Podcasts about bandemer

On this week's episode of Embracing Your Season host Paige Clingenpeel has special guest and personal friend, Whitney Bandemer on the show to address being vulnerable, asserting your needs and figuring out how to find trusted people to help you make the best and wisest decisions in life. Whitney is a wife and mother as well as a former attorney, an organizational architect, experienced people leader and owner of WB Consulting LLC. Paige's Takeaways:We should have a multitude of counselors in our lives in order to make decisions and have a community that can help us be healthy and whole.  A multitude of counselors is important because we have blind spots.  We have biases that we bring into our day to day lives as well as bigger decisions we have to make. We need trusted people in our lives who have discernment. We also need to choose wisely who we allow to speak into our lives.We have to be open and honest about what we need from the people in our lives or in our relationships. Communicating like this can help our relationships across the board. Help them understand what their role is in the conversation.How can we implement some of these things for our kids now? How can we help them grow in their vulnerability or grow in their needs? We need to be modeling this well and  share our emotions appropriately so they can see what emotions look like. When they see that we can be vulnerable and share deep and hard emotions, they can learn from that. Teach them who they can trust. Helping them from a young age, identify what makes a trusted friend, a trusted adult, someone they can walk alongside with in life because they aren't always going to come to us.Paige ClingenpeelQuestions About the Podcast? Email: paigeclingenpeel@gmail.comFacebook: Paige ClingenpeelInstagram: paigeclingenpeelHomeWordWB Consulting LLCQuestions for Whitney? Email: whitney@wbconsultingllc.com LinkedIn: Whitney Bandemer

"Leadership is not about authority or having a title, but about the influence and impact you have on others."  Whitney Bandemer is a consultant in HR leadership and management who is passionate about helping individuals and organizations thrive. Through her business, WB Consulting LLC, she empowers middle managers and high potential employees to understand themselves, connect with their teams, and effectively succeed in their roles.  In this episode of Made For Impact, Whitney shares her expertise and personal experiences to help you thrive as a leader. She reveals the key to unlocking your potential is by identifying what you truly love to do and building a supportive network around you. In addition, Whitney introduces her unique SOAR framework, which leverages appreciative inquiry and asks the right questions, to guide you through the mentoring process and bring out the best in yourself and your team.    In this episode, you'll learn:  Take the time for self-reflection and honesty to determine what you truly love to do.  Build a strong network and actively engage with people. This will lead to more opportunities. Middle managers hold a crucial role in organizations and often face communication challenges between executive teams and employees.   Connect with GUEST: https://www.linkedin.com/in/whitney-caudill-bandemer/   Get in touch with Gretchen, and let her know which impactful leaders you'd like to hear from: Connect on LinkedIn   Loved this episode? Leave us a review and rating here: https://link.chtbl.com/3EbmWF5a   

Ford Motor Co. v Montana (Eighth Judicial District) was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving personal jurisdiction of a state court in product liability lawsuits. The case, consolidated with Ford Motor Company v Bandemer, involved two product liability lawsuits brought against the Ford Motor Company at the state level related to two drivers' injuries in separate accidents involving Ford's vehicles in Montana and Minnesota. Ford challenged the lawsuits as the vehicles in question were manufactured elsewhere so the states did not have personal jurisdiction over that conduct. The Supreme Court ruled in a 8 to 0 decision that because, under the Due Process Clause, the claims "arise out of or relate to" Ford's business and marketing activities, those activities gave sufficient claim for the states to assert personal jurisdiction over the liability lawsuits. Background. Two 2015 accidents involving Ford vehicles were at the basis of the case. In Montana, an accident involving a separated tire tread on a Ford Explorer caused the death of the driver, Markkaya Gullett. In Minnesota, Adam Bandemer had rear-ended a snow plot in a Ford Crown Victoria, causing him to end up in a ditch, but the car's airbags failed to deploy, leading to him to suffer a brain injury. In both cases, the parties (Gullett's estate and Bandemer) filed suit against Ford over defects in their products in their respective state courts. Ford sought a motion to dismiss both cases on the basis that the state courts lacked personal jurisdiction. Ford argued that the cars themselves were designed and manufactured in other states or in Canada, and only by right of sale ended up in those states. Because of that, there was no relevant connection between their activities of designing and manufacturing the car and the accidents in the states for the state courts to have jurisdiction. These motions were rejected by state district courts and through appeals to both the Montana Supreme Court and Minnesota Supreme Court, upholding lower court rulings that Ford's activities include purposeful promotions and sales of vehicles to their states' residents. Under the Due Process Clause, the courts ruled that the plaintiffs' claims "arise out of or relate to" Ford's business activities in states, thus allowing the state courts to hear these cases. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Jurisdiction. Experts discuss changes in specific personal jurisdiction jurisprudence to include the incorporation of relatedness, and what might come next. Participants. Paul Clement, Partner Kirkland & Ellis, LLP; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings College of Law; and Hamid Kahn, Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Jurisdiction. Experts discuss changes in specific personal jurisdiction jurisprudence to include the incorporation of relatedness, and what might come next. Participants. Paul Clement, Partner Kirkland & Ellis, LLP; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings College of Law; and Hamid Kahn, Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

On Thursday, March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court and the consolidated case of Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer. The case turned on specific personal jurisdiction, the type of contacts required by the Fourteenth Amendment to satisfy Due Process, and the Court’s precedent in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which sets the standards required for an out-of-state defendant to be constitutionally called into a foreign state court. In this case, two plaintiffs sued Ford alleging product liability causes of action resulting from death and serious injury that occurred during accidents allegedly caused by product defects. Markkaya Gullett died and Adam Bandamer was seriously injured. The pair of wrongful death and serious bodily injury product liability claims were brought separately in the states where the death and the injury respectively took place: Montana and Minnesota.Ford Motor Co., as an out of state defendant incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan, argued in both cases that insufficient contacts connected Ford to the two forum states so neither the Montana nor the Michigan state court could constitutionally exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Ford. Both state court cases were heard by their state Supreme Courts and both times, the Supreme Courts ruled against Ford holding Ford was properly subject to personal jurisdiction in their state judicial system.Ford appealed both state Supreme Court decisions on the constitutional Due Process question. In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Ford holding that Ford’s contacts with both forum states were sufficiently extensive and connected to the subject matter of each suit that an exercise of personal jurisdiction could satisfy Due Process and was reasonable and fair in line with International Shoe.Featuring: -- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center -- Jaime A. Santos, Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP

19-368 FORD MOTOR CO. V. MONTANA EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT DECISION BELOW: 443 P.3d 407 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: OP 19-0099 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only when the plaintiff’s claims“arise out of or relate to" the defendant's forum activities.Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented is: 1. Whether the“arise out of or relate to" requirement is met when none of the defendant's forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts. 19-369 FORD MOTOR CO. V. BANDEMER DECISION BELOW: 931 N.W.2d 744 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: A17-1182 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only when the plaintiff’s claims“arise out of or relate to" the defendant's forum activities.Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented is: 1. Whether the“arise out of or relate to" requirement is met when none of the defendant's forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.

"Stella an den Geliebten" aus: Susanne von Bandemer, Neue vermischte Gedichte, Berlin, 1802 Susanne von Bandemer (2. März 1751, Berlin – 30. Dezember 1828, Koblenz) Neue Folgen immer Montag bis Freitag um 7 Uhr!

"Die Verwandlung" aus: Susanne von Bandemer, Neue vermischte Gedichte, Berlin, 1802 Susanne von Bandemer (2. März 1751, Berlin – 30. Dezember 1828, Koblenz) Neue Folgen immer Montag bis Freitag um 7 Uhr! Mich gibt es auch auf YouTube & Instagram: ✬ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7hH-ierv-7NVjICidtBpBg ✬ Kaninchenkanal (englisch): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBw4Q_nTVkUSrjT3fx4iDcg ✬ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alyssaaajulie/

"Die Rose an der Brust des Geliebten" aus: Susanne von Bandemer, Neue vermischte Gedichte, Berlin, 1802 Susanne von Bandemer (2. März 1751, Berlin – 30. Dezember 1828, Koblenz) Neue Folgen immer Montag bis Freitag um 7 Uhr! Mich gibt es auch auf YouTube & Instagram: ✬ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7hH-ierv-7NVjICidtBpBg ✬ Kaninchenkanal (englisch): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBw4Q_nTVkUSrjT3fx4iDcg ✬ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alyssaaajulie/

"Die Abschiedsstunde" aus: Susanne von Bandemer, Neue vermischte Gedichte, Berlin, 1802 Susanne von Bandemer (2. März 1751, Berlin – 30. Dezember 1828, Koblenz) Neue Folgen immer Montag bis Freitag um 7 Uhr! Mich gibt es auch auf YouTube & Instagram: ✬ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7hH-ierv-7NVjICidtBpBg ✬ Kaninchenkanal (englisch): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBw4Q_nTVkUSrjT3fx4iDcg ✬ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alyssaaajulie/

"An den Mann der Liebe" aus: Susanne von Bandemer, Neue vermischte Gedichte, Berlin, 1802 Susanne von Bandemer (2. März 1751, Berlin – 30. Dezember 1828, Koblenz) Neue Folgen immer Montag bis Freitag um 7 Uhr! Mich gibt es auch auf YouTube & Instagram: ✬ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7hH-ierv-7NVjICidtBpBg ✬ Kaninchenkanal (englisch): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBw4Q_nTVkUSrjT3fx4iDcg ✬ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alyssaaajulie/

Public Relations von Hoynigen-Huenne (prvhh) ist alteingesessene PR-Agentur in Hamburg. Die Agentur wurde 1972 gegründet und ist heute in zweiter Generation inhabergeführt. In den 48 Jahren des Bestehens hat prvhh viele technische Neuerungen miterlebt und mitbegleitet: Von der Einführung des Faxes über PC und E-Mail bis hin zu Internet, Social Media und Performance Marketing heute. Wie beeinflusst die Digitalisierung die Unternehmenskommunikation, was verändert sich für PR-Agenturen und was hat das alles mit Controlling zu? Darüber sprechen wir mit Marc von Bandemer, dem Geschäftsführer von prvhh in einem zweiteiligen Podcast. Webseite prvhh: www.prvhh.de E-Mail von Marc von Bandemer: mvb@prvhh.de   Der Performance Manager Podcast ist der erste und einzige deutschsprachige Podcast für Business Intelligence und Performance Management. Controller und CFO erhalten hier Inspirationen, Know-how und Impulse für die berufliche und persönliche Weiterentwicklung. Weitere Informationen zu Peter Bluhm, dem Macher des Podcast, finden Sie hier: https://www.atvisio.de/unternehmen/ Unsere Bitte: Wenn Ihnen diese Folge gefallen hat, hinterlassen Sie uns bitte eine 5-Sterne-Bewertung, ein Feedback auf iTunes und abonnieren diesen Podcast. Zeitinvestition: Maximal ein bis zwei Minuten. Dadurch helfen Sie uns, den Podcast immer weiter zu verbessern und Ihnen die Inhalte zu liefern, die Sie sich wünschen. Herzlichen Dank an dieser Stelle!  Sie sind ein Fan unseres Podcast? Sie finden uns auch auf diesen Kanälen: Exklusive Xing-Gruppe zum Podcast: https://bit.ly/3eKubH6 Exklusive LinkedIn-Gruppe zum Podcast: https://bit.ly/2zp6q7j Peter Bluhm auf LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/2x0WhwN Peter Bluhm auf Xing: https://bit.ly/2Kkxhne Webseite: https://atvisio.de/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ATVISIO/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/atvisio Instagram: https://bit.ly/2KlhyEi Apple Podcast:  https://apple.co/2RUMwaK Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/atvisio  

Public Relations von Hoynigen-Huenne (prvhh) ist alteingesessene PR-Agentur in Hamburg. Die Agentur wurde 1972 gegründet und ist heute in zweiter Generation inhabergeführt. In den 48 Jahren des Bestehens hat prvhh viele technische Neuerungen miterlebt und mitbegleitet: Von der Einführung des Faxes über PC und E-Mail bis hin zu Internet, Social Media und Performance Marketing heute. Wie beeinflusst die Digitalisierung die Unternehmenskommunikation, was verändert sich für PR-Agenturen und was hat das alles mit Controlling zu? Darüber sprechen wir mit Marc von Bandemer, dem Geschäftsführer von prvhh in einem zweiteiligen Podcast. Webseite prvhh: www.prvhh.de E-Mail von Marc von Bandemer: mvb@prvhh.de   Der Performance Manager Podcast ist der erste und einzige deutschsprachige Podcast für Business Intelligence und Performance Management. Controller und CFO erhalten hier Inspirationen, Know-how und Impulse für die berufliche und persönliche Weiterentwicklung. Weitere Informationen zu Peter Bluhm, dem Macher des Podcast, finden Sie hier: https://www.atvisio.de/unternehmen/ Unsere Bitte: Wenn Ihnen diese Folge gefallen hat, hinterlassen Sie uns bitte eine 5-Sterne-Bewertung, ein Feedback auf iTunes und abonnieren diesen Podcast. Zeitinvestition: Maximal ein bis zwei Minuten. Dadurch helfen Sie uns, den Podcast immer weiter zu verbessern und Ihnen die Inhalte zu liefern, die Sie sich wünschen. Herzlichen Dank an dieser Stelle!  Sie sind ein Fan unseres Podcast? Sie finden uns auch auf diesen Kanälen: Exklusive Xing-Gruppe zum Podcast: https://bit.ly/3eKubH6 Exklusive LinkedIn-Gruppe zum Podcast: https://bit.ly/2zp6q7j Peter Bluhm auf LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/2x0WhwN Peter Bluhm auf Xing: https://bit.ly/2Kkxhne Webseite: https://atvisio.de/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ATVISIO/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/atvisio Instagram: https://bit.ly/2KlhyEi Apple Podcast:  https://apple.co/2RUMwaK Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/atvisio  

Dan Heilman for MN Lawyer on a survey that showed that (1) the “Twin Cities overall pays partners far less than in many larger markets” and (2) “male partners have consistently reported substantially higher average compensation than their female counterparts”You know you want to read this sexy story about legislative process reform . . .#tbt to Dusosky v. Fischbach (the case about “sitting on two seats with one butt”) and Fischbach's defense that was recently retroactively funded by the MN LegislatureJustice Thissen's first majority opinion published December 5, 2018, State v. Ortega-RodriguezCourt of Appeals opinion in Bandemer v. Ford Motor CompanyOral argument in Bandemer v. Ford Motor CompanyBriefing in Bandemer v. Ford Motor Company:Appellant (Bandemer) briefRespondent (Ford) briefAppellant (Bandemer) reply briefAmicus (US Chamber of Commerce) briefTranscript of the episode here

http://www.mncourts.gov/SupremeCourt/OralArgumentWebcasts/ArgumentDetail.aspx?vid=1256

On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Gill v. Whitford, a case involving claims of partisan gerrymandering. In Wisconsin’s 2010 elections, Republicans won the governorship and acquired control of the state senate. In 2011, the Wisconsin legislature adopted a redistricting plan, Act 43, for state legislative districts. With Act 43 in effect Republicans expanded their legislative control in subsequent elections, reportedly winning 60 of 99 seats in the State Assembly with 48.6% of the statewide two-party vote in 2012, and 63 of 99 seats with 52% of the statewide two-party vote in 2014. In 2015 twelve Wisconsin voters sued in federal court, alleging that Act 43 constituted a statewide partisan gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied, and following trial a divided three-judge district court panel invalidated Act 43 statewide. Act 43, the majority concluded, impermissibly burdened the representational rights of Democratic voters by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats even when Republicans were in an electoral minority. The court enjoined further use of Act 43 and ordered that a remedial redistricting plan be enacted, but the United States Supreme Court stayed that judgment pending resolution of this appeal. The questions before the Supreme Court are as follows: (1) Whether the district court, in holding that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis, ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.To the discuss the case, we have David Casazza, Associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Gill v. Whitford, a case involving claims of partisan gerrymandering. In Wisconsin’s 2010 elections, Republicans won the governorship and acquired control of the state senate. In 2011, the Wisconsin legislature adopted a redistricting plan, Act 43, for state legislative districts. With Act 43 in effect Republicans expanded their legislative control in subsequent elections, reportedly winning 60 of 99 seats in the State Assembly with 48.6% of the statewide two-party vote in 2012, and 63 of 99 seats with 52% of the statewide two-party vote in 2014. In 2015 twelve Wisconsin voters sued in federal court, alleging that Act 43 constituted a statewide partisan gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied, and following trial a divided three-judge district court panel invalidated Act 43 statewide. Act 43, the majority concluded, impermissibly burdened the representational rights of Democratic voters by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats even when Republicans were in an electoral minority. The court enjoined further use of Act 43 and ordered that a remedial redistricting plan be enacted, but the United States Supreme Court stayed that judgment pending resolution of this appeal. The questions before the Supreme Court are as follows: (1) Whether the district court, in holding that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis, ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.To the discuss the case, we have David Casazza, Associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

Partisan disputes over the drawing of legislative districts are as old as the Republic itself. In recent years, these disputes have not been limited to the political realm. Ever since the Supreme Court's 1986 opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, litigants have raised challenges in federal courts over partisan gerrymandering. But lower courts have lacked guidance from the Supreme Court and struggled to identify the appropriate standards and evidence to use. In October, the Supreme Court heard Gill v. Whitford, an appeal of a lower court finding that Wisconsin's redistricting of its state legislature was an impermissible partisan gerrymander. What standards should courts apply when determining whether a partisan gerrymander is impermissible? What evidence should courts rely upon? Should courts even consider such challenges at all or leave the matter to the political process?Featuring:Prof. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law SchoolMr. Kevin St. John, Partner, Bell Giftos St. John LLC

Partisan disputes over the drawing of legislative districts are as old as the Republic itself. In recent years, these disputes have not been limited to the political realm. Ever since the Supreme Court's 1986 opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, litigants have raised challenges in federal courts over partisan gerrymandering. But lower courts have lacked guidance from the Supreme Court and struggled to identify the appropriate standards and evidence to use. In October, the Supreme Court heard Gill v. Whitford, an appeal of a lower court finding that Wisconsin's redistricting of its state legislature was an impermissible partisan gerrymander. What standards should courts apply when determining whether a partisan gerrymander is impermissible? What evidence should courts rely upon? Should courts even consider such challenges at all or leave the matter to the political process?Featuring:Prof. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law SchoolMr. Kevin St. John, Partner, Bell Giftos St. John LLC

In today's episode, we look at the history and potential future of gerrymandered congressional districts. We begin, however, with a listener question that's come to us from multiple sources, including Patrons Greg Boettcher and Adrian Borschow, who want to know if there's any difference between a "jail" and a "prison."  We deliver the goods! In our main segment, we delve into three recent cases regarding the time-honored practice of gerrymandering a state into congressional districts so as to maximize the number of safe seats for any one political party.  How significant is this problem, and can the courts fix it?  Listen and find out! Next, our much-beloved segment "Closed Arguments" returns with a look at a British tabloid journalist, Katie Hopkins, who was recently forced to pay more than 300,000 pounds (that's still real money, right?) after mistakenly taunting another journalist on Twitter. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #16 that asks whether an administrative assistant has sufficient authority to bind her boss when making contracts. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None.  Have us on your podcast, radio or TV show, or interview us! Show Notes & Links The first Supreme Court case to recognize a constitutional right to a non-gerrymandered district was Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986). Scalia (of course) attempted to overrule Davis v. Bandemer in his 2004 plurality opinion in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 US 267 (2004), but could only garner four votes. Since then, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the basic principle of Davis v. Bandemer in LULAC v. Perry, 548 US 399 (2006), in which only two sitting Supreme Court justices have endorsed the Scalia position. This is a fairly awesome video from former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger making gerrymandering the centerpiece of what is likely to be a run for the Senate in 2018. This is the Whitford et al. v. Gill (Wisc.) decision on gerrymandering that contains a detailed section as to how to detect and remedy "packing" and "cracking." This is the full text link to the Perez v. Abbott (W.D. Texas) decision on Texas's gerrymandered congressional districts. Andrew recommends Princeton professor Sam Wang's work on gerrymandering.  The full text of his Stanford Law Review article is here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

When you have election law and constitutional law scholar Lori Ringhand on your show, you start, of course, by talking about the problem with email, the uses of texting, and apps like Periscope. Lori thinks Christian should read more novels. Fueled by listener Bunny’s small-batch, home-roasted, fine coffee, we move on to the much easier topics of race, voting, and gerrymandering. What do you do when the Supreme Court’s color-blindness understanding of the Equal Protection Clause collides with the Voting Rights Act? And why do geographic voting districts with single winners make sense anyway? Voting’s hard to make fair amirite? This show’s links: Lori Ringhand’s faculty profile and writing Periscope About Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake Lori’s last appearance on the show The SCOTUSblog page for Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (which includes links to briefs and oral argument) Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama About the Voting Rights Act, including a brief outline of its major provisions Shelby County v. Holder About cracking, packing, and other redistricting shenanigans; see also more on this in ProPublica’s Devil’s Dictionary About multiple-winner voting methods and single-winner voting methods (which distinction roughly tracks some of the issues we raised) Shaw v. Reno, which was followed by Miller v. Johnson Partisan gerrymandering cases: Davis v. Bandemer (1986), Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006) Christopher Elmendorf, Representation Reinforcement through Advisory Commissions: The Case of Election Law Links to the oral argument in the Arizona case Smiley v. Holm and Bush v. Gore (and it was Justice Rehnquist’s concurrence) Special Guest: Lori Ringhand.