NEIGHBORHOODS AND REVITALIZING
THEM.
>> THE STATE SUPREME COURT TODAY
DENIED A GOVERNOR TONY EVERS'
MOTION WHY HIS REDISTRICTING
MOTION TO BE UPHELD.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT STRUCK
DOWN THE MAPS AND SENT THE CASE
BACK TO THE STATE.
EXPERT ON ELECTION AND
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND FORMER
CLERK FOR TWO U.S. SUPREME COURT
JUSTICES, U.W. MADISON LAW
SCHOOL PROFESSOR ROBERT YABLON
JOINS US WITH THE LATEST.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.
>> THE EVERS MOTION AND EXPERT
REPORT SAID THE SEVEN ASSEMBLY
DISTRICTS IN HIS MAP AVOID
ILLEGAL VOTE DILUTION UNDER THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACTS, BUT
REPUBLICANS CALLED IT AMONG
OTHER THINGS UNSOLICITED AND THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
APPARENTLY AGREED TODAY,
REJECTING THE EXPERT'S
SUBMISSION.
WASN'T SCOTUS ASKING FOR MORE
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OR JUST NOT
FROM EVERS?
>> WELL, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
INDICATED THAT ONE OF THE
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT WAS TO
CONSIDER MORE EVIDENCE AND SO I
THINK THAT IT WAS THAT LINE IN
THEIR OPINION THAT LED THE
GOVERNOR TO PUT IN THIS
SUBMISSION TODAY, WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT, WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT DENIED IN A ONE-LINE
ORDER.
SO IT SEEMS THEY HAVE DECIDED
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE NEW
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, INSTEAD
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER
PATHS THEY MAY TRY TO PURSUE TO
GET A LEGAL MAP IN PLACE.
>> LIKE?
>> WELL, SO ESSENTIALLY THEY
WERE GIVEN EARLIER IN THIS
LITIGATION A NUMBER OF PROPOSALS
FROM THE PARTIES, THEY CHOSE THE
GOVERNOR'S MAP, THEY SAID IT
BEST COMPLIED WITH THE LEAST
CHANGE FRAMEWORK THEY IMPOSED,
SO GO BACK TO OTHER PROPOSALS
AND SEE WHICH IS THE NEXT BEST
AND ADOPT ONE OF THOSE.
THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS
ASKING FOR.
AND THAT WOULD MEAN JETTISONING
THE GOVERNOR'S MAP WHOLESALE AND
ADOPTING THEIRS INSTEAD.
THE GOVERNOR THINKS IT'S
OVERKILL.
THE SUPREME COURT ONLY CALLED IN
COURT THE MILWAUKEE AREA, SO THE
GOVERNOR SAID EITHER HEAR MORE
EVIDENCE, THAT'S WHAT THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT SAID
TODAY IT'S NOT GOING TO DO OR
LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD NOW AND MAKE A MORE
CONVINCING CASE TO THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT WHY YOU NEED TO
CONTINUE TO UPHOLD THE
GOVERNOR'S MAP.
SEEMS LIKE RIGHT NOW EITHER THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT IS GOING
TO GET MORE ELABORATE REASONS
WHY THE GOVERNOR'S MAP INDEED
COMPLIES WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS
ACT OR CHOOSE ONE OF THE OTHER
MAPS SUBMITTED EARLIER IN THE
CASE.
>> IS THIS LIKE A ROCKET DOCKET
IN THE STATE HIGH COURT, SHOULD
WE EXPECT A DECISION ON
WISCONSIN MAPS VERY SOON?
>> WE WILL SEE A DECISION SOON.
THE COURT IS -- THEY REALIZE
THEY NEED TO GET ON THIS
EXPEDITIOUSLY.
THE NOMINATION PETITION PROCESS
FOR THE FALL ELECTIONS OPENS ON
APRIL 15TH AND THE WISCONSIN
ELECTIONS COMMISSION NEEDS SOME
TIME AHEAD OF THAT TO DO SOME I
AM -- IMPLEMENTATION STEPS, AND
MAKE SURE CANDIDATES KNOW WHAT
DISTRICT THEY ARE IN, AND THE
VOTERS KNOW WHAT DISTRICT THEY
ARE IN.
WE WILL SEE A DECISION SOON FROM
THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
>> BACKING UP A BIT, WHAT IS THE
POINT OF A MAJORITY-MINORITY
DISTRICT UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS
ACT?
>> IT'S A LANDMARK FEDERAL LAW
THAT SEEKS TO ENSURE FAIR
REPRESENTATION FOR COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR.
AND YOU ARE PRIMARILY TALKING
ABOUT COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THAT
WOULD POTENTIALLY BE LARGE
ENOUGH TO FORM A MAJORITY IN A
SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT, AND IN
WISCONSIN THE ACT PRIMARILY
APPLIES IN THE MILWAUKEE AREA
WHERE YOU HAVE LARGE ENOUGH
AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
THAT THEY COULD FORM ELECTORAL
MAJORITIES AT THE DISTRICT
LEVEL.
TRADITIONALLY WHEN YOU HAVE
COMMUNITIES THAT LARGE,
POLITICALLY COHESIVE
COMMUNITIES, AND THEY VOTE
DISTINCTLY FROM OTHER
COMMUNITIES, YOU TEND TO ENSURE
THAT THEY WILL GET
REPRESENTATION, AND THAT'S WHY
THE GOVERNOR THROUGH THE SEVENTH
DISTRICT IN MILWAUKEE, SAW THE
AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY IN
MILWAUKEE HAD GROWN TO SOME
EXTENT, PARTICULARLY RELATIVE TO
OTHER COMMUNITIES AND THOUGHT
THE ACT REQUIRED THE ADDITION OF
THAT DISTRICT.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WAS
UNCONVINCED AND THAT'S WHY THEY
REVERSED THE DECISION AND NOW
HAVE SENT IT BACK.
>> IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION, HOW
WELL DO EITHER OF THE MAPS,
LEGISLATURE'S OR THE GOVERNOR'S
ENSURE THEY HAVE THE POWER TO
ELECT CANDIDATES OF THEIR
CHOICE?
>> THIS IS A REALLY COMPLICATED
AREA OF THE LAW.
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
THEMSELVES SOMETIMES LAMENT HOW
COMPLICATED AND CONFUSING IT CAN
BE.
SO YOU KNOW, ONE -- WITH THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS NOT ABOUT
IS PURELY CREATING DISTRICTS
WITH A NUMERICAL MAJORITY OF A
MINORITY POPULATION.
BECAUSE SOMETIMES THAT WON'T BE
ENOUGH FOR THEM TO ELECT A
PREFERRED CANDIDATE, GIVEN
VOTING PATTERNS AND SO ON.
SO IF YOU ARE DOING A FUNCTIONAL
ANALYSIS WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE IS
HAVING THE MAJORITY-MINORITY
DISTRICT MAY BE INADEQUATE.
OTHER CASES, YOU DON'T NEED TO
CREATE A MAJORITY-MINORITY
DISTRICT AT ALL, MAYBE CROSSOVER
FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES TO ALLOW
THE PREFERRED REPRESENTATIVE.
SO REQUIRES A DETAILED
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND ONE OF
THE COMPLAINTS FROM THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT, THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT DID NOT DELVE
DEEPLY ENOUGH INTO THE KIND OF
FUNCTIONAL INQUIRY.
>> LESS THAN A MINUTE LEFT, HOW
ABOUT HOW THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
HANDLED IT.
DESCRIBED AS SHOCKING AND
UNPRECEDENTED.
WHY?
>> WELL, THE DISSENT DID
DESCRIBE IT AS UNPRECEDENTED AND
A COUPLE OF UNUSUAL FEATURES.
FIRST OF ALL, SUMMARY REVERSAL.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ACTED
QUICKLY, IT DID NOT HEAR FULL
BRIEFING OR ORAL ARGUMENT AND
DOES NOT DO THAT VERY OFTEN, AND
WHEN IT DOES, THERE IS A CRYSTAL
CLEARER ROR.
BUT THEY POINTED OUT NUANCES HAD
BEEN OVERLOOKED BY THE MAJORITY.
SO, UNUSUAL IT WAS A SUMMARY
REVERSAL, MORE THAN THAT, THAT
IT HAPPENED SO CLOSE IN TIME TO
WHEN THE STATE REALLY NEEDS TO
HAVE MAPS.
THIS WAS A DISRUPTIVE FROM THE
SUPREME COURT, AND THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT SAID WE RECOGNIZE
IT'S DIFFICULT TO RUN AN
ELECTION AND WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT STATES ARE NOT -- THAT
WRENCHES ARE NOT THROWN INTO
STATE PROCESSES AT THE LAST
MINUTE, BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT DID TO WISCONSIN
HERE.
>> HERE WE ARE.
PROFESSOR, T