Podcast appearances and mentions of Merrill V Milligan

If you're interested in voting rights decision being heard by the Supreme Court this term, join me alongside Leslie Proll from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights & Gino Nuzzolilo from Common Cause as we sit and discuss the potential repercussions of Moore V. Harper and Merrill V. Milligan and the future of democracy in America! This conversation was hosted by the Declaration of American Democracy Coalition on Tuesday November 29th, 2022. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/evolve-america/message

On October 4, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan.Following the 2020 Census, the Alabama Legislature redrew its congressional district lines to account for shifts in the state's population. With these new lines, only one of the state's seven congressional districts was majority-minority. Several plaintiffs sued, asserting the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and sought the creation of an additional majority-minority district to account for the growing African American population in Alabama.The District Court enjoined the districts, holding that they violated the VRA. Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Certiorari and stayed the district court's injunctions.Featuring:David Warrington, Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc. Moderator: Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Issue(s): Whether the state of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States House of Representatives violated Section 2, consolidated with the North Carolina Case.Thank you for reading Battle of the Titans - Good Vs Evil, Christianity, Education. This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe

On October 4, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan.Following the 2020 Census, the Alabama Legislature redrew its congressional district lines to account for shifts in the state's population. With these new lines, only one of the state's seven congressional districts was majority-minority. Several plaintiffs sued, asserting the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and sought the creation of an additional majority-minority district to account for the growing African American population in Alabama.The District Court enjoined the districts, holding that they violated the VRA. Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Certiorari and stayed the district court's injunctions.We will break down the argument on the same day, October 4, 2022.Featuring:David Warrington, Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc. Moderator: Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

6:05 During Supreme Court oral arguments for Merrill v. Milligan and Merrill v. Caster—cases which will determine whether Alabama's new congressional map is a violation of the Voting Rights Act—Alabama Solicitor General Edmund G. Lacour argued that his state's redistricting was made in a “race neutral manner.” Based on her questions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to believe that the 14th Amendment was not meant to be “race neutral or race blind.” In his retort to Justice Jackson, Lacour stated: “the 14th Amendment is a prohibition on discriminatory state action…it is not an obligation to engage in affirmative discrimination in favor of some groups...”

Audio of Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence from the Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022) Packing and cracking is a popular (but illegal) gerrymandering technique and, according to a District Court last January, it's how the Republican-led State of Alabama redistricted their seven-seat congressional map following the 2020 census. Packing and cracking works just as the name describes: using Alabama's map as an example, district lines were drawn so that they look "cracked" after distributing white voters as evenly as possible across six voting districts, while the areas with the greatest concentration of black residents were "packed" into the one voting district. The goal of this technique, which has been used in the past by both political parties, is to end up with as many congressional districts as possible for the friendly party - which was six out of seven districts that voted consistently for Republican candidates, in this particular case. Several organizations challenged the packed and cracked map, arguing that the map limits the number of districts in which Black voters are likely to vote for their chosen candidates, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policy. The district court agreed and ordered Alabama back to the drawing board. But the Supreme Court put the lower court's ruling on hold until the new 2022 term begins, effectively allowing Alabama to use their allegedly gerrymandered map through the primary elections and, likely, into the midterm elections that will determine the leadership of both congressional chambers of Congress. Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for October 4th, the second day of the October sitting. The question before the Court will be whether Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven U.S. House seats violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.   Access this SCOTUS dissent with full citations on Oyez   Access Supreme Court Calendar, October Term 2022   Access SCOTUSblog 2022 Term Case List   Music by Epidemic Sound

A case in which the Court will decide whether Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the state of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States House of Representatives violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Jan 28 2022 | Application (21A375) for a stay or injunctive relief pending appeal, submitted to Justice Thomas.Jan 28 2022 | Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due March 9, 2022)Jan 28 2022 | Response to application (21A375) requested by Justice Thomas, due by noon on Wednesday, February 2, 2022.Jan 31 2022 | Motion for leave to file amici curiae brief filed by Louisiana, et al. VIDED.Jan 31 2022 | Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief filed by John Wahl, Chairman, Alabama State Republican Executive Committee.Feb 01 2022 | Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief filed by The National Republican Redistricting Trust.Feb 01 2022 | Motion for leave to file amici curiae brief filed by United States Representatives from Alabama. VIDED.Feb 01 2022 | Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief filed by Alabama Center for Law and Liberty. VIDED.Feb 02 2022 | Response to application from respondents Evan Milligan, et al. filed.Feb 02 2022 | Reply of applicants John Merrill, et al. filed.Feb 07 2022 | Application (21A375) referred to the Court.Feb 07 2022 | Application (21A375) granted by the Court. The application is treated as a jurisdictional statement (No. 21-1086), and probable jurisdiction is noted. The district court's January 24, 2022 preliminary injunction in No. 2:21-cv-1530 is stayed pending further order of the Court. Justice Kavanaugh, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in grant of applications for stay. (Detached opinion). The Chief Justice dissenting from grant of applications for stay. (Detached opinion). Justice Kagan, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting from grant of applications for stays. (Detached opinion).Feb 22 2022 | This case is consolidated with No. 21-1087, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The question presented in these cases is: Whether the District Courts in these cases correctly found a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U. S. C. §10301.Feb 22 2022 | Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 21-1086. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 21-1086. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”Mar 01 2022 | Joint motion of the parties for an extension of time file the briefs on the merits. VIDED.Mar 04 2022 | Motion to modify or amend the question presented filed by appellees and respondents. VIDED.Mar 08 2022 | Joint motion of the parties to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix, appellants', and petitioners' briefs on the merits is extended to and including April 25, 2022. The time to file appellees' and respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including July 11, 2022. VIDED.Mar 08 2022 | Application (21A493) of appellants/petitioners for leave to file consolidated opening and reply briefs on the merits, submitted to Justice Thomas. VIDED.Mar 08 2022 | Response of appellants and petitioners to the motion to modify or amend the question presented filed. VIDED.Mar 14 2022 | Application (21A493) granted by Justice Thomas for leave to file consolidated opening and reply briefs on the merits provided that the opening brief does not exceed 18,000 words and the reply brief does not exceed 10,000 words. VIDED.Mar 21 2022 | Upon consideration of the motion to modify or amend the question presented, the question presented in these cases is amended as follows: Whether the State of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States House of Representatives violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U. S. C. §10301. VIDED.Mar 30 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Marcus Caster, et al.Mar 30 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Evan Milligan, et al.Mar 31 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, John H. Merrill, Alabama Secretary of State, et al.Apr 25 2022 | Joint appendix filed (three volumes). VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)Apr 25 2022 | Brief of appellants/petitioners John H. Merrill, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. filed. VIDED.Apr 29 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Public Interest Legal Foundation filed. VIDED.Apr 29 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Senator John Braun, et al. filed. VIDED.Apr 29 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Alabama Center for Law and Liberty filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Legislative Exchange Council filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Project on Fair Representation filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The National Republican Redistricting Trust filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Citizens United, et al. filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of John Wahl, Chairman, Alabama State Republican Executive Committee filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Singleton Plaintiffs in support of neither party filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Lawyers Democracy Fund filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Republican National Committee filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The State of Louisiana, et al filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of United States Representatives from Alabama filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of America First Legal filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Coastal Alabama Partnership filed. VIDED.Jun 14 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, October, 4, 2022. VIDED.Jun 22 2022 | Record requested from the U.S.D.C. Northern District of Birmingham, Alabama.Jun 24 2022 | Application of Milligan, et al. (21A869) to file appellees' brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Thomas.Jun 24 2022 | Application (21A871) of Caster, et al. to file respondents' brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Thomas.Jun 30 2022 | Application (21A869) for leave to file appellees brief on the merits in excess of the word limit granted by Justice Thomas.Jul 01 2022 | Application (21A871) to file respondents' brief on the merits in excess of the word limit granted by Justice Thomas.Jul 11 2022 | Brief of respondents Marcus Caster, et al. filed. VIDED.Jul 11 2022 | Brief of appellees Evan Milligan, et al. filed (in 21-1086).Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Bipartisan Group of Senators and Congressional Staff Member-Supporters of the 1982 Voting Rights Act Amendments and 2006 Voting Rights Act Reauthorization filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Alabama Historians filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Professors Jowei Chen, Christopher S. Elmendorf, Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos, and Christopher S. Warshaw filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Campaign Legal Center filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The Brennan Center for Justice filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Computational Redistricting Experts filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Republican Former Governors filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Travis Crum filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Representative Terri Sewell, et al. filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Local Governments filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of District of Columbia, et al. filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Voting Rights Practitioners filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of U.W. Clemon, Fred D. Gray, Henry Sanders, the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, and Social Science Professors filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of UCLA Social Scientists filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of National Congress of American Indians filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The Central Alabama Fair Housing Center, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)Jul 18 2022 | Motion for divided argument filed by appellees and respondents. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The Southern Poverty Law Center, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Press Robinson, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jul 21 2022 | CIRCULATEDJul 22 2022 | Application (22A82) to extend the time to file appellants/petitioners consolidated reply brief on the merits from August 10, 2022 to August 24, 2022, submitted to Justice Thomas. VIDED.Jul 29 2022 | Application (22A82) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file appellants'/petitioners' consolidated reply brief on the merits until August 24, 2022. VIDED.Aug 22 2022 | Motion for divided argument filed by appellees and respondents GRANTED. VIDED.Aug 22 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED. VIDED.Aug 24 2022 | Reply of appellants/petitioners John H. Merrill, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)

CONSOLIDATED WITH 21-1087 FOR ONE HOUR ARGUMENT. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THESE CASES IS: WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURTS IN THESE CASES CORRECTLY FOUND A VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 52 U. S. C. §10301. ORDER OF 3/21/2022: UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO MODIFY OR AMEND THE QUESTION PRESENTED, THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THESE CASES IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: WHETHER THE STATE OF ALABAMA'S 2021 REDISTRICTING PLAN FOR ITS SEVEN SEATS IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VIOLATED SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 52 U. S. C. §10301.21. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1086.html

Audio of Chief Justice Roberts' dissent from Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022). Packing and cracking is a popular (but illegal) gerrymandering technique and, according to a District Court last January, it's how the Republican-led State of Alabama redistricted their seven-seat congressional map following the 2020 census. Packing and cracking works just as the name describes: using Alabama's map as an example, district lines were drawn so that they look "cracked" after distributing white voters as evenly as possible across six voting districts, while the areas with the greatest concentration of black residents were "packed" into the one voting district. The goal of this technique, which has been used in the past by both political parties, is to end up with as many congressional districts as possible for the friendly party - which was six out of seven districts that voted consistently for Republican candidates, in this particular case. Several organizations challenged the packed and cracked map, arguing that the map limits the number of districts in which Black voters are likely to vote for their chosen candidates, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policy. The district court agreed and ordered Alabama back to the drawing board. But the Supreme Court put the lower court's ruling on hold until the new 2022 term begins, effectively allowing Alabama to use their allegedly gerrymandered map through the primary elections and, likely, into the midterm elections that will determine the leadership of both congressional chambers of Congress. Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for October 4th, the second day of the October sitting. The question before the Court will be whether Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven U.S. House seats violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.   Access this SCOTUS dissent with full citations   Access Supreme Court Calendar, October Term 2022   Access SCOTUSblog 2022 Term Case List   Music by Epidemic Sound

Audio of Justice Kagan's dissent from Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022) Packing and cracking is a popular (but illegal) gerrymandering technique and, according to a District Court last January, it's how the Republican-led State of Alabama redistricted their seven-seat congressional map following the 2020 census. Packing and cracking works just as the name describes: using Alabama's map as an example, district lines were drawn so that they look "cracked" after distributing white voters as evenly as possible across six voting districts, while the areas with the greatest concentration of black residents were "packed" into the one voting district. The goal of this technique, which has been used in the past by both political parties, is to end up with as many congressional districts as possible for the friendly party - which was six out of seven districts that voted consistently for Republican candidates, in this particular case. Several organizations challenged the packed and cracked map, arguing that the map limits the number of districts in which Black voters are likely to vote for their chosen candidates, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policy. The district court agreed and ordered Alabama back to the drawing board. But the Supreme Court put the lower court's ruling on hold until the new 2022 term begins, effectively allowing Alabama to use their allegedly gerrymandered map through the primary elections and, likely, into the midterm elections that will determine the leadership of both congressional chambers of Congress. Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for October 4th, the second day of the October sitting. The question before the Court will be whether Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven U.S. House seats violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.   Access this SCOTUS dissent with full citations on Oyez   Access Supreme Court Calendar, October Term 2022   Access SCOTUSblog 2022 Term Case List   Music by Epidemic Sound  

The Supreme Court says there's simply no time before elections that are months away, to redraw racist Congressional district maps, that took all of one week to make initially. If you're a fan of democracy that probably sounds bad, but listen, nothing in the Constitution explicitly says that fascism is expressly prohibited.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.If you're not a Patreon member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Patreon-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at patreon.com/fivefourpod. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On February 7, 2022, the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and granted certiorari before judgment in a case involving Alabama's new congressional district map. It also granted a stay allowing the map to go into effect for Alabama's upcoming primary elections. The Alabama State Conference of the NAACP and others had challenged the map adopted by the Alabama State legislature before a three-judge federal district court panel. They argued that the state's redistricting plan dilutes minority votes in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The district court, agreeing with the plaintiffs, enjoined Alabama from implementing the legislature's map and gave the state legislature 14 days to implement a remedial redistricting plan that "include[s] two districts in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it"--or the court would itself retain an expert to draw, on an expedited basis, a congressional map compliant with federal law for purposes of the 2022 congressional elections. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court stayed that order. Many commentators have weighed in, some critiquing the Court's order, others dissecting the vote breakdown and still others considering possible implications. Professor Michael T. Morley of FSU College of Law joins us for a litigation update to discuss the issues. Featuring:-- Professor Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law

On February 7, 2022, the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and granted certiorari before judgment in a case involving Alabama’s new congressional district map. It also granted a stay allowing the map to go into effect for Alabama’s upcoming primary elections. The Alabama State Conference of the NAACP and others had challenged the map adopted […]

Last week, the Supreme Court issued an order in a case—Merrill v. Milligan—about voting district maps in Alabama. After the 2020 census, Alabama drew new maps for seven districts, which would determine the seats in the House of Representatives. Of those seven, one district has a majority Black population. A lower court ordered Alabama to redraw the maps so that two districts have majority Black populations, finding that the current plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, temporarily put that ruling on hold, with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the three liberal justices. So—what does it all mean for voting rights in Alabama, and for the Voting Rights Act itself? In this episode we dig into the issues surrounding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how its interpretation could affect voting across the country. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are Rick Hasen, Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine, and co-director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center; and Matthew Clark, executive director of the Alabama Center for Law & Liberty.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued an order in a case—Merrill v. Milligan—about voting district maps in Alabama. After the 2020 census, Alabama drew new maps for seven districts, which would determine the seats in the House of Representatives. Of those seven, one district has a majority Black population. A lower court ordered Alabama to redraw the maps so that two districts have majority Black populations, finding that the current plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, temporarily put that ruling on hold, with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the three liberal justices. So—what does it all mean for voting rights in Alabama, and for the Voting Rights Act itself? In this episode we dig into the issues surrounding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how its interpretation could affect voting across the country. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are Rick Hasen, Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine, and co-director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center; and Matthew Clark, executive director of the Alabama Center for Law & Liberty.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

It's a day of disagreement! David and Sarah walk through a critical Supreme Court voting rights case, and come out in a different place. They walk through the Sarah Palin trial, and come out in a different place. But then, unity reigns when Sarah concludes the podcast by dunking on Russia and hanging on the rim. Show Notes:-Merrill v. Milligan-Purcell v. Gonzalez-Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: Vote Dilution and Vote Deprivation-Slate: “Sarah Palin Takes the Stand”-Washington Post: “Palin trial exposes the allure of ‘both sides' journalism”