Podcasts about benisek

On this week’s episode of Stay Tuned with Preet, "Ballot Battles," Preet answers listeners’ questions about online learning, mail fraud, and the Equal Time Doctrine. Then, Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, joins Preet for a discussion about voting. To listen to Stay Tuned bonus content, become a member of CAFE Insider. Sign up to receive the CAFE Brief, a weekly newsletter featuring analysis of politically charged legal news, and updates from Preet. As always, tweet your questions to @PreetBharara with hashtag #askpreet, email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail.   REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS THE Q&A “As School Moves Online, Many Students Stay Logged Out,” New York Times, 4/6/20 47 U.S. Code § 315: Candidates for public office, Legal Information Institute 18 U.S. Code § 1341: Frauds and swindles, Legal Information Institute  Stay Tuned: Blame Today On the 70s (with Kevin Kruse & Julian Zelizer), 1/24/19  THE INTERVIEW The Fight to Vote, Simon & Schuster (2017)  “How to Protect the 2020 Vote from the Coronavirus,” Brennan Center for Justice, 3/16/20  Stay Tuned: Gunning for the 2nd Amendment? (with Michael Waldman), 1/15/19 HISTORY OF VOTING RIGHTS:  President Abraham Lincoln, Last Public Address, 4/11/1865, Abraham Lincoln Online “The 1913 Women’s Suffrage Parade,” The Atlantic, 3/1/13 Voting Rights Act of 1965, U.S. Government National Archives Recordings of President Lyndon B Johnson’s phone calls, DiscoverLBJ  “Confrontations for Justice,” The National Archives  Michael Waldman, “The Right to Vote? Don’t Count on It,” Brennan Center, 2/29/16 THE CONSTITUTION:  15th Amendment, National Constitution Center 17th Amendment, National Constitution Center  19th Amendment, National Constitution Center  SUPREME COURT DECISIONS:  Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Oyez Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), Oyez Lamone v. Benisek (2019), Oyez Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (2020), SCOTUSblog VOTER FRAUD & SAFETY: Justin Levitt, “The Truth About Voter Fraud,” Brennan Center, 11/9/07 Watch: Voter ID Laws, “The Colbert Report,” Comedy Central, 7/20/11 “Trump Disbands Commission on Voter Fraud,” New York Times, 1/3/18  Tweet featuring Wisconsin Assembly speaker telling voters it’s safe to go out, 4/7/20 

Last month, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in two highly-watched cases. In Rucho v. Common Cause/ Lamone v. Benisek, the high court ruled federal courts do not have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims. In Department of Commerce v. New York , SCOTUS blocked the Trump administration’s request to add a controversial citizenship question to the U.S. census. So what kind of legal implications could these two rulings have on the legal and political landscape of the United States? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Nicholas Stephanopoulos, professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School and Dale Ho, the director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, as they discuss these two cases, take a look at gerrymandering, the 2020 census citizenship question, President Trump’s fight, how the census affects gerrymandering and next steps. Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio.

On June 28, SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein and Sarah Harrington participated in a webinar discussing the major cases at the Supreme Court this term. The discussion, moderated by Laura Safdie from Casetext, covered Department of Commerce v. New York, holding that a question about citizenship cannot be added to 2020 census until the Commerce Department provides an adequate explanation for doing so, Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, holding that partisan-gerrymandering claims present political questions that cannot be reviewed by federal courts, and other cases. Video of the webinar is available at this link. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term will soon be over, but the need for serious analysis has just begun. Did the High Court get the big cases right? What will the Court’s ruling in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association mean for the future of religion in the public square? How will Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone, the partisan gerrymandering cases, impact the next election cycle? Will the ruling in Kisor v. Wilkie rein in administrative agencies? How have Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh changed the balance of the Court, and have any broader themes of the Roberts Court emerged this term?Please join us as our distinguished panels of practitioners and journalists discuss these cases and more from the 2018-2019 term. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Supreme Court's conservative justices ruled Thursday that the highest court doesn't have the power to address partisan gerrymandering, the practice in which politicians redraw district maps to help their own party win more elections. In two cases, Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause, the court split along ideological lines 5 to 4. Chief Justice John G.

On March 26, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone, two cases involving gerrymandering.Rucho v. Common Cause involves whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map involves unconstitutional gerrymandering in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and Article I. In March 2017, a three-judge district court ruled that North Carolina’s 2016 Congressional Redistricting Plan constituted unconstitutional gerrymandering because the state General Assembly improperly relied on “political data” to draw districts to increase the number of Republicans in North Carolina’s congressional delegation. The court ordered new maps to be drawn for use in future elections. Following the court’s instructions, the General Assembly drew a new congressional district plan according to criteria identified by the Joint Select Committee on Redistricting. One such criterion was “partisan advantage,” which, relying on population data and political data, would “make reasonable efforts to construct districts in the 2016 plan to maintain current partisan makeup of North Carolina’s congressional delegation.” The plan was approved by the committee, the North Carolina Senate and North Carolina House of Representatives, all along party lines. Others filed objections to the plan and asked that the court reject it as partisan gerrymandering. The court held that the plan constituted unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, enjoined North Carolina from using the plan in any election after November 6, 2018, and directed the parties to submit briefs relating to whether the court should allow the plan to be used in the 2018 election and allow the General Assembly a third opportunity to draw a plan. Although the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its 2018 decision in Gil v. Whitford on standing, the district court subsequently concluded that the plaintiffs had standing and reasserted its earlier determination on the merits. In August 2018, the district court concluded that there was not enough time to review a new plan before the seating of the new Congress in 2019 as well as determined that a new schedule for elections would interfere with North Carolina’s electoral machinery. Thus, the court declined to enjoin use of the plan in the November 2018 election. The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to consider (1) whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Lamone v. Benisek involves Maryland’s 2011 redistricting plan, particularly whether the State redrew the boundary of one district to burden Republicans. Following the 2010 census, Maryland redrew the lines of its congressional districts and state legislative districts. The Sixth Congressional District had grown by approximately 10,000 residents, which required adjustment of the district boundaries. If only a slight adjustment for population had been applied, the district would have been unquestionably Republican. Instead of this slight adjustment, the plan swapped half the population of the former Sixth District with about 24,000 voters. The change created in effect a difference in 90,000 Democratic votes. Plaintiffs argued that in enacting 2011 law, the State deliberately diluted Republican votes in violation of the First Amendment. A three-judge district court agreed with plaintiffs, enjoining the State from using the 2011 congressional redistricting plan after the 2018 congressional election and requiring it promptly to adopt a new plan for use in the 2020 congressional elections. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.To discuss the cases, we have Derek Muller, Associate Professor at Pepperdine University School of Law.

On March 26, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone, two cases involving gerrymandering.Rucho v. Common Cause involves whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map involves unconstitutional gerrymandering in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and Article I. In March 2017, a three-judge district court ruled that North Carolina’s 2016 Congressional Redistricting Plan constituted unconstitutional gerrymandering because the state General Assembly improperly relied on “political data” to draw districts to increase the number of Republicans in North Carolina’s congressional delegation. The court ordered new maps to be drawn for use in future elections. Following the court’s instructions, the General Assembly drew a new congressional district plan according to criteria identified by the Joint Select Committee on Redistricting. One such criterion was “partisan advantage,” which, relying on population data and political data, would “make reasonable efforts to construct districts in the 2016 plan to maintain current partisan makeup of North Carolina’s congressional delegation.” The plan was approved by the committee, the North Carolina Senate and North Carolina House of Representatives, all along party lines. Others filed objections to the plan and asked that the court reject it as partisan gerrymandering. The court held that the plan constituted unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, enjoined North Carolina from using the plan in any election after November 6, 2018, and directed the parties to submit briefs relating to whether the court should allow the plan to be used in the 2018 election and allow the General Assembly a third opportunity to draw a plan. Although the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its 2018 decision in Gil v. Whitford on standing, the district court subsequently concluded that the plaintiffs had standing and reasserted its earlier determination on the merits. In August 2018, the district court concluded that there was not enough time to review a new plan before the seating of the new Congress in 2019 as well as determined that a new schedule for elections would interfere with North Carolina’s electoral machinery. Thus, the court declined to enjoin use of the plan in the November 2018 election. The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to consider (1) whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Lamone v. Benisek involves Maryland’s 2011 redistricting plan, particularly whether the State redrew the boundary of one district to burden Republicans. Following the 2010 census, Maryland redrew the lines of its congressional districts and state legislative districts. The Sixth Congressional District had grown by approximately 10,000 residents, which required adjustment of the district boundaries. If only a slight adjustment for population had been applied, the district would have been unquestionably Republican. Instead of this slight adjustment, the plan swapped half the population of the former Sixth District with about 24,000 voters. The change created in effect a difference in 90,000 Democratic votes. Plaintiffs argued that in enacting 2011 law, the State deliberately diluted Republican votes in violation of the First Amendment. A three-judge district court agreed with plaintiffs, enjoining the State from using the 2011 congressional redistricting plan after the 2018 congressional election and requiring it promptly to adopt a new plan for use in the 2020 congressional elections. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.To discuss the cases, we have Derek Muller, Associate Professor at Pepperdine University School of Law.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court and Tom Goldstein take a look at what’s ahead at the Supreme Court for the final weeks of June. The justices have 24 argued cases still to decide, including a number of the more high-profile cases from this year’s docket: Gundy v. United States, The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, Department of Commerce v. New York, and partisan-gerrymandering cases Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Supreme Court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—this week: Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. Examining those cases and how the Court might rule, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Nick Stephanopoulos, one of the attorneys in the North Carolina case and a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. These scholars debate whether or not the Supreme Court should be involved in examining partisan gerrymandering claims, and discuss what the Constitution says about gerrymandering. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—this week: Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. Examining those cases and how the Court might rule, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Nick Stephanopoulos, one of the attorneys in the North Carolina case and a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. These scholars debate whether or not the Supreme Court should be involved in examining partisan gerrymandering claims, and discuss what the Constitution says about gerrymandering. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Lamone v. Benisek | 03/26/19 | Docket #: 18-726

This Term, the Supreme Court will once again tackle the issue of partisan redistricting when it reviews two cases to determine whether state legislatures violated the Constitution by intentionally diluting their citizens' votes for partisan purposes. Last Term, the Court heard two cases on the topic, but never reached the merits. Instead, it decided the cases on jurisdictional grounds.With those issues arguably resolved, the Court now seems ready to weigh in on whether partisan gerrymandering cases are justiciable when it hears Benisek v. Lamone, a challenge to the electoral map drawn by the Democratically-controlled Maryland legislature, and Rucho v. Common Cause, a challenge to the electoral map drawn by the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature, on March 26, 2019. What test might the Court adopt for determining when redistricting is legitimate or illegitimate, and what are the implications of the various possibilities? How is the Supreme Court, now without Justice Kennedy, likely to rule on the merits? Featured Speakers: Kareem Crayton, Interim Executive Director, Southern Coalition for Social Justice Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School Jenni Katzman, moderator, Director of Policy and Program, ACS

The Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 term will soon be over, but the need for serious analysis has just begun. Did the High Court get the big cases right? What will the Court’s ruling in Trump v. Hawaii mean for immigration and executive power? Is the future for religious freedom secure in the wake of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission? How will Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone, the partisan gerrymandering cases, impact the upcoming mid-term elections? Will Janus v. AFSCME sound the death knell for public employee unions across the country? How will the Court’s arbitration agreements in Epic Systems affect employers and employees? What response, if any, is necessary from Congress following South Dakota v. Wayfair, the internet sales tax case? Did any broader themes of the Roberts Court emerge this term, and has Justice Gorsuch changed the balance of the Court? Please join us as our distinguished panels of practitioners and correspondents debate these and more from the 2017-2018 term. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On June 18th, the Supreme Court released two decisions—Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone—that focused on partisan gerrymandering. A third decision on another redistricting case—Abbott v. Perez—is still pending and is expected to come down any day. Although the Court did not reach the merits in either Gill or Benisek, the justices did provide some insight as to how a claim on partisan gerrymandering could be framed in order to be successful. And although it was not the result that many had hoped for, the Court’s decisions leave an opportunity for future challenges. Please join ACS for a webinar that will provide an overview of these decisions, the status of redistricting, and the larger legal context in the redistricting battle. Moderator: Jenni Katzman, Director of Policy and Program, American Constitution Society Speakers: Paul Smith, Vice President, Litigation and Strategy, The Campaign Legal Center Michael Li, Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice

Welcome back to Counting to 5, a podcast about the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, I take a look at five new cases granted for next term, and I review the Court’s decisions issued on June 18, 2018, in five argued cases, including two cases about partisan gerrymandering, Gill v. Whitford and Benisek … Continue reading Episode 053: Livestream — Partisan Gerrymandering Anticlimax

Dahlia Lithwick takes a close look at the two big voting rights cases decided by the Supreme Court earlier this week with Paul Smith who argued for the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin political gerrymander case Gill v. Whitford. On Monday, the court sent Gill back to the lower courts based on the theory that the plaintiffs had no standing. In the other case, Benisek v Lamone, which involved a Maryland gerrymander, the Justices delivered an unsigned opinion sending Benisek back saying it was too soon to decide. And we take a look at the implications of the court’s earlier decision on Ohio voter purges, a case that was also argued by Paul Smith. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick takes a close look at the two big voting rights cases decided by the Supreme Court earlier this week with Paul Smith who argued for the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin political gerrymander case Gill v. Whitford. On Monday, the court sent Gill back to the lower courts based on the theory that the plaintiffs had no standing. In the other case, Benisek v Lamone, which involved a Maryland gerrymander, the Justices delivered an unsigned opinion sending Benisek back saying it was too soon to decide. And we take a look at the implications of the court’s earlier decision on Ohio voter purges, a case that was also argued by Paul Smith. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Denial of preliminary injunction...well past its requested time table

On March 28, 2018, the Supreme Court heard Benisek v. Lamone, the second partisan gerrymandering case of the Term. Under review in Benisek is the Maryland redistricting map, drawn to favor Democrats running for election. The first partisan gerrymandering case from earlier in the Term involved the Wisconsin redistricting, arguably favoring Republicans running for election. Court watchers are left wondering whether the Court will, for the first time, strike down redistricting maps as overly partisan. Join us as Wisconsin Solicitor General recaps the Benisek oral argument.Featuring:Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General, Wisconsin Department of Justice Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On March 28, 2018, the Supreme Court heard Benisek v. Lamone, the second partisan gerrymandering case of the Term. Under review in Benisek is the Maryland redistricting map, drawn to favor Democrats running for election. The first partisan gerrymandering case from earlier in the Term involved the Wisconsin redistricting, arguably favoring Republicans running for election. Court watchers are left wondering whether the Court will, for the first time, strike down redistricting maps as overly partisan. Join us as Wisconsin Solicitor General recaps the Benisek oral argument.Featuring:Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General, Wisconsin Department of Justice Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Benisek v. Lamone | 03/28/18 | Docket #: 17-333