WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:01.000 Okay. 00:01.000 --> 00:04.000 It does look like a problem. 00:04.000 --> 00:05.000 Yeah. 00:05.000 --> 00:08.000 Good morning everyone. 00:08.000 --> 00:11.000 I'm Matt and I'm just going to go to Marshall. 00:11.000 --> 00:14.000 This is a few minutes since I've been facing there. 00:14.000 --> 00:19.000 I'm going to please be sure to go check and call around the site. 00:19.000 --> 00:22.000 There's a little bit of a protocol. 00:22.000 --> 00:27.000 If you've had any comment or food, it's not allowed with an ear ear. 00:27.000 --> 00:31.000 It's not put that way or anything like that. 00:31.000 --> 00:33.000 The water is okay. 00:33.000 --> 00:36.000 Other than that, food is right. 00:36.000 --> 00:39.000 When the dust has come out. 00:39.000 --> 00:42.000 So we are talking about greenhouse. 00:42.000 --> 00:45.000 We're talking about food. 00:45.000 --> 00:48.000 We've got one example. 00:48.000 --> 00:50.000 There's a little bit of this. 00:50.000 --> 00:51.000 Any questions? 00:51.000 --> 00:53.000 Oh, this is the ear. 00:53.000 --> 00:55.000 There's a little bit of this. 00:55.000 --> 00:57.000 There's a little bit of this. 00:57.000 --> 00:59.000 There's a little bit of this. 00:59.000 --> 01:01.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:01.000 --> 01:03.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:03.000 --> 01:05.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:05.000 --> 01:07.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:07.000 --> 01:09.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:09.000 --> 01:11.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:11.000 --> 01:13.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:13.000 --> 01:14.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:14.000 --> 01:15.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:15.000 --> 01:16.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:16.000 --> 01:17.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:17.000 --> 01:18.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:18.000 --> 01:19.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:19.000 --> 01:20.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:20.000 --> 01:44.000 There's a little bit of this. 01:44.000 --> 01:58.480 the 03:28.480 --> 03:29.480 Okay. 03:29.480 --> 03:30.480 Okay. 03:30.480 --> 03:31.480 Okay. 03:31.480 --> 03:32.480 Okay. 03:32.480 --> 03:33.480 Okay. 03:33.480 --> 03:34.480 Okay. 03:34.480 --> 03:35.480 Okay. 03:35.480 --> 03:36.480 Okay. 03:36.480 --> 03:37.480 Okay. 03:37.480 --> 03:38.480 Okay. 03:38.480 --> 03:39.480 Okay. 03:39.480 --> 03:40.480 Okay. 03:40.480 --> 03:41.480 Okay. 03:41.480 --> 03:42.480 Okay. 03:42.480 --> 03:43.480 Okay. 03:43.480 --> 03:44.480 Okay. 03:44.480 --> 03:45.480 Okay. 03:45.480 --> 03:46.480 Okay. 03:46.480 --> 03:47.480 Okay. 03:47.480 --> 03:48.480 Okay. 03:48.480 --> 03:49.480 Okay. 03:49.480 --> 03:50.480 Okay. 03:50.480 --> 03:51.480 Okay. 03:51.480 --> 03:52.480 Okay. 03:52.480 --> 03:53.480 Okay. 03:53.480 --> 03:54.480 Okay. 03:54.480 --> 03:55.480 Okay. 03:55.480 --> 03:56.480 Okay. 03:56.480 --> 03:57.480 Okay. 03:57.480 --> 03:58.480 Okay. 03:58.480 --> 03:59.480 Okay. 03:59.480 --> 04:00.480 Okay. 04:00.480 --> 04:01.480 Okay. 04:01.480 --> 04:02.480 Okay. 04:02.480 --> 04:03.480 Okay. 04:03.480 --> 04:04.480 Okay. 04:04.480 --> 04:05.480 Okay. 04:05.480 --> 04:06.480 Okay. 04:06.480 --> 04:07.480 Okay. 04:07.480 --> 04:08.480 Okay. 04:08.480 --> 04:09.480 Okay. 04:09.480 --> 04:10.480 Okay. 04:10.480 --> 04:11.480 Okay. 04:11.480 --> 04:12.480 Okay. 04:12.480 --> 04:13.480 Okay. 04:13.480 --> 04:14.480 Okay. 04:14.480 --> 04:15.480 Okay. 04:15.480 --> 04:16.480 Okay. 04:16.480 --> 04:18.480 Okay. 04:18.480 --> 04:27.480 Okay. 04:27.480 --> 04:35.480 Okay. 04:35.480 --> 04:42.480 Okay. 04:42.480 --> 04:43.480 Okay. 04:43.480 --> 04:44.480 Okay. 04:44.480 --> 04:46.480 I think that's a good experience. 04:46.480 --> 04:48.480 I think that's a great experience. 04:48.480 --> 04:50.480 I think that's a great experience. 04:50.480 --> 04:52.480 I think that's a great experience. 04:52.480 --> 04:54.480 I think that's a great experience. 04:54.480 --> 04:56.480 I think that's a great experience. 04:56.480 --> 04:58.480 I think that's a great experience. 04:58.480 --> 05:00.480 I think that's a great experience. 05:00.480 --> 05:02.480 I think that's a great experience. 05:02.480 --> 05:04.480 I think that's a great experience. 05:04.480 --> 05:06.480 I think that's a great experience. 05:06.480 --> 05:08.480 I think that's a great experience. 05:08.480 --> 05:10.480 I think that's a great experience. 05:10.480 --> 05:12.480 That's a great experience. 05:12.480 --> 05:13.520 I think that's a great experience. 05:13.520 --> 05:15.520 I think that's a great experience. 05:15.520 --> 05:17.520 I think that would be an brand new thing. 05:17.520 --> 05:21.840 I think that would be an 05:21.840 --> 05:23.520 awesome experience this year. 05:23.520 --> 05:27.040 I know. 05:27.040 --> 05:28.640 Isn't it really fun now? 05:28.640 --> 05:32.640 I know. 05:32.640 --> 05:34.720 It's fun now. 05:34.720 --> 05:37.200 It ends actually while the store is asleep. 05:37.200 --> 05:39.440 This is what we are doing in our Engineering experience. 05:39.440 --> 05:41.440 I'm hearting a lot of people. 05:41.440 --> 05:45.440 They wouldn't have had a lot of time to do that. 05:45.440 --> 05:48.440 I would like to thank you very much for that. 05:48.440 --> 05:49.440 Thank you. 05:49.440 --> 05:50.440 Thank you. 05:50.440 --> 05:51.440 Thank you. 05:51.440 --> 05:52.440 Thank you. 05:52.440 --> 05:53.440 Thank you. 05:53.440 --> 05:54.440 Thank you. 05:54.440 --> 05:55.440 Thank you. 05:55.440 --> 05:56.440 Thank you. 05:56.440 --> 05:57.440 Thank you. 05:57.440 --> 05:58.440 Thank you. 05:58.440 --> 05:59.440 Thank you. 05:59.440 --> 06:00.440 Thank you. 06:00.440 --> 06:01.440 Thank you. 06:01.440 --> 06:02.440 Thank you. 06:02.440 --> 06:03.440 Thank you. 06:03.440 --> 06:04.440 Thank you. 06:04.440 --> 06:05.440 Thank you. 06:05.440 --> 06:06.440 Thank you. 06:06.440 --> 06:07.440 Thank you. 06:07.440 --> 06:08.440 Thank you. 06:08.440 --> 06:09.440 Thank you. 06:09.440 --> 06:10.440 Thank you. 06:10.440 --> 06:11.440 Thank you. 06:11.440 --> 06:12.440 Thank you. 06:12.440 --> 06:13.440 Thank you. 06:13.440 --> 06:14.440 Thank you. 06:14.440 --> 06:15.440 Thank you. 06:15.440 --> 06:16.440 Thank you. 06:16.440 --> 06:17.440 Thank you. 06:17.440 --> 06:18.440 Thank you. 06:18.440 --> 06:19.440 Thank you. 06:19.440 --> 06:20.440 Thank you. 06:20.440 --> 06:21.440 Thank you. 06:21.440 --> 06:22.440 Thank you. 06:22.440 --> 06:23.440 Thank you. 06:23.440 --> 06:24.440 Thank you. 06:24.440 --> 06:25.440 Thank you. 06:25.440 --> 06:26.440 Thank you. 06:26.440 --> 06:27.440 Thank you. 06:27.440 --> 06:28.440 Thank you. 06:28.440 --> 06:29.440 Thank you. 06:30.440 --> 06:31.440 Thank you. 06:31.440 --> 06:32.440 Thank you. 06:32.440 --> 06:33.440 Thank you. 06:33.440 --> 06:34.440 Thank you. 06:34.440 --> 06:35.440 Thank you. 06:35.440 --> 06:36.440 Thank you. 06:36.440 --> 06:37.440 Thank you. 06:37.440 --> 06:38.440 Thank you. 06:38.440 --> 06:39.440 Thank you. 06:39.440 --> 06:40.440 Thank you. 06:40.440 --> 06:41.440 Thank you. 06:41.440 --> 06:42.440 Thank you. 06:42.440 --> 06:43.440 Thank you. 06:43.440 --> 06:44.440 Thank you. 06:44.440 --> 06:45.440 Thank you. 06:45.440 --> 06:46.440 Thank you. 06:46.440 --> 06:47.440 Thank you. 06:47.440 --> 06:48.440 Thank you. 06:48.440 --> 06:49.440 Thank you. 06:49.440 --> 06:50.440 Thank you. 06:50.440 --> 06:51.440 Thank you. 06:51.440 --> 06:52.440 Thank you. 06:52.440 --> 06:53.440 Thank you. 06:53.440 --> 06:54.440 Thank you. 06:55.440 --> 06:56.440 Thank you. 06:56.440 --> 06:57.440 Thank you. 06:57.440 --> 06:58.440 Thank you. 06:58.440 --> 06:59.440 Thank you. 06:59.440 --> 07:00.440 Thank you. 07:00.440 --> 07:01.440 Thank you. 07:01.440 --> 07:02.440 Thank you. 07:02.440 --> 07:03.440 Thank you. 07:03.440 --> 07:04.440 Thank you. 07:04.440 --> 07:05.440 Thank you. 07:05.440 --> 07:06.440 Thank you. 07:06.440 --> 07:07.440 Thank you. 07:07.440 --> 07:08.440 Thank you. 07:08.440 --> 07:09.440 Thank you. 07:09.440 --> 07:10.440 Thank you. 07:10.440 --> 07:11.440 Thank you. 07:11.440 --> 07:12.440 Thank you. 07:12.440 --> 07:13.440 Thank you. 07:13.440 --> 07:14.440 Thank you. 07:14.440 --> 07:15.440 Thank you. 07:15.440 --> 07:16.440 Thank you. 07:16.440 --> 07:17.440 Thank you. 07:17.440 --> 07:18.440 Thank you. 07:18.440 --> 07:19.440 Thank you. 07:19.440 --> 07:20.440 Thank you. 07:21.440 --> 07:22.440 Thank you. 07:22.440 --> 07:23.440 Thank you. 07:23.440 --> 07:24.440 Thank you. 07:24.440 --> 07:25.440 Thank you. 07:25.440 --> 07:26.440 Thank you. 07:26.440 --> 07:27.440 Thank you. 07:27.440 --> 07:28.440 Thank you. 07:28.440 --> 07:29.440 Thank you. 07:29.440 --> 07:30.440 Thank you. 07:30.440 --> 07:31.440 Thank you. 07:31.440 --> 07:32.440 Thank you. 07:32.440 --> 07:33.440 Thank you. 07:33.440 --> 07:34.440 Thank you. 07:34.440 --> 07:35.440 Thank you. 07:35.440 --> 07:36.440 Thank you. 07:36.440 --> 07:37.440 Thank you. 07:37.440 --> 07:38.440 Thank you. 07:38.440 --> 07:39.440 Thank you. 07:39.440 --> 07:40.440 Thank you. 07:40.440 --> 07:41.440 Thank you. 07:41.440 --> 07:42.440 Thank you. 07:42.440 --> 07:43.440 Thank you. 07:43.440 --> 07:44.440 Thank you. 07:44.440 --> 07:45.440 Thank you. 07:45.440 --> 07:46.440 Thank you. 07:47.440 --> 07:48.440 Thank you. 07:48.440 --> 07:49.440 Thank you. 07:49.440 --> 07:50.440 Thank you. 07:50.440 --> 07:51.440 Thank you. 07:51.440 --> 07:52.440 Thank you. 07:52.440 --> 07:53.440 Thank you. 07:53.440 --> 07:54.440 Thank you. 07:54.440 --> 07:55.440 Thank you. 07:55.440 --> 07:56.440 Thank you. 07:56.440 --> 07:57.440 Thank you. 07:57.440 --> 07:58.440 Thank you. 07:58.440 --> 07:59.440 Thank you. 07:59.440 --> 08:00.440 Thank you. 08:00.440 --> 08:01.440 Thank you. 08:01.440 --> 08:02.440 Thank you. 08:02.440 --> 08:03.440 Thank you. 08:03.440 --> 08:04.440 Thank you. 08:04.440 --> 08:05.440 Thank you. 08:05.440 --> 08:06.440 Thank you. 08:06.440 --> 08:07.440 Thank you. 08:07.440 --> 08:08.440 Thank you. 08:08.440 --> 08:09.440 Thank you. 08:09.440 --> 08:10.440 Thank you. 08:10.440 --> 08:11.440 Thank you. 08:11.440 --> 08:12.440 Thank you. 08:13.440 --> 08:14.440 Thank you. 08:14.440 --> 08:15.440 Thank you. 08:15.440 --> 08:16.440 Thank you. 08:16.440 --> 08:17.440 Thank you. 08:17.440 --> 08:18.440 Thank you. 08:18.440 --> 08:19.440 Thank you. 08:19.440 --> 08:20.440 Thank you. 08:20.440 --> 08:21.440 Thank you. 08:21.440 --> 08:22.440 Thank you. 08:22.440 --> 08:23.440 Thank you. 08:23.440 --> 08:24.440 Thank you. 08:24.440 --> 08:25.440 Thank you. 08:25.440 --> 08:26.440 Thank you. 08:26.440 --> 08:27.440 Thank you. 08:27.440 --> 08:28.440 Thank you. 08:28.440 --> 08:29.440 Thank you. 08:29.440 --> 08:30.440 Thank you. 08:30.440 --> 08:31.440 Thank you. 08:31.440 --> 08:32.440 Thank you. 08:32.440 --> 08:33.440 Thank you. 08:33.440 --> 08:34.440 Thank you. 08:34.440 --> 08:35.440 Thank you. 08:35.440 --> 08:36.440 Thank you. 08:36.440 --> 08:37.440 Thank you. 08:37.440 --> 08:38.440 Thank you. 08:39.440 --> 08:40.440 Thank you. 08:40.440 --> 08:41.440 Thank you. 08:41.440 --> 08:42.440 Thank you. 08:42.440 --> 08:43.440 Thank you. 08:43.440 --> 08:44.440 Thank you. 08:44.440 --> 08:45.440 Thank you. 08:45.440 --> 08:46.440 Thank you. 08:46.440 --> 08:47.440 Thank you. 08:47.440 --> 08:48.440 Thank you. 08:48.440 --> 08:49.440 Thank you. 08:49.440 --> 08:50.440 Thank you. 08:50.440 --> 08:51.440 Thank you. 08:51.440 --> 08:52.440 Thank you. 08:52.440 --> 08:53.440 Thank you. 08:53.440 --> 08:54.440 Thank you. 08:54.440 --> 08:55.440 Thank you. 08:55.440 --> 08:56.440 Thank you. 08:56.440 --> 08:57.440 Thank you. 08:57.440 --> 08:58.440 Thank you. 08:58.440 --> 08:59.440 Thank you. 08:59.440 --> 09:00.440 Thank you. 09:00.440 --> 09:01.440 Thank you. 09:01.440 --> 09:02.440 Thank you. 09:02.440 --> 09:03.440 Thank you. 09:03.440 --> 09:04.440 Thank you. 09:04.440 --> 09:05.440 Thank you. 09:06.440 --> 09:07.440 Thank you. 09:07.440 --> 09:08.440 Thank you. 09:08.440 --> 09:09.440 Thank you. 09:09.440 --> 09:10.440 Thank you. 09:10.440 --> 09:11.440 Thank you. 09:11.440 --> 09:12.440 Thank you. 09:12.440 --> 09:13.440 Thank you. 09:13.440 --> 09:14.440 Thank you. 09:14.440 --> 09:15.440 Thank you. 09:15.440 --> 09:16.440 Thank you. 09:16.440 --> 09:17.440 Thank you. 09:17.440 --> 09:18.440 Thank you. 09:18.440 --> 09:19.440 Thank you. 09:19.440 --> 09:20.440 Thank you. 09:20.440 --> 09:21.440 Thank you. 09:21.440 --> 09:22.440 Thank you. 09:22.440 --> 09:23.440 Thank you. 09:23.440 --> 09:24.440 Thank you. 09:24.440 --> 09:25.440 Thank you. 09:25.440 --> 09:26.440 Thank you. 09:26.440 --> 09:27.440 Thank you. 09:27.440 --> 09:28.440 Thank you. 09:28.440 --> 09:29.440 Thank you. 09:29.440 --> 09:30.440 Thank you. 09:30.440 --> 09:31.440 Thank you. 09:32.440 --> 09:33.440 Thank you. 09:33.440 --> 09:34.440 Thank you. 09:34.440 --> 09:35.440 Thank you. 09:35.440 --> 09:36.440 Thank you. 09:36.440 --> 09:37.440 Thank you. 09:37.440 --> 09:38.440 Thank you. 09:38.440 --> 09:39.440 Thank you. 09:39.440 --> 09:40.440 Thank you. 09:40.440 --> 09:41.440 Thank you. 09:41.440 --> 09:42.440 Thank you. 09:42.440 --> 09:43.440 Thank you. 09:43.440 --> 09:44.440 Thank you. 09:44.440 --> 09:45.440 Thank you. 09:45.440 --> 09:46.440 Thank you. 09:46.440 --> 09:47.440 Thank you. 09:47.440 --> 09:48.440 Thank you. 09:48.440 --> 09:49.440 Thank you. 09:49.440 --> 09:50.440 Thank you. 09:50.440 --> 09:51.440 Thank you. 09:51.440 --> 09:52.440 Thank you. 09:52.440 --> 09:53.440 Thank you. 09:53.440 --> 09:54.440 Thank you. 09:54.440 --> 09:55.440 Thank you. 09:55.440 --> 09:56.440 Thank you. 09:57.440 --> 09:58.440 Thank you. 09:58.440 --> 09:59.440 Thank you. 09:59.440 --> 10:00.440 Thank you. 10:00.440 --> 10:01.440 Thank you. 10:01.440 --> 10:02.440 Thank you. 10:02.440 --> 10:03.440 Thank you. 10:03.440 --> 10:04.440 Thank you. 10:04.440 --> 10:05.440 Thank you. 10:05.440 --> 10:06.440 Thank you. 10:06.440 --> 10:07.440 Thank you. 10:07.440 --> 10:08.440 Thank you. 10:08.440 --> 10:09.440 Thank you. 10:09.440 --> 10:10.440 Thank you. 10:10.440 --> 10:11.440 Thank you. 10:11.440 --> 10:12.440 Thank you. 10:12.440 --> 10:13.440 Thank you. 10:13.440 --> 10:14.440 Thank you. 10:14.440 --> 10:15.440 Thank you. 10:15.440 --> 10:16.440 Thank you. 10:16.440 --> 10:17.440 Thank you. 10:17.440 --> 10:18.440 Thank you. 10:18.440 --> 10:19.440 Thank you. 10:19.440 --> 10:20.440 Thank you. 10:20.440 --> 10:21.440 Thank you. 10:21.440 --> 10:22.440 Thank you. 10:23.440 --> 10:24.440 Thank you. 10:24.440 --> 10:25.440 Thank you. 10:25.440 --> 10:26.440 Thank you. 10:26.440 --> 10:27.440 Thank you. 10:27.440 --> 10:28.440 Thank you. 10:28.440 --> 10:29.440 Thank you. 10:29.440 --> 10:30.440 Thank you. 10:30.440 --> 10:31.440 Thank you. 10:31.440 --> 10:32.440 Thank you. 10:32.440 --> 10:33.440 Thank you. 10:33.440 --> 10:34.440 Thank you. 10:34.440 --> 10:35.440 Thank you. 10:35.440 --> 10:36.440 Thank you. 10:36.440 --> 10:37.440 Thank you. 10:37.440 --> 10:38.440 Thank you. 10:38.440 --> 10:39.440 Thank you. 10:39.440 --> 10:40.440 Thank you. 10:40.440 --> 10:41.440 Thank you. 10:41.440 --> 10:42.440 Thank you. 10:42.440 --> 10:43.440 Thank you. 10:43.440 --> 10:44.440 Thank you. 10:44.440 --> 10:45.440 Thank you. 10:45.440 --> 10:46.440 Thank you. 10:46.440 --> 10:47.440 Thank you. 10:47.440 --> 10:48.440 Thank you. 10:49.440 --> 10:50.440 Thank you. 10:50.440 --> 10:51.440 Thank you. 10:51.440 --> 10:52.440 Thank you. 10:52.440 --> 10:53.440 Thank you. 10:53.440 --> 10:54.440 Thank you. 10:54.440 --> 10:55.440 Thank you. 10:55.440 --> 10:56.440 Thank you. 10:56.440 --> 10:57.440 Thank you. 10:57.440 --> 10:58.440 Thank you. 10:58.440 --> 10:59.440 Thank you. 10:59.440 --> 11:00.440 Thank you. 11:00.440 --> 11:01.440 Thank you. 11:01.440 --> 11:02.440 Thank you. 11:02.440 --> 11:03.440 Thank you. 11:03.440 --> 11:04.440 Thank you. 11:04.440 --> 11:05.440 Thank you. 11:05.440 --> 11:06.440 Thank you. 11:06.440 --> 11:07.440 Thank you. 11:07.440 --> 11:08.440 Thank you. 11:08.440 --> 11:09.440 Thank you. 11:09.440 --> 11:10.440 Thank you. 11:10.440 --> 11:11.440 Thank you. 11:11.440 --> 11:12.440 Thank you. 11:12.440 --> 11:13.440 Thank you. 11:13.440 --> 11:14.440 Thank you. 11:15.440 --> 11:16.440 Thank you. 11:16.440 --> 11:17.440 Thank you. 11:17.440 --> 11:18.440 Thank you. 11:18.440 --> 11:19.440 Thank you. 11:19.440 --> 11:20.440 Thank you. 11:20.440 --> 11:21.440 Thank you. 11:21.440 --> 11:22.440 Thank you. 11:22.440 --> 11:23.440 Thank you. 11:23.440 --> 11:24.440 Thank you. 11:24.440 --> 11:25.440 Thank you. 11:25.440 --> 11:26.440 Thank you. 11:26.440 --> 11:27.440 Thank you. 11:27.440 --> 11:28.440 Thank you. 11:28.440 --> 11:29.440 Thank you. 11:29.440 --> 11:30.440 Thank you. 11:30.440 --> 11:31.440 Thank you. 11:31.440 --> 11:32.440 Thank you. 11:32.440 --> 11:33.440 Thank you. 11:33.440 --> 11:34.440 Thank you. 11:34.440 --> 11:35.440 Thank you. 11:35.440 --> 11:36.440 Thank you. 11:36.440 --> 11:37.440 Thank you. 11:37.440 --> 11:38.440 Thank you. 11:38.440 --> 11:39.440 Thank you. 11:39.440 --> 11:40.440 Thank you. 11:40.440 --> 11:41.440 Thank you. 11:41.440 --> 11:42.440 Thank you. 11:43.440 --> 11:44.440 Thank you. 11:44.440 --> 11:45.440 Thank you. 11:45.440 --> 11:46.440 Thank you. 11:46.440 --> 11:47.440 Thank you. 11:47.440 --> 11:48.440 Thank you. 11:48.440 --> 11:49.440 Thank you. 11:49.440 --> 11:50.440 Thank you. 11:50.440 --> 11:51.440 Thank you. 11:51.440 --> 11:52.440 Thank you. 11:52.440 --> 11:53.440 Thank you. 11:53.440 --> 11:54.440 Thank you. 11:54.440 --> 11:55.440 Thank you. 11:55.440 --> 11:56.440 Thank you. 11:56.440 --> 11:57.440 Thank you. 11:57.440 --> 11:58.440 Thank you. 11:58.440 --> 11:59.440 Thank you. 11:59.440 --> 12:00.440 Thank you. 12:00.440 --> 12:01.440 Thank you. 12:01.440 --> 12:02.440 Thank you. 12:02.440 --> 12:03.440 Thank you. 12:03.440 --> 12:04.440 Thank you. 12:04.440 --> 12:05.440 Thank you. 12:05.440 --> 12:06.440 Thank you. 12:06.440 --> 12:07.440 Thank you. 12:07.440 --> 12:08.440 Thank you. 12:09.440 --> 12:10.440 All rise. 12:10.440 --> 12:12.440 Harry Harry Harry. 12:12.440 --> 12:15.440 The Wisconsin Supreme Court is now in session. 12:15.440 --> 12:19.440 The honorable Chief Justice Joe Kiroshki-Pursady. 12:19.440 --> 12:21.440 Your silence is in. 12:21.440 --> 12:22.440 Good morning everybody. 12:22.440 --> 12:31.440 Go ahead and have a seat. 12:31.440 --> 12:33.440 Welcome to everybody. 12:34.440 --> 12:41.440 I just want to go through a couple of administrative things before we start today. 12:41.440 --> 12:46.440 Number one, Justice Dowd is having a speaker issue. 12:46.440 --> 12:51.440 Not to get too personal. 12:51.440 --> 12:55.440 So we've turned the volume up on the sound system. 12:55.440 --> 12:58.440 I think it's, I hope it's loud enough. 12:58.440 --> 13:02.440 You just be really mindful of that when you're at the podium and you're speaking into the 13:02.440 --> 13:03.440 speaker. 13:03.440 --> 13:08.160 And if we can't hear you, I might just stop you and say, please raise the volume a little 13:08.160 --> 13:09.160 bit. 13:09.160 --> 13:12.440 Or as I would say to my kids, use your inside scream. 13:12.440 --> 13:20.800 The second thing, as it relates to timing, there's a number of you that are arguing on 13:20.800 --> 13:25.840 this side of the table, especially, I want to make sure that everyone gets their questions 13:25.840 --> 13:31.440 answered and that you have a chance to answer those questions without feeling unduly rushed. 13:31.440 --> 13:38.720 So we'll use the lights as guide posts, but we won't have strict adherence to them within 13:38.720 --> 13:41.920 reason. 13:41.920 --> 13:45.720 Having said that, we may go over the time. 13:45.720 --> 13:50.640 I'm going to be mindful of what time it is on the clock and take breaks. 13:50.640 --> 13:55.800 I want to try to mitigate misery in this room as much as possible for everyone involved. 13:55.800 --> 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 13:59.560 --> 14:03.640 or an argument, but it's possible that it might stop you in the middle of your argument 14:03.640 --> 14:08.720 depending on where we are, I'm just letting you know that ahead of time, just because 14:08.720 --> 14:14.720 I want to be able to try to keep it pretty close to 90 minutes. 14:14.720 --> 14:20.320 I think that is all I have preliminarily, so the first case that we have today is Elizabeth 14:20.320 --> 14:33.000 Bothfeld versus the Wisconsin Elections Commission, and may I please have the appearances? 14:33.000 --> 14:36.760 And I believe you're appearing pro-hakviche, yes, okay. 14:36.760 --> 14:40.960 Welcome to the Wisconsin State Bar for the purposes of today's hearing. 14:40.960 --> 14:56.240 Good morning, and welcome to the Wisconsin State Bar for the purposes of today's hearing. 14:56.240 --> 15:06.160 Good morning, and this is what I have for timing, at least according to my sheet, is 15:06.160 --> 15:12.760 25 minutes followed by 10, 10, 10, and then back to you for five. 15:12.760 --> 15:24.360 All right, we are ready when you are. 15:24.360 --> 15:25.360 Thank you, Your Honors. 15:25.360 --> 15:28.680 Good morning, Madam Chief Justice, and may it please the court. 15:28.680 --> 15:33.520 Wisconsin's congressional map was adopted based on the methodology that this court has 15:33.520 --> 15:35.320 since overruled. 15:35.320 --> 15:37.840 The map is therefore unlawful. 15:37.840 --> 15:43.600 The Bothfeld plaintiff's separation of powers claim rests on three basic pillars that have 15:43.600 --> 15:46.960 already been established by this court. 15:46.960 --> 15:52.600 One, the map was adopted pursuant to a least change mandate. 15:52.600 --> 15:58.480 This court said so in Johnson 2, where it selected the map because it quote, most complies 15:58.480 --> 16:01.400 with our least change directive. 16:01.760 --> 16:06.840 Two, least change is no longer good law. 16:06.840 --> 16:12.280 This court said so in Clark, where it explained that least change is incompatible with the 16:12.280 --> 16:19.400 judiciary's institutional obligations of neutrality and independence and expressly overruled 16:19.400 --> 16:24.680 any portions of Johnson that mandate a least change approach. 16:24.680 --> 16:30.880 And three, this court has the power to right this wrong. 16:30.880 --> 16:36.880 Clark itself rejected virtually identical procedural obstacles and objections that 16:36.880 --> 16:43.320 interveners advance here and confirmed that this court can and should require a lawful 16:43.320 --> 16:48.000 replacement for an unlawful court-drawn map going forward. 16:48.000 --> 16:51.920 Council, I want to take you from Johnson 2 to Johnson 1, okay? 16:51.920 --> 16:56.000 Are you asking us to overturn Johnson 1? 16:56.000 --> 17:01.760 I believe this court has already overruled the basis of Johnson 1, the least change map 17:01.760 --> 17:07.840 that was the direction from Johnson 1, and it also overturned the map that was drawn pursuant 17:07.840 --> 17:12.600 to that, I think by the logic, because it overturned the logic of the least change map, 17:12.600 --> 17:16.720 we are now asking the court to finish that job and actually apply that to the ongoing 17:16.720 --> 17:18.920 injunction that applies for congressional districts. 17:18.920 --> 17:24.120 So some of us might think maybe Johnson 1 was only addressed in part. 17:24.600 --> 17:29.720 Do you want to go on with that argument and tell us why you think it's already been overturned? 17:29.720 --> 17:34.400 I mean, I think what this court did not mince any words in Clark when it said, we are here 17:34.400 --> 17:41.400 by overruling any portion of Johnson 1, 2, or 3, that mandates a least change approach. 17:41.400 --> 17:47.680 So there was nothing, there's nothing ambiguous about what it was doing when it talked about 17:47.680 --> 17:53.560 wherever you find least change, whether it was mandated in Johnson 1 or adhered to in 17:53.600 --> 17:57.520 Johnson 2, all of that has been overruled by this court. 17:57.520 --> 18:02.280 So now the question is where you have just a single least change map left standing. 18:02.280 --> 18:06.680 There's only one least change map left standing in Wisconsin. 18:06.680 --> 18:07.680 Are we going with that map? 18:07.680 --> 18:09.600 Is essentially resting on legal quicksand. 18:09.600 --> 18:13.320 Let me push on that, Council. 18:13.320 --> 18:15.240 So that's not what Clark said. 18:15.240 --> 18:19.200 Clark did not say that least change could not be applied, right? 18:19.200 --> 18:20.200 Would you agree with that? 18:20.280 --> 18:24.640 Clark said that least change could be considered as part of traditional districting criteria, 18:24.640 --> 18:29.720 but it could not be the mandate that overarches or drives the drawing of the map. 18:29.720 --> 18:34.440 The court said it was overruled to the extent it was mandated as the methodology. 18:34.440 --> 18:39.000 Did not say that least change was always an impermissible methodology. 18:39.000 --> 18:39.640 Isn't that right? 18:39.640 --> 18:40.600 Correct, John, I did not. 18:40.600 --> 18:48.200 So that means that Johnson 1, that the holding in Johnson 1 is still good, that doesn't disturb 18:48.200 --> 18:49.040 that at all. 18:49.040 --> 18:55.000 There's nothing about Clark that overturned the use of least change as methodology. 18:55.000 --> 18:57.280 Clark just doesn't control that. 18:57.280 --> 19:02.280 It's true that this court decided it was going to adopt a different remedial program for 19:02.280 --> 19:07.680 a new map in Clark if it ever got there, which it never did, but it didn't disturb the use 19:07.680 --> 19:10.560 of it or say that that was somehow illegal. 19:10.560 --> 19:14.480 That's a different argument you're making here today than was addressed in Clark, wouldn't 19:14.480 --> 19:15.480 you say? 19:15.560 --> 19:20.480 I believe that this court actually did explain why least change was not just wrong in principle 19:20.480 --> 19:22.800 or policy, but wrong as a matter of law. 19:22.800 --> 19:27.960 So let me talk a little bit about you frame your argument as a purely separation of powers 19:27.960 --> 19:30.440 argument. 19:30.440 --> 19:35.520 Would you agree that the United States Constitution gives the power to the legislature to draft 19:35.520 --> 19:37.320 congressional districts? 19:37.320 --> 19:38.320 It does. 19:38.320 --> 19:42.320 It primarily gives that power to the legislative branches and to the political process, but 19:42.320 --> 19:46.440 the political process failed this decade and has not been able to produce an inactive 19:46.440 --> 19:47.440 map. 19:47.440 --> 19:49.640 I understand that, right? 19:49.640 --> 19:56.760 But your argument is premised on the idea that in order to vindicate the separation 19:56.760 --> 20:04.640 of powers, the judiciary needs to take for itself the power that has been constitutionally 20:04.640 --> 20:09.840 given to the legislature, because when we did least change, as you acknowledge, we were 20:10.080 --> 20:16.240 deferring to the last democratically enacted maps that were put into law, right? 20:16.240 --> 20:21.440 So they were based on the 2011 maps, which were passed by the legislature, signed by 20:21.440 --> 20:22.440 the governor. 20:22.440 --> 20:23.440 They're in the statute books. 20:23.440 --> 20:24.840 In fact, they're still there. 20:24.840 --> 20:26.320 They were still enacted law. 20:26.320 --> 20:30.880 In this court said, we're going to defer to the policy judgments of the legislature. 20:30.880 --> 20:33.840 We're not going to put our own policy judgments there. 20:33.840 --> 20:37.640 Which the United States Constitution says that's the legislature's prerogative to do that. 20:37.680 --> 20:42.200 And you're saying it's a violation of the separation of powers for this court to not 20:42.200 --> 20:46.320 take that power for itself, but to defer to the legislature? 20:46.320 --> 20:49.800 That is quite a creative argument to me. 20:49.800 --> 20:53.760 In your honor, it's only a creative in the sense that this court has already made that 20:53.760 --> 20:55.320 argument in Clark. 20:55.320 --> 20:58.240 So two points in response to your question, your honor. 20:58.240 --> 21:01.400 One is the court did not take any redistricting power here. 21:01.400 --> 21:07.360 The redistricting power was given, was assigned to this court because the political process 21:07.360 --> 21:08.360 failed. 21:08.360 --> 21:10.560 This court had no choice but to engage in judicial redistricting. 21:10.560 --> 21:18.080 Your argument is that when this court deferred to the decision of the legislature, that it 21:18.080 --> 21:25.640 violated the separation of powers, when the Constitution gives those powers to the legislature 21:25.640 --> 21:27.480 in the first instance. 21:27.480 --> 21:30.840 And your honor, my argument is that Clark has already made that holding. 21:30.880 --> 21:35.480 So when this court, in all of this court's debate about the least changed principle and 21:35.480 --> 21:40.200 the consideration of partisan effects, the conversation has stemmed around, has centered 21:40.200 --> 21:46.600 on what is the judiciary's role in redistricting, vis-a-vis the other political branches. 21:46.600 --> 21:52.120 And in Johnson One, the court specifically invoked separation of powers to justify the 21:52.120 --> 21:57.800 least change approach and argue that it was necessary to preserve the institutional legitimacy 21:57.800 --> 21:58.960 of the court. 21:59.000 --> 22:04.840 In Justice Dallas, Dallas dissent in Johnson One, the dissent also argued against least 22:04.840 --> 22:10.800 change, again using the terms of separation of powers, saying that this court cannot start 22:10.800 --> 22:16.400 with the prior maps and maintain judicial neutrality consistent with our role as a nonpartisan 22:16.400 --> 22:17.720 institution. 22:17.720 --> 22:22.560 So when Clark came in and talked about, well, now what is given, what we've now, what the 22:22.560 --> 22:28.840 court ruled in Clark, what is the court's role in redistricting when it is, when the 22:28.880 --> 22:33.320 task falls to it, and Clark made very clear, and if the court will allow, if I can just 22:33.320 --> 22:38.800 quote from paragraph 71 of Clark, it speaks in the terms of separation of powers. 22:38.800 --> 22:44.920 It bears repeating that courts can and should hold themselves to a different standard than 22:44.920 --> 22:49.520 the legislature regarding the partisanship of remedial maps. 22:49.520 --> 22:55.480 As a politically neutral and independent institution, we will take care to avoid selecting remedial 22:55.480 --> 22:59.760 maps designed to advantage one political party over another. 22:59.760 --> 23:07.240 Importantly, however, it is not possible to remain neutral and independent by failing 23:07.240 --> 23:11.440 to consider partisan impact entirely. 23:11.440 --> 23:17.280 By the very terms of Clark that I just read your honor, it was not possible for this court 23:17.280 --> 23:24.120 to abide by the judiciary's twin duties of neutrality and independence by applying least 23:24.120 --> 23:29.960 change and adopting all the partisan effects of the previous map and not considering its 23:29.960 --> 23:31.600 own role in redistricting. 23:31.600 --> 23:35.760 So least change, do you think least change is always problematic? 23:35.760 --> 23:39.880 So for example, let's say you weren't here challenging the congressional maps, but you 23:39.880 --> 23:47.560 were here challenging the legislative districts that have now been recently enacted into law. 23:47.560 --> 23:53.400 So if we applied least change to that, we would defer to the recently enacted maps that were 23:53.400 --> 23:56.120 signed into law. 23:56.120 --> 23:59.800 When passed by the Republican legislature signed by the Democratic governor, lots of fighting, 23:59.800 --> 24:03.520 obviously this court got in the middle of all that with Clark. 24:03.520 --> 24:09.320 But your argument would, that would be unconstitutional to simply defer to the policy choices of the 24:09.320 --> 24:14.200 legislature and signed by the governor with regard to legislative maps. 24:14.200 --> 24:19.600 Well, our argument is that blind deference is unconstitutional and in contrary to the 24:19.600 --> 24:20.600 principles in Clark. 24:20.760 --> 24:24.760 In the example that your honor mentioned, where there is actually a legislative enactment 24:24.760 --> 24:28.880 to consider and defer to, courts have often held in the redistricting context that you 24:28.880 --> 24:33.640 can defer to the policy choices of the legislature to the extent they don't otherwise violate 24:33.640 --> 24:34.640 the law. 24:34.640 --> 24:39.040 Now here, there was no policy choice of the legislature in effect. 24:39.040 --> 24:43.920 The old map had expired, everybody came into this court and agreed that it was no longer 24:43.920 --> 24:47.960 operative law, and the question was, what is there left to defer to? 24:47.960 --> 24:51.720 Well, that's not, the maps don't expire. 24:51.720 --> 24:56.440 It was declared unconstitutional to the extent it was no longer reflecting proportion of 24:56.440 --> 24:59.920 population, which United States mandate is required. 24:59.920 --> 25:03.320 The Wisconsin Constitution says nothing about congressional redistricting. 25:03.320 --> 25:05.560 It's still law, it's still in the books, it didn't go away. 25:05.560 --> 25:10.200 The only thing we were trying to do was remedy a constitutional wrong, which was simply proportional 25:10.200 --> 25:11.280 representation. 25:11.280 --> 25:15.040 There was no, there's no expiration date on the law. 25:15.040 --> 25:19.960 I mean, as a matter of federal constitutional law, that map could not remain in effect going 25:19.960 --> 25:20.960 forward. 25:20.960 --> 25:24.360 There was a constitutional sunset, and every party that came into this court acknowledged 25:24.360 --> 25:25.360 that. 25:25.360 --> 25:30.600 And when this court remedied the malapportionment violation, our argument is that per the discussion 25:30.600 --> 25:35.360 in Clark and per the holding in Clark, it ended up creating a brand new legal violation 25:35.360 --> 25:41.240 by really veering outside the judicial lane of neutrality and independence by adhering 25:41.240 --> 25:45.640 to a previous legislature's policy views and failing to consider the part as an impact 25:45.640 --> 25:46.640 of its own decision. 25:46.640 --> 25:47.640 So, Council, I'm going to talk. 25:47.640 --> 25:48.640 I was going to- 25:48.640 --> 25:51.040 It's just to take it or instill going? 25:51.040 --> 25:53.040 No, but I was going to- 25:53.040 --> 25:54.040 Okay. 25:54.040 --> 25:55.040 Council, I have a question. 25:55.040 --> 25:59.080 I'm going to pull you back to Johnson One, okay? 25:59.080 --> 26:03.240 And I think that there's clearly a difference of opinion as to whether or not Johnson One 26:03.240 --> 26:05.440 has been overruled. 26:05.440 --> 26:11.040 Let's assume for the sake of this argument right now that it has not. 26:11.040 --> 26:16.840 Are you asking us then to overrule Johnson One regarding partisan gerrymandering? 26:16.840 --> 26:19.280 Yes or no? 26:19.280 --> 26:23.720 So I want to make very clear, Your Honor, that we have two claims before this court. 26:23.720 --> 26:24.720 We know. 26:24.720 --> 26:27.720 So, claimed on is the separation of powers claim, which I think we've been talking about here. 26:27.720 --> 26:33.160 And when I talk about overruling what Clark has overruled in Johnson, it's expressly overruled 26:33.160 --> 26:36.120 the least changed principle in Johnson about how to remedy it. 26:36.120 --> 26:37.600 Let's talk about the partisan gerrymandering claim. 26:37.600 --> 26:41.960 So the question about the partisan gerrymandering claim, which is our alternative claim. 26:41.960 --> 26:46.520 Our argument there is that there was never actually a holding in Johnson One about partisan 26:46.520 --> 26:50.000 gerrymandering saying that it is or is not just dishable. 26:50.000 --> 26:54.480 And that is because there was no partisan gerrymandering claim before Johnson One. 26:54.480 --> 26:59.120 While the court does, I believe in paragraph eight of Johnson One, say that it is not a 26:59.120 --> 27:04.720 cognizable claim, that portion of Johnson One garnered only three votes from this court 27:04.720 --> 27:06.840 and was not a majority opinion. 27:06.840 --> 27:11.680 The only majority opinion from this court on the issue of partisan gerrymandering was 27:11.680 --> 27:16.760 in Clark when the court specifically said that partisan gerrymandering remains an important 27:16.760 --> 27:19.720 and unresolved issue of Wisconsin law. 27:19.720 --> 27:24.680 And it specifically said it was not deciding whether or not such claims were just dishable. 27:24.680 --> 27:28.920 So there is nothing, I don't believe there's anything in Johnson to overturn and to the 27:28.920 --> 27:33.600 extent that there was, Clark has already done it by making the this court's holding clear. 27:34.000 --> 27:42.800 All right, well, I'm looking at the congressman's brief, specifically pages 42, 43, 44. 27:42.800 --> 27:51.520 When I look at page 43, the second full paragraph, it talks about that it's unsurprising that 27:51.520 --> 27:56.760 nothing in this court's precedent establishes judicially manageable standards to adjudicate 27:56.760 --> 28:00.040 the plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claims. 28:00.040 --> 28:03.480 And then some pretty compelling arguments are made. 28:03.480 --> 28:05.280 Can you please respond to those? 28:05.280 --> 28:09.080 So there's kind of two issues when it comes to partisan gerrymandering. 28:09.080 --> 28:11.680 One is has this court already kind of closed the door on that? 28:11.680 --> 28:13.160 Our answer to that is no. 28:13.160 --> 28:14.560 This court's answer to that is no. 28:14.560 --> 28:17.000 And Clark had said it was an unresolved legal issue. 28:17.000 --> 28:20.920 And then the next question is, well, now that it is unresolved, how should we resolve 28:20.920 --> 28:21.920 it? 28:21.920 --> 28:25.080 Is it a legally cognizable claim that has judicially manageable standards? 28:25.080 --> 28:28.000 And our answer to that is absolutely yes. 28:28.000 --> 28:32.840 The fact that the Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court has said that it's not just dishable 28:32.840 --> 28:37.240 under federal law does not make, undeclate that it's not just dishable under state law. 28:37.240 --> 28:42.000 Ten other state courts have found partisan gerrymandering, just dishable, under constitutional 28:42.000 --> 28:46.080 provisions very similar to the ones that we rely upon here in Wisconsin. 28:46.080 --> 28:50.920 There's no reason why Wisconsin could not adopt that, any one of those models that the 28:50.920 --> 28:55.200 other state courts have adopted to make sure that it is protecting what is in Wisconsin 28:55.200 --> 29:01.040 a far more robust right to democratic self-governance than is provided in the US Constitution. 29:01.040 --> 29:04.880 Do those other states have the same constitutional language? 29:04.880 --> 29:10.640 Many of them do, your honor, for instance, in states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, 29:10.640 --> 29:15.720 they had what we called free and equal elections clauses, which are very similar to the provisions 29:15.720 --> 29:18.360 that we cite here, specifically the free government clause. 29:18.360 --> 29:23.120 And in other states, such as New Mexico or Alaska, they rely on their state equal protection 29:23.120 --> 29:24.120 clauses. 29:24.120 --> 29:30.320 And here in Article 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, we're looking at Section 1, 3, 4, and 22, 29:30.320 --> 29:34.840 equal protection, free speech, free association, and free government provisions. 29:34.840 --> 29:41.440 All of these provide independent and combined bases to find this fundamental principle of 29:41.440 --> 29:43.080 democratic self-governance. 29:43.080 --> 29:47.080 And all of them provide a basis to say that partisan gerrymandering is antithetical to 29:47.080 --> 29:48.640 those fundamental principles. 29:48.640 --> 29:53.440 So going back to that, then do you conceive of Article 1, Section 1 of the Wisconsin 29:53.440 --> 29:57.520 Constitution as an equal protection provision? 29:57.600 --> 29:58.600 I do, your honor. 29:58.600 --> 30:03.360 I think we've been viewing the idea that the citizens are entitled to equal treatment 30:03.360 --> 30:07.560 under the law and cannot be arbitrarily treated based on their viewpoint, based on their 30:07.560 --> 30:12.720 residence, and that's how we are envisioning this claim as well, in addition to the free. 30:12.720 --> 30:15.800 Do we then need to consider tiers of scrutiny? 30:15.800 --> 30:20.800 I believe under this courts, so look, there are many ways that this court can, yes, so 30:20.800 --> 30:24.520 if this court is going to conceive of this solely as an equal protection violation, then 30:24.560 --> 30:27.480 you're going to have to think about what are the appropriate tiers of scrutiny. 30:27.480 --> 30:31.200 But then again, but here again, there are many models for how to do this. 30:31.200 --> 30:35.720 Justice Kagan's dissent in Rucho, which was then the same model was followed in states 30:35.720 --> 30:40.760 like New Mexico and Alaska, where she basically provides a fundamental equal protection analysis. 30:40.760 --> 30:46.440 Let's look at predominance when it comes to partisan vote dilution, the predominant 30:46.440 --> 30:52.360 purpose, was that in fact the effect of the map, and is there any legislative justification 30:52.400 --> 30:57.640 outside of sheer partisan dominance that would justify the configuration of these districts? 30:57.640 --> 31:00.560 Is that the test that you're asking us to adopt? 31:00.560 --> 31:05.720 So we are not pressing one specific test, we believe that this court has at its disposal, 31:05.720 --> 31:08.320 the opportunity to look at any different, any model that it wants. 31:08.320 --> 31:12.360 We have specifically pointed to the model from Pennsylvania, which is more of a traditional 31:12.360 --> 31:17.800 subordination test and effects based test, but that is not the only way to map onto this 31:17.800 --> 31:18.800 claim. 31:18.800 --> 31:22.480 But based on the one that's in New Mexico, based on the one that's in Justice Kagan's 31:22.480 --> 31:26.640 dissent, what are you recommending that we do? 31:26.640 --> 31:30.760 What we have recommended in our papers is the test that's provided in Pennsylvania. 31:30.760 --> 31:36.400 We think that's the most clear, it's a traditional subordination test, the extent to which traditional 31:36.400 --> 31:40.940 districting principles have been subordinated to partisan advantage and partisan gain. 31:40.940 --> 31:45.600 And the court has many in Pennsylvania, outlines a number of tools that courts can use as 31:45.640 --> 31:49.840 both direct and circumstantial evidence to decide whether or not, essentially, the way 31:49.840 --> 31:55.720 the map is drawn, stacks the deck in favor of one party or another to an extreme degree, 31:55.720 --> 31:59.880 such that the decision is essentially made before a single ballot has been cast. 31:59.880 --> 32:08.080 So if I'm understanding that method, are you only looking at a single map, or are as 32:08.080 --> 32:13.600 opposed to if I think about Justice Kagan's dissent in Rucho, or if she's talking about 32:13.600 --> 32:17.560 looking at, I think she uses an example of a thousand maps, and looking at where they 32:17.560 --> 32:24.000 are on the curve, I'm not quite understanding if you adopt the punch of, if you're asking 32:24.000 --> 32:26.760 us to adopt the punch of any model, if we adopt that model, what does that look like 32:26.760 --> 32:27.760 exactly? 32:27.760 --> 32:32.600 Are we just looking at the one map that is in front of us, or are we comparing it to 32:32.600 --> 32:33.600 other maps? 32:33.600 --> 32:37.240 So absolutely your honor, so obviously there's only one map in front of the court when it 32:37.240 --> 32:42.400 comes to what we are, how we can prove that, how somebody can prove a partisan gerrymandering 32:42.400 --> 32:45.600 claim, there are many different evidentiary ways to do that. 32:45.600 --> 32:50.960 One of those that's typically used in partisan gerrymandering claims is this, the simulations 32:50.960 --> 32:51.960 approach, right? 32:51.960 --> 32:57.400 The using multiple maps to show would this ever have occurred based on the political, natural 32:57.400 --> 33:02.320 political geography of the state, or was there some undue partisan intent that really was 33:02.320 --> 33:03.320 skewing the map? 33:03.320 --> 33:06.400 Well I understand that, but if I understand the Pennsylvania model, you're looking at 33:06.400 --> 33:12.280 the map that is created and you're saying, has it been, has the, we're, if you're rank 33:12.280 --> 33:17.040 ordering why you, why you created the map you did, is it subordinate to the constitutional 33:17.040 --> 33:18.600 requirements or is it not? 33:18.600 --> 33:23.280 I'm asking, are you just looking at that one map and at those requirements as it relates 33:23.280 --> 33:24.280 to that one map? 33:24.280 --> 33:27.760 I understand that you can look at a thousand maps, I understand you can look, we could 33:27.760 --> 33:32.080 look at more than that, right, easily today. 33:32.080 --> 33:37.520 But I'm not, I just want to make sure I understand how you envision that process, how that process, 33:37.520 --> 33:41.880 if we adopted it, would work in the trial court in this case. 33:41.880 --> 33:45.280 So I think the way it would work following the Pennsylvania model, which by the way is 33:45.280 --> 33:49.760 spelled out really chapter and verse in that opinion, is that the court would essentially 33:49.760 --> 33:56.160 look at the traditional districting criteria, the objective political geography of the state 33:56.240 --> 34:01.880 and ask, to what extent do the district lines veer from the traditional districting, to 34:01.880 --> 34:07.760 subordinate those, those traditional districting principles in service of some part as an advantage. 34:07.760 --> 34:12.080 And the way you answer that question is by looking at evidence from computer simulation 34:12.080 --> 34:16.720 maps, looking at statistics like the efficiency gap that shows wasted votes. 34:16.720 --> 34:21.160 There are a number of models at the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania recognized that are able 34:21.160 --> 34:25.080 to provide that evidence so we know what we're looking for when we're looking at this one 34:25.080 --> 34:26.080 map. 34:26.080 --> 34:33.720 So I'm advocating for that instead of the intent, effects and causation test that Justice 34:33.720 --> 34:36.800 Kagan talked about in her Rucho descent. 34:36.800 --> 34:41.560 So Your Honor, I don't want to overstate our advocacy for one model over another. 34:41.560 --> 34:47.920 At this point, our number one argument is that this court can strike down this map as a matter 34:47.920 --> 34:51.480 of law based on the law, it's already drafted in Clark. 34:51.480 --> 34:55.560 But if the court decides to go down the partisan gerrymandering route, our argument there is 34:55.560 --> 34:59.800 that that is actually, that is not, that is a traditional route that many states have 34:59.800 --> 35:00.800 followed. 35:00.800 --> 35:04.320 And this court can choose whatever it deems to be the best test that it sounds fit. 35:04.320 --> 35:08.120 So I have suggested the Pennsylvania one, I believe that that the way that model has worked 35:08.120 --> 35:09.880 out is very clear. 35:09.880 --> 35:13.800 But the one that is provided by Justice Kagan's descent and has been used in states like New 35:13.800 --> 35:19.160 Mexico is equally justiciable, is it standard, that is easily comprehended by courts and 35:19.160 --> 35:20.840 applied by courts at all levels. 35:20.920 --> 35:29.400 Yeah, I don't want to overstate the importance to us of figuring out which path we should 35:29.400 --> 35:32.160 take in order to get this right. 35:32.160 --> 35:38.720 So, Council, can I pull you, are you, I'm sorry, are you? 35:38.720 --> 35:39.720 I was just musing. 35:39.720 --> 35:44.840 You were just musing, okay, that's what we do periodically, you'll notice. 35:44.840 --> 35:51.520 I would like to get back to the concept of justiciability, say that 20 times fast, 35:51.520 --> 35:56.440 and look at our Constitution, what our Constitution says. 35:56.440 --> 36:03.320 And you look at Article 1, Section 1, that people are sovereign, that government has 36:03.320 --> 36:09.600 no power except through the consent of the governed. 36:10.480 --> 36:19.040 We are interested as a state court in looking at these maps as whether they present a constitutional 36:19.040 --> 36:26.440 harm to these principles of self-representation, of sovereignty of the people of the state 36:26.440 --> 36:31.360 of Wisconsin, which is some through lines, throughout our Constitution, it's a beautiful 36:31.360 --> 36:39.080 Constitution with very rich words, and it makes very clear that the people have the power, 36:39.080 --> 36:41.600 not the politicians, it is the people. 36:41.600 --> 36:49.080 So, when we're looking at justiciability, why we are so focused on what test do we apply, 36:49.080 --> 36:54.520 assuming it's cognizable, right, assuming this claim, and you're saying it is, because 36:54.520 --> 36:59.520 of these provisions in our state Constitution, so we have equal protection. 36:59.520 --> 37:01.600 We have inherent rights. 37:01.600 --> 37:08.240 We have free speech, the right to assembly, this court has a role in remedying wrongs. 37:08.800 --> 37:11.760 So, what else are we looking at in terms of a test? 37:11.760 --> 37:16.520 We have, you've identified, there's these different tests out there, ten states have 37:16.520 --> 37:19.040 adopted some form of these tests. 37:19.040 --> 37:23.520 We certainly want to make sure the test is manageable. 37:23.520 --> 37:26.680 We want to make sure it's neutral. 37:26.680 --> 37:33.040 But what other guidance do you suggest this court looked to when we are measuring whether 37:33.040 --> 37:37.160 this map presents a constitutional harm? 37:37.200 --> 37:41.640 I believe your honor, and I appreciate exactly what you said, I agree that the Wisconsin 37:41.640 --> 37:46.720 Constitution makes no mistake that democratic self-governance is the very foundation. 37:46.720 --> 37:52.760 And so, there is a wrong under with the Wisconsin Constitution that requires a remedy if the 37:52.760 --> 37:55.360 court decides to go down the partisan gerrymandering approach. 37:55.360 --> 38:00.800 And when it comes to what the test can be, like I said, we have advocated for the Pennsylvania 38:00.800 --> 38:05.720 approach, which we believe is actually the most straightforward and easily easy to administer, 38:05.720 --> 38:09.800 but I'm not trying to dissuade the court from what I think is also a straightforward 38:09.800 --> 38:10.800 and easy to administer. 38:10.800 --> 38:15.320 Well, let me ask you about that, because if you look at New Mexico, which I would say 38:15.320 --> 38:23.440 has some very similar provisions on the sovereignty of the people, on the government having to 38:23.440 --> 38:30.280 have the consent of the governed, they also apply a causation piece. 38:30.280 --> 38:34.440 And that is because we recognize, I don't think anybody on this panel would say, the 38:34.440 --> 38:38.000 state does not, that nobody would dispute. 38:38.000 --> 38:44.640 The state has an important constitutional role in redistricting. 38:44.640 --> 38:50.720 And so, isn't it, shouldn't it, wouldn't it be prudent of us to not just apply intent 38:50.720 --> 38:56.000 effects, but then to give the state the opportunity to present, if there is a legitimate interest 38:56.000 --> 39:00.960 that perhaps we're not thinking of, because that recognizes that the state does have important 39:00.960 --> 39:02.800 role in redistricting. 39:02.840 --> 39:06.320 I agree with that, Your Honor, and I think this court's equal protection jurisprudence 39:06.320 --> 39:09.960 makes clear that the question would then be posed to the state, is there a legitimate 39:09.960 --> 39:14.160 interest that justifies this deviation? 39:14.160 --> 39:18.520 And I think actually under either test that this court adopts, the state would be given 39:18.520 --> 39:24.240 that opportunity to prove that, no, no, what you're seeing from the data and from the evidence 39:24.240 --> 39:29.280 is not the result of partisan gamesmanship, but is actually the result of some other legitimate 39:29.280 --> 39:30.280 criteria. 39:30.280 --> 39:32.080 I believe that the state would have that ability. 39:32.120 --> 39:37.080 I don't think that the, I think either of these tests are difficult for plaintiffs to 39:37.080 --> 39:43.000 prove intentionally difficult, and, but I think ultimately manageable for the court to decide 39:43.000 --> 39:47.360 to make sure that it's not just striking down maps willy nilly, but is actually applying 39:47.360 --> 39:49.960 a chapter in verse exactly what the rules are. 39:49.960 --> 39:57.600 I have just one more question on this issue, and that is, do we not use in judging this, 39:57.640 --> 40:02.680 just disability, do we not use the same data that the map makers used? 40:02.680 --> 40:05.400 I mean, is that why it's quantifiable? 40:05.400 --> 40:11.840 Because map makers are able to distill down to the household and predict what is, what 40:11.840 --> 40:17.360 is the, not, we don't have party registration here, but what is the likely affiliation here? 40:17.360 --> 40:23.960 And so does it make it quantifiable in this context because we have the data now that 40:23.960 --> 40:29.680 we didn't have, our founders didn't have, even our grandfathers, did not have the data 40:29.680 --> 40:32.080 that we have now to make these determinations? 40:32.080 --> 40:37.200 I think certainly the tools that are available to courts to be able to discern what has happened. 40:37.200 --> 40:40.640 These tools that are available to map drawers to discern, to figure out how to greet the 40:40.640 --> 40:45.080 effects that they want are far more sophisticated, which is all the, all the more reason why 40:45.080 --> 40:51.480 this court said in Clark that this court cannot afford to blind itself to those very true 40:51.480 --> 40:55.000 realities that lawmakers are aware of when they are drawing maps. 40:55.000 --> 40:59.960 When a court is drawing maps, it too needs to deal with the entire political, demographic, 40:59.960 --> 41:04.880 factual, census-based reality to make sure that it's drawing maps that are fair and constitutional 41:04.880 --> 41:05.880 for Wisconsin voters. 41:05.880 --> 41:08.840 So you can tell we're trying to pull you across the line here because these cases are 41:08.840 --> 41:11.000 complicated, right? 41:11.000 --> 41:16.280 And if we find them to be just dishable, we need to be advising the three judges. 41:16.280 --> 41:17.440 That should be. 41:17.440 --> 41:22.440 So can you clearly tell us why you think the Pennsylvania test is straightforward? 41:22.440 --> 41:27.960 We believe the Pennsylvania test is straightforward because it does not delve into the hearts 41:27.960 --> 41:32.080 and minds of the map drawers and deciding which map drawers are most at issue. 41:32.080 --> 41:36.680 It looks at the actual effects of the map itself to decide whether the maps abordinates 41:36.680 --> 41:41.000 traditional constitutional principles to partisan advantage. 41:41.000 --> 41:42.520 Can it be explained? 41:42.520 --> 41:46.040 Can the deviations from traditional principles be explained by anything other than sheer 41:46.040 --> 41:48.760 partisan gamesmanship? 41:48.760 --> 41:53.560 So looking, I think, at the effects test that the Pennsylvania court emphasizes is perhaps 41:53.560 --> 41:58.840 the, I would say, you know, the most straightforward way of determining this. 41:58.840 --> 42:02.880 But again, I don't think that the court needs to shy away from looking at intent. 42:02.880 --> 42:05.160 This is the kind of stuff that courts do all the time. 42:05.160 --> 42:08.200 If it wanted to, probably, a more intent or causation-based approach. 42:08.200 --> 42:09.200 Okay. 42:09.200 --> 42:13.240 I want to take you through some procedural things here. 42:13.240 --> 42:17.600 So let's say we were to find your claims just dishable. 42:17.600 --> 42:21.000 I just want to go through kind of what that looks like. 42:21.000 --> 42:25.480 Like how do you get from there to a new map? 42:25.480 --> 42:26.480 Thank you, Your Honor. 42:26.480 --> 42:31.640 So I'm just going to reiterate that, you know, so option number one is to strike down the 42:31.640 --> 42:35.600 map as a matter of law because it's already been struck down as a matter of principle. 42:35.600 --> 42:37.280 Let's go to option number two. 42:37.280 --> 42:42.440 Option number two is to decide that Wisconsin's Constitution bars partisan gerrymandering 42:42.440 --> 42:45.760 and develop a stand, and announce a standard that says, this is- 42:45.760 --> 42:49.280 And I'm going to qualify you, not just bars partisan gerrymandering, isn't there some 42:49.280 --> 42:52.800 extreme partisan gerrymandering, isn't that what we're really talking about? 42:52.800 --> 42:59.880 I mean, you set it already that it's basically taking away, it's making a decision before 42:59.880 --> 43:02.560 the election has even begun for the people in the district. 43:02.560 --> 43:03.560 Exactly, Your Honor. 43:03.560 --> 43:06.360 I'm using the word part of the gerrymandering is a shorthand for what courts have often 43:06.360 --> 43:11.600 referred to as an extreme partisan gerrymander that is essentially an outlier and not explainable 43:11.680 --> 43:13.200 by any other criteria. 43:13.200 --> 43:15.840 Okay, so we find that, and then what? 43:15.840 --> 43:20.560 And I think that this court has already discussed, I think it adopts the model that it seems 43:20.560 --> 43:25.040 to be most fit for determining what is a partisan gerrymander, and then I think it would need 43:25.040 --> 43:30.000 to remand back to the panel for a fact-finding, because as this court has already emphasized 43:30.000 --> 43:33.320 in Clark that it is a very fact-intensive question. 43:33.320 --> 43:39.400 And in your view, the circuit court then has the ability to grant a clearatory judgment 43:39.480 --> 43:43.840 as to whether or not these maps actually meet the tests that we set forth. 43:43.840 --> 43:47.080 Absolutely, Your Honor, and of course this court can make very clear what the authority 43:47.080 --> 43:50.920 is of the circuit court, but the whole design of this three-judge panel was essentially 43:50.920 --> 43:55.520 to be able to do this kind of work to sit and adjudicate facts that are about redistricting 43:55.520 --> 43:58.720 maps and make the proper judgments for Wisconsin voters going forward. 43:58.720 --> 44:00.200 Okay, and then what? 44:00.200 --> 44:06.800 Let's say the circuit court says these maps are an extreme partisan gerrymander according 44:06.800 --> 44:09.080 to the tests set forth, then what? 44:09.080 --> 44:12.920 I think there's a remedial process, and that's not dissimilar to the remedial process 44:12.920 --> 44:14.720 that this court has already laid out. 44:14.720 --> 44:17.840 So you foresee us doing that remedial process? 44:17.840 --> 44:21.120 I think the district, I think the panel could do that remedial process as well. 44:21.120 --> 44:24.400 I think there's a little bit of a question depending on how the appeals work. 44:24.400 --> 44:28.600 There might be an appeal of the liability order before it gets to a remedy, but ideally 44:28.600 --> 44:33.680 we would say that any of this should have, all of this is judicial, just dishable within 44:33.680 --> 44:36.760 the panel and can all be reviewed by this court on appeal after that. 44:36.800 --> 44:42.800 Even though that's our order, aren't we the ones that would need to overturn our injunction 44:42.800 --> 44:47.120 and or order that discussed the previous maps? 44:47.120 --> 44:51.200 I don't think that's exclusively the case, Your Honor, certainly on instruction from 44:51.200 --> 44:52.200 this court. 44:52.200 --> 44:57.400 The panel could have the authority to revisit that injunction, and ultimately our argument 44:57.400 --> 45:02.800 on both separation of powers and partisan gerrymandering is that the panel had the sitting 45:02.840 --> 45:07.880 today, the panel had the job to look at this court's most recent precedent. 45:07.880 --> 45:10.840 In our first separation of powers argument, that most recent precedent is Clark. 45:10.840 --> 45:12.280 They had to apply Clark. 45:12.280 --> 45:15.960 If this court were to decide that partisan gerrymandering is dishable, that would be 45:15.960 --> 45:17.520 this most recent precedent. 45:17.520 --> 45:21.280 So whether it's applying it to a map that was adopted by the legislature or adopted by 45:21.280 --> 45:26.000 the court, the lower court's job is to apply this court's binding precedent. 45:26.000 --> 45:31.040 And before we would adopt any map, the legislature would get a chance to also draw a map. 45:31.120 --> 45:35.160 Is there purview unless they cannot do it or unless there's an unconstitutional violation 45:35.160 --> 45:36.320 with their map, correct? 45:36.320 --> 45:37.320 Absolutely, Your Honor. 45:37.320 --> 45:42.800 And I want to make very clear, there is nothing, there has been nothing preventing the legislative 45:42.800 --> 45:49.120 process from enacting a map since 2020, since 2021, the legislature can and should adopt 45:49.120 --> 45:54.000 a map if it feels like that that's something it has the political capability to do and 45:54.000 --> 45:56.320 nothing of this court is tying this hands. 45:56.320 --> 46:00.880 In Johnson, the court specifically said that this map shall remain in place until the 46:00.880 --> 46:05.360 legislature adopts a new map or a court holds otherwise. 46:05.360 --> 46:08.880 Until number one happens, we are asking this court to hold otherwise. 46:08.880 --> 46:13.960 Just a quick question to kind of add the facts to your arguments. 46:13.960 --> 46:20.160 The map that is in place is a map that Governor Evers proposed, right? 46:20.160 --> 46:24.880 The map that is placed is a map that was, the Governor Evers proposed pursuant to the 46:24.880 --> 46:27.400 least change mandate that was in Johnson 1. 46:27.400 --> 46:33.200 So all of the participants in the Johnson litigation were limited to a single map and 46:33.200 --> 46:36.880 it was, they were told in advance that it would be judged based on that single criterion. 46:36.880 --> 46:44.320 So what about Governor Evers' map is an extreme partisan gerrymander? 46:44.320 --> 46:50.720 So your Honor, Governor Evers' map is essentially following the dictates of this court, it is 46:50.720 --> 46:56.680 a least change map that is 95% identical to the 2011 map that this court cemented in 46:56.680 --> 46:59.040 place pursuant to that least change mandate. 46:59.040 --> 47:08.120 So by calling it Governor Evers' map, our position is that the 2011 map was a gerrymander 47:08.120 --> 47:11.800 and it was calcified in place pursuant to this court's least change mandate. 47:11.800 --> 47:13.840 Then that's a different question. 47:13.840 --> 47:17.960 That 2011 is almost 15 years ago, right? 47:17.960 --> 47:19.520 So why now? 47:19.520 --> 47:22.280 Why isn't this barred by latches? 47:22.280 --> 47:26.720 Your Honor, for the partisan gerrymandering claim, it's not barred by latches because it's 47:26.720 --> 47:29.000 seeking only prospective relief. 47:29.000 --> 47:36.320 The idea that the state of Wisconsin is prohibited from writing a wrong just because that wrong 47:36.320 --> 47:40.880 has existed for a number of years is antithetical to the entire latches doctrine. 47:40.880 --> 47:44.240 By that same logic, you know, Brown v. Board of Ed would have been latchesed out because 47:44.320 --> 47:46.880 it was already sitting in decades' worth of segregation. 47:46.880 --> 47:53.880 The different issue, but has Wisconsin ever had a map that meets the criteria that you 47:53.880 --> 47:56.000 outline today? 47:56.000 --> 48:03.000 Given that partisan bodies have drawn the maps under the Constitution, since the Constitution 48:03.000 --> 48:08.040 that provision's been in existence, has Wisconsin ever had a partisan gerrymandered map? 48:08.040 --> 48:11.600 Have we ever had a map that's good under your criteria? 48:11.600 --> 48:15.440 Your Honor, I've not evaluated every map, congressional map that's been adopted. 48:15.440 --> 48:20.320 I know many maps have been adopted by courts not pursuant to a least-change criterion. 48:20.320 --> 48:21.320 As we saw, I'm Jensen. 48:21.320 --> 48:25.160 We've seen in Prosser that the reports have said we actually do need to look at the partisan 48:25.160 --> 48:29.440 effects of our map to make sure that we are applying traditional districting principles. 48:29.440 --> 48:32.800 So I have no reason to believe that any of those maps would be unlawful. 48:32.800 --> 48:37.480 We are only talking about the one map we have in place today, which was built pursuant to 48:37.480 --> 48:40.240 a least-change principle that has since been debunked. 48:40.320 --> 48:48.040 Council, whose intent are we looking at if we were to apply a test that had an intent 48:48.040 --> 48:49.040 element to it? 48:49.040 --> 48:50.040 Yeah. 48:50.040 --> 48:53.440 It's a little tricky in this one, Your Honors, is normally you look at the map drawers' 48:53.440 --> 48:54.440 intent. 48:54.440 --> 48:58.280 And here, when it comes to the most recent intent, that intent from this court was laid 48:58.280 --> 48:59.280 bare. 48:59.280 --> 49:06.160 The intent was to adopt the intent, the effects, and everything as possible from the 2011 map. 49:06.200 --> 49:11.600 So the court can look at the judicial record to know that the intent was to adopt the intent 49:11.600 --> 49:16.000 of 2011, and that we even have a judicial record on the 2011 maps as well. 49:16.000 --> 49:19.560 So in the baldest case, for instance, there is evidence and there is argument about what 49:19.560 --> 49:21.560 exactly was that intent. 49:21.560 --> 49:22.560 I want to announce that. 49:22.560 --> 49:23.560 Go ahead, Jessica. 49:23.560 --> 49:24.560 Thank you. 49:24.560 --> 49:29.560 I'd like to return to the question of remedy, because it sounded to me like you were saying 49:29.560 --> 49:35.880 a few minutes ago that we could somehow deputize that three-judge panel to overturn 49:35.880 --> 49:40.280 an order by this court. 49:40.280 --> 49:49.560 And that seems premature to me at a minimum until there is a factual record showing a 49:49.560 --> 49:51.280 partisan gerrymandering. 49:51.280 --> 49:56.240 It seems to me premature for this court to do anything of that nature and also quite 49:56.240 --> 49:59.080 unprecedented. 49:59.080 --> 50:02.800 The respondents make some of those arguments in their briefs. 50:02.800 --> 50:09.800 So can you walk me through how it is you believe the circuit court versus this court could 50:09.800 --> 50:13.520 adopt a remedy of a different map than is currently in place? 50:13.520 --> 50:19.280 So I believe that the circuit court has the obligation to abide by this court's precedent. 50:19.280 --> 50:20.280 So when it comes to our separation- 50:20.280 --> 50:23.360 Not just precedent, but it is a judgment. 50:24.360 --> 50:25.360 It is. 50:25.360 --> 50:30.440 And in Johnson too, this court said that the map would stay in place until legislative 50:30.440 --> 50:33.200 enactment or a court says otherwise. 50:33.200 --> 50:36.880 Wisconsin has since adopted an entire judicial process through this three-judge panel that 50:36.880 --> 50:42.160 is essentially intended to adjudicate these kinds of redistricting challenges. 50:42.160 --> 50:47.800 If for instance we were here in 2032, and there was a three-judge panel case that was 50:47.880 --> 50:54.560 designed by Wisconsin law to handle redistricting matters, I don't think we would say, well 50:54.560 --> 51:03.040 that three-judge court has no power to enjoin the now old 2022 map in light of new law. 51:03.040 --> 51:09.040 Of course, whatever the court's authority is, it is to apply the governing law from 51:09.040 --> 51:11.840 this court to the judgment before it. 51:11.840 --> 51:17.440 So I do think that the lower court always has the, not just the authority, but the obligation 51:17.440 --> 51:20.720 to follow this court's precedent, which makes this an easy answer when it comes to 51:20.720 --> 51:26.040 the separation of powers claim in the partisan gerrymandering context if this court's precedent 51:26.040 --> 51:31.920 who tells the district, tells the circuit court that partisan gerrymandering is unlawful 51:31.920 --> 51:37.560 and it needs to be adjudicated to make sure, to determine whether or not this challenged 51:37.560 --> 51:41.600 map fails under that standard, then I think the court just needs to follow, the lower 51:41.600 --> 51:44.280 court would just need to follow this court's precedent in order to do that. 51:44.280 --> 51:45.920 I don't think it would be acting beyond it. 51:45.920 --> 51:52.160 So in other words, that language in, I think it's in Johnson too, that says until a court 51:52.160 --> 52:01.280 says otherwise something to that effect, you believe you interpret that language as allowing 52:01.280 --> 52:08.200 a lower court, a three-judge panel in the circuit court, to based on a finding of a 52:08.200 --> 52:14.320 constitutional violation, set those maps aside and adopt new maps. 52:14.320 --> 52:20.880 By some process that we'll probably ask you further about, but so that's where you find 52:20.880 --> 52:28.680 that authority is in that language in Johnson too, saying that until a court otherwise decides. 52:28.680 --> 52:31.560 I think that language in Johnson too recognizes the authority. 52:31.560 --> 52:34.320 I don't think that's the sole source of the authority. 52:34.320 --> 52:37.800 The source of the authority is from long line of precedent starting with Cook v Cook, which 52:37.800 --> 52:42.600 basically says that the lower court has an ability to, has an obligation to apply the 52:42.600 --> 52:45.200 most recent binding precedent of this court. 52:45.200 --> 52:49.920 If the most recent binding precedent of this court is that our own injunctions can be 52:49.920 --> 52:54.200 reviewed according to a partisan gerrymandering standard, then the lower court has an obligation 52:54.200 --> 52:56.320 to abide by that rule and adjudicate under that rule. 52:56.320 --> 52:58.960 So that's something you're asking us to hold. 52:58.960 --> 53:02.640 In the alternative to our initial claim, your honor, which is that we are asking you to hold 53:02.640 --> 53:07.160 that this map already violates Wisconsin law as articulated in Clark, so that the lower 53:07.160 --> 53:10.600 court does not need to go back and make any liability determinations. 53:10.600 --> 53:12.560 This court has the ability to enjoin it on its own. 53:12.560 --> 53:18.320 But I think Justice Cropper is asking you a very specific question about the holding 53:18.320 --> 53:21.440 and you just use language about the injunction. 53:21.440 --> 53:26.240 Are you asking that to be part of our holding to be that specific? 53:26.240 --> 53:30.360 Are you just set aside the separation of powers argument? 53:30.360 --> 53:34.480 If you're talking about an extreme partisan gerrymandering, that that's your argument 53:34.480 --> 53:39.640 and that violates the Wisconsin Constitution, and if we agree with you and if that is our 53:39.640 --> 53:40.640 holding. 53:41.000 --> 53:47.960 Do we need to say more about the injunction that is in place in this case? 53:47.960 --> 53:55.360 Because the or a court otherwise directs, are you saying that's us directing it here? 53:55.360 --> 53:58.360 Which court is otherwise directing, or is it the three-judge panel? 53:58.360 --> 54:01.760 I think it could be either, your honor, and specifically if this court were to determine 54:01.760 --> 54:08.240 that extreme partisan gerrymandering is cognizable under Wisconsin law, it could then 54:08.600 --> 54:13.640 remand to the lower court with instructions to evaluate this map, this injunction from 54:13.640 --> 54:16.400 this court, under those principles. 54:16.400 --> 54:19.360 And with that instruction, the court would have no other choice but to do that. 54:19.360 --> 54:24.680 Okay, so what is a little narrow as it relates to this case, I understand what you're saying. 54:24.680 --> 54:33.920 But what about Governor Evers' map is an extreme partisan gerrymander? 54:33.920 --> 54:36.680 I want to be careful, your honor, about calling it Governor Evers' map. 54:36.680 --> 54:41.560 Governor Evers is actually advocated for a people's commission process that produced 54:41.560 --> 54:42.560 a different map. 54:42.560 --> 54:47.240 The court accepted the map that he submitted, so you can call it what you would like today 54:47.240 --> 54:50.480 I'm calling it Governor Evers' map that the court adopted. 54:50.480 --> 54:52.360 So let's start with that. 54:52.360 --> 54:58.760 What about that map requires this court to act because it is an extreme partisan gerrymander? 54:58.760 --> 55:06.320 That map calcifies 95% in place the 2011 map that we believe is an extreme partisan gerrymander. 55:06.320 --> 55:10.560 Of course on the posture that we have before this motion to dismiss, we don't have the 55:10.560 --> 55:16.640 fact finding to be able to say this is the exact demonstrable evidence of that, but in 55:16.640 --> 55:23.080 our complaint we allege that that map that is from 2011 and then we cemented in place 55:23.080 --> 55:28.840 from this court in Johnson's to order is one of the most partisan skewed map in the country 55:28.840 --> 55:31.120 under a variety of objective metrics. 55:31.120 --> 55:37.760 So Council, it seems to me that your separation of powers argument is putting the cart before 55:37.760 --> 55:40.640 the horse a bit. 55:40.640 --> 55:46.480 It seems to be premised on an assumption that the maps that were adopted by this court were 55:46.480 --> 55:49.440 in fact an extreme partisan gerrymander. 55:49.440 --> 55:55.080 Doesn't that have to be proven first before that hurdle presents itself? 55:55.080 --> 55:56.080 Not at all your honor. 55:56.080 --> 55:57.720 So walk me through that. 55:57.720 --> 55:58.720 Absolutely. 55:58.720 --> 56:04.200 The separation of powers claim does not at all rest on whether or not the previous map 56:04.200 --> 56:09.600 was right or wrong or an extreme partisan gerrymander or anything else. 56:09.600 --> 56:17.680 The separation of powers claim, which I think is outlined in 70 and 71 of the court explains, 56:17.680 --> 56:25.200 when the judiciary is charged with redistricting, it needs to engage in a certain process and 56:25.200 --> 56:31.320 that process cannot include blind deference to a previous map. 56:31.320 --> 56:37.600 It has to include consideration of the partisan effects of its map because the court is taking 56:37.600 --> 56:40.400 ownership of its role in redistricting. 56:40.400 --> 56:46.360 So this idea that the court can just kind of close its eyes and hold its nose and do 56:46.360 --> 56:47.920 whatever the legislature did previously. 56:47.920 --> 56:52.240 Let me just interrupt a moment because it seems to me that what the court was considering 56:52.240 --> 57:00.720 there was a more prophylactic concern of avoiding a constitutional violation and not 57:00.720 --> 57:04.680 saying there was a constitutional violation. 57:04.680 --> 57:07.040 Am I incorrect in viewing it that way? 57:07.040 --> 57:11.840 I mean, I think that the concern that this court expressed in Clark about least change 57:11.840 --> 57:15.240 sounded in principles of separation of powers. 57:15.240 --> 57:21.960 Like I said, specifically the court said, it is not possible to remain neutral and 57:21.960 --> 57:26.400 independent by failing to consider partisan impact entirely. 57:26.400 --> 57:32.080 And by definition, that means that it was not possible for this court to remain neutral 57:32.080 --> 57:37.280 independent as it was its responsibility when they're the separation of powers when it used 57:37.280 --> 57:38.920 that approach in Johnson. 57:38.920 --> 57:45.280 So it's prophylactic in the sense that, yes, it's what should be done and it maps onto 57:45.280 --> 57:49.400 what is our claim for prospective relief going forward. 57:49.400 --> 57:54.440 If it is not possible for the court to abide by its twin obligations of neutrality and 57:54.440 --> 57:59.440 independence by adopting a least change that doesn't look at partisan impact, that means 57:59.440 --> 58:00.720 it was not possible. 58:00.720 --> 58:05.440 And we are all living under that map going forward for 2026 and 2028 and 2030. 58:05.440 --> 58:13.720 I'm going to follow up on a couple of questions that Justice Dalit asked you. 58:13.720 --> 58:22.800 She walked you through and you laid out three steps, essentially, I guess maybe, yeah. 58:22.800 --> 58:29.240 Starting with, if we found the map, if we ruled that an unconstitutional, extreme gerrymanders 58:29.240 --> 58:35.520 just dishable, we would adopt a map for what that means, excuse me, we would adopt a test, 58:35.520 --> 58:37.440 a model of maps on the brain. 58:37.440 --> 58:45.000 We would adopt a model for what that meant exactly, we would remand it for fact-finding. 58:45.000 --> 58:48.000 And then the fact-finders would do what they would do and then we talked a little bit about 58:48.000 --> 58:54.840 remedy, which could be the fourth thing. 58:54.840 --> 58:58.520 We have two cases in front of us. 58:58.520 --> 59:09.480 Your friends are very patiently sitting in the front row behind you. 59:09.480 --> 59:11.160 What should we do about that? 59:11.160 --> 59:22.720 What if we also find that there is an anti-competitive claim that that also violates the Wisconsin 59:22.720 --> 59:23.720 Constitution? 59:23.720 --> 59:29.800 We have three, we have two, three-judge panels. 59:29.800 --> 59:39.360 I assume that they are also going to come up here and say if you find that this is dishable, 59:39.360 --> 59:43.720 you adopt a model, I don't want to take any of your argument away, you'll come up and 59:43.720 --> 59:47.000 then do this, you'll remand it back for fact-finding. 59:47.000 --> 59:54.840 Are we going to have two different panels, six different judges, having these hearings, 59:54.840 --> 59:58.320 coming up with who knows how many different maps? 59:58.320 --> 01:00:00.000 Can you help me think through-