In this episode, Lisa interviews Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation about Washington D.C.’s governance, rising crime, and nationwide redistricting battles. They highlight how Democrat-led policies—like cash bail elimination and “defund the police”—have fueled D.C.’s crime crisis. The discussion also covers the President’s authority over D.C., the need for federal intervention, and how left-wing immigration and census policies distort congressional representation. They warn that Democrat-driven redistricting and open borders threaten fair elections and public safety, stressing the importance of restoring law and order and protecting the integrity of American democracy. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the Truth with Lisa Booth, where we get
to the heart of the issues that matter to you. Today,
we're diving into some of the critical issues surrounding Washington,
DC's governance, crime, and the nationwide redistricting battles shaping our
political future. Joining us for that legal discussion is Hans
von Spakowsky. He is a senior legal Fellow at the
(00:22):
Heritage Foundation. We're going to explore the president's authority to
federalize Washington, d C. The debate over the DC Home
rele Act. Is it time for Congress to get rid
of that? Also, we're going to dive into the truth
about what's really going on in Washington, d C. Democrats
keep making the argument that crime is down, but is it?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
What should you know about that? And why?
Speaker 1 (00:42):
More broadly, has the Democrat Party become the party of
crime and disorder? Why are they embracing lawlessness. Plus, we'll
unpack the high stakes redistricting fights. It's really a redistricting
arms race that we're seeing in the country with Texas,
California and beyond.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
We'll talk about the legal basis behind all of that.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Also, these conversations about the need to do a new census.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
It's never been done before. Should we do it? What
does the law say?
Speaker 1 (01:12):
So stay tuned for an honest and truthful conversation to
get to the bottom of all of these big legal
fights with Hans von Spakovsky. Well, Hans, I appreciate you
coming on this show, looking forward to obviously this is
getting a lot of attention what President Trump's trying to
(01:33):
do in Washington, d C. So I look forward to
your legal expertise and breaking it all down for us.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
So thanks for taking the time.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Oh sure, I'm happy to talk to you about it.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
You know, Hans, what's interesting is, you know, people seem
to forget that Congress has ultimate authority over Washington, d C.
They keep referencing Washington, d C with cities across America.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
But DC is unique, right, so we know that.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Well, first of all, just talk about that Congress's role
in oversight with Washington DC.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
The District of Columbia is not really a city, and
it's not a state. It's a federal district and the
federal government has control over and no different than other
federal properties such as army bases. It's exactly the same thing.
The only reason that DC has a city council and
(02:28):
a mayor is because in nineteen seventy three Congress granted
them limited home rule. But even though they said, yeah,
you could have a city council and a mayor, Congress
retained power and authority over the city's budget and also
the authority to basically override in veto any local laws
(02:50):
or ordinances that the city council might pass. Additionally, when
it comes to the president, they gave the president the
power to basically federalize and run the Metropolitan Police Department.
If there are special circumstances that the President believes amount
(03:12):
to an emergency, he can do it immediately for forty
eight hours, and as long as he notifies Congress during
that forty eight hours, then he can do it for
thirty days. Another big difference is that the National Guards
are under the nominal control of governors in the States.
That is not the case in the district. Again, because
(03:33):
it's federal property, the president is the direct commander of
the National Guard. He doesn't have to go to the
mayor to get permission to use the national Guard. In fact,
it's the other way around. If the mayor believes the
DC National Guard is needed on the streets. She has
to go to the President and ask him to tell
(03:54):
them to start patrolling.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
So he referenced that the President can federal realize the
DC Metropolitan Police under the Home Rule Act of nineteen
seventy three under special circumstances. Does the Home Rule Act
dictate what those special circumstances have to be? Or is
that like subjective and up to the president to decide?
(04:21):
Or I mean not, or is that up to the
president to sort of dictate what those special circumstances are?
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Like? How does that work?
Speaker 3 (04:29):
The least of the language is extremely broad and leaves
it entirely within the discretion of the president. Nobody can
question that. And even if, for example, the mayor of
the city council tried to sue the president, no judge
is going to override the judgment of the President that
special circumstances exist, and those special circums do exist. Look,
(04:54):
I've been working in the District of Columbia for more
than two decades and it is a not only a
poorly run city, it is a very dangerous city with
high crime rates. I mean, has the fourth highest murder
rate in the country. There are roaming, roving gangs, of
teenagers that not only rob and assault people, but also
(05:19):
give it a very high car jacking rate. It is
a dangerous city, and the city council has done everything
they can to actually make it difficult for law enforcement
to operate.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
So after that thirty day period, I believe it requires
a joint resolution passed by both the House and the Senate.
Did they just need a simple majority to get that done?
Do you think that Congress would do that or what
do you think happens beyond that thirty day period.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Oh? I think that members of Congress are well aware
of the problems there, and Republicans in particular, since they
have a majority, I think if the President asks for
more authority, they'll give it because look, all you have
to do is look at the news feeds for the
last couple of years and you'll see that staffers and
(06:09):
others in Congress have been attacked in the streets. And look,
just this week there were protests being staged up in
the DuPont Circle area against what the president was doing,
and the police had to be called in because a
couple of blocks away a man was shot and killed
on the street. At the same time, these protesters are saying, oh, well,
(06:32):
we don't need more law enforcement. That shows and really
illustrates the problem in the District of Columbia.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Do you think it's time to get rid of the
home rele Act?
Speaker 3 (06:42):
I have to tell you, I think Congress should give
serious consideration to taking back over the local government. Again.
You talk to anyone who's willing to say something about it,
and they'll tell you how poorly the city is run,
and they have all kinds of issues and problems throughout
(07:06):
all of the district. And I think a lot of people,
even even if they even if they want to don't
want to admit it publicly, would tell you, yeah, it
would be a good thing for the federal government to
take it over and fix so many of the problems
that exist throughout the city.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Well, it's interesting too with the uproar from the left,
because I believe it was in twenty twenty three there
was actually a bipartisan effort along with Joe Biden over
writing some changes to the DC's criminal code.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
That's right, and so it's you know, so it's.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Sort of ironic now that there's this uproar when you know,
like there was already bipartisan Ever effort very recently to
override the will of Washington, d C's City council.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Right, and one of the things they've done is is
say can't demand cash bail. And the result of that
is that dangerous criminals are on the streets almost the
very next day after they have been arrested. You talk
to any police officer, the Metro police in this town,
and they will tell you they're frustration over the fact
(08:17):
that even when they arrest folks, they're almost out on
the street immediately and committing crimes again.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Well, and you even have the DC Lice union.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Head talking about how he supports what President Trump's It's
also interesting because we've seen members of Congress come under
attack recently. I mean, Democrat Congressman Henry Quaar was carjacked
at gunpoint. Representative Anjie Craig was attacked in her own
apartment complex. Senator Ran Paul Staffer stabbed with the intern
that was murdered, the dose Staffer who has an appropriately
(08:53):
named nickname. Considering the fact that he stood up to
these people to protect his friend that he is with,
you know, so clearly DC cannot keep members of Congress
and their staff states what safe what do you make
of this argument though, because we keep hearing this talking
point of like, oh, well, crimes down thirty or you know,
(09:16):
down the most it's been in like thirty years or whatever,
even though we know that a DC Police commissioner is
under investigation for trying to cook the books in terms
of data, but like even taking like, let's just take
their point seriously as if it is true. You know,
if I meet one hundred pounds and I get to
six hundred, I'm still abes right, So it's like, what
(09:37):
do you make of sort of this talking point for
the left to try to downplay how bad things are
in DC.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
I mean, that is just an outright lie that it's
the lowest it's been in thirty years. Let me just
give you one quick example of that. In twenty eleven,
there were one hundred and eight murders in d C,
and this is according to d C Metro Police's own
In twenty twenty four, there were one hundred and eighty seven,
but that was down from twenty twenty three, when they
(10:06):
had the highest number of murders ever recorded in the city.
We're only halfway through the year and we've already passed
one hundred killings. So the murder rate in this city
is basically double what it was in the twenty eleven
through you know, like twenty twenty time frame. If you
(10:28):
compare deceited states. It has the highest car theft rate
in the country. And look, you just mentioned the former
DOJE employee who tried to stop a roving gang of
teenagers and got assaulted and severely injured for doing that. Look,
eighty percent of the carjackings in this city are committed
(10:53):
by teenagers fourteen to seventeen year olds. Seventy percent of
them are armed, but as the new US attorney complained,
they all are go to juvenile court instead of being
treated as violent adults, and are immediately out on the
street again where they repeatedly commit these crimes again. And
(11:16):
that's part of the problem in this city.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
So can Congress make those changes since they have ultimate
authority over Washington, DC, Or does the city council need
to make those changes in terms of the age of criminality.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
Well, the city council could do it, but they are
anti law enforcement, they are defund the police. They're not
going to do it. Congress can and should do it
because they have the ultimate power and authority over the district.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
We've got to take a quick commercial break. More Hans
on the other side. If you like what you're hearing,
please share on social media or share with your friends.
How and why did we get to this point where
the left has become You even see it with the
Southern border under or Biden for four years. You know,
(12:06):
how and why did the Democrat Party become the party
of crime and disorder? Why do they embrace lawlessness so much?
Speaker 3 (12:13):
I don't understand it other than they seem to be
driven by ideology instead of everyday practical reality. Keep in
mind that part of the defund the police movement, which
was adopted and supported by Democratic city governments throughout the country. Look,
this all arose out of leftist frankly Marxist professors in
(12:38):
California who said that our entire justice system is racist
and that we should not just defund the police, but
close down all our prisons. I mean, that sounds crazy,
but those are the kind of things that have infected them.
It's obviously something that their constituents also do not agree with, because,
(13:00):
as you know, the polling shows that support for the
Democratic Party is at the lowest since they started doing polling,
and it's because of positions like this which make no sense.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
You know.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
I also blame Obama because I think, really, ever since
the whole hands up, don't shoot with Michael Brown, it
kind of like turned the system upside down, where, you know,
even after his own Department of Justice determined that Michael
Brown was in the wrong and Officer Wilson was not,
Obama was still like, oh, we don't we'll never really
(13:33):
know what, you know, like he pushed this whole lie
that and then I think ever since and then you
had the Black lives don't matter, and then I feel
like it kind of like appended the system where somehow
the criminal is the victim, and you know, the victim
is the criminal, right, yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Now that is that is exactly right. And it's a
good thing you brought that up, because look, Eric Hohler
was the head of the Justice Department at the time,
and the Civil Rights Division went in investigated. If I
used to work in the Civil Rights Division, and I
can tell you that if the lawyers there had discovered
evidence that the police officer was responsible, they not only
(14:11):
would have said so, they would have prosecuted him, but
even their investigation showed that he was not at fault
in that situation. And yet not only Obama keeps to
push it, but you won't find any other Democratic members
of Congress and others who were supporting what Obama was saying.
(14:32):
Not a single one of them, I think, has ever
admitted that they got the story entirely wrong.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
But it's almost like they wanted to get it wrong,
you know. And then you had police officers in the
fetal position. As former mayor of Chicago, Ram Emmanuel said
that his police officers were in the fetal position since Ferguson,
and then, you know, and then you had all this
defund the police that came later after George Floyd. But it,
you know, at least in my memory, it seems to
(15:00):
really kind of draw a line back to the Obama
years when at least I can remember when things really
started to erode and kind of get crazy.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I wanted to get your take on.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Obviously, we're looking at some big redistricting fights.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
It's almost like a redistricting arms.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Race that's taking place right now heading into the midterm elections.
Looking at what they're trying to do in Texas. Are
they overstepping do you think that or are they within
the confined confines of their laws.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Well, what everyone fails to mention, particularly the Democrats who
fled the state and the Texas situation is is that
everyone's talking as if Texas just out of the blue
decided to redistrict. That's wrong. In early July, the US
Justice Barman sent a letter to Texas warning them that
(15:56):
four of the congressional districts that they had put together
in twenty twenty one were unconstitutional racial jerrymanders. The reason
for that is that at the end of last year,
so during the prior administration, the Fifth Circuit US Court
of Appeals, which is the appeals court over Texas, Louisiana, Misissippi,
(16:18):
in a different case, had said that particular types of districts,
what are called coalition districts. That's when lawmakers put two
different racial minority groups together to form a majority, for example,
Black voters and Hispanic voters, that that is not protected
by the Voting Rights Act. In fact, that's a political alliance.
(16:41):
And if you use race in that fashion to draw
the boundary lines of a congressional district, you've engaged in
racial gerrymandering, and you can't do that. That's unlawful under
the equal protection clause of the fourteenth Amendment. Anyway, four of
the districts that Republicans put together in twenty twenty one,
(17:04):
frankly at the insistence of Democrats, were those kind of
coalition districts intended to elect Democratic members of Congress. Well,
they had to fix that because otherwise they would be
sued by the Justice Department under that new Fifth Circuit decision.
So they acted because they had to act to remedy
(17:28):
racial gerrymandering, which they should not have done. At the
time they thought they had to. But that Fifth Circuit
decision says that they have to fix those. And when
you take those apart, those four districts that were meant
to elect Democrats, well, what are you going to get? Well,
are you going to create districts that probably favor the GOP.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Interesting. I've actually not heard that before.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
I mean, I knew that the Justice Department had sort
of initiated all this, but I didn't realize the entire backstory.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
So it's very interesting.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
So how is that different than when New York had
to redistrict because of a court order?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
I believe it was in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
Right. That was because a court there found that under
the States constitution, political jerrymandering was unconstitutional. If you engage
in political jerrymandering, that's when you draw lines to pick
voters and put them in a district that will hopefully
vote for your party's candidate. Under the US Constitution, that
(18:33):
is perfectly acceptable. It's not unconstitutional. Supreme Court said that
just a couple of years ago. As a result of
that decision from the US Supreme Court, folks have tried
to file similar cases in a couple of states under
their state constitutions. That's what happened in New York. It
(18:53):
also happened in Maryland with local courts. They're saying that
by democratic legislature were actually a violation of their states constitution.
But that's that's going to depend on that state's constitution
whether political juryman or is unconstitutional, and most of the
(19:14):
states it's again, it's not a legal issue.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
So I guess where do you think this all goes?
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Because Texas is saying, you know, their new map has
five new Republican seats. You know, Punchable News talks about
how there could be changes in Florida. A minimum of
three seats, potentially potential changes in Missouri and Indiana. And
then you could also have changes in Ohio where the
state law mandates that the state redraws ahead of twenty
(19:43):
twenty six. And then there's also a Supreme Court case
coming out with in Louisiana.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Right.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
It also notes that even though Democrats are making a
lot of noise, they might have a little bit more
of a challenge, you know, whereas Gavenus i'ms threatening, but
he would have to have a special election for his
map I believe in November.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
It would also be very costly.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
And some other Democrat states have you know, independent commissions
that they have challenges with and just you know a
little bit more difficulty in trying to do what some
of the red states are doing. So basically all of
that being said, where does all of this go? Like,
what are you looking at right now ahead of the
midterms in sort of this redistricting arms race?
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Well, Democrats are experts at jerrymandering. They invented it back
in eighteen twelve in Massachusetts, and I'm not sure how
much more they can jerryman or many of the blue states.
I mean, Massachusetts has nine congressional seats, zero of them
are republican. Connecticut is the same way. Even though Republicans
(20:48):
got like thirty eight percent of the statewide vote, not
a single seat congressional seat is republican. New Mexico is
the same. Well, why is the same? Illinois? Republicans got
like forty five percent of the statewide vote in twenty
twenty four, and yet out of seventeen congressional seats, Republicans
(21:09):
only hold three. So it's like, I don't know how
much more gerrymanner they can make their states because they've
already done it any change in the congressional districts that
occurs either this year or next year. And most of
(21:29):
these states, remember their legislators are part time legislatures. They
only meet in the first quarter of the year, and
so in a lot of these places, they wouldn't even
be able to draw up a new map until the
beginning of next year unless the governor's there call in
a special session to do it. And even if they do,
(21:51):
they're going to be lawsuits filed, probably almost immediately, on
both sides of the political aisle, and whether or not
those lawsuits are resolved by the twenty six congressional elections,
I think is pretty doubtful.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
I saw statistic that in twenty twenty four with looking
at the US House elections, eighty seven percent of the
seats were effectively decided in primaries by just seven percent
of eligible voters, right in part because of jerrymandering. I mean,
is this a broader challenge with you know, obviously both
parties engage in it is that sort of leading to.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Kind of this vitual we're seeing in Congress.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Where you know, you get like the most partisan people
or kind of what do you make of or jerrymandering
and redistricting at large.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Well, people talk as if this is something.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
New, right, it's not.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
It's not. I mean, like I said, the first jerrymander
was in eighteen twelve when Governor Elbridge Jerry of Massachusetts
created a district that looked like a salamander. It was
so it was so twisted, like that's where he gets
the word. They combined his last name, Jerry, with the
last part of sala matter. So this has been going
(23:05):
on for a long time. It's not a it's not
anything new. If if states really want to try to
minimize this, what they need to do is put in
very strict standards for what governs. When you read district,
you know your district has to be compact. You have
to try to not break up political subdivisions like cities, towns, counties.
(23:31):
You have to follow geographic lines. You know, you don't
cross mountains, you don't cross rivers. If they put in
strict rules like that, it would help minimize the amount
of political gerrymandering that that can go on.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
I've got to take a quick break. Morathon's you know,
it's interesting. I feel like with President Trump, we've just
gotten like a revival of like a history lesson over another.
It sort of like invokes all these conversations that people
don't normally pay attention to, which we should, but you
(24:07):
know it's we all get busy with our lives and
so then we think about these things again, like the census.
You know, in President Trump's calling for, you know, to
redo the census, that this has never been done before
in our history. I mean, the census does include non citizens.
I mean there was a point it's been quite some
time where we had a question about citizenship, which he
tried to bring back in twenty twenty but was not
(24:30):
allowed to do so, but we've never redone the census.
The Census Bureau has never done that, so sort of
what do you make of this? But you know, it's
very important because it changes the balance of power in
Congress with apportionment and as well as the electoral College.
So I guess what do you make of the argument
that the census has to be redone? And then also
what do you make of the fact that, you know,
(24:51):
the census has sort of already included non citizens at
a point where that number, especially with the legal aliens,
is exceptionally high now because of a Biden.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
Well, a couple things to realize about that. I don't
think many people know this. In the nineteen seventies, Congress
actually thought it would be a good idea to do
a mid decade census because Americans are a highly mobile society.
I mean, we move. We have a move rate probably
I think higher than almost any Western democracy. So they
(25:23):
actually changed the law to direct the Commerce Department to
start doing a mid decade census, and it was supposed
to start in nineteen eighty five. The Commerce Department, however,
never did it, so that the law is already there
authorizing a mid term census. I think it's a good idea. Yeah,
(25:46):
it's expensive, but I think it's important because of what
I just said. You know, we have a highly mobile society.
I mean, just look at Texas where this redistricting is occurring.
They have had one of the highest fastest growth rates
of population of any state in the country. Since the
twenty twenty census, They've added over two million people to
(26:09):
the state. That obviously is not taken into account either
in the redistricting process, and it's not taken into account
when federal funds are being distributed to the states, which
happens with all kinds of federal programs that are based
on population. All of that is a good reason to
(26:30):
do this. The problem with including, of course, people who
aren't citizens in both the redistricting process and apportionment is
that you are basically twisting and distorting political representation. If apportionment,
for example, were based on the citizen population of the US,
(26:51):
California would probably lose anywhere from four to five congressional
seats that it really should not have because it's got
the largest population of aliens, both legal and illegal, in
the country. So all of that I think lends support
for the idea that one we ought to do a
mid decade census, and two we should not be including
(27:14):
aliens in either apportionment or redistricting.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
And then before we go, that sort of leads me
to this question, how much of the open borders we
saw under Biden. How much of that was about this
very conversation about having more legal aliens for apportionment in
Congress as well as the electoral college. Because we've even
(27:39):
heard from people like Congresswoman you Bet Clark who said
that she needed more migrants for redistricting purposes.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
So how much, you know, how much of that.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
Had to do with sort of importing a new voter
base in the country and also for redistricting purposes.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
I think the push within the Biden administration and the
Democratic Party was based on two things. One, they have
a lot of individuals who ideologically believe in open borders.
They think having secure borders is racist and that alien
(28:17):
should be able to come across the border at any time.
That's ideological. But I also think there are a lot
of very practical, politically oriented individuals that were within the
Biden administration who had that exact same view. The more
aliens that come into the country the better. One. It
(28:37):
helps in apportionment. Two, it helps in redistricting. And eventually,
if we can push through some kind of amnesty deal
so that they become US citizens, why then they'll be
voting for us. And I think that's what those two
things are what drove the open borders policy that the
Biden administration.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
Had would gree with that seems to be, which is
sad that they would quit American citizens at risk for
political reasons.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
But here we are.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
And Lisa, by the way, that brings us all back
to d C, because you know, one of the provisions
of City Council passed not too long ago, was a
provision allowing aliens to vote in local elections in DC.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Well, you've helped me bring this conversation full circles and
appropriately on there after putting a button on it. Hans
von Spakovski, thank you so much. This is very interesting.
Really appreciate your bang, your legal expertise.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Sure, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
That was Hans von Spokowski from the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
Appreciate him for joining the show.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday,
but you can listen throughout the week. Also want to
thank my producer John Cassio for putting the show together.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Until next time.
Welcome to the Truth with Lisa Booth, where we get
to the heart of the issues that matter to you. Today,
we're diving into some of the critical issues surrounding Washington,
DC's governance, crime, and the nationwide redistricting battles shaping our
political future. Joining us for that legal discussion is Hans
von Spakowsky. He is a senior legal Fellow at the
(00:22):
Heritage Foundation. We're going to explore the president's authority to
federalize Washington, d C. The debate over the DC Home
rele Act. Is it time for Congress to get rid
of that? Also, we're going to dive into the truth
about what's really going on in Washington, d C. Democrats
keep making the argument that crime is down, but is it?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
What should you know about that? And why?
Speaker 1 (00:42):
More broadly, has the Democrat Party become the party of
crime and disorder? Why are they embracing lawlessness. Plus, we'll
unpack the high stakes redistricting fights. It's really a redistricting
arms race that we're seeing in the country with Texas,
California and beyond.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
We'll talk about the legal basis behind all of that.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Also, these conversations about the need to do a new census.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
It's never been done before. Should we do it? What
does the law say?
Speaker 1 (01:12):
So stay tuned for an honest and truthful conversation to
get to the bottom of all of these big legal
fights with Hans von Spakovsky. Well, Hans, I appreciate you
coming on this show, looking forward to obviously this is
getting a lot of attention what President Trump's trying to
(01:33):
do in Washington, d C. So I look forward to
your legal expertise and breaking it all down for us.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
So thanks for taking the time.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Oh sure, I'm happy to talk to you about it.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
You know, Hans, what's interesting is, you know, people seem
to forget that Congress has ultimate authority over Washington, d C.
They keep referencing Washington, d C with cities across America.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
But DC is unique, right, so we know that.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Well, first of all, just talk about that Congress's role
in oversight with Washington DC.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
The District of Columbia is not really a city, and
it's not a state. It's a federal district and the
federal government has control over and no different than other
federal properties such as army bases. It's exactly the same thing.
The only reason that DC has a city council and
(02:28):
a mayor is because in nineteen seventy three Congress granted
them limited home rule. But even though they said, yeah,
you could have a city council and a mayor, Congress
retained power and authority over the city's budget and also
the authority to basically override in veto any local laws
(02:50):
or ordinances that the city council might pass. Additionally, when
it comes to the president, they gave the president the
power to basically federalize and run the Metropolitan Police Department.
If there are special circumstances that the President believes amount
(03:12):
to an emergency, he can do it immediately for forty
eight hours, and as long as he notifies Congress during
that forty eight hours, then he can do it for
thirty days. Another big difference is that the National Guards
are under the nominal control of governors in the States.
That is not the case in the district. Again, because
(03:33):
it's federal property, the president is the direct commander of
the National Guard. He doesn't have to go to the
mayor to get permission to use the national Guard. In fact,
it's the other way around. If the mayor believes the
DC National Guard is needed on the streets. She has
to go to the President and ask him to tell
(03:54):
them to start patrolling.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
So he referenced that the President can federal realize the
DC Metropolitan Police under the Home Rule Act of nineteen
seventy three under special circumstances. Does the Home Rule Act
dictate what those special circumstances have to be? Or is
that like subjective and up to the president to decide?
(04:21):
Or I mean not, or is that up to the
president to sort of dictate what those special circumstances are?
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Like? How does that work?
Speaker 3 (04:29):
The least of the language is extremely broad and leaves
it entirely within the discretion of the president. Nobody can
question that. And even if, for example, the mayor of
the city council tried to sue the president, no judge
is going to override the judgment of the President that
special circumstances exist, and those special circums do exist. Look,
(04:54):
I've been working in the District of Columbia for more
than two decades and it is a not only a
poorly run city, it is a very dangerous city with
high crime rates. I mean, has the fourth highest murder
rate in the country. There are roaming, roving gangs, of
teenagers that not only rob and assault people, but also
(05:19):
give it a very high car jacking rate. It is
a dangerous city, and the city council has done everything
they can to actually make it difficult for law enforcement
to operate.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
So after that thirty day period, I believe it requires
a joint resolution passed by both the House and the Senate.
Did they just need a simple majority to get that done?
Do you think that Congress would do that or what
do you think happens beyond that thirty day period.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Oh? I think that members of Congress are well aware
of the problems there, and Republicans in particular, since they
have a majority, I think if the President asks for
more authority, they'll give it because look, all you have
to do is look at the news feeds for the
last couple of years and you'll see that staffers and
(06:09):
others in Congress have been attacked in the streets. And look,
just this week there were protests being staged up in
the DuPont Circle area against what the president was doing,
and the police had to be called in because a
couple of blocks away a man was shot and killed
on the street. At the same time, these protesters are saying, oh, well,
(06:32):
we don't need more law enforcement. That shows and really
illustrates the problem in the District of Columbia.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Do you think it's time to get rid of the
home rele Act?
Speaker 3 (06:42):
I have to tell you, I think Congress should give
serious consideration to taking back over the local government. Again.
You talk to anyone who's willing to say something about it,
and they'll tell you how poorly the city is run,
and they have all kinds of issues and problems throughout
(07:06):
all of the district. And I think a lot of people,
even even if they even if they want to don't
want to admit it publicly, would tell you, yeah, it
would be a good thing for the federal government to
take it over and fix so many of the problems
that exist throughout the city.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Well, it's interesting too with the uproar from the left,
because I believe it was in twenty twenty three there
was actually a bipartisan effort along with Joe Biden over
writing some changes to the DC's criminal code.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
That's right, and so it's you know, so it's.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Sort of ironic now that there's this uproar when you know,
like there was already bipartisan Ever effort very recently to
override the will of Washington, d C's City council.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Right, and one of the things they've done is is
say can't demand cash bail. And the result of that
is that dangerous criminals are on the streets almost the
very next day after they have been arrested. You talk
to any police officer, the Metro police in this town,
and they will tell you they're frustration over the fact
(08:17):
that even when they arrest folks, they're almost out on
the street immediately and committing crimes again.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Well, and you even have the DC Lice union.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Head talking about how he supports what President Trump's It's
also interesting because we've seen members of Congress come under
attack recently. I mean, Democrat Congressman Henry Quaar was carjacked
at gunpoint. Representative Anjie Craig was attacked in her own
apartment complex. Senator Ran Paul Staffer stabbed with the intern
that was murdered, the dose Staffer who has an appropriately
(08:53):
named nickname. Considering the fact that he stood up to
these people to protect his friend that he is with,
you know, so clearly DC cannot keep members of Congress
and their staff states what safe what do you make
of this argument though, because we keep hearing this talking
point of like, oh, well, crimes down thirty or you know,
(09:16):
down the most it's been in like thirty years or whatever,
even though we know that a DC Police commissioner is
under investigation for trying to cook the books in terms
of data, but like even taking like, let's just take
their point seriously as if it is true. You know,
if I meet one hundred pounds and I get to
six hundred, I'm still abes right, So it's like, what
(09:37):
do you make of sort of this talking point for
the left to try to downplay how bad things are
in DC.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
I mean, that is just an outright lie that it's
the lowest it's been in thirty years. Let me just
give you one quick example of that. In twenty eleven,
there were one hundred and eight murders in d C,
and this is according to d C Metro Police's own
In twenty twenty four, there were one hundred and eighty seven,
but that was down from twenty twenty three, when they
(10:06):
had the highest number of murders ever recorded in the city.
We're only halfway through the year and we've already passed
one hundred killings. So the murder rate in this city
is basically double what it was in the twenty eleven
through you know, like twenty twenty time frame. If you
(10:28):
compare deceited states. It has the highest car theft rate
in the country. And look, you just mentioned the former
DOJE employee who tried to stop a roving gang of
teenagers and got assaulted and severely injured for doing that. Look,
eighty percent of the carjackings in this city are committed
(10:53):
by teenagers fourteen to seventeen year olds. Seventy percent of
them are armed, but as the new US attorney complained,
they all are go to juvenile court instead of being
treated as violent adults, and are immediately out on the
street again where they repeatedly commit these crimes again. And
(11:16):
that's part of the problem in this city.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
So can Congress make those changes since they have ultimate
authority over Washington, DC, Or does the city council need
to make those changes in terms of the age of criminality.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
Well, the city council could do it, but they are
anti law enforcement, they are defund the police. They're not
going to do it. Congress can and should do it
because they have the ultimate power and authority over the district.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
We've got to take a quick commercial break. More Hans
on the other side. If you like what you're hearing,
please share on social media or share with your friends.
How and why did we get to this point where
the left has become You even see it with the
Southern border under or Biden for four years. You know,
(12:06):
how and why did the Democrat Party become the party
of crime and disorder? Why do they embrace lawlessness so much?
Speaker 3 (12:13):
I don't understand it other than they seem to be
driven by ideology instead of everyday practical reality. Keep in
mind that part of the defund the police movement, which
was adopted and supported by Democratic city governments throughout the country. Look,
this all arose out of leftist frankly Marxist professors in
(12:38):
California who said that our entire justice system is racist
and that we should not just defund the police, but
close down all our prisons. I mean, that sounds crazy,
but those are the kind of things that have infected them.
It's obviously something that their constituents also do not agree with, because,
(13:00):
as you know, the polling shows that support for the
Democratic Party is at the lowest since they started doing polling,
and it's because of positions like this which make no sense.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
You know.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
I also blame Obama because I think, really, ever since
the whole hands up, don't shoot with Michael Brown, it
kind of like turned the system upside down, where, you know,
even after his own Department of Justice determined that Michael
Brown was in the wrong and Officer Wilson was not,
Obama was still like, oh, we don't we'll never really
(13:33):
know what, you know, like he pushed this whole lie
that and then I think ever since and then you
had the Black lives don't matter, and then I feel
like it kind of like appended the system where somehow
the criminal is the victim, and you know, the victim
is the criminal, right, yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Now that is that is exactly right. And it's a
good thing you brought that up, because look, Eric Hohler
was the head of the Justice Department at the time,
and the Civil Rights Division went in investigated. If I
used to work in the Civil Rights Division, and I
can tell you that if the lawyers there had discovered
evidence that the police officer was responsible, they not only
(14:11):
would have said so, they would have prosecuted him, but
even their investigation showed that he was not at fault
in that situation. And yet not only Obama keeps to
push it, but you won't find any other Democratic members
of Congress and others who were supporting what Obama was saying.
(14:32):
Not a single one of them, I think, has ever
admitted that they got the story entirely wrong.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
But it's almost like they wanted to get it wrong,
you know. And then you had police officers in the
fetal position. As former mayor of Chicago, Ram Emmanuel said
that his police officers were in the fetal position since Ferguson,
and then, you know, and then you had all this
defund the police that came later after George Floyd. But it,
you know, at least in my memory, it seems to
(15:00):
really kind of draw a line back to the Obama
years when at least I can remember when things really
started to erode and kind of get crazy.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I wanted to get your take on.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Obviously, we're looking at some big redistricting fights.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
It's almost like a redistricting arms.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Race that's taking place right now heading into the midterm elections.
Looking at what they're trying to do in Texas. Are
they overstepping do you think that or are they within
the confined confines of their laws.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Well, what everyone fails to mention, particularly the Democrats who
fled the state and the Texas situation is is that
everyone's talking as if Texas just out of the blue
decided to redistrict. That's wrong. In early July, the US
Justice Barman sent a letter to Texas warning them that
(15:56):
four of the congressional districts that they had put together
in twenty twenty one were unconstitutional racial jerrymanders. The reason
for that is that at the end of last year,
so during the prior administration, the Fifth Circuit US Court
of Appeals, which is the appeals court over Texas, Louisiana, Misissippi,
(16:18):
in a different case, had said that particular types of districts,
what are called coalition districts. That's when lawmakers put two
different racial minority groups together to form a majority, for example,
Black voters and Hispanic voters, that that is not protected
by the Voting Rights Act. In fact, that's a political alliance.
(16:41):
And if you use race in that fashion to draw
the boundary lines of a congressional district, you've engaged in
racial gerrymandering, and you can't do that. That's unlawful under
the equal protection clause of the fourteenth Amendment. Anyway, four of
the districts that Republicans put together in twenty twenty one,
(17:04):
frankly at the insistence of Democrats, were those kind of
coalition districts intended to elect Democratic members of Congress. Well,
they had to fix that because otherwise they would be
sued by the Justice Department under that new Fifth Circuit decision.
So they acted because they had to act to remedy
(17:28):
racial gerrymandering, which they should not have done. At the
time they thought they had to. But that Fifth Circuit
decision says that they have to fix those. And when
you take those apart, those four districts that were meant
to elect Democrats, well, what are you going to get? Well,
are you going to create districts that probably favor the GOP.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Interesting. I've actually not heard that before.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
I mean, I knew that the Justice Department had sort
of initiated all this, but I didn't realize the entire backstory.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
So it's very interesting.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
So how is that different than when New York had
to redistrict because of a court order?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
I believe it was in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
Right. That was because a court there found that under
the States constitution, political jerrymandering was unconstitutional. If you engage
in political jerrymandering, that's when you draw lines to pick
voters and put them in a district that will hopefully
vote for your party's candidate. Under the US Constitution, that
(18:33):
is perfectly acceptable. It's not unconstitutional. Supreme Court said that
just a couple of years ago. As a result of
that decision from the US Supreme Court, folks have tried
to file similar cases in a couple of states under
their state constitutions. That's what happened in New York. It
(18:53):
also happened in Maryland with local courts. They're saying that
by democratic legislature were actually a violation of their states constitution.
But that's that's going to depend on that state's constitution
whether political juryman or is unconstitutional, and most of the
(19:14):
states it's again, it's not a legal issue.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
So I guess where do you think this all goes?
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Because Texas is saying, you know, their new map has
five new Republican seats. You know, Punchable News talks about
how there could be changes in Florida. A minimum of
three seats, potentially potential changes in Missouri and Indiana. And
then you could also have changes in Ohio where the
state law mandates that the state redraws ahead of twenty
(19:43):
twenty six. And then there's also a Supreme Court case
coming out with in Louisiana.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Right.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
It also notes that even though Democrats are making a
lot of noise, they might have a little bit more
of a challenge, you know, whereas Gavenus i'ms threatening, but
he would have to have a special election for his
map I believe in November.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
It would also be very costly.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
And some other Democrat states have you know, independent commissions
that they have challenges with and just you know a
little bit more difficulty in trying to do what some
of the red states are doing. So basically all of
that being said, where does all of this go? Like,
what are you looking at right now ahead of the
midterms in sort of this redistricting arms race?
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Well, Democrats are experts at jerrymandering. They invented it back
in eighteen twelve in Massachusetts, and I'm not sure how
much more they can jerryman or many of the blue states.
I mean, Massachusetts has nine congressional seats, zero of them
are republican. Connecticut is the same way. Even though Republicans
(20:48):
got like thirty eight percent of the statewide vote, not
a single seat congressional seat is republican. New Mexico is
the same. Well, why is the same? Illinois? Republicans got
like forty five percent of the statewide vote in twenty
twenty four, and yet out of seventeen congressional seats, Republicans
(21:09):
only hold three. So it's like, I don't know how
much more gerrymanner they can make their states because they've
already done it any change in the congressional districts that
occurs either this year or next year. And most of
(21:29):
these states, remember their legislators are part time legislatures. They
only meet in the first quarter of the year, and
so in a lot of these places, they wouldn't even
be able to draw up a new map until the
beginning of next year unless the governor's there call in
a special session to do it. And even if they do,
(21:51):
they're going to be lawsuits filed, probably almost immediately, on
both sides of the political aisle, and whether or not
those lawsuits are resolved by the twenty six congressional elections,
I think is pretty doubtful.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
I saw statistic that in twenty twenty four with looking
at the US House elections, eighty seven percent of the
seats were effectively decided in primaries by just seven percent
of eligible voters, right in part because of jerrymandering. I mean,
is this a broader challenge with you know, obviously both
parties engage in it is that sort of leading to.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Kind of this vitual we're seeing in Congress.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Where you know, you get like the most partisan people
or kind of what do you make of or jerrymandering
and redistricting at large.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Well, people talk as if this is something.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
New, right, it's not.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
It's not. I mean, like I said, the first jerrymander
was in eighteen twelve when Governor Elbridge Jerry of Massachusetts
created a district that looked like a salamander. It was
so it was so twisted, like that's where he gets
the word. They combined his last name, Jerry, with the
last part of sala matter. So this has been going
(23:05):
on for a long time. It's not a it's not
anything new. If if states really want to try to
minimize this, what they need to do is put in
very strict standards for what governs. When you read district,
you know your district has to be compact. You have
to try to not break up political subdivisions like cities, towns, counties.
(23:31):
You have to follow geographic lines. You know, you don't
cross mountains, you don't cross rivers. If they put in
strict rules like that, it would help minimize the amount
of political gerrymandering that that can go on.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
I've got to take a quick break. Morathon's you know,
it's interesting. I feel like with President Trump, we've just
gotten like a revival of like a history lesson over another.
It sort of like invokes all these conversations that people
don't normally pay attention to, which we should, but you
(24:07):
know it's we all get busy with our lives and
so then we think about these things again, like the census.
You know, in President Trump's calling for, you know, to
redo the census, that this has never been done before
in our history. I mean, the census does include non citizens.
I mean there was a point it's been quite some
time where we had a question about citizenship, which he
tried to bring back in twenty twenty but was not
(24:30):
allowed to do so, but we've never redone the census.
The Census Bureau has never done that, so sort of
what do you make of this? But you know, it's
very important because it changes the balance of power in
Congress with apportionment and as well as the electoral College.
So I guess what do you make of the argument
that the census has to be redone? And then also
what do you make of the fact that, you know,
(24:51):
the census has sort of already included non citizens at
a point where that number, especially with the legal aliens,
is exceptionally high now because of a Biden.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
Well, a couple things to realize about that. I don't
think many people know this. In the nineteen seventies, Congress
actually thought it would be a good idea to do
a mid decade census because Americans are a highly mobile society.
I mean, we move. We have a move rate probably
I think higher than almost any Western democracy. So they
(25:23):
actually changed the law to direct the Commerce Department to
start doing a mid decade census, and it was supposed
to start in nineteen eighty five. The Commerce Department, however,
never did it, so that the law is already there
authorizing a mid term census. I think it's a good idea. Yeah,
(25:46):
it's expensive, but I think it's important because of what
I just said. You know, we have a highly mobile society.
I mean, just look at Texas where this redistricting is occurring.
They have had one of the highest fastest growth rates
of population of any state in the country. Since the
twenty twenty census, They've added over two million people to
(26:09):
the state. That obviously is not taken into account either
in the redistricting process, and it's not taken into account
when federal funds are being distributed to the states, which
happens with all kinds of federal programs that are based
on population. All of that is a good reason to
(26:30):
do this. The problem with including, of course, people who
aren't citizens in both the redistricting process and apportionment is
that you are basically twisting and distorting political representation. If apportionment,
for example, were based on the citizen population of the US,
(26:51):
California would probably lose anywhere from four to five congressional
seats that it really should not have because it's got
the largest population of aliens, both legal and illegal, in
the country. So all of that I think lends support
for the idea that one we ought to do a
mid decade census, and two we should not be including
(27:14):
aliens in either apportionment or redistricting.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
And then before we go, that sort of leads me
to this question, how much of the open borders we
saw under Biden. How much of that was about this
very conversation about having more legal aliens for apportionment in
Congress as well as the electoral college. Because we've even
(27:39):
heard from people like Congresswoman you Bet Clark who said
that she needed more migrants for redistricting purposes.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
So how much, you know, how much of that.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
Had to do with sort of importing a new voter
base in the country and also for redistricting purposes.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
I think the push within the Biden administration and the
Democratic Party was based on two things. One, they have
a lot of individuals who ideologically believe in open borders.
They think having secure borders is racist and that alien
(28:17):
should be able to come across the border at any time.
That's ideological. But I also think there are a lot
of very practical, politically oriented individuals that were within the
Biden administration who had that exact same view. The more
aliens that come into the country the better. One. It
(28:37):
helps in apportionment. Two, it helps in redistricting. And eventually,
if we can push through some kind of amnesty deal
so that they become US citizens, why then they'll be
voting for us. And I think that's what those two
things are what drove the open borders policy that the
Biden administration.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
Had would gree with that seems to be, which is
sad that they would quit American citizens at risk for
political reasons.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
But here we are.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
And Lisa, by the way, that brings us all back
to d C, because you know, one of the provisions
of City Council passed not too long ago, was a
provision allowing aliens to vote in local elections in DC.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Well, you've helped me bring this conversation full circles and
appropriately on there after putting a button on it. Hans
von Spakovski, thank you so much. This is very interesting.
Really appreciate your bang, your legal expertise.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Sure, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
That was Hans von Spokowski from the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
Appreciate him for joining the show.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday,
but you can listen throughout the week. Also want to
thank my producer John Cassio for putting the show together.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Until next time.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.