YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> A HIGHLY-ANTICIPATED U.S.
SUPREME COURT CASE SET FOR ORAL
ARGUMENTS NEXT WEEK HAS LEGAL
EXPERTS SOUNDING THE ALARM ON
ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR EVERY
STATE, PERHAPS MOST ESPECIALLY
INCLUDING WISCONSIN.
THE HIGH COURT TAKES UP A CASE
ORIGINATING OUT OF NORTH
CAROLINA WHERE THAT STATE'S HIGH
COURT STRUCK DOWN
REPUBLICAN-DRAWN CONGRESSIONAL
MAPS CALLING THEM A PARTISAN
GERRYMANDER.
REPUBLICANS THEN APPEALED TO THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT ARGUING STATE
LEGISLATURES HAVE SOLE AUTHORITY
TO SET RULES FOR ELECTIONS.
FORMER WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE JANINE GESKE JOINED IN A
BRIEF CALLING ON THE HIGH COURT
TO REJECT THIS INDEPENDENT STATE
LEGISLATURE THEORY.
SHE JOINS US NOW.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> MY PLEASURE.
>> SO WHY ARE YOU SOUNDING THE
ALARM ON THIS?
>> I THINK -- FIRST I THINK IT'S
UNDER THE RADAR FOR PEOPLE TO
UNDERSTAND THE COURT IS
CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE
WILL BE NO STATE COURT REVIEW OF
ANY ACTIONS BY LEGISLATURES ON
CONGRESSIONAL RACES.
SO HOW THE ELECTION RULES ARE
SET, HOW PEOPLE VOTE, HOW THEY
ARE COUNTED, AND ULTIMATELY HOW
THE LINES ARE DRAWN WILL NOT BE
REVIEWABLE BY STATE COURTS.
THAT'S PRETTY UNIQUE.
THE GOVERNOR HAS NO VETO POWER
OVER IT AND THE COURTS HAVE NO
REVIEWABILITY, SO I THINK IT IS
REALLY IMPORTANT.
REALLY TAKING AWAY THE VOICE OF
THE PEOPLE THROUGH THE
INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY AND HAVING
LEGISLATURES MAKE THE FINAL CALL
ON THIS.
IN NORTH CAROLINA THE COURT HELD
THAT IT VIOLATED, WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE DONE VIOLATED THE
NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT IS BEING ASKED TO THROW
THAT UP AND SAY IT'S NOT UP TO
NORTH CAROLINA COURTS TO DECIDE
THAT.
>> SO IN THE CASE OF WISCONSIN
SHOULD THAT COME TO PASS THAT
THE HIGH COURT AGREED WITH THE
NORTH CAROLINA REPUBLICANS,
WISCONSIN'S OUTSIZED REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY LEGISLATURE CERTAINLY
COULD THROW ITS WEIGHT AROUND.
BUT WOULD IT IN YOUR MIND?
>> I THINK IT WOULD, YOU KNOW.
THE REPUBLICAN-LED LEGISLATURE
HAS BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK ON
ELECTIONS AND CHANGING VOTING
RULES AND, YOU KNOW -- BUT
FORTUNATELY THERE IS ALWAYS THAT
REVIEWABILITY OF THE COURT.
IN SOME CASES, EVEN THOUGH WE
HAVE A COURT THAT'S DIVIDED,
SOME CASES HAVE REVERSED SOME OF
THE THINGS THE LEGISLATURE HAS
DONE AND SOME HAVE AFFIRMED IT.
BUT NOT TO HAVE THAT
REVIEWABILITY WOULD GIVE MORE
POWER TO THE LEGISLATURE.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THEY WOULD
TAKE IT.
>> SO THIS THEORY WOULD YOU SAY
IS PUSHED BY EXTREME PARTISANS?
IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WAS AT PLAY
WHEN REPUBLICAN FALSE ELECTORS
IN WISCONSIN TRIED TO TOSS UP
BIDEN'S SLATE FOR TRUMP
ELECTORS.
WHERE DO YOU THINK THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT WILL GO WITH THIS?
>> IT'S INTERESTING.
THERE ARE AT LEAST FOUR
JUSTICES, THE MORE CONSERVATIVE
ONES THAT VOICED AN INTEREST IN
THIS THEORY.
JOHN ROBERTS HAS AS WELL.
I DON'T THINK JOHN ROBERTS WILL
DO SOMETHING TO TAKE POWER AWAY
FROM THE STATE COURTS.
THAT'S JUST MY SENSE.
HE FEELS VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE JUDICIARY AND
THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE
JUDICIARY AND THERE IS AN AMICUS
BRIEF REPRESENTING ALL THE CHIEF
JUSTICES FROM ALL 50 STATES
ASKING THE COURT NOT TO ADOPT
THIS LEGISLATIVE THEORY.
AND I HAVE -- IT IS A GUT
FEELING FROM WATCHING JOHN
ROBERTS THAT HE WON'T GO ALONG
WITH IT.
N WHICH CASE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE
ENOUGH VOTES.
BUT WE'LL SEE WITH THE ARGUMENT
NEXT WEEK.
>> WHAT WILL YOU BE LISTENING
FOR FROM JUSTICES?
>> ACTUALLY JOHN ROBERTS.
THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS HE WILL
ASK.
THE CONSERVATIVE ONES INDICATED
THEY ARE DOING A VERY NARROW AND
NOT VERY POPULAR READING OF THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION IN TERMS OF
CONTROL OF ELECTIONS AND THEY'VE
WRITTEN ON THAT IN THE PAST.
I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYBODY ELSE
WHO, YOU KNOW, THE MORE MODERATE
OR LIBERAL OR WHATEVER YOU WANT
TO CALL THEM JUSTICES WOULD GO.
IT'S UP TO JOHN ROBERTS TO MAKE
THE CALL, I THINK.
I'LL BE REAL INTERESTED IN WHAT
HE IS ASKING THEM.
IN PARTICULAR WHAT HE IS ASKING
THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE BROUGHT
THIS SUIT ABOUT TAKING AWAY THE
POWER OF THE STATE COURTS.
>> IN THE END, HOW IN YOUR MIND
WOULD GIVING LEGISLATURES SOLE
AUTHORITY OVER ELECTIONS THWART
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?
>> WELL, IT WOULD TAKE -- YOU
KNOW, IN OUR STATE, WE ELECT AN
INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY TO BE A
CHECK AND BALANCE ON OUR
GOVERNOR AND ON THE LEGISLATURE.
IT WILL TAKE THAT CHECK AND
BALANCE AWAY.
AND THE ONLY ATTACK WOULD BE TO
A FEDERAL COURT IF A FEDERAL
COURT WOULD TAKE IT.
SO IT REALLY DOES TAKE THAT
INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY THE STATE,
CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE
CONSTITUTION OF WHETHER THIS WAS
A LAWFUL GERRYMANDERED OR
WHETHER IT'S A LAWFUL RULE.
I THINK THAT WE'VE SEEN HOW
IMPORTANT THAT IS OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL ELECTIONS, WHERE PEOPLE
ARE ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER
ELECTIONS ARE VALID OR INVALID
AND HOW YOU COUNT VOTES AND
THINGS.
NOT TO HAVE REVIEWABILITY IN THE
STATE IS VERY DANGEROUS.
>> FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE