Podcasts about jubelirer

We continue our Best of 2024 episodes with an  episode from the Democracy Decoded podcast, with host Simone Leeper.In the end, the worst of everyone's election fears — political violence, overt foreign interference or a razor-thin margin between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump leading to a hotly contested legal battle — did not come to pass. Instead, Donald Trump won a plurality of votes for president, and did so decisively. On January 20, 2025, he will once again become the country's most powerful executive.His victory raises weighty questions for the experts at Campaign Legal Center. Trump ran explicitly on a platform of behaving like an authoritarian, promising to fire U.S. civil servants, threatening opponents with jail, and brandishing military force against would-be dissenters. As his return to power approaches, we grapple with a paradoxical election, in which voters declared their preference for the candidate who repeatedly threatened the American system as we know it.Joining Simone in this episode are Trevor Potter, CLC's president and founder, and CLC senior vice presidents Paul M. Smith and Bruce Spiva. They offer their forecasts for the uncertain years ahead and explain what this election did (and did not) signify about the health of American democracy.Read the full transcriptHost and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Trevor Potter is President at Campaign Legal Center. A Republican former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Trevor was general counsel to John McCain's 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns and an adviser to the drafters of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. To many, he is perhaps best known for his recurring appearances on The Colbert Report as the lawyer for Stephen Colbert's super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, during the 2012 election, a program that won a Peabody Award for excellence in reporting on money in politics.The American Bar Association Journal has described Trevor as “hands-down one of the top lawyers in the country on the delicate intersection of politics, law and money.” Trevor is the author of several books and manuals on lobbying regulation and disclosure, campaign finance and federal election law. He has provided testimony and written statements to Congress on federal election proposals, campaign finance regulation and, recently, the effects of the January 6th attack on our democracy. He has also taught campaign finance law at the University of Virginia School of Law and Oxford University, and he has appeared widely in national broadcast and print media. During the 2020 election season, Trevor was named to the cross-partisan National Task Force on Election Crises.Bruce Spiva is Senior Vice President at Campaign Legal Center. He is an attorney and community leader who has spent his over 30-year career fighting for civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, consumer protection, and antitrust enforcement.Over the past three decades, he has tried cases and argued appeals in courtrooms across the country, including arguing against vote suppression in the United States Supreme Court in 2021. In 2022, in his first run for public office, Bruce mounted a competitive run in the primary election for Washington, D.C. Attorney General.In addition to founding his own law firm where he practiced for eleven years, Bruce has held several leadership and management positions as a partner at two national law firms. Most recently, Bruce served as the Managing Partner of the D.C. Office and on the firm-wide Executive Committee of Perkins Coie LLP, where he also had an active election law practice. He first-chaired twelve voting rights and redistricting trials across the country, and argued numerous voting rights appeals in U.S. circuit courts and state supreme courts during his tenure at Perkins.Paul M. Smith is Senior Vice President at Campaign Legal Center. He works directly with CLC's talented team of litigators to protect and advance American democracy through innovative litigation strategies.Paul has four decades of experience litigating a wide range of cases. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 21 times and secured numerous victories, including in the important cases advancing civil liberties and civil rights, Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case, and Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, which established First Amendment rights of those who produce and sell video games.In addition, Paul has argued several voting rights cases at the Supreme Court, including Vieth v. Jubelirer and Gill v. Whitford, involving partisan gerrymandering, LULAC v. Perry, involving the legality of Texas's mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, involving the constitutionality of a voter identification law. He served as counsel for amici in several key campaign finance merits cases including McCutcheon v. FEC (on behalf of Democratic House members), Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (on behalf of the Committee for Economic Development) and Citizens United v. FEC (on behalf of the Committee for Economic Development).Additional InformationDemocracy Decoded PodcastMore shows from The Democracy Group

In the end, the worst of everyone's election fears —political violence, overt foreign interference or a razor-thin margin between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump leading to a hotly contested legal battle — did not come to pass. Instead, Donald Trump won a plurality of votes for president, and did so decisively. On January 20, 2025, he will once again become the country's most powerful executive.His victory raises weighty questions for the experts at Campaign Legal Center. Trump ran explicitly on a platform of behaving like an authoritarian, promising to fire U.S. civil servants, threatening opponents with jail, and brandishing military force against would-be dissenters. As his return to power approaches, we grapple with a paradoxical election, in which voters declared their preference for the candidate who repeatedly threatened the American system as we know it.Joining Simone in this episode are Trevor Potter, CLC's president and founder, and CLC senior vice presidents Paul M. Smith and Bruce Spiva. They offer their forecasts for the uncertain years ahead and explain what this election did (and did not) signify about the health of American democracy. Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Trevor Potter is President at Campaign Legal Center. A Republican former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Trevor was general counsel to John McCain's 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns and an adviser to the drafters of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. To many, he is perhaps best known for his recurring appearances on The Colbert Report as the lawyer for Stephen Colbert's super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, during the 2012 election, a program that won a Peabody Award for excellence in reporting on money in politics. The American Bar Association Journal has described Trevor as “hands-down one of the top lawyers in the country on the delicate intersection of politics, law and money.” He has provided testimony and written statements to Congress on federal election proposals, campaign finance regulation and, recently, the effects of the January 6th attack on our democracy. During the 2020 election season, Trevor was named to the cross-partisan National Task Force on Election Crises.Bruce Spiva is Senior Vice President at Campaign Legal Center. He is an attorney and community leader who has spent his over 30-year career fighting for civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, consumer protection, and antitrust enforcement.Over the past three decades, he has tried cases and argued appeals in courtrooms across the country, including arguing against vote suppression in the United States Supreme Court in 2021. In 2022, in his first run for public office, Bruce mounted a competitive run in the primary election for Washington, D.C. Attorney General. In addition to founding his own law firm where he practiced for eleven years, Bruce has held several leadership and management positions as a partner at two national law firms. Most recently, Bruce served as the Managing Partner of the D.C. Office and on the firm-wide Executive Committee of Perkins Coie LLP, where he also had an active election law practice. He first-chaired twelve voting rights and redistricting trials across the country, and argued numerous voting rights appeals in U.S. circuit courts and state supreme courts during his tenure at Perkins. Paul M. Smith is Senior Vice President at Campaign Legal Center. He works directly with CLC's talented team of litigators to protect and advance American democracy through innovative litigation strategies.Paul has four decades of experience litigating a wide range of cases. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 21 times and secured numerous victories, including in the important cases advancing civil liberties and civil rights, Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case, and Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, which established First Amendment rights of those who produce and sell video games. In addition, Paul has argued several voting rights cases at the Supreme Court, including Vieth v. Jubelirer and Gill v. Whitford, involving partisan gerrymandering, LULAC v. Perry, involving the legality of Texas's mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, involving the constitutionality of a voter identification law. He served as counsel for amici in several key campaign finance merits cases including McCutcheon v. FEC (on behalf of Democratic House members), Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (on behalf of the Committee for Economic Development) and Citizens United v. FEC (on behalf of the Committee for Economic Development).Links:www.campaignlegal.org/support-our-workAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization which advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American's right to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.

Ever wondered what it takes to make a brand like OLLY shine on Amazon and other marketplaces? Buckle up because today we have the lady who makes the magic happen, the Amazon Manager at OLLY supplements, Summer Jubelirer.From CommerceHub to Hydralyte, Summer's been a seasoned veteran in the eCommerce game long before joining OLLY. Now, she tackles the ever-evolving Amazon landscape with a smile and a strategy (and co-hosts a hilarious podcast called "Always Off Brand").OLLY is one of the most successful and beautifully branded Amazon businesses globally, and Summer has played a role in this.With a wealth of experience in the eCommerce realm, Summer takes us on a journey through her career and shares valuable insights into the challenges and surprises faced at OLLY, as well as predictions and thoughts regarding Amazon's push into Streaming TV in 2024, the Always of Brand podcast that Summer co-hosts as well as other marketplaces to pay attention to.Summer provides a glimpse into where her team will be directing their attention, revealing potential marketplaces beyond Amazon that they are exploring and why these avenues are worth their consideration. Key TakeawaysIntro (00:00)Summer Jubelirer's eCommerce career path and brand management (01:16)Brand-agency relationships and effective communication (06:19)Agency-brand communication and collaboration  (09:47)Amazon marketing strategies and tactics (14:20)eCommerce attribution, fulfillment challenges, and inventory management (21:14)Amazon vendor strategies and communication (28:09)Amazon advertising and connected TV (35:56)Additional Resources:- Summer Jubelirer's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/summerjubelirer/- Always Off Brand Podcast: https://alwaysoffbrand.libsyn.com/---- Schedule a FREE consultation with the Ave7 team- Grab the FREE Amazon Seller Central Checklist- Get the book “The Amazon Jungle” book by Jason Boyce- Learn more about Avenue7Media----Day 2 Podcast has a goal of helping Amazon sellers learn how to launch, grow and protect their brand on the world's largest online marketplace (and beyond).Follow us on your favorite podcast platform so you never miss an episode!

In this episode, we dig deep into a comparison between the hemp and regulated-cannabis markets across the United States. Our primary focus centers on Illinois and its unique position relative to other states. We also explore a recent story I shared about outdoor cannabis cultivation in Illinois. Ali and I discuss what made this story so intriguing to her, and I provide insights into my reasons for writing it. Watch the video version of this episode or read full show notes here: https://thecolememo.com/2024/01/10/episode-41-ali-jubelirer-dynamicjack-co/

Download our free guide on 5 ways to take action!Why do local and state elections matter, and how can voters be sure that their voices are being represented in the lawmaking process? We open the third season of Democracy Decoded with an overview of democracy at the state and local level, and how we can ensure that all citizens can have their voices heard.In this episode Simone talks with Jawharrah Bahar about her experience losing and then regaining her freedom  to vote, and how that inspired her work with the advocacy group Free Hearts. CLC's senior vice president Paul Smith explains how and why state and local governments are stepping in directly to protect the right to cast a ballot. Simone also speaks with the Arizona State Director for the organization All Voting is Local, Alex Gulotta. Alex talks about the fight for state and local voting policies that protect the freedom to vote of Black, brown, Native American, and other historically disenfranchised communities.Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Jawharrah Bahar is Director of Outreach at Free Hearts, an organization led by formerly incarcerated women that provides support, education, and advocacy in organizing families impacted by incarceration. In her role she has contributed to legislation, spoken at community events, participated in local advocacy campaigns, and raised community awareness through social media videos. Jawharrah is also a licensed esthetician and owner of Lashing Artistry.Paul Smith is Senior Vice President at Campaign Legal Center. He has four decades of experience litigating a wide range of cases. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 21 times and secured numerous victories, including Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case. In addition, Paul has argued several voting rights cases at the Supreme Court, including Vieth v. Jubelirer and Gill v. Whitford, involving partisan gerrymandering, LULAC v. Perry, involving the legality of Texas's mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, involving the constitutionality of a voter identification law. Paul previously served as a partner in the law firm of Jenner & Block, where he was chair of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and co-chair of the firm's Election Law and Redistricting Practice. Alex Gulotta is All Voting is Local's Arizona State Director. He brings more than 30 years of experience as a poverty law advocate and more than 20 years as a nonprofit executive director. Alex practiced as a legal aid lawyer before becoming the executive director of the Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC). After that, he joined Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal) as executive director. Under his tenure, BayLegal significantly increased its impact litigation and policy advocacy through the implementation of an impact support structure designed to enable every advocate in the program to participate in high-end impact advocacy.Links:Voting Must Be AccessibleWhy the U.S. Needs Equitable Access to In-Person VotingI'm Unable to Vote Because I Have a Record, But I'm Not Going to Allow My Past to Be Held Against MeMidterm Ballot Initiatives Strengthening the Freedom to Vote Win BigAdditional InformationThe Democracy Group listener surveyDemocracy Decoded PodcastMore shows from The Democracy Group

Why do local and state elections matter, and how can voters be sure that their voices are being represented in the lawmaking process? We open the third season of Democracy Decoded with an overview of democracy at the state and local level, and how we can ensure that all citizens can have their voices heard.In this episode Simone talks with Jawharrah Bahar about her experience losing and then regaining her freedom  to vote, and how that inspired her work with the advocacy group Free Hearts. CLC's senior vice president Paul Smith explains how and why state and local governments are stepping in directly to protect the right to cast a ballot. Simone also speaks with the Arizona State Director for the organization All Voting is Local, Alex Gulotta. Alex talks about the fight for state and local voting policies that protect the freedom to vote of Black, brown, Native American, and other historically disenfranchised communities.Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Jawharrah Bahar is Director of Outreach at Free Hearts, an organization led by formerly incarcerated women that provides support, education, and advocacy in organizing families impacted by incarceration. In her role she has contributed to legislation, spoken at community events, participated in local advocacy campaigns, and raised community awareness through social media videos. Jawharrah is also a licensed esthetician and owner of Lashing Artistry.Paul Smith is Senior Vice President at Campaign Legal Center. He has four decades of experience litigating a wide range of cases. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 21 times and secured numerous victories, including Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case. In addition, Paul has argued several voting rights cases at the Supreme Court, including Vieth v. Jubelirer and Gill v. Whitford, involving partisan gerrymandering, LULAC v. Perry, involving the legality of Texas's mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, involving the constitutionality of a voter identification law. Paul previously served as a partner in the law firm of Jenner & Block, where he was chair of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and co-chair of the firm's Election Law and Redistricting Practice. Alex Gulotta is All Voting is Local's Arizona State Director. He brings more than 30 years of experience as a poverty law advocate and more than 20 years as a nonprofit executive director. Alex practiced as a legal aid lawyer before becoming the executive director of the Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC). After that, he joined Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal) as executive director. Under his tenure, BayLegal significantly increased its impact litigation and policy advocacy through the implementation of an impact support structure designed to enable every advocate in the program to participate in high-end impact advocacy. Links:Voting Must Be AccessibleWhy the U.S. Needs Equitable Access to In-Person VotingI'm Unable to Vote Because I Have a Record, But I'm Not Going to Allow My Past to Be Held Against MeMidterm Ballot Initiatives Strengthening the Freedom to Vote Win Big About CLCDemocracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization which advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American's right to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process. Learn more about us. Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.

America is a democracy, but is that democracy accessible to every American? When the Constitution was ratified, only white men who owned property could vote, which was only 6% of the population. In the more than 200 years since then, many Americans are still being denied the right to have a say in key decisions that impact our lives. In this episode Simone talks with Brittany Carter from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund about the history of voting rights, and how African Americans risked their lives and safety for the freedom to vote. Then, CLC lawyers Paul Smith and Danielle Lang explain what voting access looks like today, and what barriers still exist for many Americans including people with disabilities, people of color and those with felony convictions.Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Paul Smith has four decades of experience litigating a wide range of cases. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 21 times and secured numerous victories, including Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case. In addition, Paul has argued several voting rights cases at the Supreme Court, including Vieth v. Jubelirer and Gill v. Whitford, involving partisan gerrymandering, LULAC v. Perry, involving the legality of Texas's mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, involving the constitutionality of a voter identification law. Paul previously served as a partner in the law firm of Jenner & Block, where he was chair of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and co-chair of the firm's Election Law and Redistricting Practice. Danielle Lang has worked as a civil rights litigator her entire career and now leads CLC's voting rights team dedicated to safeguarding the freedom to vote. She has led litigation against Texas's racially discriminatory voter ID law, Florida's modern-day poll tax for rights restoration, Arizona's burdensome registration requirements, North Dakota's voter ID law targeting Native communities, and numerous successful challenges to signature match policies for absentee ballots. Previously, Danielle served as a Skadden Fellow in the Employment Rights Project of Bet Tzedek Legal Services in Los Angeles, where she represented low-wage immigrant workers in wage and hour, discrimination, and human trafficking matters. From 2012 to 2013, Danielle clerked for Judge Richard A. Paez on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Brittany Carter is the Political Participation Fellow at LDF, focusing on voting rights litigation and voter protection efforts. She is a member of the legal team litigating Milligan v. Merrill, a high-profile case which was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, charging that the congressional redistricting map drawn by the Alabama legislature denied Black residents equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of choice. Prior to LDF, Brittany served as a law clerk to the Honorable Sam A. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.Links:Voting Must Be Accessible (Campaign Legal Center)To Make Elections Accessible, Modernize Voter Registration (Campaign Legal Center)About CLCDemocracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization which advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American's right to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process. You can visit us on the web at campaignlegalcenter.org.

On a special Election 2022 preview edition of the Delaware Valley Journal podcast, longtime Pennsylvania political observer (and former flak) Jeff Jubelirer joins DVJ News Editor Linda Stein and host Michael Graham for a round of unabashed political punditry. From the U.S. Senate race to local statehouse battles, they discuss the rising "Red Wave" and how far it may -- or may not -- reach into Pennsylvania on November 8.

Alissa discusses navigating compliance roadblocks in cannabis and the power of ancillary businesses in the industry.

On this episode of the podcast, we talk to a criminal defense attorney in Pennsylvania, Laurie Jubelirer. Laurie has an intimate knowledge of the opioid epidemic through the lens of fighting for her clients rights in the criminal justice system to receive treatment for drug use disorders. We talk about some of the trials people may face while seeking treatment, and listen to stories of what happens when some do not receive appropriate care. This is an episode you can't miss!  Info about Laurie and her work can be found at: https://jubelirerlaw.com/ and on Facebook @: https://www.facebook.com/Jubelirer-Law-LLC-306716242864645/

On this episode of She Dynasty, powerhouse COO of Capitol Music Group, Michelle Jubelirer discusses how she transitioned from a career in law to working as a c-suite executive with some of the biggest names in music. Michelle shares her incredible personal and professional journey, as well as some words of wisdom she’s learned along the way: “Never say ‘that's not my job.’ Everything is a learning experience.” 

Jim Jubelirer is a seasoned executive, coach and public speaker. Jim’s mission is to help leaders improve their business performance and personal satisfaction. Jim speaks to a wide variety of audiences about leadership and business excellence and motivates people to achieve Breakthrough Results. He has designed and delivered custom training programs, and has delivered speeches, conference presentations and/or executive seminars to over 6,000 people from over 40 countries. Jim’s Massively Transformative Purpose is to create an equitable and sustainable world for everyone. His Moonshot is to see the transformation to 100% renewable energy worldwide in his lifetime.

Sen. Robert Jubelirer was first elected to the Pennsylvania Senate in 1974. Watergate was a deep wound on voter psyche, and Jubelirer was the lone Republican freshman Senator elected. Until his loss in a primary election in 2006, Jubelirer would serve skillfully and energetically, making a political career out of his willingness to fight in the face of long odds. Jubelirer was admired and respected on both sides of the political aisle, and while his views an actions were sometimes questioned, his integrity and commitment were never doubted. From the memorable people with whom he served to the media, lobbyists, and other political influencers, Jubelirer paints a picture of members of a political process that, while not always succeeding, strives to serve the needs of Pennsylvanians. He evaluates and grades the six governors he served under with honesty and candor and recounts his time as the longest-serving senate president pro tempore. A graduate of Penn State University and the Penn State Dickinson School of Law, Sen. Robert Jubelirer served eight consecutive terms in the Pennsylvania Senate from 1974 to 2006. Jubelirer is now head of the government relations division of the law firm Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel.

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.

“It is an invidious, undemocratic, and unconstitutional practice,” Justice John Paul Stevens said of gerrymandering in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). Politicians have been manipulating district lines to favor one party over another since the founding of our nation. But with a case starting today, Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court may be in a position to crack this historical nut once and for all. Up until this point, the court didn’t have a standard measure or test for how much one side had unfairly drawn district lines. But “the efficiency gap” could be it. The mathematical formula measures how many votes Democrats and Republicans waste in elections — if either side is way outside the norm, there may be some foul play at hand. According to Loyola law professor Justin Levitt, both the case and the formula arrive at a critical time: “After the census in 2020, all sorts of different bodies will redraw all sorts of different lines and this case will help decide how and where.” The key voices: Moon Duchin, Associate Professor at Tufts University Justin Levitt, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles The key cases: 2004: Vieth v. Jubelirer 2017: Gill v. Whitford The key links: “A Formula Goes to Court” by Mira Bernstein and Moon Duchin “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap” by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee  Special thanks to David Herman. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. 

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.