WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:01.000 Okay. 00:01.000 --> 00:02.000 Yeah. 00:02.000 --> 00:03.000 Yeah. 00:03.000 --> 00:04.000 Okay. 00:04.000 --> 00:05.000 Good morning everyone. 00:05.000 --> 00:06.000 I'm Ed. 00:06.000 --> 00:07.000 I'm Ed. 00:07.000 --> 00:08.000 I'm Dr. 24 Marshall. 00:08.000 --> 00:09.000 This is a few minutes. 00:09.000 --> 00:10.000 I'm going to talk about, please be sure. 00:10.000 --> 00:11.000 Okay. 00:11.000 --> 00:12.000 All right. 00:12.000 --> 00:13.000 I'm sorry. 00:13.000 --> 00:14.000 I'm sorry. 00:14.000 --> 00:15.000 I'm sorry. 00:15.000 --> 00:16.000 I'm sorry. 00:16.000 --> 00:17.000 I'm sorry. 00:17.000 --> 00:18.000 I'm sorry. 00:18.000 --> 00:19.000 I'm sorry. 00:19.000 --> 00:20.000 I'm sorry. 00:20.000 --> 00:21.000 I'm sorry. 00:21.000 --> 00:22.000 I'm sorry. 00:22.000 --> 00:23.000 I'm sorry. 00:23.000 --> 00:24.000 I'm sorry. 00:24.000 --> 00:25.000 I'm sorry. 00:25.000 --> 00:26.000 I'm sorry. 00:26.000 --> 00:27.000 I'm sorry. 00:27.000 --> 00:28.000 I'm sorry. 00:29.000 --> 00:30.000 I'm sorry. 00:30.000 --> 00:31.000 I'm sorry. 00:31.000 --> 00:32.000 I'm sorry. 00:32.000 --> 00:33.000 I'm sorry. 00:33.000 --> 00:34.000 I'm sorry. 00:34.000 --> 00:35.000 I'm sorry. 00:35.000 --> 00:36.000 I'm sorry. 00:36.000 --> 00:37.000 I'm sorry. 00:37.000 --> 00:38.000 I'm sorry. 00:38.000 --> 00:39.000 I'm sorry. 00:39.000 --> 00:40.000 I'm sorry. 00:40.000 --> 00:41.000 I'm sorry. 00:41.000 --> 00:42.000 I'm sorry. 00:42.000 --> 00:43.000 I'm sorry. 00:43.000 --> 00:44.000 I'm sorry. 00:44.000 --> 00:45.000 I'm sorry. 00:45.000 --> 00:46.000 I'm sorry. 00:46.000 --> 00:47.000 I'm sorry. 00:47.000 --> 00:48.000 I'm sorry. 00:48.000 --> 00:49.000 I'm sorry. 00:49.000 --> 00:50.000 I'm sorry. 00:50.000 --> 00:51.000 I'm sorry. 00:51.000 --> 00:52.000 I'm sorry. 00:52.000 --> 00:53.000 I'm sorry. 00:53.000 --> 00:54.000 I'm sorry. 00:54.000 --> 00:55.000 I'm sorry. 00:55.000 --> 00:56.000 I'm sorry. 00:57.000 --> 00:58.000 I'm sorry. 00:58.000 --> 00:59.000 I'm sorry. 00:59.000 --> 01:00.000 I'm sorry. 01:00.000 --> 01:01.000 I'm sorry. 01:01.000 --> 01:02.000 I'm sorry. 01:02.000 --> 01:03.000 I'm sorry. 01:03.000 --> 01:04.000 I'm sorry. 01:04.000 --> 01:05.000 I'm sorry. 01:05.000 --> 01:06.000 I'm sorry. 01:06.000 --> 01:07.000 I'm sorry. 01:07.000 --> 01:08.000 I'm sorry. 01:08.000 --> 01:09.000 I'm sorry. 01:09.000 --> 01:10.000 I'm sorry. 01:10.000 --> 01:11.000 I'm sorry. 01:11.000 --> 01:12.000 I'm sorry. 01:12.000 --> 01:13.000 I'm sorry. 01:13.000 --> 01:14.000 I'm sorry. 01:14.000 --> 01:15.000 I'm sorry. 01:15.000 --> 01:16.000 I'm sorry. 01:16.000 --> 01:17.000 I'm sorry. 01:17.000 --> 01:18.000 I'm sorry. 01:18.000 --> 01:19.000 I'm sorry. 01:19.000 --> 01:20.000 I'm sorry. 01:20.000 --> 01:21.000 I'm sorry. 01:21.000 --> 01:22.000 I'm sorry. 01:22.000 --> 01:23.000 I'm sorry. 01:23.000 --> 01:24.000 I'm sorry. 01:25.000 --> 01:26.000 I'm sorry. 01:26.000 --> 01:27.000 I'm sorry. 01:27.000 --> 01:28.000 I'm sorry. 01:28.000 --> 01:29.000 I'm sorry. 01:29.000 --> 01:30.000 I'm sorry. 01:30.000 --> 01:31.000 I'm sorry. 01:31.000 --> 01:32.000 I'm sorry. 01:32.000 --> 01:33.000 I'm sorry. 01:33.000 --> 01:34.000 I'm sorry. 01:34.000 --> 01:35.000 I'm sorry. 01:35.000 --> 01:36.000 I'm sorry. 01:36.000 --> 01:37.000 I'm sorry. 01:37.000 --> 01:38.000 I'm sorry. 01:38.000 --> 01:39.000 I'm sorry. 01:39.000 --> 01:40.000 I'm sorry. 01:40.000 --> 01:41.000 I'm sorry. 01:41.000 --> 01:42.000 I'm sorry. 01:42.000 --> 01:43.000 I'm sorry. 01:43.000 --> 01:44.000 I'm sorry. 01:44.000 --> 01:45.000 I'm sorry. 01:45.000 --> 01:46.000 I'm sorry. 01:46.000 --> 01:47.000 I'm sorry. 01:47.000 --> 01:48.000 I'm sorry. 01:48.000 --> 01:49.000 I'm sorry. 01:49.000 --> 01:50.000 I'm sorry. 01:50.000 --> 01:51.000 I'm sorry. 01:51.000 --> 01:52.000 I'm sorry. 01:53.000 --> 01:54.000 I'm sorry. 01:54.000 --> 01:55.000 I'm sorry. 01:55.000 --> 01:56.000 I'm sorry. 01:56.000 --> 01:57.000 I'm sorry. 01:57.000 --> 01:58.000 I'm sorry. 01:58.000 --> 01:59.000 I'm sorry. 01:59.000 --> 02:00.000 I'm sorry. 02:00.000 --> 02:01.000 I'm sorry. 02:01.000 --> 02:02.000 I'm sorry. 02:02.000 --> 02:03.000 I'm sorry. 02:03.000 --> 02:04.000 I'm sorry. 02:04.000 --> 02:05.000 I'm sorry. 02:05.000 --> 02:06.000 I'm sorry. 02:06.000 --> 02:07.000 I'm sorry. 02:07.000 --> 02:08.000 I'm sorry. 02:08.000 --> 02:09.000 I'm sorry. 02:09.000 --> 02:10.000 I'm sorry. 02:10.000 --> 02:11.000 I'm sorry. 02:11.000 --> 02:12.000 I'm sorry. 02:12.000 --> 02:13.000 I'm sorry. 02:13.000 --> 02:14.000 I'm sorry. 02:14.000 --> 02:15.000 I'm sorry. 02:15.000 --> 02:16.000 I'm sorry. 02:16.000 --> 02:17.000 I'm sorry. 02:17.000 --> 02:18.000 I'm sorry. 02:18.000 --> 02:19.000 I'm sorry. 02:19.000 --> 02:20.000 I'm sorry. 02:21.000 --> 02:22.000 I'm sorry. 02:22.000 --> 02:23.000 I'm sorry. 02:23.000 --> 02:24.000 I'm sorry. 02:24.000 --> 02:25.000 I'm sorry. 02:25.000 --> 02:26.000 I'm sorry. 02:26.000 --> 02:27.000 I'm sorry. 02:27.000 --> 02:28.000 I'm sorry. 02:28.000 --> 02:29.000 I'm sorry. 02:29.000 --> 02:30.000 I'm sorry. 02:30.000 --> 02:31.000 I'm sorry. 02:31.000 --> 02:32.000 I'm sorry. 02:32.000 --> 02:33.000 I'm sorry. 02:33.000 --> 02:34.000 I'm sorry. 02:34.000 --> 02:35.000 I'm sorry. 02:35.000 --> 02:36.000 I'm sorry. 02:36.000 --> 02:37.000 I'm sorry. 02:37.000 --> 02:38.000 I'm sorry. 02:38.000 --> 02:39.000 I'm sorry. 02:39.000 --> 02:40.000 I'm sorry. 02:40.000 --> 02:41.000 I'm sorry. 02:41.000 --> 02:42.000 I'm sorry. 02:42.000 --> 02:43.000 I'm sorry. 02:43.000 --> 02:44.000 I'm sorry. 02:44.000 --> 02:45.000 I'm sorry. 02:45.000 --> 02:46.000 I'm sorry. 02:46.000 --> 02:47.000 I'm sorry. 02:47.000 --> 02:48.000 I'm sorry. 02:49.000 --> 02:50.000 I'm sorry. 02:50.000 --> 02:51.000 I'm sorry. 02:51.000 --> 02:52.000 I'm sorry. 02:52.000 --> 02:53.000 I'm sorry. 02:53.000 --> 02:54.000 I'm sorry. 02:54.000 --> 02:55.000 I'm sorry. 02:55.000 --> 02:56.000 I'm sorry. 02:56.000 --> 02:57.000 I'm sorry. 02:57.000 --> 02:58.000 I'm sorry. 02:58.000 --> 02:59.000 I'm sorry. 02:59.000 --> 03:00.000 I'm sorry. 03:00.000 --> 03:01.000 I'm sorry. 03:01.000 --> 03:02.000 I'm sorry. 03:02.000 --> 03:03.000 I'm sorry. 03:03.000 --> 03:04.000 I'm sorry. 03:04.000 --> 03:05.000 I'm sorry. 03:05.000 --> 03:06.000 I'm sorry. 03:06.000 --> 03:07.000 I'm sorry. 03:07.000 --> 03:08.000 I'm sorry. 03:08.000 --> 03:09.000 I'm sorry. 03:09.000 --> 03:10.000 I'm sorry. 03:10.000 --> 03:11.000 I'm sorry. 03:11.000 --> 03:12.000 I'm sorry. 03:12.000 --> 03:13.000 I'm sorry. 03:13.000 --> 03:14.000 I'm sorry. 03:14.000 --> 03:15.000 I'm sorry. 03:15.000 --> 03:16.000 I'm sorry. 03:17.000 --> 03:18.000 I'm sorry. 03:18.000 --> 03:19.000 I'm sorry. 03:19.000 --> 03:20.000 I'm sorry. 03:20.000 --> 03:21.000 I'm sorry. 03:21.000 --> 03:22.000 I'm sorry. 03:22.000 --> 03:23.000 I'm sorry. 03:23.000 --> 03:24.000 I'm sorry. 03:24.000 --> 03:25.000 I'm sorry. 03:25.000 --> 03:26.000 I'm sorry. 03:26.000 --> 03:27.000 I'm sorry. 03:27.000 --> 03:28.000 I'm sorry. 03:28.000 --> 03:29.000 I'm sorry. 03:29.000 --> 03:30.000 I'm sorry. 03:30.000 --> 03:31.000 I'm sorry. 03:31.000 --> 03:32.000 I'm sorry. 03:32.000 --> 03:33.000 I'm sorry. 03:33.000 --> 03:34.000 I'm sorry. 03:34.000 --> 03:35.000 I'm sorry. 03:35.000 --> 03:36.000 I'm sorry. 03:36.000 --> 03:37.000 I'm sorry. 03:37.000 --> 03:38.000 I'm sorry. 03:38.000 --> 03:39.000 I'm sorry. 03:39.000 --> 03:40.000 I'm sorry. 03:40.000 --> 03:41.000 I'm sorry. 03:41.000 --> 03:42.000 I'm sorry. 03:42.000 --> 03:43.000 I'm sorry. 03:43.000 --> 03:44.000 I'm sorry. 03:45.000 --> 03:46.000 I'm sorry. 03:46.000 --> 03:47.000 I'm sorry. 03:47.000 --> 03:48.000 I'm sorry. 03:48.000 --> 03:49.000 I'm sorry. 03:49.000 --> 03:50.000 I'm sorry. 03:50.000 --> 03:51.000 I'm sorry. 03:51.000 --> 03:52.000 I'm sorry. 03:52.000 --> 03:53.000 I'm sorry. 03:53.000 --> 03:54.000 I'm sorry. 03:54.000 --> 03:55.000 I'm sorry. 03:55.000 --> 03:56.000 I'm sorry. 03:56.000 --> 03:57.000 I'm sorry. 03:57.000 --> 03:58.000 I'm sorry. 03:58.000 --> 03:59.000 I'm sorry. 03:59.000 --> 04:00.000 I'm sorry. 04:00.000 --> 04:01.000 I'm sorry. 04:01.000 --> 04:02.000 I'm sorry. 04:02.000 --> 04:03.000 I'm sorry. 04:03.000 --> 04:04.000 I'm sorry. 04:04.000 --> 04:05.000 I'm sorry. 04:05.000 --> 04:06.000 I'm sorry. 04:06.000 --> 04:07.000 I'm sorry. 04:07.000 --> 04:08.000 I'm sorry. 04:08.000 --> 04:09.000 I'm sorry. 04:09.000 --> 04:10.000 I'm sorry. 04:10.000 --> 04:11.000 I'm sorry. 04:11.000 --> 04:12.000 I'm sorry. 04:12.000 --> 04:13.000 I'm sorry. 04:13.000 --> 04:14.000 I'm sorry. 04:14.000 --> 04:15.000 I'm sorry. 04:15.000 --> 04:16.000 I'm sorry. 04:16.000 --> 04:17.000 I'm sorry. 04:17.000 --> 04:18.000 I'm sorry. 04:18.000 --> 04:19.000 I'm sorry. 04:19.000 --> 04:20.000 I'm sorry. 04:20.000 --> 04:21.000 I'm sorry. 04:21.000 --> 04:22.000 I'm sorry. 04:22.000 --> 04:23.000 I'm sorry. 04:23.000 --> 04:24.000 I'm sorry. 04:24.000 --> 04:25.000 I'm sorry. 04:25.000 --> 04:26.000 I'm sorry. 04:26.000 --> 04:27.000 I'm sorry. 04:27.000 --> 04:28.000 I'm sorry. 04:28.000 --> 04:29.000 I'm sorry. 04:29.000 --> 04:30.000 I'm sorry. 04:30.000 --> 04:31.000 I'm sorry. 04:31.000 --> 04:32.000 I'm sorry. 04:32.000 --> 04:33.000 I'm sorry. 04:33.000 --> 04:34.000 I'm sorry. 04:34.000 --> 04:35.000 I'm sorry. 04:35.000 --> 04:36.000 I'm sorry. 04:36.000 --> 04:37.000 I'm sorry. 04:37.000 --> 04:38.000 I'm sorry. 04:38.000 --> 04:39.000 I'm sorry. 04:39.000 --> 04:40.000 I'm sorry. 04:40.000 --> 04:41.000 I'm sorry. 04:41.000 --> 04:42.000 I'm sorry. 04:42.000 --> 04:43.000 I'm sorry. 04:43.000 --> 04:44.000 I'm sorry. 04:44.000 --> 04:45.000 I'm sorry. 04:45.000 --> 04:46.000 I'm sorry. 04:46.000 --> 04:47.000 I'm sorry. 04:47.000 --> 04:48.000 I'm sorry. 04:48.000 --> 04:49.000 I'm sorry. 04:49.000 --> 04:50.000 I'm sorry. 04:50.000 --> 04:51.000 I'm sorry. 04:51.000 --> 04:52.000 I'm sorry. 04:52.000 --> 04:53.000 I'm sorry. 04:53.000 --> 04:54.000 I'm sorry. 04:54.000 --> 04:55.000 I'm sorry. 04:55.000 --> 04:56.000 I'm sorry. 04:56.000 --> 04:57.000 I'm sorry. 04:57.000 --> 04:58.000 I'm sorry. 04:58.000 --> 04:59.000 I'm sorry. 04:59.000 --> 05:00.000 I'm sorry. 05:00.000 --> 05:01.000 I'm sorry. 05:01.000 --> 05:02.000 I'm sorry. 05:02.000 --> 05:03.000 I'm sorry. 05:03.000 --> 05:04.000 I'm sorry. 05:04.000 --> 05:05.000 I'm sorry. 05:05.000 --> 05:06.000 I'm sorry. 05:06.000 --> 05:07.000 I'm sorry. 05:07.000 --> 05:08.000 I'm sorry. 05:08.000 --> 05:09.000 I'm sorry. 05:09.000 --> 05:10.000 I'm sorry. 05:10.000 --> 05:11.000 I'm sorry. 05:11.000 --> 05:12.000 I'm sorry. 05:12.000 --> 05:13.000 I'm sorry. 05:13.000 --> 05:14.000 I'm sorry. 05:14.000 --> 05:15.000 I'm sorry. 05:15.000 --> 05:16.000 I'm sorry. 05:16.000 --> 05:17.000 I'm sorry. 05:17.000 --> 05:18.000 I'm sorry. 05:18.000 --> 05:19.000 I'm sorry. 05:19.000 --> 05:20.000 I'm sorry. 05:20.000 --> 05:21.000 I'm sorry. 05:21.000 --> 05:22.000 I'm sorry. 05:22.000 --> 05:23.000 I'm sorry. 05:23.000 --> 05:24.000 I'm sorry. 05:24.000 --> 05:25.000 I'm sorry. 05:25.000 --> 05:26.000 I'm sorry. 05:26.000 --> 05:27.000 I'm sorry. 05:27.000 --> 05:28.000 I'm sorry. 05:28.000 --> 05:29.000 I'm sorry. 05:29.000 --> 05:30.000 I'm sorry. 05:30.000 --> 05:31.000 I'm sorry. 05:31.000 --> 05:32.000 I'm sorry. 05:32.000 --> 05:33.000 I'm sorry. 05:33.000 --> 05:34.000 I'm sorry. 05:34.000 --> 05:35.000 I'm sorry. 05:35.000 --> 05:36.000 I'm sorry. 05:36.000 --> 05:37.000 I'm sorry. 05:37.000 --> 05:38.000 I'm sorry. 05:38.000 --> 05:39.000 I'm sorry. 05:39.000 --> 05:40.000 I'm sorry. 05:40.000 --> 05:41.000 I'm sorry. 05:41.000 --> 05:42.000 I'm sorry. 05:42.000 --> 05:43.000 I'm sorry. 05:43.000 --> 05:44.000 I'm sorry. 05:44.000 --> 05:45.000 I'm sorry. 05:45.000 --> 05:46.000 I'm sorry. 05:46.000 --> 05:47.000 I'm sorry. 05:47.000 --> 05:48.000 I'm sorry. 05:48.000 --> 05:49.000 I'm sorry. 05:49.000 --> 05:50.000 I'm sorry. 05:50.000 --> 05:51.000 I'm sorry. 05:51.000 --> 05:52.000 I'm sorry. 05:52.000 --> 05:53.000 I'm sorry. 05:53.000 --> 05:54.000 I'm sorry. 05:54.000 --> 05:55.000 I'm sorry. 05:55.000 --> 05:56.000 I'm sorry. 05:56.000 --> 05:57.000 I'm sorry. 05:57.000 --> 05:58.000 I'm sorry. 05:58.000 --> 05:59.000 I'm sorry. 05:59.000 --> 06:00.000 I'm sorry. 06:00.000 --> 06:01.000 I'm sorry. 06:01.000 --> 06:02.000 I'm sorry. 06:02.000 --> 06:03.000 I'm sorry. 06:03.000 --> 06:04.000 I'm sorry. 06:04.000 --> 06:05.000 I'm sorry. 06:05.000 --> 06:06.000 I'm sorry. 06:06.000 --> 06:07.000 I'm sorry. 06:07.000 --> 06:08.000 I'm sorry. 06:08.000 --> 06:09.000 I'm sorry. 06:09.000 --> 06:10.000 I'm sorry. 06:10.000 --> 06:11.000 I'm sorry. 06:11.000 --> 06:12.000 I'm sorry. 06:12.000 --> 06:13.000 I'm sorry. 06:13.000 --> 06:14.000 I'm sorry. 06:14.000 --> 06:15.000 I'm sorry. 06:15.000 --> 06:16.000 I'm sorry. 06:16.000 --> 06:17.000 I'm sorry. 06:17.000 --> 06:18.000 I'm sorry. 06:18.000 --> 06:19.000 I'm sorry. 06:19.000 --> 06:20.000 I'm sorry. 06:20.000 --> 06:21.000 I'm sorry. 06:21.000 --> 06:22.000 I'm sorry. 06:22.000 --> 06:23.000 I'm sorry. 06:23.000 --> 06:24.000 I'm sorry. 06:24.000 --> 06:25.000 I'm sorry. 06:25.000 --> 06:26.000 I'm sorry. 06:26.000 --> 06:27.000 I'm sorry. 06:27.000 --> 06:28.000 I'm sorry. 06:28.000 --> 06:29.000 I'm sorry. 06:29.000 --> 06:30.000 I'm sorry. 06:30.000 --> 06:31.000 I'm sorry. 06:31.000 --> 06:32.000 I'm sorry. 06:32.000 --> 06:33.000 I'm sorry. 06:33.000 --> 06:34.000 I'm sorry. 06:34.000 --> 06:35.000 I'm sorry. 06:35.000 --> 06:36.000 I'm sorry. 06:36.000 --> 06:37.000 I'm sorry. 06:37.000 --> 06:38.000 I'm sorry. 06:38.000 --> 06:39.000 I'm sorry. 06:39.000 --> 06:40.000 I'm sorry. 06:40.000 --> 06:41.000 I'm sorry. 06:41.000 --> 06:42.000 I'm sorry. 06:42.000 --> 06:43.000 I'm sorry. 06:43.000 --> 06:44.000 I'm sorry. 06:44.000 --> 06:45.000 I'm sorry. 06:45.000 --> 06:46.000 I'm sorry. 06:46.000 --> 06:47.000 I'm sorry. 06:47.000 --> 06:48.000 I'm sorry. 06:48.000 --> 06:49.000 I'm sorry. 06:49.000 --> 06:50.000 I'm sorry. 06:50.000 --> 06:51.000 I'm sorry. 06:51.000 --> 06:52.000 I'm sorry. 06:52.000 --> 06:53.000 I'm sorry. 06:53.000 --> 06:54.000 I'm sorry. 06:54.000 --> 06:55.000 I'm sorry. 06:56.000 --> 06:57.000 I'm sorry. 06:57.000 --> 06:58.000 I'm sorry. 06:58.000 --> 06:59.000 I'm sorry. 06:59.000 --> 07:00.000 I'm sorry. 07:00.000 --> 07:01.000 I'm sorry. 07:01.000 --> 07:02.000 I'm sorry. 07:02.000 --> 07:03.000 I'm sorry. 07:03.000 --> 07:04.000 I'm sorry. 07:04.000 --> 07:05.000 I'm sorry. 07:05.000 --> 07:06.000 I'm sorry. 07:06.000 --> 07:07.000 I'm sorry. 07:07.000 --> 07:08.000 I'm sorry. 07:08.000 --> 07:09.000 I'm sorry. 07:09.000 --> 07:10.000 I'm sorry. 07:10.000 --> 07:11.000 I'm sorry. 07:11.000 --> 07:12.000 I'm sorry. 07:12.000 --> 07:13.000 I'm sorry. 07:13.000 --> 07:14.000 I'm sorry. 07:14.000 --> 07:15.000 I'm sorry. 07:15.000 --> 07:16.000 I'm sorry. 07:16.000 --> 07:17.000 I'm sorry. 07:17.000 --> 07:18.000 I'm sorry. 07:18.000 --> 07:19.000 I'm sorry. 07:19.000 --> 07:20.000 I'm sorry. 07:20.000 --> 07:21.000 I'm sorry. 07:21.000 --> 07:22.000 I'm sorry. 07:22.000 --> 07:23.000 I'm sorry. 07:24.000 --> 07:25.000 I'm sorry. 07:25.000 --> 07:26.000 I'm sorry. 07:26.000 --> 07:27.000 I'm sorry. 07:27.000 --> 07:28.000 I'm sorry. 07:28.000 --> 07:29.000 I'm sorry. 07:29.000 --> 07:30.000 I'm sorry. 07:30.000 --> 07:31.000 I'm sorry. 07:31.000 --> 07:32.000 I'm sorry. 07:32.000 --> 07:33.000 I'm sorry. 07:33.000 --> 07:34.000 I'm sorry. 07:34.000 --> 07:35.000 I'm sorry. 07:35.000 --> 07:36.000 I'm sorry. 07:36.000 --> 07:37.000 I'm sorry. 07:37.000 --> 07:38.000 I'm sorry. 07:38.000 --> 07:39.000 I'm sorry. 07:39.000 --> 07:40.000 I'm sorry. 07:40.000 --> 07:41.000 I'm sorry. 07:41.000 --> 07:42.000 I'm sorry. 07:42.000 --> 07:43.000 I'm sorry. 07:43.000 --> 07:44.000 I'm sorry. 07:44.000 --> 07:45.000 I'm sorry. 07:45.000 --> 07:46.000 I'm sorry. 07:46.000 --> 07:47.000 I'm sorry. 07:47.000 --> 07:48.000 I'm sorry. 07:48.000 --> 07:49.000 I'm sorry. 07:49.000 --> 07:50.000 I'm sorry. 07:50.000 --> 07:51.000 I'm sorry. 07:52.000 --> 07:53.000 I'm sorry. 07:53.000 --> 07:54.000 I'm sorry. 07:54.000 --> 07:55.000 I'm sorry. 07:55.000 --> 07:56.000 I'm sorry. 07:56.000 --> 07:57.000 I'm sorry. 07:57.000 --> 07:58.000 I'm sorry. 07:58.000 --> 07:59.000 I'm sorry. 07:59.000 --> 08:00.000 I'm sorry. 08:00.000 --> 08:01.000 I'm sorry. 08:01.000 --> 08:02.000 I'm sorry. 08:02.000 --> 08:03.000 I'm sorry. 08:03.000 --> 08:04.000 I'm sorry. 08:04.000 --> 08:05.000 I'm sorry. 08:05.000 --> 08:06.000 I'm sorry. 08:06.000 --> 08:07.000 I'm sorry. 08:07.000 --> 08:08.000 I'm sorry. 08:08.000 --> 08:09.000 I'm sorry. 08:09.000 --> 08:10.000 I'm sorry. 08:10.000 --> 08:11.000 I'm sorry. 08:11.000 --> 08:12.000 I'm sorry. 08:12.000 --> 08:13.000 I'm sorry. 08:13.000 --> 08:14.000 I'm sorry. 08:14.000 --> 08:15.000 I'm sorry. 08:15.000 --> 08:16.000 I'm sorry. 08:16.000 --> 08:17.000 I'm sorry. 08:17.000 --> 08:18.000 I'm sorry. 08:18.000 --> 08:19.000 I'm sorry. 08:20.000 --> 08:21.000 I'm sorry. 08:21.000 --> 08:22.000 I'm sorry. 08:22.000 --> 08:23.000 I'm sorry. 08:23.000 --> 08:24.000 I'm sorry. 08:24.000 --> 08:25.000 I'm sorry. 08:25.000 --> 08:26.000 I'm sorry. 08:26.000 --> 08:27.000 I'm sorry. 08:27.000 --> 08:28.000 I'm sorry. 08:28.000 --> 08:29.000 I'm sorry. 08:29.000 --> 08:30.000 I'm sorry. 08:30.000 --> 08:31.000 I'm sorry. 08:31.000 --> 08:32.000 I'm sorry. 08:32.000 --> 08:33.000 I'm sorry. 08:33.000 --> 08:34.000 I'm sorry. 08:34.000 --> 08:35.000 I'm sorry. 08:35.000 --> 08:36.000 I'm sorry. 08:36.000 --> 08:37.000 I'm sorry. 08:37.000 --> 08:38.000 I'm sorry. 08:38.000 --> 08:39.000 I'm sorry. 08:39.000 --> 08:40.000 I'm sorry. 08:40.000 --> 08:41.000 I'm sorry. 08:41.000 --> 08:42.000 I'm sorry. 08:42.000 --> 08:43.000 I'm sorry. 08:43.000 --> 08:44.000 I'm sorry. 08:44.000 --> 08:45.000 I'm sorry. 08:45.000 --> 08:46.000 I'm sorry. 08:46.000 --> 08:47.000 I'm sorry. 08:48.000 --> 08:49.000 I'm sorry. 08:49.000 --> 08:50.000 I'm sorry. 08:50.000 --> 08:51.000 I'm sorry. 08:51.000 --> 08:52.000 I'm sorry. 08:52.000 --> 08:53.000 I'm sorry. 08:53.000 --> 08:54.000 I'm sorry. 08:54.000 --> 08:55.000 I'm sorry. 08:55.000 --> 08:56.000 I'm sorry. 08:56.000 --> 08:57.000 I'm sorry. 08:57.000 --> 08:58.000 I'm sorry. 08:58.000 --> 08:59.000 I'm sorry. 08:59.000 --> 09:00.000 I'm sorry. 09:00.000 --> 09:01.000 I'm sorry. 09:01.000 --> 09:02.000 I'm sorry. 09:02.000 --> 09:03.000 I'm sorry. 09:03.000 --> 09:04.000 I'm sorry. 09:04.000 --> 09:05.000 I'm sorry. 09:05.000 --> 09:06.000 I'm sorry. 09:06.000 --> 09:07.000 I'm sorry. 09:07.000 --> 09:08.000 I'm sorry. 09:08.000 --> 09:09.000 I'm sorry. 09:09.000 --> 09:10.000 I'm sorry. 09:10.000 --> 09:11.000 I'm sorry. 09:11.000 --> 09:12.000 I'm sorry. 09:12.000 --> 09:13.000 I'm sorry. 09:13.000 --> 09:14.000 I'm sorry. 09:14.000 --> 09:15.000 I'm sorry. 09:16.000 --> 09:17.000 I'm sorry. 09:17.000 --> 09:18.000 I'm sorry. 09:18.000 --> 09:19.000 I'm sorry. 09:19.000 --> 09:20.000 I'm sorry. 09:20.000 --> 09:21.000 I'm sorry. 09:21.000 --> 09:22.000 I'm sorry. 09:22.000 --> 09:23.000 I'm sorry. 09:23.000 --> 09:24.000 I'm sorry. 09:24.000 --> 09:25.000 I'm sorry. 09:25.000 --> 09:26.000 I'm sorry. 09:26.000 --> 09:27.000 I'm sorry. 09:27.000 --> 09:28.000 I'm sorry. 09:28.000 --> 09:29.000 I'm sorry. 09:29.000 --> 09:30.000 I'm sorry. 09:30.000 --> 09:31.000 I'm sorry. 09:31.000 --> 09:32.000 I'm sorry. 09:32.000 --> 09:33.000 I'm sorry. 09:33.000 --> 09:34.000 I'm sorry. 09:34.000 --> 09:35.000 I'm sorry. 09:35.000 --> 09:36.000 I'm sorry. 09:36.000 --> 09:37.000 I'm sorry. 09:37.000 --> 09:38.000 I'm sorry. 09:38.000 --> 09:39.000 I'm sorry. 09:39.000 --> 09:40.000 I'm sorry. 09:40.000 --> 09:41.000 I'm sorry. 09:41.000 --> 09:42.000 I'm sorry. 09:42.000 --> 09:43.000 I'm sorry. 09:44.000 --> 09:45.000 I'm sorry. 09:45.000 --> 09:46.000 I'm sorry. 09:46.000 --> 09:47.000 I'm sorry. 09:47.000 --> 09:48.000 I'm sorry. 09:48.000 --> 09:49.000 I'm sorry. 09:49.000 --> 09:50.000 I'm sorry. 09:50.000 --> 09:51.000 I'm sorry. 09:51.000 --> 09:52.000 I'm sorry. 09:52.000 --> 09:53.000 I'm sorry. 09:53.000 --> 09:54.000 I'm sorry. 09:54.000 --> 09:55.000 I'm sorry. 09:55.000 --> 09:56.000 I'm sorry. 09:56.000 --> 09:57.000 I'm sorry. 09:57.000 --> 09:58.000 I'm sorry. 09:58.000 --> 09:59.000 I'm sorry. 09:59.000 --> 10:00.000 I'm sorry. 10:00.000 --> 10:01.000 I'm sorry. 10:01.000 --> 10:02.000 I'm sorry. 10:02.000 --> 10:03.000 I'm sorry. 10:03.000 --> 10:04.000 I'm sorry. 10:04.000 --> 10:05.000 I'm sorry. 10:05.000 --> 10:06.000 I'm sorry. 10:06.000 --> 10:07.000 I'm sorry. 10:07.000 --> 10:08.000 I'm sorry. 10:08.000 --> 10:09.000 I'm sorry. 10:09.000 --> 10:10.000 I'm sorry. 10:10.000 --> 10:11.000 I'm sorry. 10:12.000 --> 10:13.000 I'm sorry. 10:13.000 --> 10:14.000 I'm sorry. 10:14.000 --> 10:15.000 I'm sorry. 10:15.000 --> 10:16.000 I'm sorry. 10:16.000 --> 10:17.000 I'm sorry. 10:17.000 --> 10:18.000 I'm sorry. 10:18.000 --> 10:19.000 I'm sorry. 10:19.000 --> 10:20.000 I'm sorry. 10:20.000 --> 10:21.000 I'm sorry. 10:21.000 --> 10:22.000 I'm sorry. 10:22.000 --> 10:23.000 I'm sorry. 10:23.000 --> 10:24.000 I'm sorry. 10:24.000 --> 10:25.000 I'm sorry. 10:25.000 --> 10:26.000 I'm sorry. 10:26.000 --> 10:27.000 I'm sorry. 10:27.000 --> 10:28.000 I'm sorry. 10:28.000 --> 10:29.000 I'm sorry. 10:29.000 --> 10:30.000 I'm sorry. 10:30.000 --> 10:31.000 I'm sorry. 10:31.000 --> 10:32.000 I'm sorry. 10:32.000 --> 10:33.000 I'm sorry. 10:33.000 --> 10:34.000 I'm sorry. 10:34.000 --> 10:35.000 I'm sorry. 10:35.000 --> 10:36.000 I'm sorry. 10:36.000 --> 10:37.000 I'm sorry. 10:37.000 --> 10:38.000 I'm sorry. 10:38.000 --> 10:39.000 I'm sorry. 10:40.000 --> 10:41.000 I'm sorry. 10:41.000 --> 10:42.000 I'm sorry. 10:42.000 --> 10:43.000 I'm sorry. 10:43.000 --> 10:44.000 I'm sorry. 10:44.000 --> 10:45.000 I'm sorry. 10:45.000 --> 10:46.000 I'm sorry. 10:46.000 --> 10:47.000 I'm sorry. 10:47.000 --> 10:48.000 I'm sorry. 10:48.000 --> 10:49.000 I'm sorry. 10:49.000 --> 10:50.000 I'm sorry. 10:50.000 --> 10:51.000 I'm sorry. 10:51.000 --> 10:52.000 I'm sorry. 10:52.000 --> 10:53.000 I'm sorry. 10:53.000 --> 10:54.000 I'm sorry. 10:54.000 --> 10:55.000 I'm sorry. 10:55.000 --> 10:56.000 I'm sorry. 10:56.000 --> 10:57.000 I'm sorry. 10:57.000 --> 10:58.000 I'm sorry. 10:58.000 --> 10:59.000 I'm sorry. 10:59.000 --> 11:00.000 I'm sorry. 11:00.000 --> 11:01.000 I'm sorry. 11:01.000 --> 11:02.000 I'm sorry. 11:02.000 --> 11:03.000 I'm sorry. 11:03.000 --> 11:04.000 I'm sorry. 11:04.000 --> 11:05.000 I'm sorry. 11:05.000 --> 11:06.000 I'm sorry. 11:06.000 --> 11:07.000 I'm sorry. 11:07.000 --> 11:08.000 I'm sorry. 11:08.000 --> 11:09.000 I'm sorry. 11:09.000 --> 11:10.000 I'm sorry. 11:10.000 --> 11:11.000 I'm sorry. 11:11.000 --> 11:12.000 I'm sorry. 11:12.000 --> 11:13.000 I'm sorry. 11:13.000 --> 11:14.000 I'm sorry. 11:14.000 --> 11:15.000 I'm sorry. 11:15.000 --> 11:16.000 I'm sorry. 11:16.000 --> 11:17.000 I'm sorry. 11:17.000 --> 11:18.000 I'm sorry. 11:18.000 --> 11:19.000 I'm sorry. 11:19.000 --> 11:20.000 I'm sorry. 11:20.000 --> 11:21.000 I'm sorry. 11:21.000 --> 11:22.000 I'm sorry. 11:22.000 --> 11:23.000 I'm sorry. 11:23.000 --> 11:24.000 I'm sorry. 11:24.000 --> 11:25.000 I'm sorry. 11:25.000 --> 11:26.000 I'm sorry. 11:26.000 --> 11:27.000 I'm sorry. 11:27.000 --> 11:28.000 I'm sorry. 11:28.000 --> 11:29.000 I'm sorry. 11:29.000 --> 11:30.000 I'm sorry. 11:30.000 --> 11:31.000 I'm sorry. 11:31.000 --> 11:32.000 I'm sorry. 11:32.000 --> 11:33.000 I'm sorry. 11:33.000 --> 11:34.000 I'm sorry. 11:35.000 --> 11:36.000 I'm sorry. 11:36.000 --> 11:37.000 I'm sorry. 11:37.000 --> 11:38.000 I'm sorry. 11:38.000 --> 11:39.000 I'm sorry. 11:39.000 --> 11:40.000 I'm sorry. 11:40.000 --> 11:41.000 I'm sorry. 11:41.000 --> 11:42.000 I'm sorry. 11:42.000 --> 11:43.000 I'm sorry. 11:43.000 --> 11:44.000 I'm sorry. 11:44.000 --> 11:45.000 I'm sorry. 11:45.000 --> 11:46.000 I'm sorry. 11:46.000 --> 11:47.000 I'm sorry. 11:47.000 --> 11:48.000 I'm sorry. 11:48.000 --> 11:49.000 I'm sorry. 11:49.000 --> 11:50.000 I'm sorry. 11:50.000 --> 11:51.000 I'm sorry. 11:51.000 --> 11:52.000 I'm sorry. 11:52.000 --> 11:53.000 I'm sorry. 11:53.000 --> 11:54.000 I'm sorry. 11:54.000 --> 11:55.000 I'm sorry. 11:55.000 --> 11:56.000 I'm sorry. 11:56.000 --> 11:57.000 I'm sorry. 11:57.000 --> 11:58.000 I'm sorry. 11:58.000 --> 11:59.000 I'm sorry. 11:59.000 --> 12:00.000 I'm sorry. 12:00.000 --> 12:01.000 I'm sorry. 12:01.000 --> 12:02.000 I'm sorry. 12:03.000 --> 12:10.000 All rise. 12:10.000 --> 12:11.000 Carry, carry. 12:11.000 --> 12:17.000 The Wisconsin Supreme Court is now in session. 12:17.000 --> 12:21.000 The Honorable Chief Justice Joe Kerarski Psajte. 12:21.000 --> 12:22.000 Your silence is s layered. 12:22.000 --> 12:23.000 Good morning everybody. 12:23.000 --> 12:25.000 Go ahead and have a seat. 12:25.000 --> 12:41.500 I just want to go through a couple of administrative things before we start today. 12:41.500 --> 12:52.080 Number one, Justice Dowd is having a speaker issue, not to get too personal. 12:52.080 --> 12:58.400 So we've turned the volume up on the sound system, I think it's, I hope it's loud enough. 12:58.400 --> 13:01.640 Will you just be really mindful of that when you're at the podium and you're speaking 13:01.640 --> 13:07.440 into the speaker, and if we can't hear you, I might just stop you and say, please raise 13:07.440 --> 13:13.000 the volume a little bit, or as I would say to my kids, use your inside scream. 13:13.000 --> 13:20.920 The second thing, as it relates to timing, there's a number of you that are arguing on 13:20.920 --> 13:25.840 this side of the table, especially, I want to make sure that everyone gets their questions 13:25.840 --> 13:31.480 answered, and that you have a chance to answer those questions without feeling unduly rushed. 13:31.480 --> 13:38.480 So we'll use the lights as guide posts, but we won't have strict adherence to them with 13:38.480 --> 13:42.000 in reason. 13:42.000 --> 13:47.920 Having said that, we may go over the time, I'm going to be mindful of what time it is 13:47.920 --> 13:53.240 on the clock, and take breaks, I want to try to mitigate misery in this room as much 13:53.240 --> 13:55.960 as possible for everyone involved. 13:55.960 --> 13:59.520 So if I stop you in the middle, I'm going to try to stop anyone in the middle of a point 13:59.520 --> 14:03.600 or an argument, but it's possible that it might stop you in the middle of your argument 14:03.600 --> 14:08.680 depending on where we are, I'm just letting you know that ahead of time, just because 14:08.680 --> 14:14.720 I want to be able to try to keep it pretty close to 90 minutes. 14:14.720 --> 14:20.280 I think that is all I have preliminarily, so the first case that we have today is Elizabeth 14:20.280 --> 14:32.960 Bothelld versus the Wisconsin Elections Commission, and may I please have the appearances? 14:32.960 --> 14:38.080 And I believe you're appearing pro-hoc-viche, yes, okay, welcome to the Wisconsin State 14:38.080 --> 14:40.880 Bar for the purposes of today's hearing. 14:40.880 --> 15:06.160 Good morning, and this is what I have for timing, at least according to my sheet, is 15:06.160 --> 15:14.840 25 minutes, followed by 10, 10, 10, and then back to you for five, all right, oh, we are 15:14.840 --> 15:24.480 ready when you are. 15:24.480 --> 15:25.480 Thank you, Your Honors. 15:25.480 --> 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 --> 15:35.360 since overruled. 15:35.360 --> 15:37.840 The map is therefore unlawful. 15:37.840 --> 15:43.600 The Bothelld plaintiff's separation of powers claim rests on three basic pillars that have 15:43.600 --> 15:47.000 already been established by this court. 15:47.000 --> 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 --> 16:01.440 with our least change directive. 16:01.800 --> 16:06.880 Two, least change is no longer good law. 16:06.880 --> 16:12.320 This court said so in Clark, where it explained that least change is incompatible with the 16:12.320 --> 16:19.440 judiciary's institutional obligations of neutrality and independence and expressly overruled 16:19.440 --> 16:24.720 any portions of Johnson that mandate a least change approach. 16:24.720 --> 16:30.960 And three, this court has the power to right this wrong. 16:30.960 --> 16:37.640 It itself rejected virtually identical procedural obstacles and objections that interveners 16:37.640 --> 16:44.400 advance here and confirmed that this court can and should require a lawful replacement 16:44.400 --> 16:47.880 for an unlawful court-drawn map going forward. 16:47.880 --> 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 --> 17:01.520 I believe this court has already overruled the basis of Johnson 1, the least changed 17:01.520 --> 17:07.360 map that was the direction from Johnson 1, and it also overturned the map that was drawn 17:07.360 --> 17:08.360 pursuant to that. 17:08.360 --> 17:12.720 I think by the logic, because it overturned the logic of the least changed map, we are 17:12.720 --> 17:17.240 now asking the court to finish that job and actually apply that to the ongoing injunction 17:17.240 --> 17:18.920 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 --> 17:48.400 So there was nothing ambiguous about what it was doing when it talked about wherever you 17:48.400 --> 17:55.560 find least change, whether it was mandated in Johnson 1 or adhered to in Johnson 2. 17:55.560 --> 17:57.520 All of that has been overruled by this court. 17:57.520 --> 18:02.360 So now the question is where you have just a single least change map left standing. 18:02.360 --> 18:06.720 There's only one least change map left standing in Wisconsin. 18:06.720 --> 18:07.720 Are we going with that map? 18:07.720 --> 18:09.560 Is essentially resting on legal quicksand. 18:09.560 --> 18:13.360 Let me push on that, Council. 18:13.360 --> 18:15.160 So that's not what Clark said. 18:15.160 --> 18:19.280 Clark did not say that least change could not be applied, right? 18:19.280 --> 18:20.400 Would you agree with that? 18:20.400 --> 18:24.720 Clark said that least change could be considered as part of traditional districting criteria, 18:24.720 --> 18:29.760 but it could not be the mandate that overarches or drives the drawing of the map. 18:29.760 --> 18:34.480 The court said it was overruled to the extent it was mandated as the methodology. 18:34.480 --> 18:39.720 Did not say that least change was always an impermissible methodology, isn't that right? 18:39.720 --> 18:40.720 Correct, Your Honor. 18:40.720 --> 18:48.560 That means that the holding in Johnson 1 is still good, that doesn't disturb that at 18:48.560 --> 18:49.560 all. 18:49.560 --> 18:55.040 There's nothing about Clark that overturned the use of least change as methodology. 18:55.040 --> 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 --> 19:14.520 That's a different argument you're making here today than was addressed in Clark, wouldn't 19:14.520 --> 19:15.520 you say? 19:15.520 --> 19:20.520 I believe that this court actually did explain why least change was not just wrong in principle 19:20.520 --> 19:22.840 or policy, but wrong as a matter of law. 19:22.840 --> 19:28.000 So let me talk a little bit about you frame your argument as a purely separation of powers 19:28.000 --> 19:29.000 argument. 19:29.000 --> 19:35.560 Would you agree that the United States Constitution gives the power to the legislature to draft 19:35.560 --> 19:37.360 congressional districts? 19:37.360 --> 19:38.360 It does. 19:38.360 --> 19:42.400 It primarily gives that power to the legislative branches and to the political process, but 19:42.400 --> 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 --> 19:56.800 But your argument is premised on the idea that in order to vindicate the separation 19:56.800 --> 20:04.680 of powers, the judiciary needs to take for itself the power that has been constitutionally 20:04.680 --> 20:09.640 given to the legislature, because when we did least change, as you acknowledge, we 20:09.640 --> 20:16.240 were 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 --> 20:37.160 Which the United States Constitution says that's the legislature's prerogative to do 20:37.160 --> 20:38.160 that. 20:38.160 --> 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 --> 20:49.840 That is quite a creative argument to me. 20:49.840 --> 20:53.760 In your honor, it's only in 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 changed 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 --> 23:56.080 signed into law. 23:56.080 --> 23:59.320 When passed by the Republican legislature, signed by the Democratic governor, lots of 23:59.320 --> 24:03.520 fighting, 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 The maps, 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 mal apportionment 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 --> 25:50.640 It's just to take it or instill going? 25:50.640 --> 25:52.640 No, but I was going to- 25:52.640 --> 25:53.640 Okay. 25:53.640 --> 25:54.640 Council, I have a question. 25:54.640 --> 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 --> 26:36.000 the least changed principle in Johnson about how to remedy the- 26:36.000 --> 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 it? 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 --> 28:21.400 And then the next question is, well, now that it is unresolved, how should we resolve it? 28:21.400 --> 28:25.080 Is it a legally cognizable claim that has judicially manageable standards? 28:25.080 --> 28:27.960 And our answer to that is absolutely yes. 28:27.960 --> 28:32.600 The fact that the Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court, has said that it's not just 28:32.600 --> 28:36.120 a considerable under federal law, does not make, undeclate that it's not just a 28:36.120 --> 28:37.320 considerable under state law. 28:37.320 --> 28:41.480 Ten other state courts have found partisan gerrymandering just a considerable under 28:41.480 --> 28:46.120 constitutional provisions, very similar to the ones that we rely upon here in Wisconsin. 28:46.120 --> 28:50.920 There's no reason why Wisconsin could not adopt that, any one of those models that 28:50.920 --> 28:55.280 the other state courts have adopted, to make sure that it is protecting what is in Wisconsin 28:55.280 --> 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 --> 29:05.880 Many of them do, Your Honor. 29:05.880 --> 29:10.640 For instance, in states like, sorry, in a case 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 --> 29:41.320 All of these provide independent and combined bases to find this fundamental principle 29:41.320 --> 29:43.080 of 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 --> 31:17.880 subordination test and effects based test, but that is not the only way to map onto this 31:17.880 --> 31:21.800 claim, you can do it based on the one that's in New Mexico, based on the one that's in 31:21.800 --> 31:22.800 Justice Kagan's dissent. 31:22.800 --> 31:26.640 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 --> 31:40.960 districting principles have been subordinated to partisan advantage and partisan gain. 31:40.960 --> 31:45.600 And the court has many in Pennsylvania, outlines a number of tools that courts can use as 31:45.600 --> 31:49.840 both direct and circumstantial evidence to decide whether or not, essentially, the way 31:50.000 --> 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 --> 32:08.480 So if I'm understanding that method, are you only looking at a single map, or are as opposed 32:08.480 --> 32:13.920 to if I think about Justice Kagan's dissent in Rucho, where she's talking about looking 32:13.920 --> 32:18.080 at, I think she uses an example of a thousand maps and looking at where they are on the 32:18.080 --> 32:19.080 curve. 32:19.080 --> 32:24.400 I'm not quite understanding if you adopt the punch of, if you're asking us to adopt the 32:24.400 --> 32:27.360 Pennsylvania model, if we adopt that model, what does that look like exactly? 32:27.360 --> 32:32.320 Are we just looking at the one map that is in front of us, or is it, are we comparing 32:32.320 --> 32:33.560 it to other maps? 32:33.560 --> 32:34.560 So absolutely, your honor. 32:34.560 --> 32:37.680 So what, obviously, there's only one map in front of the court when it comes to what 32:37.680 --> 32:43.160 we are ch- how we can prove that, how somebody can prove a partisan gerrymandering claim. 32:43.160 --> 32:45.640 There are many different evidentiary ways to do that. 32:45.640 --> 32:51.000 One of those that's typically used in partisan gerrymandering claims is this, the simulations 32:51.000 --> 32:52.000 approach, right? 32:52.000 --> 32:57.040 The, using multiple maps to show, would this ever have occurred based on the political, 32:57.040 --> 33:01.960 natural political geography of the state, or was there some undue partisan intent that 33:01.960 --> 33:05.640 really was skewing the map, well, I understand that, but if I understand the Pennsylvania 33:05.640 --> 33:10.880 model, you're looking at the map that is created, and you're saying, has it been, has the, 33:11.840 --> 33:15.920 if you're rank ordering, why you, why you created the map you did, is it subordinate 33:15.920 --> 33:18.640 to the constitutional requirements, or is it not? 33:18.640 --> 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 --> 33:27.800 I understand that you can look at a thousand maps, I understand you can look, we could 33:27.800 --> 33:33.680 look at more than that, right, easily, today, but, but I'm not, I just want to make sure 33:33.680 --> 33:38.640 I understand how you envision that process, how that process, if we adopted it, would 33:38.640 --> 33:41.920 work in the trial court in this case. 33:41.920 --> 33:45.240 So I think the way it would work following the Pennsylvania model, which, by the way, 33:45.240 --> 33:48.960 is spelled out really chapter and verse in that, in that opinion, is that the court would 33:48.960 --> 33:55.200 essentially look at the traditional districting criteria, the, the objective, political geography 33:55.200 --> 34:01.360 of the state, and ask, to what extent do the district lines veer from the traditional 34:01.360 --> 34:06.040 districting, just subordinate those, those traditional districting principles in service 34:06.040 --> 34:07.760 of some partisan advantage? 34:07.760 --> 34:12.040 And the way you answer that question is by looking at evidence from computer simulation 34:12.040 --> 34:16.680 maps, looking at statistics like the efficiency gap that shows wasted votes. 34:16.680 --> 34:20.880 There are a number of models at the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania recognized that are 34:20.880 --> 34:24.600 able to provide that evidence, so we know what we're looking for when we're looking 34:24.600 --> 34:25.600 at this one map. 34:25.600 --> 34:33.320 Why are you advocating for that instead of the intent, effects, and causation test that 34:33.320 --> 34:36.760 Justice Kagan talked about in her Rucho descent? 34:36.760 --> 34:41.520 So Your Honor, I don't want to overstate our advocacy for one model over another. 34:41.520 --> 34:46.600 At this point, our number one, well, our number one argument is that this court can strike 34:46.600 --> 34:51.440 down this map as a matter of law based on the law it's already drafted in Clark. 34:51.440 --> 34:55.440 But if the court decides to go down the partisan gerrymandering route, our argument there 34:55.440 --> 34:59.760 is that that is actually, that is not, that is a traditional route that many states have 34:59.760 --> 35:00.760 followed. 35:00.760 --> 35:04.280 And this court can choose whatever it deems to be the best test that it sounds fit. 35:04.280 --> 35:08.120 So I've suggested the Pennsylvania one, I believe 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 justishable, it is standard that is easily comprehended by courts and 35:19.160 --> 35:20.920 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 justishability, say that 20 times fast. 35:51.520 --> 35:56.440 And look at our constitution, what our constitution says. 35:56.440 --> 36:03.280 When you look at Article 1, Section 1, that people are sovereign, that government has 36:03.280 --> 36:09.600 no power except through the consent of the governed. 36:09.600 --> 36:17.960 And we are interested as a state court in looking at these maps as whether they present 36:17.960 --> 36:25.560 a constitutional harm to these principles of self-representation, of sovereignty of the 36:25.560 --> 36:30.880 people of the state of Wisconsin, which is some through lines throughout our constitution, 36:30.880 --> 36:37.720 some beautiful constitution with very rich words and it makes very clear that the people 36:37.720 --> 36:41.920 have the power, not the politicians, it is the people. 36:41.920 --> 36:49.240 So when we're looking at justishability, why we are so focused on what test do we apply, 36:49.240 --> 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 --> 37:08.800 We have free speech, the right to assembly, this court has a role in remedying wrongs. 37:08.800 --> 37:11.640 So what else are we looking at in terms of a test? 37:11.640 --> 37:16.500 So we have, you've identified, there's these different tests out there, 10 states have 37:16.500 --> 37:19.000 adopted some form of these tests. 37:19.000 --> 37:23.500 We certainly want to make sure the test is manageable. 37:23.500 --> 37:30.060 We want to make sure it's neutral, but what other guidance do you suggest this court 37:30.060 --> 37:37.140 looked you when we are measuring whether this map presents a constitutional harm? 37:37.140 --> 37:41.620 I believe your honor, and I appreciate exactly what you said, I agree that the Wisconsin 37:41.620 --> 37:46.740 constitution makes no mistake that democratic self-governance is the very foundation. 37:46.740 --> 37:52.740 And so there is a wrong under with the Wisconsin constitution that requires a remedy if the 37:52.740 --> 37:55.860 court decides to go down the part, it's a gerrymandering approach. 37:55.860 --> 38:00.740 When it comes to what the test can be, like I said, we have advocated for the Pennsylvania 38:00.740 --> 38:05.660 approach, which we believe is actually the most straightforward and easily easy to administer, 38:05.660 --> 38:09.900 but I'm not trying to dissuade the court from what I think is also a straightforward and 38:09.900 --> 38:10.900 easy to administer. 38:10.900 --> 38:15.260 Well, let me ask you about that, because if you look at New Mexico, which I would say 38:15.260 --> 38:23.380 has some very similar provisions on the sovereignty of the people on the government having to 38:23.380 --> 38:30.260 have the consent of the governed, they also apply a causation piece. 38:30.260 --> 38:37.260 And that is because we recognize, I don't think anybody on this panel would say, nobody 38:37.260 --> 38:44.660 would dispute, the state has an important constitutional role in redistricting. 38:44.660 --> 38:50.740 And so, isn't it, shouldn't it, wouldn't it be prudent of us to not just apply intent 38:50.740 --> 38:56.020 effects, but then to give the state the opportunity to present, if there is a legitimate interest 38:56.020 --> 39:00.980 that perhaps we're not thinking of, because that recognizes that the state does have important 39:00.980 --> 39:02.820 role in redistricting. 39:02.820 --> 39:06.320 I agree with that, Your Honor, and I think this Court's equal protection jurisprudence 39:06.320 --> 39:09.980 makes clear that the question would then be posed to the state, is there a legitimate 39:09.980 --> 39:14.180 interest that justifies this deviation? 39:14.180 --> 39:18.580 And I think actually under either test that this Court adopts, the state would be given 39:18.580 --> 39:24.260 that opportunity to prove that no, no, what you're seeing from the data and from the evidence 39:24.260 --> 39:29.340 is not the result of partisan gamesmanship, but is actually the result of some other legitimate 39:29.340 --> 39:30.340 criteria. 39:30.340 --> 39:32.140 I believe that the state would have that ability. 39:32.140 --> 39:37.060 I don't think that the, I think either of these tests are difficult for plaintiffs to 39:37.100 --> 39:42.980 prove intentionally difficult, but I think ultimately manageable for the Court to decide 39:42.980 --> 39:47.340 to make sure that it's not just striking down maps willy-nilly, but is actually applying 39:47.340 --> 39:49.940 chapter and verse exactly what the rules are. 39:49.940 --> 39:57.420 I have just one more question on this issue, and that is, do we not use in judging this, 39:57.420 --> 40:02.580 just disability, do we not use the same data that the map makers used? 40:03.060 --> 40:05.420 I mean, is that why it's quantifiable? 40:05.420 --> 40:11.860 Because map makers are able to distill down to the household and predict what is, what 40:11.860 --> 40:17.380 is the, we don't have party registration here, but what is the likely affiliation here? 40:17.380 --> 40:23.980 And so does it make it quantifiable in this context because we have the data now that 40:23.980 --> 40:29.700 we didn't have, our founders didn't have, even our grandfathers, did not have the data 40:29.700 --> 40:32.100 that we have now to make these determinations? 40:32.140 --> 40:36.700 I think certainly the tools that are available to courts to be able to discern what has happened. 40:36.700 --> 40:40.300 And these tools that are available to map drawers to discern, to figure out how to 40:40.300 --> 40:44.700 greet the effects that they want are far more sophisticated, which is all the, all the more 40:44.700 --> 40:50.780 reason why this Court said in Clark that this Court cannot afford to blind itself to those 40:50.780 --> 40:55.020 very true realities that lawmakers are aware of when they are drawing maps. 40:55.020 --> 40:59.900 When a court is drawing maps, it too needs to deal with the entire political demographic 40:59.940 --> 41:04.220 factual, census-based reality to make sure that it's drawing maps that are fair and 41:04.220 --> 41:05.620 constitutional for Wisconsin voters. 41:05.620 --> 41:08.860 So you can tell we're trying to pull you across the line here because these cases are 41:08.860 --> 41:11.020 complicated, right? 41:11.020 --> 41:16.260 And if we find them to be just dishable, we need to be advising the three judges. 41:16.260 --> 41:17.420 That should be. 41:17.420 --> 41:21.980 So can you clearly tell us why you think the Pennsylvania test is straightforward? 41:21.980 --> 41:25.740 We believe the Pennsylvania straight is test is straightforward because it looks, it does 41:25.780 --> 41:30.900 not delve into the hearts and minds of the map drawers and deciding which map drawers 41:30.900 --> 41:32.060 are most at issue. 41:32.060 --> 41:36.660 It looks at the actual effects of the map itself to decide whether the maps abordinates 41:36.660 --> 41:40.980 traditional constitutional principles to partisan advantage. 41:40.980 --> 41:42.460 Can it be explained? 41:42.460 --> 41:45.980 Can the deviations from traditional principles be explained by anything other than sheer 41:45.980 --> 41:48.740 partisan gamesmanship? 41:48.740 --> 41:53.580 So looking, I think, at the effects test that the Pennsylvania Court emphasizes is perhaps 41:53.580 --> 41:58.860 the, I would say, you know, the most straightforward way of determining this. 41:58.860 --> 42:02.940 But again, I don't think that the Court needs to shy away from looking at intent. 42:02.940 --> 42:05.180 This is the kind of stuff that courts do all the time. 42:05.180 --> 42:08.260 If it wanted to, probably, a more intent or causation-based approach. 42:08.260 --> 42:09.260 Okay. 42:09.260 --> 42:13.260 I want to take you through some procedural things here. 42:13.260 --> 42:17.620 So let's say we were to find your claims just dishable. 42:17.620 --> 42:21.020 I just want to go through kind of what that looks like. 42:21.020 --> 42:25.500 How do you get from there to a new map? 42:25.500 --> 42:26.500 Thank you, Your Honor. 42:26.500 --> 42:31.660 So I'm just going to reiterate that, you know, so option number one is to strike down the 42:31.660 --> 42:35.660 map as a matter of law, because it's already been struck down as a matter of principle. 42:35.660 --> 42:37.300 Let's go to option number two. 42:37.300 --> 42:42.460 Option number two is to decide that Wisconsin's Constitution bars partisan gerrymandering 42:42.460 --> 42:45.820 and develop a stand and announce a standard that says, this is. 42:45.820 --> 42:48.620 And I'm going to qualify you, not just bars partisan gerrymandering. 42:48.620 --> 42:51.380 Isn't there some extreme partisan gerrymandering? 42:51.380 --> 42:53.020 Isn't that what we're really talking about? 42:53.020 --> 42:59.940 I mean, you set it already that it's basically taking away, it's making a decision before 42:59.940 --> 43:02.660 the election has even begun for the people in the district. 43:02.660 --> 43:03.660 Exactly, Your Honor. 43:03.660 --> 43:06.380 I'm using the word part of the gerrymandering as a shorthand for what courts have often 43:06.380 --> 43:11.620 referred to as an extreme partisan gerrymander that is essentially an outlier and not explainable 43:11.620 --> 43:13.060 by any other criteria. 43:13.060 --> 43:14.060 Okay. 43:14.060 --> 43:15.860 So we find that and then what? 43:15.860 --> 43:20.260 And I think that this court has already discussed, I think it adopts the model that 43:20.260 --> 43:24.340 it deems to be most fit for determining what is a partisan gerrymander. 43:24.340 --> 43:28.380 And then I think it would need to remand back to the panel for a fact-finding, because 43:28.380 --> 43:33.340 as this court has already emphasized in Clark, that it is a very fact-intensive question. 43:33.340 --> 43:39.420 And in your view, the circuit court then has the ability to grant a clearatory judgment 43:39.420 --> 43:43.820 as to whether or not these maps actually meet the tests that we set forth. 43:43.820 --> 43:44.820 Absolutely, Your Honor. 43:44.820 --> 43:48.500 And of course, this court can make very clear what the authority is of the circuit court. 43:48.500 --> 43:51.940 But the whole design of this three-judge panel was essentially to be able to do this 43:51.940 --> 43:56.180 kind of work to sit and adjudicate facts that are about redistricting maps and make 43:56.180 --> 43:58.860 the proper judgments for Wisconsin voters going forward. 43:58.860 --> 43:59.860 Okay. 43:59.860 --> 44:00.860 And then what? 44:00.860 --> 44:06.820 Let's say the circuit court says these maps are an extreme partisan gerrymander according 44:06.820 --> 44:09.100 to the tests set forth, then what? 44:09.100 --> 44:12.980 Then I think there's a remedial process and that's not dissimilar to the remedial process 44:12.980 --> 44:14.740 that this court has already laid out. 44:14.740 --> 44:17.900 So you foresee us doing that remedial process? 44:17.900 --> 44:21.140 I think the district, I think the panel could do that remedial process as well. 44:21.140 --> 44:24.420 I think there's a little bit of a question depending on how the appeals work. 44:24.420 --> 44:27.980 There might be an appeal of the liability order before it gets to a remedy. 44:27.980 --> 44:32.900 But ideally, we would say that any of this should have, all of this is judicial, just 44:32.900 --> 44:36.820 dishable within the panel and can all be reviewed by this court on appeal after that. 44:36.820 --> 44:42.780 Even though that's our order, aren't we the ones that would need to overturn our injunction 44:42.780 --> 44:47.100 and or order that discussed the previous maps? 44:47.100 --> 44:50.980 I think I don't think that's exclusively the case, Your Honor, certainly on instruction 44:50.980 --> 44:52.180 from this court. 44:52.180 --> 44:56.140 The panel could have the authority to revisit that injunction. 44:56.140 --> 45:00.700 And ultimately, our argument on both separation of powers and partisan gerrymandering is that 45:00.700 --> 45:06.940 the panel had the sitting today, the panel had the job to look at this court's most recent 45:06.940 --> 45:07.940 precedent. 45:07.940 --> 45:10.900 In our first separation powers argument, that most recent precedent is Clark. 45:10.900 --> 45:12.300 They had to apply Clark. 45:12.300 --> 45:15.980 If this court were to decide that partisan gerrymandering is dishable, that would be 45:15.980 --> 45:17.580 this most recent precedent. 45:17.580 --> 45:21.300 So whether it's applying it to a map that was adopted by the legislature or adopted by 45:21.300 --> 45:26.060 the court, the lower court's job is to apply this court's binding precedent. 45:26.060 --> 45:31.100 And before we would adopt any map, the legislature would get a chance to also draw a map. 45:31.100 --> 45:35.180 It is their purview unless they cannot do it or unless there's an unconstitutional violation 45:35.180 --> 45:36.860 with their map, correct? 45:36.860 --> 45:37.860 Absolutely, Your Honor. 45:37.860 --> 45:38.860 And I want to make very clear. 45:38.860 --> 45:39.860 There's nothing. 45:39.860 --> 45:46.140 There has been nothing preventing the legislative process from enacting a map since 2020, since 45:46.140 --> 45:47.140 2021. 45:47.140 --> 45:51.620 The legislature can and should adopt a map if it feels like it, that that's something 45:51.620 --> 45:53.980 it has the political capability to do. 45:53.980 --> 45:56.300 And nothing of this court is tying this hands. 45:56.300 --> 46:01.420 In Johnson, the court specifically said that this map shall remain in place until the legislature 46:01.420 --> 46:05.380 adopts a new map or a court holds otherwise. 46:05.380 --> 46:08.820 Until number one happens, we are asking this court to hold otherwise. 46:08.900 --> 46:13.980 Just a quick question to kind of add the facts to your arguments. 46:13.980 --> 46:20.180 The map that is in place is a map that Governor Ebers proposed, right? 46:20.180 --> 46:24.900 The map that is in place is a map that was, the Governor Evers proposed pursuant to the 46:24.900 --> 46:27.380 least changed mandate that was in Johnson 1. 46:27.380 --> 46:33.220 So all of the participants in the Johnson litigation were limited to a single map and 46:33.220 --> 46:36.860 it was, they were told in advance that it would be judged based on that single criterion. 46:36.860 --> 46:44.300 So what about Governor Evers' map is an extreme partisan gerrymander? 46:44.300 --> 46:50.060 So your Honor, Governor Evers' map is essentially following the dictates of this court. 46:50.060 --> 46:56.660 It is the least changed map that is 95% identical to the 2011 map that this court cemented in 46:56.660 --> 46:59.060 place pursuant to that least changed mandate. 46:59.060 --> 47:04.580 So by calling it Governor Evers' map, your partisan gerrymander? 47:04.580 --> 47:09.780 Our position is that the 2011 map was a gerrymander and it was calcified in place pursuant 47:09.780 --> 47:11.780 to this court's least changed mandate. 47:11.780 --> 47:13.820 Then that's a different question. 47:13.820 --> 47:17.940 That 2011 is almost 15 years ago, right? 47:17.940 --> 47:19.460 So why now? 47:19.460 --> 47:22.260 Why isn't this barred by latches? 47:22.260 --> 47:26.660 Your Honor, for the partisan gerrymandering claim is not barred by latches because it's 47:26.660 --> 47:28.940 seeking only prospective relief. 47:28.940 --> 47:36.100 The idea that the state of Wisconsin is prohibited from righting or wrong just because that 47:36.100 --> 47:40.900 wrong has existed for a number of years is antithetical to the entire latches doctrine. 47:40.900 --> 47:44.260 By that same logic, you know, Brown v. Board of Ed would have been latched out because 47:44.260 --> 47:47.260 it was already sitting in decades' worth of segregation. 47:47.260 --> 47:48.260 The different issue. 47:48.260 --> 47:56.100 But has Wisconsin ever had a map that meets the criteria that you outlined today? 47:56.100 --> 48:01.340 Even that partisan bodies have drawn the maps under the Constitution. 48:01.340 --> 48:05.580 Since the Constitution, that provision's been in existence. 48:05.580 --> 48:08.060 Has Wisconsin ever had a partisan gerrymandered map? 48:08.060 --> 48:11.620 Have we ever had a map that's good under your criteria? 48:11.620 --> 48:15.420 Your Honor, I've not evaluated every map, congressional map that's been adopted. 48:15.420 --> 48:20.300 I know many maps have been adopted by courts not pursuant to at least change criteria. 48:20.300 --> 48:21.300 As we saw, I'm Jensen. 48:21.300 --> 48:25.180 We've seen in Prosser that the reports have said we actually do need to look at the partisan 48:25.180 --> 48:29.420 effects of our map to make sure that we are applying traditional districting principles. 48:29.420 --> 48:32.780 So I have no reason to believe that any of those maps would be unlawful. 48:32.780 --> 48:36.900 We are only talking about the one map we have in place today, which was built pursuant 48:36.900 --> 48:40.260 to a least change principle that has since been debunked. 48:40.260 --> 48:48.060 Council, whose intent are we looking at if we were to apply a test that had an intent 48:48.060 --> 48:49.660 element to it? 48:49.660 --> 48:50.660 Yeah. 48:50.660 --> 48:54.300 It's a little tricky in this one, Your Honors, as normally you look at the map drawers intent. 48:54.300 --> 48:58.380 And here, when it comes to the most recent intent, that intent from this court was laid 48:58.380 --> 48:59.380 bare. 48:59.380 --> 49:06.180 The intent was to adopt the intent, the effects, and everything as possible from the 2011 map. 49:06.180 --> 49:11.660 So the court can look at the judicial record to know that the intent was to adopt the intent 49:11.660 --> 49:16.020 of 2011, and we even have a judicial record on the 2011 maps as well. 49:16.020 --> 49:19.580 So in the baldest case, for instance, there is evidence and there is argument about what 49:19.580 --> 49:21.260 exactly was that intent. 49:21.260 --> 49:22.620 You want to tell us that? 49:22.780 --> 49:23.780 Go ahead, Jessica. 49:23.780 --> 49:24.780 Thank you. 49:24.780 --> 49:29.540 I'd like to return to the question of remedy because it sounded to me like you were saying 49:29.540 --> 49:37.540 a few minutes ago that we could somehow deputize that three-judge panel to overturn an order 49:37.540 --> 49:40.260 by this court. 49:40.260 --> 49:49.540 And that seems premature to me at a minimum until there is a factual record showing a 49:49.580 --> 49:51.260 partisan gerrymandering. 49:51.260 --> 49:59.020 It seems to me premature for this court to do anything of that nature and also quite unprecedented. 49:59.020 --> 50:02.780 The respondents make some of those arguments in their briefs. 50:02.780 --> 50:09.780 So can you walk me through how it is you believe the circuit court versus this court could 50:09.780 --> 50:13.460 adopt a remedy of a different map than is currently in place? 50:13.460 --> 50:19.260 So I believe that the circuit court has the obligation to abide by this court's precedent. 50:19.260 --> 50:20.260 So when it comes to our separation- 50:20.260 --> 50:23.340 Not just precedent, but it is a judgment. 50:23.340 --> 50:24.340 And this court- 50:24.340 --> 50:25.340 It is. 50:25.340 --> 50:30.420 And in Johnson too, this court said that the map would stay in place until legislative 50:30.420 --> 50:33.180 enactment or a court says otherwise. 50:33.180 --> 50:36.860 Wisconsin has since adopted an entire judicial process through this three-judge panel that 50:36.860 --> 50:42.140 is essentially intended to adjudicate these kinds of redistricting challenges. 50:42.140 --> 50:48.580 If for instance we were here in 2032 and there was a three-judge panel case that was designed 50:48.580 --> 50:54.540 by Wisconsin law to handle redistricting matters, I don't think we would say, well 50:54.540 --> 51:03.060 that three-judge court has no power to enjoin the now old 2022 map in light of new law. 51:03.060 --> 51:08.980 Of course, whatever the court's authority is, it is to apply the governing law from 51:08.980 --> 51:11.820 this court to the judgment before it. 51:11.820 --> 51:17.420 So I do think that the lower court always has the, not just the authority, but the obligation 51:17.420 --> 51:20.740 to follow this court's precedent, which makes this an easy answer when it comes to 51:20.740 --> 51:26.020 the separation of powers claim, in the partisan gerrymandering context, if this court's precedent 51:26.020 --> 51:31.900 who tells the district, tells the circuit court that partisan gerrymandering is unlawful 51:31.900 --> 51:37.540 and it needs to be adjudicated to make sure, to determine whether or not this challenged 51:37.540 --> 51:41.580 map fails under that standard, then I think the court just needs to follow, the lower 51:41.580 --> 51:44.260 court would just need to follow this court's precedent in order to do that. 51:44.260 --> 51:45.260 I don't think it would be acting beyond- 51:45.980 --> 51:52.220 So in other words, that language in, I think it's in Johnson 2, that says until a court 51:52.220 --> 52:01.300 says otherwise, something to that effect, you believe you interpret that language as allowing 52:01.300 --> 52:08.220 a lower court, a three-judge panel in the circuit court, to, based on a finding of a 52:08.300 --> 52:14.340 constitutional violation, set those maps aside and adopt new maps. 52:14.340 --> 52:20.860 By some process that we'll probably ask you further about, but, so that's where you find 52:20.860 --> 52:28.660 that authority is in that language in Johnson 2, saying that until a court otherwise decides. 52:28.660 --> 52:31.580 I think that language in Johnson 2 recognizes the authority. 52:31.580 --> 52:34.300 I don't think that's the solely the source of the authority. 52:34.300 --> 52:37.740 The source of the authority is from a long line of precedent starting with Cook v Cook, 52:37.740 --> 52:43.420 which basically says that the lower court has an obligation to apply the most recent 52:43.420 --> 52:45.180 binding precedent of this court. 52:45.180 --> 52:49.900 If the most recent binding precedent of this court is that our own injunctions can be 52:49.900 --> 52:54.180 reviewed according to a partisan gerrymandering standard, then the lower court has an obligation 52:54.180 --> 52:56.300 to abide by that rule and adjudicate under that rule. 52:56.300 --> 52:58.940 So that's something you're asking us to hold. 52:58.940 --> 53:02.380 In the alternative to our initial claim, your honor, which is that we are asking you to 53:02.380 --> 53:06.940 hold that this map already violates Wisconsin law as articulated in Clark, so that the 53:06.940 --> 53:10.580 lower court does not need to go back and make any liability determinations. 53:10.580 --> 53:13.220 This court has the ability to enjoin it on its own. 53:13.220 --> 53:18.300 No, but I think Justice Crawford is asking you a very specific question about the holding 53:18.300 --> 53:21.420 and you just use language about the injunction. 53:21.420 --> 53:26.220 Are you asking that to be part of our holding to be that specific? 53:26.220 --> 53:30.380 Are you just set aside the separation of powers argument? 53:30.380 --> 53:34.580 If you're talking about an extreme partisan gerrymandering, that's your argument and 53:34.620 --> 53:39.660 that violates the Wisconsin Constitution, and if we agree with you and if that is our 53:39.660 --> 53:46.100 holding, is that enough or do we need to say more about the injunction that is in place 53:46.100 --> 53:47.940 in this case? 53:47.940 --> 53:53.540 Because the or a court otherwise directs, are you saying that's us directing it here 53:53.540 --> 53:58.380 or which court is otherwise directing or is it the three judge panel? 53:58.380 --> 54:01.740 I think it could be either your honor and specifically if this court were to determine 54:02.740 --> 54:07.620 that part is in extreme partisan gerrymandering is cognizable under Wisconsin law, it could 54:07.620 --> 54:13.620 then it remand to the lower court with instructions to evaluate this map, this injunction from 54:13.620 --> 54:16.380 this court, under those principles. 54:16.380 --> 54:19.500 And with that instruction, the court would have no other choice but to do that. 54:19.500 --> 54:24.700 Okay, so what is a little narrow as it relates to this case, I understand what you're saying. 54:24.700 --> 54:31.700 But what about Governor Evers map is, what about Governor Evers map is an extreme? 54:31.740 --> 54:32.740 Partisan gerrymandering. 54:32.740 --> 54:36.620 I want to be careful your honor about calling it Governor Evers map. 54:36.620 --> 54:41.580 Governor Evers and actually advocated for a people's commission process that produced 54:41.580 --> 54:42.580 a different map. 54:42.580 --> 54:47.260 The court accepted the map that he submitted, so you can call it what you would like, today 54:47.260 --> 54:50.460 I'm calling it Governor Evers map that the court adopted. 54:50.460 --> 54:52.380 So let's start with that. 54:52.380 --> 54:57.900 What about that map requires this court to act because it is an extreme partisan gerry 54:57.900 --> 54:58.900 matter? 54:58.900 --> 55:05.660 This map calcifies 95% in place the 2011 map that we believe is an extreme partisan gerry 55:05.660 --> 55:06.660 mander. 55:06.660 --> 55:10.580 Of course, on the posture that we have before this motion to dismiss, we don't have the 55:10.580 --> 55:16.580 fact finding to be able to say this is the exact demonstrable evidence of that. 55:16.580 --> 55:22.460 But in our complaint, we allege that that map that is from 2011 and then we cemented in 55:22.460 --> 55:28.460 place from this court in Johnson to order is one of the most partisan skewed map in the 55:28.460 --> 55:31.140 country under a variety of objective metrics. 55:31.140 --> 55:37.820 So Council, it seems to me that your separation of powers argument is putting the cart before 55:37.820 --> 55:40.700 the horse a bit. 55:40.700 --> 55:46.540 It seems to be premised on an assumption that the maps that were adopted by this court were 55:46.540 --> 55:49.500 in fact an extreme partisan gerry mander. 55:49.500 --> 55:55.100 Doesn't that have to be proven first before that hurdle presents itself? 55:55.100 --> 55:56.100 Not at all your honor. 55:56.100 --> 55:57.820 And so tell, walk me through that. 55:57.900 --> 56:03.380 So the separation of powers claim does not at all rest on whether or not the previous 56:03.380 --> 56:09.580 map was right or wrong or an extreme partisan gerry mander or anything else. 56:09.580 --> 56:16.180 The separation of powers claim, which I think is outlined, I think in 70 and 71 of the court 56:16.180 --> 56:21.740 explains when the judiciary is charged with redistricting. 56:21.740 --> 56:25.180 It needs to engage in a certain process. 56:25.180 --> 56:31.320 And that process cannot include blind deference to a previous map. 56:31.320 --> 56:37.580 It has to include consideration of the partisan effects of its map because the court is taking 56:37.580 --> 56:40.380 ownership of its role in redistricting. 56:40.380 --> 56:46.340 So this idea that the court can just kind of close its eyes and hold its nose and do 56:46.340 --> 56:47.940 whatever the legislature did previously. 56:47.940 --> 56:52.220 Let me just interrupt a moment because it seems to me that what the court was considering 56:52.220 --> 57:01.460 there was a more prophylactic concern of avoiding a constitutional violation and not saying 57:01.460 --> 57:04.700 there was a constitutional violation. 57:04.700 --> 57:07.060 Am I incorrect in viewing it that way? 57:07.060 --> 57:11.860 I mean, I think that the concern that this court expressed in Clark about least change 57:11.860 --> 57:15.300 sounded in principles of separation of powers. 57:15.380 --> 57:23.260 Like I said, specifically the court said, it is not possible to remain neutral and independent 57:23.260 --> 57:26.420 by failing to consider partisan impact entirely. 57:26.420 --> 57:32.060 And by definition, that means that it was not possible for this court to remain neutral 57:32.060 --> 57:37.460 independent as it was its responsibility, whether the separation of powers, when it used that 57:37.460 --> 57:38.940 approach in Johnson. 57:38.940 --> 57:43.980 So I think it's prophylactic in the sense that, yes, it's what should be done. 57:43.980 --> 57:49.400 And it maps on to what is our claim for prospective relief going forward. 57:49.400 --> 57:54.420 If it is not possible for the court to abide by its twin obligations of neutrality and 57:54.420 --> 57:59.460 independence by adopting a least change that doesn't look at partisan impact, that means 57:59.460 --> 58:00.740 it was not possible. 58:00.740 --> 58:05.580 And we are all living under that map going forward for 2026 and 2028 and 2030. 58:05.580 --> 58:13.740 I'm going to follow up on a couple of questions that Justice Dalit asked you. 58:13.740 --> 58:22.740 If you walked you through and you laid out three steps essentially, I guess maybe, yeah, 58:22.740 --> 58:29.220 starting with if we found the map, if we ruled that an unconstitutional extreme gerrymanders 58:29.220 --> 58:35.540 just dishable, we would adopt a map for what that means, excuse me, we would adopt a test, 58:35.540 --> 58:37.460 a model of maps on the brain. 58:37.460 --> 58:44.980 We would adopt a model for what that meant exactly, we would remand it for fact finding. 58:44.980 --> 58:48.020 And then the fact finders would do what they would do and then we talked a little bit about 58:48.020 --> 58:54.820 remedy, which could be the fourth thing. 58:54.820 --> 58:58.500 We have two cases in front of us. 58:58.500 --> 59:09.500 Your friends are very patiently sitting in the front row behind you. 59:09.500 --> 59:11.140 What should we do about that? 59:11.140 --> 59:22.780 What if we also find that there is an anti-competitive claim that that also violates the Wisconsin 59:22.780 --> 59:23.780 Constitution? 59:23.780 --> 59:29.780 We have three, we have two, three judge panels. 59:29.780 --> 59:39.340 I assume that they are also going to come up here and say if you find that this is dishable, 59:39.340 --> 59:43.660 you adopt a model, I don't want to take any of your argument away, you'll come up and 59:43.660 --> 59:46.940 then do this, you'll remand it back for fact finding. 59:46.940 --> 59:54.580 Are we going to have two different panels, six different judges having these hearings 59:54.580 --> 59:58.340 coming up with who knows how many different maps? 59:58.340 --> 59:59.980 Can you help me think through?