October 29, 2025 • 31 mins
Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School and director of the New York Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute, discusses a lawsuit challenging New York City’s only Republican house seat. Erik Larson, Bloomberg legal reporter, discusses President Trump’s appeal of his New York hush money conviction. June Grasso hosts.
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 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Donald Trump has unleashed this unprecedented jerry mandering on the country.
We've never seen anything like this.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
President Donald Trump's push for Republicans to redraw US House
districts ahead of next year's midterm elections has triggered unprecedented
mid decade gerrymandering, starting with the states of Texas, Missouri,
and North Carolina, where Republicans have already drawn seven new
GOP leaning House seats, but Democratic states, led by California,
(00:41):
are fighting back or trying to because redistricting in many
Blue states is hampered by independent redistricting commissions or state
bans on mid decade redistricting. House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries
went to Illinois this week to try to convince Democrats
there to redraw their maps.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Donald Trump and Republicans have decided that they were going
to try to gerrymander congressional maps all across the country
as part of their effort to rig the midterm elections
and deny the American people the ability to decide who
should hold the gavels. In the aftermath of the elections
(01:25):
that will take place in November of twenty twenty six.
Democrats have made clear that we are going to respond
as is being done in California right now, appropriately, immediately,
and forcefully.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
The latest salvo in the national gerrymandering battle comes from
New York City. In a lawsuit by a group of
New York voters against the New York State Board of
Elections and top state officials. It claims that the congressional
district held by New York City's only Republican represent native
is impermissibly drawn to shut out black and Latino voters.
(02:06):
My guest is Jeffrey Weiss, a professor at New York
Law School who directs the school's New York Elections, Census
and Redistricting Institute. Jeff tell us about this lawsuit that's
challenging New York's eleventh congressional district.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Well, we have a new lawsuit filed earlier this week
by a group of New York voters who are arguing
that the current congressional district that includes Staten Island and
parts of Brooklyn di loots a minority voting strength, that
the black and Hispanic voters' power is diminished by the
(02:44):
way the district is drawn now, and that they would
have a much more effective voice in the ability to
elect a preferred candidate if parts of Manhattan were appended
to the district instead of Brooklyn. That, in essence, is
what the lawsuit is is looking for.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Is this an unusual lawsuit.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
It's unusual in the sense that's being brought mid decade. Obviously,
it's got political connotations that it would change the dynamic
of who's running for re election in New York, that
current Republican congress Member Nicole Meliotacus would find herself no
longer in conservative white areas in Brooklyn, but rather parts
(03:25):
of Lower Manhattan. That it would be a district where
the Democrats are expected to do a lot better. It's
also a district where Dan Goldman, who is the incumbent
now in a district that includes Manhattan and Brooklyn, we
probably find himself in better territory and also probably stave
off a primary challenge within the Democratic Party from several
(03:49):
Brooklyn elected officials who have indicated their intent to run
against him in a primary.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
Is the Democratic Party behind this lawsuit?
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Well, the case is being brought by two law firms.
The lead firm is the Elias Law Group based in Washington,
d C. And that firm has been in existence for
about a decade or less, but their work is primarily
on behalf of Democrats and the National Democratic Party committees.
There's also a New York law firm involved as Local
(04:19):
Council and they've been involved with political campaign litigation for
quite some time as well.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Is this lawsuit different because it's based on the New
York State Constitution so well test how protective the state
constitution is of minority voting rights rather than the US Constitution.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
Well, this claim is based on the state constitutional protections
that redistricting maps have to honor minority voting strain that
you cannot dilute minority voters from their ability to elect
preferred candidates, and the state constitution uses very similar language
to the Federal Voting Rights Act, which happens to be
(05:04):
subject to a challenge now from the Louisiana Congressional redistricting
before the US Supreme Court. The validity the future of
the Federal Voting Rights Act was heard in a case
two weeks ago, and we expect any time from the
end of this year, but more likely by the end
of June, for the Supreme Court to hand down a
(05:25):
decision where most of us think they're going to do
something to change the dynamic of the Voting Rights Act,
but not eliminated entirely. But that's reading the tea leaves
too much.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
Well, your prediction there fits in with the predictions of
other election law experts. So let's say the Supreme Court
does change the Voting Rights Act in some way. Will
that affect the New York Constitution?
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Well, it could affect the state Constitution to the extent
of what the Supreme Court might limit. Right now. The
gold stand in vote dilution is Section two of the
Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court adopted a test
in the mid nineteen eighties in a North Carolina case
(06:12):
called Thornberg versus Jingles, where a challenging minority group has
to demonstrate to a court that, if it claims it
should have an effective minority district, you've got to have
fifty percent or more of a district being comprised of
a minority voters. Second, you have to show that the
minority voters vote cohesively pretty much the same way for
(06:36):
similar candidates. And third, most importantly, you've got to show
that there is a high level of racially polarized voting,
where white voters constantly outvote minority voters' abilities to elect
preferred candidates in primaries or general elections. So if you
meet those three prongs, size, cohesiveness, and polarized votvoting, then
(07:00):
you have a Voting Rights Act violation situation. And the
Supreme Court is now being asked whether that test is
still a cojuent one to use now in the twenty
first century.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
So, in this case, the black and Latino voters constitute
nearly a quarter of the voting population in that congressional district.
Is that enough? Then?
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Well, what the plaintiffs are doing here. They're challenging the
map based on the state constitution, but they're trying to
incorperate the New York State Voting Rights Act, which was
enacted by the legislature in twenty twenty two. The State
Voting Rights Act does not apply to congressional districts, but
it does lay out different kinds of criteria and standards
(07:47):
that courts should look to when looking at vote dilution
claims in counties, towns, cities, and villages. So they're saying
that there is similar preamble language in vote the state
constitution and the state Voting Rights Ack, that it makes
a lot of sense to also incorporate the state statue
(08:09):
standards into the state constitutional situation. And that will probably
be one of the first arguments that I think intervening
Republicans will make to dismiss this case is that the
state voting rightsack doesn't apply. What the plaintiffs are doing
here is using these state voting rights SACK criteria that
unlike federal law, where you need to have a district
(08:31):
of at least fifty percent plus minority voter population that
you can combine let's say fifteen or twenty percent of
combined voters let's say black and Hispanic, the federal voting
right sack requires the fifty percent pretty much of one
racial group, be the black or Hispanic oraasion. But the
(08:53):
state law permits you to aggregate or put together smaller
communities of let's say Black populations, And that, in essence
is what they're looking to do by adding a part
of Manhattan to the Staten Island based district. And I'll
just mention also that the Hispanic population in Lower Manhattan
(09:16):
is not adjacent to South ferry right at the foot
of Manhattan Island by the New York Harbor. It's considerably
north there, so you'd have to take Staten Island, take
the Staten Island ferry over to Manhattan and drive up
aways basically up to the Brooklyn Bridge, where you have
an Hispanic population in the lower east side up to
(09:38):
about fourteenth Street. And that raises the question of whether
race is the predominant factor in creating this district, because
that runs against what the Supreme Court has said about
racial garry mandering, which is subject to strict scrutiny and
has to be narrowly tailored to remedy specific problems. So
(09:58):
the plaintiffstrict have to demonstrate to the court why a
district that constitutes Staten Island and parts of over Manhattan
makes sense, as if a lot.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
Of these new districts make sense. So Melia Takis said,
it's a frivolous lawsuit trying to upend our congressional district.
And she noted that the current map was approved by
New York's Democratic controlled state legislature and democratic governor. Does
she have the advantage here? In other words, is this
(10:30):
an uphill battle for the Democrats.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
Yeah, the clock is ticking. The State Supreme Court only
has two months to render a decision, which would take
us to mid to late December. Petitioning for the twenty
twenty sixth election cycle right now gets underway in late February,
so that leaves very little time for New York's midle
level appeals court, the Appellate Division, and then finally the
(10:56):
State Court of Appeals and already to hear this case.
And you can pretty much be sure that whoever objects
to this case, and I'm anticipating Republican interveners will strenuously
try to slow this case down and prevented from impacting
the twenty twenty six elections.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
this conversation with New York law professor Jeffrey Weiss. We'll
take a look at the national redistricting picture. I'm June Grosso,
and you're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Democrats have made claire that we are going to respond
as is being done in California right now, appropriately, immediately
and forcefully to ensure that the national congressional map is
as fair as it can possibly be.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries was in Illinois this week
to try to convince Democratic lawmakers there to redraw the
state's maps. Comes as Democratic states, led by California, are
fighting against President Trump's push for Republicans to redraw US
House districts ahead of next year's midterm elections. But the
(12:13):
latest salvo in the national gerrymanderin battle comes from New
York City, in a lawsuit by a group of voters
claiming that the congressional district held by New York City's
only Republican representative is impermissibly drawn to shut out black
and Latino voters. I've been talking to Jeffrey Weiss, a
(12:33):
professor at New York Law School. Jeff, there was litigation
around the New York map for years. Tell us how
we got to this point.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
Well, I think by twenty twenty four you know, after
a failed process in twenty twenty two where a state
commission that was approved by the voters twenty fourteen basically
imploded and subject to a court order, went back to
work and finished the job by January twenty twenty five.
For the legislature wanted to end this process, have a
(13:03):
new map for twenty twenty four actually a bipartisan map
with Republican support. So the map that was agreed to took
some strenuous effort early last year, and the case that's
been brought now you can consider somewhat Democrats challenging democrats.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
I mean, is there any other effort underway in New
York State to redistrict.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
Well, there is another approach. Earlier in the summer, the
Senate Deputy majority Leader and a member of the Assembly
introduced a resolution in the legislature that would permit New
York to rejow the district lines mid decade if and
only after any other state does the same thing in
(13:48):
mid decades. So since Texas already went ahead and mid
decade redistricted, this amendment would let New York also redistrict
mid decade. The state constitution right now prohibit that. But
the barrier to that is that, since the state constitution
now currently does bar mid decade redistricting, you have to
(14:08):
change the constitution, and to do that you need to
have an amendment go through two separately elected legislatures. So
the plan now is to pass something, whether it's the
amendment that was introduced earlier this summer or possibly a
more expansive amendment, but to do that next year and
then pass it again with the new legislature in twenty
(14:31):
twenty seven, so that the voters can then approve the
question and then enable the legislature to redraw a new
map for twenty twenty eight. This is similar to the
process that's getting underway this week in Virginia. The New
York situation is complicated in that we've got politics, personalities,
competing lawsuits, and the calendar all running against each other
(14:54):
at the same time.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
How many seats has Trump already gotten through.
Speaker 4 (14:59):
The rediscd well, I mean, the ballpark claims are that
there are five Democrats who were targeted in Texas, that
there was one Democrat targeted in Missouri, that there are
up to two Democrats targeted in Indiana, there is one
Democrat in Kansas, so that you know, they're really fighting
a state by state trench warfare, picking off one district
(15:23):
here or one district there. So it's really getting down
to a micro targeting that when you have a two
three four seat Republican majority that you're trying to overcome,
every single seat matters. In California, you've got another situation
where Democrats can possibly pick up five districts by weakening
(15:45):
or eliminating districts of five current Republicans, but that has
to go through two votes by the republic this year.
One is to amend the state constitution to get around
the state's own ban on mid decade districting and using
a commission to join the maps. Then secondly requesting the
voters actually approve a map that the legislature itself voted
(16:08):
on over the summer.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Is the redistricting done in Texas? Is it being challenged?
Speaker 4 (16:15):
There are court cases challenging the Texas maps. There were
challenges filed almost the next day, but they may.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
Not settle out before the election.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
Texas and North Carolina have been in court over redistricting
for almost thirty years, consistently, always in court over this.
It's not one map, it's another.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Got to be a better way. So you mentioned Virginia.
What's happening in Virginia.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
Well, in Virginia the Democrats control of the state legislature
with a Republican governor. But what's happening there is that Virginia,
like New York and like California, have bans on mid
decade redistricting. So Virginia is beginning today to consider a
state constitutional amendment to do the same thing I talked
(17:01):
about in New York, to allow the legislature itself to
draw a new map, subjects to approval by the voters.
That amendment also has to go through two separately elected legislatures,
so that you know, it's going to take at least
two years or three years in Virginia to do the
same thing that Democrats are trying to do in New York.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
So that's not going to help the midterms what happens
in Virginia.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
That's why the lawsuit that was filed earlier this week,
you know, it was aimed to impact the twenty twenty
six elections, but there's no guarantee if the case survives
through all of the trial levels, that will get resolved
before the twenty twenty six elections, and you know, may
stretch towards twenty twenty eight. But you know, it looks
now as if this battle isn't going to end until
(17:46):
twenty thirty.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Why is it that the Blue states have all these
restrictions like no mid decade redistricting, and the red states
don't seem to have it.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
Well, two reasons. First is that there simply are more
states under Republican control than democratic and the second is
that a number of states passed new laws in the
last ten twenty years to create a more independent, transparent,
and open, voter involved redistricting process through commissions New York, California, Michigan, Colorado, Virginia,
(18:24):
just to name a few. The Republican states where we've
seen mid decade district things such as Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Kansas,
they don't have commissions or processes like the Blue states have.
And Democrats are now realizing that some of the reforms
they enacted over the years to make redistricting more transparent
(18:46):
haven't worked the way they should have, especially when you've
got a president who is looking at his victories and
states is a mandate to control their congressional delegations and
demand that the delegations represent his victory last year. This
is unprecedented in American history for presidents to get involved
in this minute power picking grab.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
I use the word unprecedented nearly every day in this show.
So you have, you know, Republicans pushing, and then you
have like Democrats. The leader of the Maryland Senate is
rejecting the effort to redistrict there.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Well, you know, you also have Republicans in the Indiana
Senate pushing back. So in some states you've got Democrats
who are fighting back. In states you've got Republicans who
want to do what Donald Trump tells them to do
and believe this is in his best interest. And then
you have some Democrats and Republicans to are other states
who just say this is going too far, this is
(19:45):
not what we were elected to do, and we're not
going to go along with this.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries went to Illinois to try to
convince them there to redistrict.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Well, that's a state where democrats too can all the
governorship in both chambers of the legislature. But the map
that they enacted there after the twenty twenty census arguably
max is out democratic strength that you really can't draw
more democratic districts. But I don't think the ballgame is
over there yet. We have to wait and see, Yeah,
(20:18):
because you.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Think that you can't do it until they find some
strange way of.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
Doing it, Like in Texas. In twenty nineteen, the US
Supreme Court held in a case called Route Show versus
common cause, that federal courts are not the place to
bring partisan garry mandering redistricting allegations, that there's no judicially
manageable standard by which to determine how much is too much,
(20:45):
and that it's best left to the states or Congress
to deal with it. So you've got states now. In particular,
we've seen the North Carolina and Pennsylvania state courts reject
partisan gerry manders, and ironically, in North Carolina, the state
Supreme Court went from a Democratic court to a Republican court.
They flipped there and now said that redistricting is perrymandering,
(21:08):
you know, is permissible in that state. So a lot
of this is determined, sadly by politics, not by law
or precedent. The North Carolina Supreme Court just did a
total flip on rejecting a congressional map and now accepting
it all in the last several years.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
Is Colorado coming into the picture as well?
Speaker 4 (21:28):
Colorado also has a commission in Bars on bid decay districting,
and I just haven't seen any action in Colorado yet,
But I think with national pressure on states one by one,
we just have to wait and see what happens. As
twenty twenty six approaches after.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
The midterms, what are these, you know, states going to
look like. It's going to be all Republican states and
all Democratic states.
Speaker 4 (21:52):
It seems, and that's why I think this will continue
till twenty thirty. Twenty twenty eight. Then we have twenty
thirty ahead of us, where the White House is already
trying to manipulate the way the census is conducted to
base the numbers on citizens and not on the whole
number of persons as the Constitution requires. So this is
(22:13):
a multifaceted battle.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
We'll find out more about the situation in California after
election day. Voting concludes on Proposition fifty, which would create
parties in US House maps outside of normal once a
decade redistricting handled by an independent commission. Jeff thanks so
(22:37):
much for bringing to light all the different concerns and
permutations with redistricting. That's Professor Jeffrey Weiss of New York
Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show,
We'll tell you what's in Donald Trump's appeal of his
New York hush money conviction. I'm June Grosso and you're
listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump formally appealed his conviction
(23:04):
in New York state so called hush money case this week,
arguing that the verdict was the result of a flawed
trial and a politically charged prosecution that sought to derail
his twenty twenty four presidential campaign. Trump's attorney said the
felony charges by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in April
(23:26):
of twenty twenty three were manufactured under a convoluted legal theory.
A jury of twelve New Yorkers found Trump guilty of
thirty four counts of falsifying business records to conceal a
hush money payment to a porn star on the eve
of the twenty sixteen election. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal
(23:46):
reporter Eric Larson. Eric, before we get to the appeal,
just remind us about the trial itself, right.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
So, this was the so called hush money case that
was brought against Trump in twenty twenty three by the
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bradd. It accused him of falsifying
business records dozens of times to essentially conceal a payment
that was made to a porn star before the twenty
(24:16):
sixteen election in order to keep her quiet and keep
voters in the darkabouts that alleged conduct, and at a trial,
a jury of New Yorkers found Trump guilty on all
thirty four counts last year, that was just about six
months or so before the election.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
There are several grounds in the appeal. Let's start with
the claim that the charges were manufactured under a convoluted
legal theory.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
Right, So this is one of the arguments that Trump's
lawyers sort of that had been making all along, which
is that they didn't think that the alleged conducts well.
First of all, that they denied any at has been broken,
but they argued that the the business record violations were
just misdemeanors under New York law, and that the district
(25:08):
attorney had gone out of his way to sort of
create a felony by stacking all these these violations in
a way that then tied them to the furtherance of
violating another law, an election law. So they argue that
that sort of, you know, transformation of misdemeanors into a
(25:28):
felony through that legal theory was never done before that
they were really stretching their arguments to try to find
a way to make it a felony, And according to
this appeal brief that they filed this week, you know,
they said that all along the District Attorney's office had
struggled to find a case and initially couldn't build one
that was a felony, and that they really sort of,
(25:50):
you know, worked their way backwards to try to create
a felony case. According to to Trump's lawyers.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
Well, another argument, which is about did you we are
hearing improper evidence uses a new term, I think presidential
evidentiary immunity. Right, I've never heard it before.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Well, that's because they're attributing that to the Supreme Court
ruling that had come out regarding presidential immunity. We all
remember this big ruling that said that presidents are immune
from criminal charges are related to conduct in office. So
they pointed to that president and said that because Trump
(26:32):
has immunity from official acts in office, that all of
his conduct around that is evidence that also can't be
used against him in court. So they argue that the
jury improperly heard as evidence in the hush money case
about some things he did while he was in office,
which he argues were official presidential acts related to how
(26:55):
back in twenty seventeen, he responded to the porn star's
allegations Doormy Daniels and denied those allegations and rather how
he worked with his lawyer at one of his lawyers
at the time, Michael Cohen, who went on to be
one of the witnesses against him. So basically, Trump argues
there was a lot of stuff going on while he
(27:15):
was president and that the jury should not have heard
about it.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
He also, and we heard this over and over during
the case about the judge, him complaining about the judge
that the judge should have recused himself from the case.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Right right. Trump did not hide his feelings about this judge.
He really thought that the judge was biased, made that
allegation plenty of times all along, and of course pointed
to the judge allegedly making donations Democrats and to an
anti GOP pack also that his daughter works for an
(27:52):
advertising firm that did business with Kamala Harris's campaign. So
because of these ties and these nations, Trump argued that
the judge could not be fair. And that argument also,
of course was made before trial and during trial, and
was repeatedly rejected. The judge, pointing to the strength of
(28:13):
the evidence and things like that to illustrate that his
arguments or his decisions and opinions were based on the
facts and not on any of his own opinions. So
again that was rejected repeatedly. But now we'll see what
an appeals court things.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
So this is state court. He's also appealing in federal court, right.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
So you might recall that there were some appeal filings
in regards to this verdict in federal court because Trump
had tried to move the case to federal court all along,
and tried to do so again after the verdict because
he argues that it never should have been in state
court because of the different federal questions that were raised.
(28:56):
That was repeatedly rejected by a federal judge in Manhattan,
by the way, but he has asked the Second Circuit
Appeals Court in Manhattan to revisit this issue. That was
an appeal track that was started earlier. So that clearly
Trump's defense team is prioritizing that that's appeal route, which
would get him faster to the Supreme Court as well.
(29:18):
So he's he's got a two track appeal going here.
Speaker 4 (29:21):
Now.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
Trump was successful in appealing the civil fraud conviction in
the case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
Right, you know, he he did get a big win
there the president when that that massive nearly half billion
dollar penalty was overturned in then in New York States
civil fraud case. But courts that appeals court decision also
left and taxed the liability finding that Trump and his
company and his two adult sons had engaged in fraud.
(29:55):
So both sides of that case have appealed. We don't
know exactly how long that is going to take to
work its way through the courts. That they've appelled it
to New York State's highest court, so it's already a
little further along than this criminal case.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
But now he hasn't been as successful against Egene Carroll.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
He appealed the verdict in two cases that Egen Carroll filed.
She won both. One was the defamation case with an
eighty three million dollar penalty. The other was a defamation
and sexual abuse lawsuits file in her New York state
law with a five million dollar penalty. He appealed both
of those to the federal appeals court, and those verdicts
(30:38):
were both upheld.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
These cases all seem like they happened a lifetime ago.
Thanks so much, Eric. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson,
and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at ww dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
(31:04):
And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Donald Trump has unleashed this unprecedented jerry mandering on the country.
We've never seen anything like this.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
President Donald Trump's push for Republicans to redraw US House
districts ahead of next year's midterm elections has triggered unprecedented
mid decade gerrymandering, starting with the states of Texas, Missouri,
and North Carolina, where Republicans have already drawn seven new
GOP leaning House seats, but Democratic states, led by California,
(00:41):
are fighting back or trying to because redistricting in many
Blue states is hampered by independent redistricting commissions or state
bans on mid decade redistricting. House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries
went to Illinois this week to try to convince Democrats
there to redraw their maps.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Donald Trump and Republicans have decided that they were going
to try to gerrymander congressional maps all across the country
as part of their effort to rig the midterm elections
and deny the American people the ability to decide who
should hold the gavels. In the aftermath of the elections
(01:25):
that will take place in November of twenty twenty six.
Democrats have made clear that we are going to respond
as is being done in California right now, appropriately, immediately,
and forcefully.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
The latest salvo in the national gerrymandering battle comes from
New York City. In a lawsuit by a group of
New York voters against the New York State Board of
Elections and top state officials. It claims that the congressional
district held by New York City's only Republican represent native
is impermissibly drawn to shut out black and Latino voters.
(02:06):
My guest is Jeffrey Weiss, a professor at New York
Law School who directs the school's New York Elections, Census
and Redistricting Institute. Jeff tell us about this lawsuit that's
challenging New York's eleventh congressional district.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Well, we have a new lawsuit filed earlier this week
by a group of New York voters who are arguing
that the current congressional district that includes Staten Island and
parts of Brooklyn di loots a minority voting strength, that
the black and Hispanic voters' power is diminished by the
(02:44):
way the district is drawn now, and that they would
have a much more effective voice in the ability to
elect a preferred candidate if parts of Manhattan were appended
to the district instead of Brooklyn. That, in essence, is
what the lawsuit is is looking for.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Is this an unusual lawsuit.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
It's unusual in the sense that's being brought mid decade. Obviously,
it's got political connotations that it would change the dynamic
of who's running for re election in New York, that
current Republican congress Member Nicole Meliotacus would find herself no
longer in conservative white areas in Brooklyn, but rather parts
(03:25):
of Lower Manhattan. That it would be a district where
the Democrats are expected to do a lot better. It's
also a district where Dan Goldman, who is the incumbent
now in a district that includes Manhattan and Brooklyn, we
probably find himself in better territory and also probably stave
off a primary challenge within the Democratic Party from several
(03:49):
Brooklyn elected officials who have indicated their intent to run
against him in a primary.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
Is the Democratic Party behind this lawsuit?
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Well, the case is being brought by two law firms.
The lead firm is the Elias Law Group based in Washington,
d C. And that firm has been in existence for
about a decade or less, but their work is primarily
on behalf of Democrats and the National Democratic Party committees.
There's also a New York law firm involved as Local
(04:19):
Council and they've been involved with political campaign litigation for
quite some time as well.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Is this lawsuit different because it's based on the New
York State Constitution so well test how protective the state
constitution is of minority voting rights rather than the US Constitution.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
Well, this claim is based on the state constitutional protections
that redistricting maps have to honor minority voting strain that
you cannot dilute minority voters from their ability to elect
preferred candidates, and the state constitution uses very similar language
to the Federal Voting Rights Act, which happens to be
(05:04):
subject to a challenge now from the Louisiana Congressional redistricting
before the US Supreme Court. The validity the future of
the Federal Voting Rights Act was heard in a case
two weeks ago, and we expect any time from the
end of this year, but more likely by the end
of June, for the Supreme Court to hand down a
(05:25):
decision where most of us think they're going to do
something to change the dynamic of the Voting Rights Act,
but not eliminated entirely. But that's reading the tea leaves
too much.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
Well, your prediction there fits in with the predictions of
other election law experts. So let's say the Supreme Court
does change the Voting Rights Act in some way. Will
that affect the New York Constitution?
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Well, it could affect the state Constitution to the extent
of what the Supreme Court might limit. Right now. The
gold stand in vote dilution is Section two of the
Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court adopted a test
in the mid nineteen eighties in a North Carolina case
(06:12):
called Thornberg versus Jingles, where a challenging minority group has
to demonstrate to a court that, if it claims it
should have an effective minority district, you've got to have
fifty percent or more of a district being comprised of
a minority voters. Second, you have to show that the
minority voters vote cohesively pretty much the same way for
(06:36):
similar candidates. And third, most importantly, you've got to show
that there is a high level of racially polarized voting,
where white voters constantly outvote minority voters' abilities to elect
preferred candidates in primaries or general elections. So if you
meet those three prongs, size, cohesiveness, and polarized votvoting, then
(07:00):
you have a Voting Rights Act violation situation. And the
Supreme Court is now being asked whether that test is
still a cojuent one to use now in the twenty
first century.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
So, in this case, the black and Latino voters constitute
nearly a quarter of the voting population in that congressional district.
Is that enough? Then?
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Well, what the plaintiffs are doing here. They're challenging the
map based on the state constitution, but they're trying to
incorperate the New York State Voting Rights Act, which was
enacted by the legislature in twenty twenty two. The State
Voting Rights Act does not apply to congressional districts, but
it does lay out different kinds of criteria and standards
(07:47):
that courts should look to when looking at vote dilution
claims in counties, towns, cities, and villages. So they're saying
that there is similar preamble language in vote the state
constitution and the state Voting Rights Ack, that it makes
a lot of sense to also incorporate the state statue
(08:09):
standards into the state constitutional situation. And that will probably
be one of the first arguments that I think intervening
Republicans will make to dismiss this case is that the
state voting rightsack doesn't apply. What the plaintiffs are doing
here is using these state voting rights SACK criteria that
unlike federal law, where you need to have a district
(08:31):
of at least fifty percent plus minority voter population that
you can combine let's say fifteen or twenty percent of
combined voters let's say black and Hispanic, the federal voting
right sack requires the fifty percent pretty much of one
racial group, be the black or Hispanic oraasion. But the
(08:53):
state law permits you to aggregate or put together smaller
communities of let's say Black populations, And that, in essence
is what they're looking to do by adding a part
of Manhattan to the Staten Island based district. And I'll
just mention also that the Hispanic population in Lower Manhattan
(09:16):
is not adjacent to South ferry right at the foot
of Manhattan Island by the New York Harbor. It's considerably
north there, so you'd have to take Staten Island, take
the Staten Island ferry over to Manhattan and drive up
aways basically up to the Brooklyn Bridge, where you have
an Hispanic population in the lower east side up to
(09:38):
about fourteenth Street. And that raises the question of whether
race is the predominant factor in creating this district, because
that runs against what the Supreme Court has said about
racial garry mandering, which is subject to strict scrutiny and
has to be narrowly tailored to remedy specific problems. So
(09:58):
the plaintiffstrict have to demonstrate to the court why a
district that constitutes Staten Island and parts of over Manhattan
makes sense, as if a lot.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
Of these new districts make sense. So Melia Takis said,
it's a frivolous lawsuit trying to upend our congressional district.
And she noted that the current map was approved by
New York's Democratic controlled state legislature and democratic governor. Does
she have the advantage here? In other words, is this
(10:30):
an uphill battle for the Democrats.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
Yeah, the clock is ticking. The State Supreme Court only
has two months to render a decision, which would take
us to mid to late December. Petitioning for the twenty
twenty sixth election cycle right now gets underway in late February,
so that leaves very little time for New York's midle
level appeals court, the Appellate Division, and then finally the
(10:56):
State Court of Appeals and already to hear this case.
And you can pretty much be sure that whoever objects
to this case, and I'm anticipating Republican interveners will strenuously
try to slow this case down and prevented from impacting
the twenty twenty six elections.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
this conversation with New York law professor Jeffrey Weiss. We'll
take a look at the national redistricting picture. I'm June Grosso,
and you're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Democrats have made claire that we are going to respond
as is being done in California right now, appropriately, immediately
and forcefully to ensure that the national congressional map is
as fair as it can possibly be.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries was in Illinois this week
to try to convince Democratic lawmakers there to redraw the
state's maps. Comes as Democratic states, led by California, are
fighting against President Trump's push for Republicans to redraw US
House districts ahead of next year's midterm elections. But the
(12:13):
latest salvo in the national gerrymanderin battle comes from New
York City, in a lawsuit by a group of voters
claiming that the congressional district held by New York City's
only Republican representative is impermissibly drawn to shut out black
and Latino voters. I've been talking to Jeffrey Weiss, a
(12:33):
professor at New York Law School. Jeff, there was litigation
around the New York map for years. Tell us how
we got to this point.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
Well, I think by twenty twenty four you know, after
a failed process in twenty twenty two where a state
commission that was approved by the voters twenty fourteen basically
imploded and subject to a court order, went back to
work and finished the job by January twenty twenty five.
For the legislature wanted to end this process, have a
(13:03):
new map for twenty twenty four actually a bipartisan map
with Republican support. So the map that was agreed to took
some strenuous effort early last year, and the case that's
been brought now you can consider somewhat Democrats challenging democrats.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
I mean, is there any other effort underway in New
York State to redistrict.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
Well, there is another approach. Earlier in the summer, the
Senate Deputy majority Leader and a member of the Assembly
introduced a resolution in the legislature that would permit New
York to rejow the district lines mid decade if and
only after any other state does the same thing in
(13:48):
mid decades. So since Texas already went ahead and mid
decade redistricted, this amendment would let New York also redistrict
mid decade. The state constitution right now prohibit that. But
the barrier to that is that, since the state constitution
now currently does bar mid decade redistricting, you have to
(14:08):
change the constitution, and to do that you need to
have an amendment go through two separately elected legislatures. So
the plan now is to pass something, whether it's the
amendment that was introduced earlier this summer or possibly a
more expansive amendment, but to do that next year and
then pass it again with the new legislature in twenty
(14:31):
twenty seven, so that the voters can then approve the
question and then enable the legislature to redraw a new
map for twenty twenty eight. This is similar to the
process that's getting underway this week in Virginia. The New
York situation is complicated in that we've got politics, personalities,
competing lawsuits, and the calendar all running against each other
(14:54):
at the same time.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
How many seats has Trump already gotten through.
Speaker 4 (14:59):
The rediscd well, I mean, the ballpark claims are that
there are five Democrats who were targeted in Texas, that
there was one Democrat targeted in Missouri, that there are
up to two Democrats targeted in Indiana, there is one
Democrat in Kansas, so that you know, they're really fighting
a state by state trench warfare, picking off one district
(15:23):
here or one district there. So it's really getting down
to a micro targeting that when you have a two
three four seat Republican majority that you're trying to overcome,
every single seat matters. In California, you've got another situation
where Democrats can possibly pick up five districts by weakening
(15:45):
or eliminating districts of five current Republicans, but that has
to go through two votes by the republic this year.
One is to amend the state constitution to get around
the state's own ban on mid decade districting and using
a commission to join the maps. Then secondly requesting the
voters actually approve a map that the legislature itself voted
(16:08):
on over the summer.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Is the redistricting done in Texas? Is it being challenged?
Speaker 4 (16:15):
There are court cases challenging the Texas maps. There were
challenges filed almost the next day, but they may.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
Not settle out before the election.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
Texas and North Carolina have been in court over redistricting
for almost thirty years, consistently, always in court over this.
It's not one map, it's another.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Got to be a better way. So you mentioned Virginia.
What's happening in Virginia.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
Well, in Virginia the Democrats control of the state legislature
with a Republican governor. But what's happening there is that Virginia,
like New York and like California, have bans on mid
decade redistricting. So Virginia is beginning today to consider a
state constitutional amendment to do the same thing I talked
(17:01):
about in New York, to allow the legislature itself to
draw a new map, subjects to approval by the voters.
That amendment also has to go through two separately elected legislatures,
so that you know, it's going to take at least
two years or three years in Virginia to do the
same thing that Democrats are trying to do in New York.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
So that's not going to help the midterms what happens
in Virginia.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
That's why the lawsuit that was filed earlier this week,
you know, it was aimed to impact the twenty twenty
six elections, but there's no guarantee if the case survives
through all of the trial levels, that will get resolved
before the twenty twenty six elections, and you know, may
stretch towards twenty twenty eight. But you know, it looks
now as if this battle isn't going to end until
(17:46):
twenty thirty.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Why is it that the Blue states have all these
restrictions like no mid decade redistricting, and the red states
don't seem to have it.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
Well, two reasons. First is that there simply are more
states under Republican control than democratic and the second is
that a number of states passed new laws in the
last ten twenty years to create a more independent, transparent,
and open, voter involved redistricting process through commissions New York, California, Michigan, Colorado, Virginia,
(18:24):
just to name a few. The Republican states where we've
seen mid decade district things such as Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Kansas,
they don't have commissions or processes like the Blue states have.
And Democrats are now realizing that some of the reforms
they enacted over the years to make redistricting more transparent
(18:46):
haven't worked the way they should have, especially when you've
got a president who is looking at his victories and
states is a mandate to control their congressional delegations and
demand that the delegations represent his victory last year. This
is unprecedented in American history for presidents to get involved
in this minute power picking grab.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
I use the word unprecedented nearly every day in this show.
So you have, you know, Republicans pushing, and then you
have like Democrats. The leader of the Maryland Senate is
rejecting the effort to redistrict there.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Well, you know, you also have Republicans in the Indiana
Senate pushing back. So in some states you've got Democrats
who are fighting back. In states you've got Republicans who
want to do what Donald Trump tells them to do
and believe this is in his best interest. And then
you have some Democrats and Republicans to are other states
who just say this is going too far, this is
(19:45):
not what we were elected to do, and we're not
going to go along with this.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries went to Illinois to try to
convince them there to redistrict.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Well, that's a state where democrats too can all the
governorship in both chambers of the legislature. But the map
that they enacted there after the twenty twenty census arguably
max is out democratic strength that you really can't draw
more democratic districts. But I don't think the ballgame is
over there yet. We have to wait and see, Yeah,
(20:18):
because you.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Think that you can't do it until they find some
strange way of.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
Doing it, Like in Texas. In twenty nineteen, the US
Supreme Court held in a case called Route Show versus
common cause, that federal courts are not the place to
bring partisan garry mandering redistricting allegations, that there's no judicially
manageable standard by which to determine how much is too much,
(20:45):
and that it's best left to the states or Congress
to deal with it. So you've got states now. In particular,
we've seen the North Carolina and Pennsylvania state courts reject
partisan gerry manders, and ironically, in North Carolina, the state
Supreme Court went from a Democratic court to a Republican court.
They flipped there and now said that redistricting is perrymandering,
(21:08):
you know, is permissible in that state. So a lot
of this is determined, sadly by politics, not by law
or precedent. The North Carolina Supreme Court just did a
total flip on rejecting a congressional map and now accepting
it all in the last several years.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
Is Colorado coming into the picture as well?
Speaker 4 (21:28):
Colorado also has a commission in Bars on bid decay districting,
and I just haven't seen any action in Colorado yet,
But I think with national pressure on states one by one,
we just have to wait and see what happens. As
twenty twenty six approaches after.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
The midterms, what are these, you know, states going to
look like. It's going to be all Republican states and
all Democratic states.
Speaker 4 (21:52):
It seems, and that's why I think this will continue
till twenty thirty. Twenty twenty eight. Then we have twenty
thirty ahead of us, where the White House is already
trying to manipulate the way the census is conducted to
base the numbers on citizens and not on the whole
number of persons as the Constitution requires. So this is
(22:13):
a multifaceted battle.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
We'll find out more about the situation in California after
election day. Voting concludes on Proposition fifty, which would create
parties in US House maps outside of normal once a
decade redistricting handled by an independent commission. Jeff thanks so
(22:37):
much for bringing to light all the different concerns and
permutations with redistricting. That's Professor Jeffrey Weiss of New York
Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show,
We'll tell you what's in Donald Trump's appeal of his
New York hush money conviction. I'm June Grosso and you're
listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump formally appealed his conviction
(23:04):
in New York state so called hush money case this week,
arguing that the verdict was the result of a flawed
trial and a politically charged prosecution that sought to derail
his twenty twenty four presidential campaign. Trump's attorney said the
felony charges by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in April
(23:26):
of twenty twenty three were manufactured under a convoluted legal theory.
A jury of twelve New Yorkers found Trump guilty of
thirty four counts of falsifying business records to conceal a
hush money payment to a porn star on the eve
of the twenty sixteen election. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal
(23:46):
reporter Eric Larson. Eric, before we get to the appeal,
just remind us about the trial itself, right.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
So, this was the so called hush money case that
was brought against Trump in twenty twenty three by the
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bradd. It accused him of falsifying
business records dozens of times to essentially conceal a payment
that was made to a porn star before the twenty
(24:16):
sixteen election in order to keep her quiet and keep
voters in the darkabouts that alleged conduct, and at a trial,
a jury of New Yorkers found Trump guilty on all
thirty four counts last year, that was just about six
months or so before the election.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
There are several grounds in the appeal. Let's start with
the claim that the charges were manufactured under a convoluted
legal theory.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
Right, So this is one of the arguments that Trump's
lawyers sort of that had been making all along, which
is that they didn't think that the alleged conducts well.
First of all, that they denied any at has been broken,
but they argued that the the business record violations were
just misdemeanors under New York law, and that the district
(25:08):
attorney had gone out of his way to sort of
create a felony by stacking all these these violations in
a way that then tied them to the furtherance of
violating another law, an election law. So they argue that
that sort of, you know, transformation of misdemeanors into a
(25:28):
felony through that legal theory was never done before that
they were really stretching their arguments to try to find
a way to make it a felony, And according to
this appeal brief that they filed this week, you know,
they said that all along the District Attorney's office had
struggled to find a case and initially couldn't build one
that was a felony, and that they really sort of,
(25:50):
you know, worked their way backwards to try to create
a felony case. According to to Trump's lawyers.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
Well, another argument, which is about did you we are
hearing improper evidence uses a new term, I think presidential
evidentiary immunity. Right, I've never heard it before.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Well, that's because they're attributing that to the Supreme Court
ruling that had come out regarding presidential immunity. We all
remember this big ruling that said that presidents are immune
from criminal charges are related to conduct in office. So
they pointed to that president and said that because Trump
(26:32):
has immunity from official acts in office, that all of
his conduct around that is evidence that also can't be
used against him in court. So they argue that the
jury improperly heard as evidence in the hush money case
about some things he did while he was in office,
which he argues were official presidential acts related to how
(26:55):
back in twenty seventeen, he responded to the porn star's
allegations Doormy Daniels and denied those allegations and rather how
he worked with his lawyer at one of his lawyers
at the time, Michael Cohen, who went on to be
one of the witnesses against him. So basically, Trump argues
there was a lot of stuff going on while he
(27:15):
was president and that the jury should not have heard
about it.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
He also, and we heard this over and over during
the case about the judge, him complaining about the judge
that the judge should have recused himself from the case.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Right right. Trump did not hide his feelings about this judge.
He really thought that the judge was biased, made that
allegation plenty of times all along, and of course pointed
to the judge allegedly making donations Democrats and to an
anti GOP pack also that his daughter works for an
(27:52):
advertising firm that did business with Kamala Harris's campaign. So
because of these ties and these nations, Trump argued that
the judge could not be fair. And that argument also,
of course was made before trial and during trial, and
was repeatedly rejected. The judge, pointing to the strength of
(28:13):
the evidence and things like that to illustrate that his
arguments or his decisions and opinions were based on the
facts and not on any of his own opinions. So
again that was rejected repeatedly. But now we'll see what
an appeals court things.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
So this is state court. He's also appealing in federal court, right.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
So you might recall that there were some appeal filings
in regards to this verdict in federal court because Trump
had tried to move the case to federal court all along,
and tried to do so again after the verdict because
he argues that it never should have been in state
court because of the different federal questions that were raised.
(28:56):
That was repeatedly rejected by a federal judge in Manhattan,
by the way, but he has asked the Second Circuit
Appeals Court in Manhattan to revisit this issue. That was
an appeal track that was started earlier. So that clearly
Trump's defense team is prioritizing that that's appeal route, which
would get him faster to the Supreme Court as well.
(29:18):
So he's he's got a two track appeal going here.
Speaker 4 (29:21):
Now.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
Trump was successful in appealing the civil fraud conviction in
the case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
Right, you know, he he did get a big win
there the president when that that massive nearly half billion
dollar penalty was overturned in then in New York States
civil fraud case. But courts that appeals court decision also
left and taxed the liability finding that Trump and his
company and his two adult sons had engaged in fraud.
(29:55):
So both sides of that case have appealed. We don't
know exactly how long that is going to take to
work its way through the courts. That they've appelled it
to New York State's highest court, so it's already a
little further along than this criminal case.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
But now he hasn't been as successful against Egene Carroll.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
He appealed the verdict in two cases that Egen Carroll filed.
She won both. One was the defamation case with an
eighty three million dollar penalty. The other was a defamation
and sexual abuse lawsuits file in her New York state
law with a five million dollar penalty. He appealed both
of those to the federal appeals court, and those verdicts
(30:38):
were both upheld.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
These cases all seem like they happened a lifetime ago.
Thanks so much, Eric. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson,
and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at ww dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
(31:04):
And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.