Justice Alito Leaves PA Voting Districts in Place

November elections. Justice Samuel Alito left in force a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling requiring the Republican controlled legislature to draw new lines for approval by the Democratic governor. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had said the old map violated the state

constitution because it was too skewed toward Republicans. Joining me, as an expert on election law, Josh Douglas of the University of Kentucky Law School, Josh, Republicans really faced an uphill adeline trying to get the Supreme Court to intervene explain why. Yeah, And they did face an uphill battle, and that was because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was based solely on the Pennsylvania Constitution UH and in fact

and to order. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that it was deciding the issues solely based on Pennsylvania law and the Pennsylvania Constitution, And typically the U. S. Supreme Court has no authority or jurisdiction here issues involving solely state law. So the request for a stay went to Justice Alito, who hears emergency requests from Pennsylvania. What goes into a justice's calculations when he decides not to even refer the case to other members of the court, You know, that

was a little bit surprising. After Justice Alito did ask for a sponse to the stay motion, many people thought that he would refer to at least to the full Court. I think what goes into the decision is simply whether he thinks that there would be five votes UH to issue you to stay. And if he's not even convinced to issue to stay, then I think he surmised that the other justices will be very unlikely to do so as well. How significant is this Pennsylvania Court ruling for

the Democrats in the elections. I think it's very significant on a couple of levels. On the election You're going to have a new map in Pennsylvania that's going to be a lot more fair. That is to say, it's going to be a lot less hued in the Republicans favor, which is what the court found on this map. So that's important for the short term. For the long term, I think it's important because it demonstrates the power of state constitutions to do a lot of work in protecting

voting rights. Uh. And so regardless of what the Supreme Court does and the other part of the gerrymandering cases, do releas have one path for people who want to oppose partisan gerrymandering by going to state courts and invokes in the state constitution. So, and the Republicans won the challenge to the map in federal court. So you think that the next thing will be more challenges to jerrymandering

in state courts? I do. I mean it will partially depend on what the U. S. Supreme Court does in the Wisconsin and the Maryland cases on partisan jerrymandering that it's hearing this term, um, but assume it. Let's say that the Supreme Court rejects those challenges or at least narrows their scope. I think you could see more challenges in other states using the state constitutions as more protective of voting rights and more skeptical of extreme partisan jerry manders.

Republicans still haven't given up the state Senate president and the state House speaker trying to block the Court's decision. The Pennsylvania Courts decision other ways. They file papers with the High Court to invalidate the votes of two justices. Explain the basis there, well, I guess they're they're saying that the to these two Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices are biased and should have for used themselves. Um. I think that's a pretty long shot argument, and there's really no

basis for doing so. I didn't find it strange that, you know, normally we think of the U Supreme Courts decisions as final, and and yet they're still trying to attack it, even after the Supreme Court refused to stay potensively in the Supreme Court position. So they're they're arguing that these two justice were biased. I don't think it's going to go anywhere If the Republicans don't get a

map to the governor by Thursday of next week. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said it would adopt its own map, and it's appointed Nate Personally, who's a Stanford law professor and a redistricting expert that we've had on many times. Do you think voting maps should be drawn by experts rather than legislatures. Well, I think it's a much better process to have an expert who knows what he or she is doing, and certainly Nate Personally has done this before and is very good at it. That's much better

than having the politicians draw the lines. There's you know, other paths, which include independent redistricting commissions, which some states are using, and that's an also good way. Anything to get the politicians out of the drawing process, in my view, is a good thing because there have incentives to view the mass in their favors, and we see that both political parties do it. The Republicans have said the Court

set them up because it failed. It gave them less than three weeks to redraw the congressional lines, and it didn't issue a full opinion in the case. What do you what's your take on those arguments. Well, you know, I think the Court was acting quickly because we need new match in place for people to know web districts they're in and candidates to file their nomination papers. Um. And so I do think you know there was a reason for the Court to replier the legislature to act quickly, um,

in terms of not issuing an opinion. Yet I do think it's a little strange, and it would be helpful for the Pennsylvania Stream Court to issue it's full reasoning as opposed to just an order. I don't think that impacts what the legislature is tasked to do in terms of drawing a new map. It knows that the map it drew was way too skewed politically, and so it's task is to not do so the next time around.

You mentioned the two Gerryman daring cases from Wisconsin and Maryland before the Supreme Court explain the broad issues there. So the wisconsinant case, it involves a statewide challenge for the map as a whole, and it's using this new standard called the efficiency gap, which essentially measures the partisans view in the map as a whole. The problem is that the Supreme Court hasn't been able to find a good standard for testing when politics has infiltrated the mast

drawing process too much. The Maryland case is a little bit different because it's challenged in just one district in the state as opposed to the map as a whole, and it's invoking the First Amendment, something that Justice Kennedy has said he might be favorable in terms of looking to the root out partisan jerry manders. So they have different approaches. The Wisconsin cases broader and the Maryland cases narrower and in different legal uh. Folk Guy as well.

Even if the Supreme Court says to the Wisconsin legislators, you have to redraw this map and they do find that it was partisan gerrymandering, would they say you have to do it before the mid term elections. It's really going to depend on when the decision comes out. You know, if we don't have a decision until the end of the tournam in June, then it might be very hard to get a new map in place before the election. So you might have one more election cycle under a

map that is unconstitutional. We've seen that happen before, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. It certainly unfortunate, though, where just because election cycles happen and the interests of time, a map has to stay in place for one more cycle. Yeah, it's not often that a court tells you you have a just a few weeks to change the whole map. Thanks so much for being here, Josh. That's Josh Douglass

of the University of Kentucky Law School. That current Pennsylvania map includes the sprawling seventh District, which you might have heard critics say resembles the cartoon character Goofy kicking Donald Duck. The saga of the dueling memos continues. President Donald Trump has received the Democratic memo countering the Republican memo, which claims FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the surveillance of

a former Trump campaign advisor. Trump now has five days to decide whether to release it, make redactions, or block it. He backed disclosure of the GOP memo, and he classified it. The man at the center of the controversy over the surveillance warrant, Carter Page, said today in an interview with ABC News is George Stephanopolis that the work he was doing for the Kremlin was above board and part of a G twenty conference. He also claimed that he's never

spoken to President Trump in his life. I never spoke with him since I never spoke with him any time in my life. You've never spoken to Donald Trump in your life? No email, no text, nothing like that. Never. My guest is Jimmy Grula, professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. Jimmy, let me ask you for your you know, your reaction to hearing from Carter Page and who says he never spoke to President Trump. He's

been distanced by the Trump administration. From the administration, is it odd that they're using a surveillance memo about him to fight this fight? Well, a couple of things that it's certainly odd that Carter Page has never spoken with with President Trump, despite the fact that President Trump, when he was candidate Trump, UH selected Carter Page to be a foreign affairs advisor to UH to then candidate candidate Trump.

And so it seems rather strange that he would that Trump would appoint someone to such a prestigious position in the campaign, you know, foreign advisor without ever having formally met met the person. So so I find that that claim curious at the least. The Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to release the memo. What's your guests as to what

the president will do? Well, I'm hoping that that he will treat the Democratic Memo the way that he treated the Republican Memo, the Neonist Memo, and release it in its entirety without any redactions. But that's the concern. I think the concerned by the Democrats is whether or not a the President is going to release the memo at all, and be if he releases the memo is going to be released with substantial redactions and sections completely blocked out.

And if that's the case, then then it really kind of undercuts it will under cut his claim of transparency and newness, his claim of transparency and wanting to get to the bottom of the issues respect with respect to the device and warrants with respect to Carter Page. The House could Committee could then seek a very rare closed door vote of all the House members to over ride the president and still release it. What's the likelihood that that might work. I think probably zero? Zero, Yeah, I

think zero. I mean, I don't have any confidence that that there would be a majority of Republicans that that would um seek to override the president. I mean, so if the President decides not to release it for for whatever reason, I have no confidence. So there would be a majority of Republican members of Congress of the House that would override or seek to override the president's will

on the on the issue. Now. Separately, former ye How strategists Steve Bannon is planning to skip a closed door interview with the committee today despite being subpoena to appear. That's according to two people familiar with the matter in Bloomberg News, he has talked to mother. What does this show. Is there a lack of fear that the committee will do anything? Is it a disrespect for a committee that's

in disarray? Well, it could be. You know, it's certainly very telling that the despite the fact that he has been requested or that the committee has requested to have him speaking for the committee, that now this is the you know that that basically he's kind of thumbing their nose at them, unless you know, there's some compelling reason why he's unable to appear. But but if there is such a compelling reason, it hasn't been articulated either by by banning himself or by any members of the of

the committee. So perhaps it does suggest that, as he stated, it's a committee in disarray, it's a committee that perhaps has lost because it's become so partisan that has lost all credibility, and maybe a Bannon doesn't think it's deserving of his time. How often do these House committees actually go forward and if someone refuses a subpoena try to enforce it by seeking you know, going to a judge and trying to get contempt orders. How often do they

actually push these issues? I think it's rare. I think typically, of course, going to the court is going to be an action of last resort, not first resort. And so I think that there will be negotiations behind the scenes to find out what's the objection to appearing me for the committee, and can those objections or concerns be allayed in some way short of going to the to a court.

And and further, I think on the other side, I think courts are reluctant to intervene in these types of and these types of matters and leave it to the to to Congress to try to resolve resolve the matter itself very quickly. President Trump's lawyers, several of them, have advised him against a wide ranging interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller. According to The New York Times, aids and lawyers believe Mueller might be unwilling to subpoena Trump and

spark a White House battle. Do you, in about forty five seconds, do you have any doubt that the Special Counsel will subpoena Trump? Well, I think that that of course, first they're they're going to try to gain his co operations, see if they if he will just respond positively to a request to appear before before Bob Muller. And and again the question is going to be if the answer to that is no, then what are the concerns and can those concerns be addressed in some way that's that's

acceptable to both parties. But I think at the end of the day, if there's no agreement, I think that the Muller will go the next step and and try to force the president's hand through through the courts. Thanks so much. That's Jimmy Rule, a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I am June Brosso. This is Bloomberg