 we didn't have, our founders didn't have, even our grandfathers, did not have the data 886 00:40:29,680 --> 00:40:32,080 that we have now to make these determinations? 887 00:40:32,080 --> 00:40:37,200 I think certainly the tools that are available to courts to be able to discern what has happened. 888 00:40:37,200 --> 00:40:40,640 These tools that are available to map drawers to discern, to figure out how to greet the 889 00:40:40,640 --> 00:40:45,080 effects that they want are far more sophisticated, which is all the, all the more reason why 890 00:40:45,080 --> 00:40:51,480 this court said in Clark that this court cannot afford to blind itself to those very true 891 00:40:51,480 --> 00:40:55,000 realities that lawmakers are aware of when they are drawing maps. 892 00:40:55,000 --> 00:40:59,960 When a court is drawing maps, it too needs to deal with the entire political, demographic, 893 00:40:59,960 --> 00:41:04,880 factual, census-based reality to make sure that it's drawing maps that are fair and constitutional 894 00:41:04,880 --> 00:41:05,880 for Wisconsin voters. 895 00:41:05,880 --> 00:41:08,840 So you can tell we're trying to pull you across the line here because these cases are 896 00:41:08,840 --> 00:41:11,000 complicated, right? 897 00:41:11,000 --> 00:41:16,280 And if we find them to be just dishable, we need to be advising the three judges. 898 00:41:16,280 --> 00:41:17,440 That should be. 899 00:41:17,440 --> 00:41:22,440 So can you clearly tell us why you think the Pennsylvania test is straightforward? 900 00:41:22,440 --> 00:41:27,960 We believe the Pennsylvania test is straightforward because it does not delve into the hearts 901 00:41:27,960 --> 00:41:32,080 and minds of the map drawers and deciding which map drawers are most at issue. 902 00:41:32,080 --> 00:41:36,680 It looks at the actual effects of the map itself to decide whether the maps abordinates 903 00:41:36,680 --> 00:41:41,000 traditional constitutional principles to partisan advantage. 904 00:41:41,000 --> 00:41:42,520 Can it be explained? 905 00:41:42,520 --> 00:41:46,040 Can the deviations from traditional principles be explained by anything other than sheer 906 00:41:46,040 --> 00:41:48,760 partisan gamesmanship? 907 00:41:48,760 --> 00:41:53,560 So looking, I think, at the effects test that the Pennsylvania court emphasizes is perhaps 908 00:41:53,560 --> 00:41:58,840 the, I would say, you know, the most straightforward way of determining this. 909 00:41:58,840 --> 00:42:02,880 But again, I don't think that the court needs to shy away from looking at intent. 910 00:42:02,880 --> 00:42:05,160 This is the kind of stuff that courts do all the time. 911 00:42:05,160 --> 00:42:08,200 If it wanted to, probably, a more intent or causation-based approach. 912 00:42:08,200 --> 00:42:09,200 Okay. 913 00:42:09,200 --> 00:42:13,240 I want to take you through some procedural things here. 914 00:42:13,240 --> 00:42:17,600 So let's say we were to find your claims just dishable. 915 00:42:17,600 --> 00:42:21,000 I just want to go through kind of what that looks like. 916 00:42:21,000 --> 00:42:25,480 Like how do you get from there to a new map? 917 00:42:25,480 --> 00:42:26,480 Thank you, Your Honor. 918 00:42:26,480 --> 00:42:31,640 So I'm just going to reiterate that, you know, so option number one is to strike down the 919 00:42:31,640 --> 00:42:35,600 map as a matter of law because it's already been struck down as a matter of principle. 920 00:42:35,600 --> 00:42:37,280 Let's go to option number two. 921 00:42:37,280 --> 00:42:42,440 Option number two is to decide that Wisconsin's Constitution bars partisan gerrymandering 922 00:42:42,440 --> 00:42:45,760 and develop a stand, and announce a standard that says, this is- 923 00:42:45,760 --> 00:42:49,280 And I'm going to qualify you, not just bars partisan gerrymandering, isn't there some 924 00:42:49,280 --> 00:42:52,800 extreme partisan gerrymandering, isn't that what we're really talking about? 925 00:42:52,800 --> 00:42:59,880 I mean, you set it already that it's basically taking away, it's making a decision before 926 00:42:59,880 --> 00:43:02,560 the election has even begun for the people in the district. 927 00:43:02,560 --> 00:43:03,560 Exactly, Your Honor. 928 00:43:03,560 --> 00:43:06,360 I'm using the word part of the gerrymandering is a shorthand for what courts have often 929 00:43:06,360 --> 00:43:11,600 referred to as an extreme partisan gerrymander that is essentially an outlier and not explainable 930 00:43:11,680 --> 00:43:13,200 by any other criteria. 931 00:43:13,200 --> 00:43:15,840 Okay, so we find that, and then what? 932 00:43:15,840 --> 00:43:20,560 And I think that this court has already discussed, I think it adopts the model that it seems 933 00:43:20,560 --> 00:43:25,040 to be most fit for determining what is a partisan gerrymander, and then I think it would need 934 00:43:25,040 --> 00:43:30,000 to remand back to the panel for a fact-finding, because as this court has already emphasized 935 00:43:30,000 --> 00:43:33,320 in Clark that it is a very fact-intensive question. 936 00:43:33,320 --> 00:43:39,400 And in your view, the circuit court then has the ability to grant a clearatory judgment 937 00:43:39,480 --> 00:43:43,840 as to whether or not these maps actually meet the tests that we set forth. 938 00:43:43,840 --> 00:43:47,080 Absolutely, Your Honor, and of course this court can make very clear what the authority 939 00:43:47,080 --> 00:43:50,920 is of the circuit court, but the whole design of this three-judge panel was essentially 940 00:43:50,920 --> 00:43:55,520 to be able to do this kind of work to sit and adjudicate facts that are about redistricting 941 00:43:55,520 --> 00:43:58,720 maps and make the proper judgments for Wisconsin voters going forward. 942 00:43:58,720 --> 00:44:00,200 Okay, and then what? 943 00:44:00,200 --> 00:44:06,800 Let's say the circuit court says these maps are an extreme partisan gerrymander according 944 00:44:06,800 --> 00:44:09,080 to the tests set forth, then what? 945 00:44:09,080 --> 00:44:12,920 I think there's a remedial process, and that's not dissimilar to the remedial process 946 00:44:12,920 --> 00:44:14,720 that this court has already laid out. 947 00:44:14,720 --> 00:44:17,840 So you foresee us doing that remedial process? 948 00:44:17,840 --> 00:44:21,120 I think the district, I think the panel could do that remedial process as well. 949 00:44:21,120 --> 00:44:24,400 I think there's a little bit of a question depending on how the appeals work. 950 00:44:24,400 --> 00:44:28,600 There might be an appeal of the liability order before it gets to a remedy, but ideally 951 00:44:28,600 --> 00:44:33,680 we would say that any of this should have, all of this is judicial, just dishable within 952 00:44:33,680 --> 00:44:36,760 the panel and can all be reviewed by this court on appeal after that. 953 00:44:36,800 --> 00:44:42,800 Even though that's our order, aren't we the ones that would need to overturn our injunction 954 00:44:42,800 --> 00:44:47,120 and or order that discussed the previous maps? 955 00:44:47,120 --> 00:44:51,200 I don't think that's exclusively the case, Your Honor, certainly on instruction from 956 00:44:51,200 --> 00:44:52,200 this court. 957 00:44:52,200 --> 00:44:57,400 The panel could have the authority to revisit that injunction, and ultimately our argument 958 00:44:57,400 --> 00:45:02,800 on both separation of powers and partisan gerrymandering is that the panel had the sitting 959 00:45:02,840 --> 00:45:07,880 today, the panel had the job to look at this court's most recent precedent. 960 00:45:07,880 --> 00:45:10,840 In our first separation of powers argument, that most recent precedent is Clark. 961 00:45:10,840 --> 00:45:12,280 They had to apply Clark. 962 00:45:12,280 --> 00:45:15,960 If this court were to decide that partisan gerrymandering is dishable, that would be 963 00:45:15,960 --> 00:45:17,520 this most recent precedent. 964 00:45:17,520 --> 00:45:21,280 So whether it's applying it to a map that was adopted by the legislature or adopted by 965 00:45:21,280 --> 00:45:26,000 the court, the lower court's job is to apply this court's binding precedent. 966 00:45:26,000 --> 00:45:31,040 And before we would adopt any map, the legislature would get a chance to also draw a map. 967 00:45:31,120 --> 00:45:35,160 Is there purview unless they cannot do it or unless there's an unconstitutional violation 968 00:45:35,160 --> 00:45:36,320 with their map, correct? 969 00:45:36,320 --> 00:45:37,320 Absolutely, Your Honor. 970 00:45:37,320 --> 00:45:42,800 And I want to make very clear, there is nothing, there has been nothing preventing the legislative 971 00:45:42,800 --> 00:45:49,120 process from enacting a map since 2020, since 2021, the legislature can and should adopt 972 00:45:49,120 --> 00:45:54,000 a map if it feels like that that's something it has the political capability to do and 973 00:45:54,000 --> 00:45:56,320 nothing of this court is tying this hands. 974 00:45:56,320 --> 00:46:00,880 In Johnson, the court specifically said that this map shall remain in place until the 975 00:46:00,880 --> 00:46:05,360 legislature adopts a new map or a court holds otherwise. 976 00:46:05,360 --> 00:46:08,880 Until number one happens, we are asking this court to hold otherwise. 977 00:46:08,880 --> 00:46:13,960 Just a quick question to kind of add the facts to your arguments. 978 00:46:13,960 --> 00:46:20,160 The map that is in place is a map that Governor Evers proposed, right? 979 00:46:20,160 --> 00:46:24,880 The map that is placed is a map that was, the Governor Evers proposed pursuant to the 980 00:46:24,880 --> 00:46:27,400 least change mandate that was in Johnson 1. 981 00:46:27,400 --> 00:46:33,200 So all of the participants in the Johnson litigation were limited to a single map and 982 00:46:33,200 --> 00:46:36,880 it was, they were told in advance that it would be judged based on that single criterion. 983 00:46:36,880 --> 00:46:44,320 So what about Governor Evers' map is an extreme partisan gerrymander? 984 00:46:44,320 --> 00:46:50,720 So your Honor, Governor Evers' map is essentially following the dictates of this court, it is 985 00:46:50,720 --> 00:46:56,680 a least change map that is 95% identical to the 2011 map that this court cemented in 986 00:46:56,680 --> 00:46:59,040 place pursuant to that least change mandate. 987 00:46:59,040 --> 00:47:08,120 So by calling it Governor Evers' map, our position is that the 2011 map was a gerrymander 988 00:47:08,120 --> 00:47:11,800 and it was calcified in place pursuant to this court's least change mandate. 989 00:47:11,800 --> 00:47:13,840 Then that's a different question. 990 00:47:13,840 --> 00:47:17,960 That 2011 is almost 15 years ago, right? 991 00:47:17,960 --> 00:47:19,520 So why now? 992 00:47:19,520 --> 00:47:22,280 Why isn't this barred by latches? 993 00:47:22,280 --> 00:47:26,720 Your Honor, for the partisan gerrymandering claim, it's not barred by latches because it's 994 00:47:26,720 --> 00:47:29,000 seeking only prospective relief. 995 00:47:29,000 --> 00:47:36,320 The idea that the state of Wisconsin is prohibited from writing a wrong just because that wrong 996 00:47:36,320 --> 00:47:40,880 has existed for a number of years is antithetical to the entire latches doctrine. 997 00:47:40,880 --> 00:47:44,240 By that same logic, you know, Brown v. Board of Ed would have been latchesed out because 998 00:47:44,320 --> 00:47:46,880 it was already sitting in decades' worth of segregation. 999 00:47:46,880 --> 00:47:53,880 The different issue, but has Wisconsin ever had a map that meets the criteria that you 1000 00:47:53,880 --> 00:47:56,000 outline today? 1001 00:47:56,000 --> 00:48:03,000 Given that partisan bodies have drawn the maps under the Constitution, since the Constitution 1002 00:48:03,000 --> 00:48:08,040 that provision's been in existence, has Wisconsin ever had a partisan gerrymandered map? 1003 00:48:08,040 --> 00:48:11,600 Have we ever had a map that's good under your criteria? 1004 00:48:11,600 --> 00:48:15,440 Your Honor, I've not evaluated every map, congressional map that's been adopted. 1005 00:48:15,440 --> 00:48:20,320 I know many maps have been adopted by courts not pursuant to a least-change criterion. 1006 00:48:20,320 --> 00:48:21,320 As we saw, I'm Jensen. 1007 00:48:21,320 --> 00:48:25,160 We've seen in Prosser that the reports have said we actually do need to look at the partisan 1008 00:48:25,160 --> 00:48:29,440 effects of our map to make sure that we are applying traditional districting principles. 1009 00:48:29,440 --> 00:48:32,800 So I have no reason to believe that any of those maps would be unlawful. 1010 00:48:32,800 --> 00:48:37,480 We are only talking about the one map we have in place today, which was built pursuant to 1011 00:48:37,480 --> 00:48:40,240 a least-change principle that has since been debunked. 1012 00:48:40,320 --> 00:48:48,040 Council, whose intent are we looking at if we were to apply a test that had an intent 1013 00:48:48,040 --> 00:48:49,040 element to it? 1014 00:48:49,040 --> 00:48:50,040 Yeah. 1015 00:48:50,040 --> 00:48:53,440 It's a little tricky in this one, Your Honors, is normally you look at the map drawers' 1016 00:48:53,440 --> 00:48:54,440 intent. 1017 00:48:54,440 --> 00:48:58,280 And here, when it comes to the most recent intent, that intent from this court was laid 1018 00:48:58,280 --> 00:48:59,280 bare. 1019 00:48:59,280 --> 00:49:06,160 The intent was to adopt the intent, the effects, and everything as possible from the 2011 map. 1020 00:49:06,200 --> 00:49:11,600 So the court can look at the judicial record to know that the intent was to adopt the intent 1021 00:49:11,600 --> 00:49:16,000 of 2011, and that we even have a judicial record on the 2011 maps as well. 1022 00:49:16,000 --> 00:49:19,560 So in the baldest case, for instance, there is evidence and there is argument about what 1023 00:49:19,560 --> 00:49:21,560 exactly was that intent. 1024 00:49:21,560 --> 00:49:22,560 I want to announce that. 1025 00:49:22,560 --> 00:49:23,560 Go ahead, Jessica. 1026 00:49:23,560 --> 00:49:24,560 Thank you. 1027 00:49:24,560 --> 00:49:29,560 I'd like to return to the question of remedy, because it sounded to me like you were saying 1028 00:49:29,560 --> 00:49:35,880 a few minutes ago that we could somehow deputize that three-judge panel to overturn 1029 00:49:35,880 --> 00:49:40,280 an order by this court. 1030 00:49:40,280 --> 00:49:49,560 And that seems premature to me at a minimum until there is a factual record showing a 1031 00:49:49,560 --> 00:49:51,280 partisan gerrymandering. 1032 00:49:51,280 --> 00:49:56,240 It seems to me premature for this court to do anything of that nature and also quite 1033 00:49:56,240 --> 00:49:59,080 unprecedented. 1034 00:49:59,080 --> 00:50:02,800 The respondents make some of those arguments in their briefs. 1035 00:50:02,800 --> 00:50:09,800 So can you walk me through how it is you believe the circuit court versus this court could 1036 00:50:09,800 --> 00:50:13,520 adopt a remedy of a different map than is currently in place? 1037 00:50:13,520 --> 00:50:19,280 So I believe that the circuit court has the obligation to abide by this court's precedent. 1038 00:50:19,280 --> 00:50:20,280 So when it comes to our separation- 1039 00:50:20,280 --> 00:50:23,360 Not just precedent, but it is a judgment. 1040 00:50:24,360 --> 00:50:25,360 It is. 1041 00:50:25,360 --> 00:50:30,440 And in Johnson too, this court said that the map would stay in place until legislative 1042 00:50:30,440 --> 00:50:33,200 enactment or a court says otherwise. 1043 00:50:33,200 --> 00:50:36,880 Wisconsin has since adopted an entire judicial process through this three-judge panel that 1044 00:50:36,880 --> 00:50:42,160 is essentially intended to adjudicate these kinds of redistricting challenges. 1045 00:50:42,160 --> 00:50:47,800 If for instance we were here in 2032, and there was a three-judge panel case that was 1046 00:50:47,880 --> 00:50:54,560 designed by Wisconsin law to handle redistricting matters, I don't think we would say, well 1047 00:50:54,560 --> 00:51:03,040 that three-judge court has no power to enjoin the now old 2022 map in light of new law. 1048 00:51:03,040 --> 00:51:09,040 Of course, whatever the court's authority is, it is to apply the governing law from 1049 00:51:09,040 --> 00:51:11,840 this court to the judgment before it. 1050 00:51:11,840 --> 00:51:17,440 So I do think that the lower court always has the, not just the authority, but the obligation 1051 00:51:17,440 --> 00:51:20,720 to follow this court's precedent, which makes this an easy answer when it comes to 1052 00:51:20,720 --> 00:51:26,040 the separation of powers claim in the partisan gerrymandering context if this court's precedent 1053 00:51:26,040 --> 00:51:31,920 who tells the district, tells the circuit court that partisan gerrymandering is unlawful 1054 00:51:31,920 --> 00:51:37,560 and it needs to be adjudicated to make sure, to determine whether or not this challenged 1055 00:51:37,560 --> 00:51:41,600 map fails under that standard, then I think the court just needs to follow, the lower 1056 00:51:41,600 --> 00:51:44,280 court would just need to follow this court's precedent in order to do that. 1057 00:51:44,280 --> 00:51:45,920 I don't think it would be acting beyond it. 1058 00:51:45,920 --> 00:51:52,160 So in other words, that language in, I think it's in Johnson too, that says until a court 1059 00:51:52,160 --> 00:52:01,280 says otherwise something to that effect, you believe you interpret that language as allowing 1060 00:52:01,280 --> 00:52:08,200 a lower court, a three-judge panel in the circuit court, to based on a finding of a 1061 00:52:08,200 --> 00:52:14,320 constitutional violation, set those maps aside and adopt new maps. 1062 00:52:14,320 --> 00:52:20,880 By some process that we'll probably ask you further about, but so that's where you find 1063 00:52:20,880 --> 00:52:28,680 that authority is in that language in Johnson too, saying that until a court otherwise decides. 1064 00:52:28,680 --> 00:52:31,560 I think that language in Johnson too recognizes the authority. 1065 00:52:31,560 --> 00:52:34,320 I don't think that's the sole source of the authority. 1066 00:52:34,320 --> 00:52:37,800 The source of the authority is from long line of precedent starting with Cook v Cook, which 1067 00:52:37,800 --> 00:52:42,600 basically says that the lower court has an ability to, has an obligation to apply the 1068 00:52:42,600 --> 00:52:45,200 most recent binding precedent of this court. 1069 00:52:45,200 --> 00:52:49,920 If the most recent binding precedent of this court is that our own injunctions can be 1070 00:52:49,920 --> 00:52:54,200 reviewed according to a partisan gerrymandering standard, then the lower court has an obligation 1071 00:52:54,200 --> 00:52:56,320 to abide by that rule and adjudicate under that rule. 1072 00:52:56,320 --> 00:52:58,960 So that's something you're asking us to hold. 1073 00:52:58,960 --> 00:53:02,640 In the alternative to our initial claim, your honor, which is that we are asking you to hold 1074 00:53:02,640 --> 00:53:07,160 that this map already violates Wisconsin law as articulated in Clark, so that the lower 1075 00:53:07,160 --> 00:53:10,600 court does not need to go back and make any liability determinations. 1076 00:53:10,600 --> 00:53:12,560 This court has the ability to enjoin it on its own. 1077 00:53:12,560 --> 00:53:18,320 But I think Justice Cropper is asking you a very specific question about the holding 1078 00:53:18,320 --> 00:53:21,440 and you just use language about the injunction. 1079 00:53:21,440 --> 00:53:26,240 Are you asking that to be part of our holding to be that specific? 1080 00:53:26,240 --> 00:53:30,360 Are you just set aside the separation of powers argument? 1081 00:53:30,360 --> 00:53:34,480 If you're talking about an extreme partisan gerrymandering, that that's your argument 1082 00:53:34,480 --> 00:53:39,640 and that violates the Wisconsin Constitution, and if we agree with you and if that is our 1083 00:53:39,640 --> 00:53:40,640 holding. 1084 00:53:41,000 --> 00:53:47,960 Do we need to say more about the injunction that is in place in this case? 1085 00:53:47,960 --> 00:53:55,360 Because the or a court otherwise directs, are you saying that's us directing it here? 1086 00:53:55,360 --> 00:53:58,360 Which court is otherwise directing, or is it the three-judge panel? 1087 00:53:58,360 --> 00:54:01,760 I think it could be either, your honor, and specifically if this court were to determine 1088 00:54:01,760 --> 00:54:08,240 that extreme partisan gerrymandering is cognizable under Wisconsin law, it could then 1089 00:54:08,600 --> 00:54:13,640 remand to the lower court with instructions to evaluate this map, this injunction from 1090 00:54:13,640 --> 00:54:16,400 this court, under those principles. 1091 00:54:16,400 --> 00:54:19,360 And with that instruction, the court would have no other choice but to do that. 1092 00:54:19,360 --> 00:54:24,680 Okay, so what is a little narrow as it relates to this case, I understand what you're saying. 1093 00:54:24,680 --> 00:54:33,920 But what about Governor Evers' map is an extreme partisan gerrymander? 1094 00:54:33,920 --> 00:54:36,680 I want to be careful, your honor, about calling it Governor Evers' map. 1095 00:54:36,680 --> 00:54:41,560 Governor Evers is actually advocated for a people's commission process that produced 1096 00:54:41,560 --> 00:54:42,560 a different map. 1097 00:54:42,560 --> 00:54:47,240 The court accepted the map that he submitted, so you can call it what you would like today 1098 00:54:47,240 --> 00:54:50,480 I'm calling it Governor Evers' map that the court adopted. 1099 00:54:50,480 --> 00:54:52,360 So let's start with that. 1100 00:54:52,360 --> 00:54:58,760 What about that map requires this court to act because it is an extreme partisan gerrymander? 1101 00:54:58,760 --> 00:55:06,320 That map calcifies 95% in place the 2011 map that we believe is an extreme partisan gerrymander. 1102 00:55:06,320 --> 00:55:10,560 Of course on the posture that we have before this motion to dismiss, we don't have the 1103 00:55:10,560 --> 00:55:16,640 fact finding to be able to say this is the exact demonstrable evidence of that, but in 1104 00:55:16,640 --> 00:55:23,080 our complaint we allege that that map that is from 2011 and then we cemented in place 1105 00:55:23,080 --> 00:55:28,840 from this court in Johnson's to order is one of the most partisan skewed map in the country 1106 00:55:28,840 --> 00:55:31,120 under a variety of objective metrics. 1107 00:55:31,120 --> 00:55:37,760 So Council, it seems to me that your separation of powers argument is putting the cart before 1108 00:55:37,760 --> 00:55:40,640 the horse a bit. 1109 00:55:40,640 --> 00:55:46,480 It seems to be premised on an assumption that the maps that were adopted by this court were 1110 00:55:46,480 --> 00:55:49,440 in fact an extreme partisan gerrymander. 1111 00:55:49,440 --> 00:55:55,080 Doesn't that have to be proven first before that hurdle presents itself? 1112 00:55:55,080 --> 00:55:56,080 Not at all your honor. 1113 00:55:56,080 --> 00:55:57,720 So walk me through that. 1114 00:55:57,720 --> 00:55:58,720 Absolutely. 1115 00:55:58,720 --> 00:56:04,200 The separation of powers claim does not at all rest on whether or not the previous map 1116 00:56:04,200 --> 00:56:09,600 was right or wrong or an extreme partisan gerrymander or anything else. 1117 00:56:09,600 --> 00:56:17,680 The separation of powers claim, which I think is outlined in 70 and 71 of the court explains, 1118 00:56:17,680 --> 00:56:25,200 when the judiciary is charged with redistricting, it needs to engage in a certain process and 1119 00:56:25,200 --> 00:56:31,320 that process cannot include blind deference to a previous map. 1120 00:56:31,320 --> 00:56:37,600 It has to include consideration of the partisan effects of its map because the court is taking 1121 00:56:37,600 --> 00:56:40,400 ownership of its role in redistricting. 1122 00:56:40,400 --> 00:56:46,360 So this idea that the court can just kind of close its eyes and hold its nose and do 1123 00:56:46,360 --> 00:56:47,920 whatever the legislature did previously. 1124 00:56:47,920 --> 00:56:52,240 Let me just interrupt a moment because it seems to me that what the court was considering 1125 00:56:52,240 --> 00:57:00,720 there was a more prophylactic concern of avoiding a constitutional violation and not 1126 00:57:00,720 --> 00:57:04,680 saying there was a constitutional violation. 1127 00:57:04,680 --> 00:57:07,040 Am I incorrect in viewing it that way? 1128 00:57:07,040 --> 00:57:11,840 I mean, I think that the concern that this court expressed in Clark about least change 1129 00:57:11,840 --> 00:57:15,240 sounded in principles of separation of powers. 1130 00:57:15,240 --> 00:57:21,960 Like I said, specifically the court said, it is not possible to remain neutral and 1131 00:57:21,960 --> 00:57:26,400 independent by failing to consider partisan impact entirely. 1132 00:57:26,400 --> 00:57:32,080 And by definition, that means that it was not possible for this court to remain neutral 1133 00:57:32,080 --> 00:57:37,280 independent as it was its responsibility when they're the separation of powers when it used 1134 00:57:37,280 --> 00:57:38,920 that approach in Johnson. 1135 00:57:38,920 --> 00:57:45,280 So it's prophylactic in the sense that, yes, it's what should be done and it maps onto 1136 00:57:45,280 --> 00:57:49,400 what is our claim for prospective relief going forward. 1137 00:57:49,400 --> 00:57:54,440 If it is not possible for the court to abide by its twin obligations of neutrality and 1138 00:57:54,440 --> 00:57:59,440 independence by adopting a least change that doesn't look at partisan impact, that means 1139 00:57:59,440 --> 00:58:00,720 it was not possible. 1140 00:58:00,720 --> 00:58:05,440 And we are all living under that map going forward for 2026 and 2028 and 2030. 1141 00:58:05,440 --> 00:58:13,720 I'm going to follow up on a couple of questions that Justice Dalit asked you. 1142 00:58:13,720 --> 00:58:22,800 She walked you through and you laid out three steps, essentially, I guess maybe, yeah. 1143 00:58:22,800 --> 00:58:29,240 Starting with, if we found the map, if we ruled that an unconstitutional, extreme gerrymanders 1144 00:58:29,240 --> 00:58:35,520 just dishable, we would adopt a map for what that means, excuse me, we would adopt a test, 1145 00:58:35,520 --> 00:58:37,440 a model of maps on the brain. 1146 00:58:37,440 --> 00:58:45,000 We would adopt a model for what that meant exactly, we would remand it for fact-finding. 1147 00:58:45,000 --> 00:58:48,000 And then the fact-finders would do what they would do and then we talked a little bit about 1148 00:58:48,000 --> 00:58:54,840 remedy, which could be the fourth thing. 1149 00:58:54,840 --> 00:58:58,520 We have two cases in front of us. 1150 00:58:58,520 --> 00:59:09,480 Your friends are very patiently sitting in the front row behind you. 1151 00:59:09,480 --> 00:59:11,160 What should we do about that? 1152 00:59:11,160 --> 00:59:22,720 What if we also find that there is an anti-competitive claim that that also violates the Wisconsin 1153 00:59:22,720 --> 00:59:23,720 Constitution? 1154 00:59:23,720 --> 00:59:29,800 We have three, we have two, three-judge panels. 1155 00:59:29,800 --> 00:59:39,360 I assume that they are also going to come up here and say if you find that this is dishable, 1156 00:59:39,360 --> 00:59:43,720 you adopt a model, I don't want to take any of your argument away, you'll come up and 1157 00:59:43,720 --> 00:59:47,000 then do this, you'll remand it back for fact-finding. 1158 00:59:47,000 --> 00:59:54,840 Are we going to have two different panels, six different judges, having these hearings, 1159 00:59:54,840 --> 00:59:58,320 coming up with who knows how many different maps? 1160 00:59:58,320 --> 01:00:00,000 Can you help me think through-