One of the non-abortion related discussions happened in the Face the Nation classroom, where Margaret Brennan chatted with former Obama AG Eric Holder. Holder's got a new book out - Our Unfinished March - and he's perhaps the only former pol-turned-author making the rounds who's not a former Trump administration anything.
Brennan asked him about his work on redistricting, through his National Democrat Redistricting Committee, and how some critics call his strategy "sue to blue," or say that it's completely partisan - in favor of the Dems, of course. He said that's not the case. Rather,
... ours is a fight for fairness. And, yes, we've brought a lot of lawsuits -- successfully brought a lot of lawsuits in order to make sure that the process is done in a fair way and so that the American people actually pick their representatives as opposed to politicians choosing their voters. And so 'sue to blue', that's what they say when you're winning in court, which is what we have done at a whole bunch of levels.
He didn't necessarily agree with Brennan that the Dems have the edge going into the midterms, but he thinks they
certainly stopped the Republicans when they said they wanted to secure a decade of power in this next decade based on the redistricting that they were going to do. We have blunted that effort and we certainly have more fair maps than we did coming out of the last redistricting cycle. The thing that really worries me, however, is that we have 40 percent fewer competitive seats than I think we should have as a result of what both parties have done.
Brennan asked why his organization hasn't challenged any of the Dems' gerrymanders, including the maps in Maryland and New York, both of which were thrown out by the courts. He said he's indicated his opposition to what happened in Maryland, and he agreed with the judge's decision there. And, he said, the maps the legislature drew in New York were not the maps he would have drawn. He things the final maps in NY will be "different, but no fundamentally different."
And, he said,
I think you can't compare, however, what happened in New York and Maryland to what is going on in Texas, Georgia, potentially Florida, Wisconsin, where Republicans have really gone to town in terms of gerrymanders. Fundamentally different from what Democrats have done.
He said in Texas, they're picking up two seats "strictly as a result of the increase in the Hispanic population," but they've "created more majority white districts" and haven't "increased the power of Hispanics in Texas at all."
The map that you see in New York reflects really a population shift, a hollowing out of the rural areas in New York, as well as an increase in the urban areas in New York. So there's a census bureau basis of what's happening in New York that does not exist in Republican states.
And what about Florida, and Gov. DeSantis saying he's being 'race-neutral' with his maps? Brennan said she knows Holder "strongly" disagrees, and asked if he's saying Florida's gerrymandering is rooted in racism. "It's certainly race conscious," he said, and by getting rid of a traditionally black district, "race is a factor there." And, intentional disenfranchisement is part of it.
They're going after Democrats. And the fact that that -- the Democrats that they're going after happen to be black I don't think is necessarily a coincidence. The suit that we won in Alabama was -- where we said that you should have additional representation for the black inhabitants of Alabama, those districts were certainly drawn with the thought that they would disenfranchise African-Americans in Alabama.
Alabama's weird. They have maps, but the Supremes might hear a case on the maps if someone were to complain the new districts are racially biased or designed to, as Holder said, disenfranchise African-Americans. Brennan wondered about this year's election, and the chance that the maps might be invalidated, and what that does to the election outcome. Here's Holder's take on it.
Well, they're going to have an election in November based on maps that judges, including two Trump judges, said were inappropriately, unconstitutionally drawn. The Supreme Court said too close to the election and so we're going to allow the election to go ahead on those maps that were found to be defective. Now, that the Supreme Court will ultimately do with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was the basis for the lawsuit in Alabama, will remain to be seen. But that's one of the things I talk about in my book, this notion of us getting to some structural changes, that we need to look -- we need to ban partisan gerrymandering. We need the structures of our democracy if we're going to try to -- if we're going to try to save it.
There was an interesting exchange when Brennan sort of twisted something Holder said in his book. Here's how it went.
MB: And the problem that you sketch out here, you say that the entire democratic system, essentially, is broken, as I understand it. Unrepresentative Senate, unnecessary anti-democrat Electoral College, gerrymandered House of Representatives, panoply of state legislatures, and a stolen Supreme Court. A stolen Supreme Court. You say every person having an equal say in our democracy, one person, one vote, is far from a reality.
EH: Yes, I think that's true.
MB: You're saying the entire system is broken. What -- so if Republicans win control of Congress in November, is that election -- does it not have integrity? Do you not accept the outcome of it?
EH: No, I think your premise goes a little far. I wouldn't say that everything is broken, but there is --
MB: I was reading from your book there.
Yes, she was reading from the book in the part where she read from the book, but to jump from there to asking whether the election has integrity is quite a leap, and very much putting words into Holder's mouth, IMO. Here's his response.
No, what I'm saying -- I would say is, there is a substantial amount of our structure that needs to be repaired, that needs to be examined. And I think we should -- what I've tried to put out -- point out in the book is that we have faced these issues before and that we've had heroes and heroines in our history that have faced similar kinds of issues and through sacrifice, commitment, they have made a difference. And we have the capacity, I think, to make these kinds of changes.
And, specifically on the Supremes, where Brennan placed a lot of emphasis,
If you look at the Supreme Court, we have two seats, one stolen from the Democrats that Merrick Garland should have now. That -- that seat was not filled because it was to close to an election. And then Amy Coney Barrett was placed into a seat while people were actually voting. I mean those are the kinds of things that I think need to be addressed. And what I talk about in the book is to say, look, we should term limit the justices, 18 years, and that every president should have an opportunity to nominate two justices per term and to try to take some of the pressure out of this -- the partisanship and the confirmation process.
He's absolutely right on the Supremes: Garland should have had his confirmation hearing, when he was nominated, and Coney Barrett should not have had her hearing when she was nominated. Many people - perhaps even most people - understand how egregious the Grim Reaper's actions were on the Garland pick, and how hypocritical they were on the other one as well. And, I think, even Republicans would be having a cow or three if the shoe were on the other foot in either one of these cases.
Holder's got a lot of ideas; admittedly he's trying to get Dems elected, but in the end, if the people get to choose their elected officials, instead of them picking us, we'll all be better off. I might actually read this one.
See you around campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!