S12, Ep. 28: Section II of the Voting Rights Act Is RACIST & Unconstitutional

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:

Travis Morgan covers legal issues for the Texas scorecard.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hello, I'm you happy people, Neil Smith and old Buck Buddy.
Are you hearing Neil?

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Neil?

Speaker 3 (00:09):
I miss you, mannes I have a question.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
We respect for me down by breaking a major story, Chris,
Congratulations a single score podcast.

Speaker 1 (00:42):
One of the big cases before the Supreme Court was
an evaluation of Section two of the Voting Rights Act.
Section two of the Voting Rights Act, folks, is racist
because it requires that race be considered in the formation
of congressional districts. By definition that the statute is racist,
and it requires a violation of equal protection under the Constitution.

(01:04):
The provision itself is unconstitutional, a violation of that protection,
the equal rights protection, the ego protection clause in the
US Constitution. So there were oral arguments, and it seems
that the five Constitutional Justices were leaning heavily towards saying, look,

(01:26):
I'm basically summarizing this and boiling it down. But they
were saying, if we're going to stop racism, we should
stop being racist and forming congressional districts on the basis
of race is racism, right, Well, folks, the woman who
doesn't know what a woman is Katanji Brown Jackson, proving
that she doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. She's wholly unqualified.

(01:51):
She is actually making the case and actually says, folks
that because somebody is black, they are disabled. I'm I
kid you not. I mean Clarence Thomas and Alito. Somebody
was observing. Who was it was? It's a guy named

(02:11):
Stephen L. Miller. I have completely reversed my stance on
not having cameras at the skotis mainly because I just
want to see Alito's face every time she speaks. Meaning
Kaitanji Brown Jackson, the woman who doesn't know what a
woman is. You don't believe me. You don't believe that me. Well,
first off, do you have a hard time believing that
a woman who doesn't know what a woman is would

(02:34):
actually say that being black is a disability? Well, okay, folks,
you don't believe me, here's Kaitanji Brown Jackson.

Speaker 4 (02:43):
I guess I'm thinking of it of the fact that
remedial action absent discriminatory intent is really not a new
idea in the civil rights laws. And my kind of
paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA Congress
past the Americans with Disabilities Act, against the backdrop of

(03:07):
a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities,
and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks
were not able to access these buildings. And it didn't
matter whether the person who built the building or the
person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary.

(03:30):
That's irrelevant. Congress said, the facilities have to be made
equally open to people with disabilities if readily possible.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
Okay, so now you understand what she's trying to say
is that even though today you aren't a racist, you
still need to be disadvantaged because of the racism of
the past. Right now, nobody's a racist today, right, you're
not a racist, but we need to rig the elections
to make up for past racists. And that's why you

(04:00):
must suffer the indignity and the unequal protection under the Constitution.
That's the point she's trying to make here. It's just
they are not applicable, and she's going to folks, she's
going to step in it, and she's going to step
in it hugely, bigly. As President Trump would.

Speaker 4 (04:18):
Say, I guess I don't understand why that's not what's
happening here. The idea in section two is that we
are responding to current day manifestations of past and present
decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they
don't have equal access to the voting system. Right, they're disabled.

(04:43):
In fact, we use the word disabled in Milligan. We
say that's a way in which you see that these
processes are not equally open.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
Okay, So according to Justice God help us all Justice
Katanji Brown Jackson, the woman who doesn't know what a
woman is, Being black, being a minority, being a person
of color is a disability according to this Supreme Court justice, which,
by the way, the utterance in and of itself is racist.

(05:15):
And I'm going to go back to what I say
all the time on the Salsado Storm podcast and the
Chris Salsato shows. If you want to stop racism, the
first order of business is to stop being a racist. Folks.
More on the courts, including this case coming up next
on the Salsado Storm podcast, And now a word from

(05:36):
our sponsor, my friends, did Bidenomics in the left wing
economy really rock your world? Latin American Medical Plans relieve
one burden health insurance. American Medical Plan specializes in under
sixty five health insurance plans that have zero copays and
no deductibles. You choose your doctors, you choose your hospitals.
These plans have nothing to do with your income and

(05:56):
are thirty to sixty percent less than Obamacare. How's your
paying out the nose call American medical plans. Don't let
these Marxists destroy one sixth the US economy and your
access to healthcare without a fight. You deserve better. You
deserve American medical plans the answer to the cancer that
is Obamacare.

Speaker 3 (06:17):
Chris Salceato, Hello, my friends in liberty lovering community. Did
you know that as a follower of Chris Salsado you
get exclusive bonuses and discounts at quality vendors like my
Pillow My Pillow with promo code Team Liberty, you get
thirty to eighty percent off everything you order every time

(06:40):
as part of the Salsado family. So go to MyPillow
dot com forward slash Team Liberty and check out the sheets,
the pillows, the blankets, the mattress toppers and so much more,
and you get thirty to eighty percent off everything and
many times free shipping with promo code Team Liberty. And

(07:01):
if you don't believe me, check out what Chris has
to see about my pillow himself.

Speaker 1 (07:05):
You know, they say, my friends, once you go my pillow,
you never go back. I started out with the old
fashioned my pillow, loved it. Then I graduated the to
the towels and my pillow towels they take all the
water off. Yeah, and they're so softy. Just love them.
And then then I said, well, I gotta have something
to cover my pillow, so I got the whole sheet.
Said once you start, folks, you won't be able to

(07:27):
stop because you're just gonna love the products like I did.
So that's it.

Speaker 3 (07:31):
Ladies and gentlemen, you heard from the man himself. Go
to my pillow dot com four slash Team Liberty and
buy your my pillow.

Speaker 1 (07:38):
Now.

Speaker 3 (07:39):
You're not only gonna save thirty to eighty percent on
everything you order, but you're gonna get amazing products for
your home. You're gonna support a great American company, and
you're gonna keep the Salceedra Storm podcast on the air.
It's a triple wind and you'll never sleep better.

Speaker 1 (07:57):
Chris Celciado, everybody's got an agenda right in America for
the time being. That's okay, but I think folks would
be stupid to fund an agenda that doesn't align with
their own. Patriot Mobile can help you with that. When
you make the switch to Patriot Mobile, you're going to
get an industry leading coverage guarantee. You're going to get
all kinds of discounts for our first responder heroes and
our veterans. But you're also going to be supporting a

(08:19):
company that supports your values and donates to your values.
And there's an added bonus. You'll also be supporting me,
your liberty loving Latino. Every single person who goes to
Patriot Mobile dot com, slash storm and makes the switch,
you support the Salcedo Storm podcast. Keeping my voice independent. Hey,
I worked for a company that changed the rules in
the middle of the game. I couldn't talk about the

(08:40):
issues important to you. It was then I realized my
voice needed to be independent. I think Tucker Carlson's discovering
that too. Head to Patriot Mobile dot com, slash storm,
make the switch today, use my promo code Storm, get
free activation, and stop funding the woke crowd call nine
seven to two Patriot Oh. Go to Patriot Mobile dot
com slash.

Speaker 2 (08:59):
Storm't tired of cable news lying to you. It's time
the establishment media went the way of the dinosaurs and
for free digital journalism to rise. At Texas Scorecard, we
bring you real news for real Texas with no paywalls ever.
Go to Texas scorecard dot com today.

Speaker 1 (09:15):
All right, folk, let's bring on our guest. His name
is Travis Morgan. He covers legal issues for the Texas Scorecard.

Speaker 5 (09:21):
Hey, Mitte, how's it going, Chris going great?

Speaker 1 (09:24):
Thank you for being here. Let's you and I have
a discussion about what transpired in court as the big
beautiful maps in Texas were being challenged by Democrats on well,
from everything I was able to hear, it was the
shakiest of grounds. Go ahead and give me It was
a nine day ordeal. Summarize it for.

Speaker 6 (09:46):
Me, absolutely, nine days in l Passo started October first,
ran through the tenth. It went on to Saturday. We
only had Sunday off. But it was a good deal
of fun.

Speaker 2 (09:55):
You know.

Speaker 5 (09:55):
Some interesting arguments being made.

Speaker 6 (09:57):
So essentially the plaintiffs are are arguing against the twenty
twenty five maps, alleging both racial discrimination in regards to
racial jerrymandering and also racial vote dilusion, but racial vote
dilusion is a little bit different, where it's an accidental
byproduct of partisan redistricting sometimes. And to be granted, the

(10:20):
preliminary injunction that they're looking for to block the maps
from being used for the twenty twenty six primaries, that
deadline has a higher standard of proof.

Speaker 5 (10:28):
So they were forced to drop.

Speaker 6 (10:29):
The racial vote dilusion claim, so they were left only
arguing on behalf of racial gerrymandering, which does require intent.

Speaker 1 (10:39):
Right, Okay, am I wrong? Because what I was seeing
first off, is the Trump administration was suing Texas saying
that the maps that we had created, the districts we
had created to please Democrats, those were illegal. The federal
government was going to sue us because, of course, with
everything that is democrats and they were illegal, and we

(11:02):
broke the law to appease them because we have weak
Republicans in the Texas State House. So that's kind of
how I read what was going on. Didn't we redistrict
these maps because we were being directed to by the
federal government to come into compliance.

Speaker 6 (11:20):
So that requires stepping back, and there is a lot
of debate on that, but the general consensus among state
Republicans seemed to be that the Department of Justice did
step in and say we're going to sue the State
of Texas if you don't redraw these maps in light
of the Pedaway decision out of Galveston. What that decision
said is that coalition districts, which are two minority groups

(11:41):
that are formed together to make up the majority of
a district, that that's no longer protected under Section two.
That you don't have to leave them alone. You can
actually redistrict for partisan reasons disregarding their existence. So that
does not mean that they are illegal, It just means
they're no longer protected. So Adam king Kaid, who actually

(12:03):
drew the maps for Texas, he's the president of the
National Republican Redistricting Trust, he himself went into court and
said it was misguided. The Department of Justice letter, it
was a little bit incorrect, it was unnecessary. All of
the state Republicans didn't necessarily agree with the letter because
it misinterpreted the Pedaway decision. But the real the truth

(12:24):
of the matter is that Peduway meant coalition districts are
no longer protected, so Republican redistricting partisan redistricting can occur
without having to protect those districts.

Speaker 1 (12:36):
Yeah, and for example, what you're talking about is Blacks
and Latinos in one district making up the majority. And
they were saying in Pedaway that that, yeah, that's that
is not something that you can use a section two
of the Voting Rights Act to protect that that is
susceptible to political gerrymannering. Right, right, it now is okay,

(12:59):
very good because of the Pedaway decision.

Speaker 5 (13:01):
Got it correct.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
So and then there's another aspect of this. The Democrats
are claiming racism. However, they are openly opposing Latino districts
that were created in the new maps. These Latino districts,
of course, are Republican Latino districts, but the Democrats don't
like those types of Latinos. So was the point made

(13:23):
in court that it's actually the Democrats who are being
racists by trying to deny conservative Latinos a voice.

Speaker 6 (13:30):
Well, there was a lot of debate on that as well.
What Republicans did in this redistricting effort is after the
maps were passed, they went out and said, look, we
actually have two black majority districts. There were none before,
and now we have was it four Latino majority districts,
which is more than there was before. Right, But what
the plaintiffs are arguing is, even though you know, you

(13:53):
guys created more Latino majority districts, they still don't have
the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice, and the
white candidate choice is still being elected.

Speaker 5 (14:03):
So there's racial discrimination. The reality is.

Speaker 6 (14:06):
And also, I will add, the plaintiffs are also claiming
that because a lot of these Latino majority districts are
just above fifty percent, they're around fifty one to fifty
five percent Latino, that that was a racial target that
Adam Kincaid and the Republicans purposely hit just so they
could say, look at us and look.

Speaker 5 (14:22):
At what we did. There doesn't see much of a basis.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
Right, hole on a minute, so let me understand their argument.
They are saying that even though these are majority Latino districts,
they still couldn't vote for their candidate of choice. You
mean they couldn't vote for their Democrat?

Speaker 2 (14:39):
Right?

Speaker 1 (14:40):
Isn't that what they write? Is that what they meant?

Speaker 2 (14:43):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (14:43):
That is what the state keeps pushing over and over
and over keeps pointing out in the plaintiff's argument is
what candidate are you talking.

Speaker 5 (14:51):
About specifically, and of course it is Democrats.

Speaker 1 (14:55):
Right exactly. Their whole point is we want to force
minority districts to vote exclusively Democrat, which, by the way,
I'm sorry, it undermines the entire predicate of their argument
because they're claiming racism. It seems that it is they
who are openly advocating for racism. I mean, how did well,

(15:15):
I guess I should ask you, how did this whole
process turn out? As far as the judgment is concerned,
where do you think the Was it a judge panel
or was it just one judge?

Speaker 6 (15:27):
So it's a three judge panel. That's how these redistricting
cases work. It's always in federal court. It's a three
judge panel to start, and then an appeal goes directly
to the United States Supreme Court. From the get go,
it was always a given that regardless of what the
panel decides, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court
by either party that loses.

Speaker 1 (15:45):
Exactly, all right, what was the sentiment?

Speaker 6 (15:49):
It's really hard to tell Chris, to be honest, because
Judge Jerry Smith, he's a Reagan appointee. He was very
clearly on the state side. Of course, they have to
remain neutral, but it was clear by the uestions he
was asking what side he was on. Then there's Judge Guaderama,
who was an Obama appointee, but he did a great
job in court. He was very fair handed, hard to tell,
hard to read him. And then there's Judge Jeffrey Brown,

(16:11):
who's a Trump appointee, but he's ruled against Republican redistricting
efforts in the past on faulty reasoning, saying the redistricting
was mean spirited. I'm not sure exactly where that falls
into legal precedent that he was considering, but it's very
hard to read him as well. He didn't speak up
much throughout the hearings until the last couple of days.
When he did, it tended to be more against the

(16:32):
state actually, So there's multiple factors at play here. There's
also the Perceel precedent, which is regarding that you're not
supposed to as a court make a decision that causes
voter confusion, ripe a foreign election, and everybody in the
state's operating under the assumption that the twenty twenty five
maps are already in effect and the candidate filing period

(16:53):
is opening shortly for the twenty twenty six primaries. So
I know Smith was for sure with the state on
the merits, but especially on the per cell precedent on
the timeliness, and so he may have sway with the
other two judges at least on that front. And that's
all that's needed to not have the preliminary injunction issued.

Speaker 1 (17:12):
Folks, we're talking to Travis Morgan. He covers legal issues
for the Texas Scorecard. These maps, to me are part
of the gerrymandering effort by Republicans to actually do to
the Democrats what Democrats have been doing to Republicans in
places like California, Illinois, and New York. No Democrat complains
about disadvantaging Republicans in those in those states. So it's

(17:36):
a bit hypocritical. Where do you see this going with
your legal experience. It's going to the Supreme Court. We
acknowledge that. And with a five to four constitutional conservative
majority on that court, and I say that number on purpose,
a five to four constitutional conservative majority, you would expect

(17:58):
that these maps will stand for twin twenty.

Speaker 6 (18:00):
Six, right, I mean, I tend to believe it is
very hard to read this three judge panel I tend
to believe they will not issue the preliminary injunction. Either way,
the plaintiffs will petition to the Supreme Court, and Republicans
should be fined in the Supreme Court.

Speaker 1 (18:16):
Yeah, all right, Well, let's talk about something that's tangentially
related which is going on in the day that you
and I are recording this podcast, which is the United
States Supreme Court is reviewing Article as our Section two
of the Voting Rights Act, which is, in my opinion,
the racist This is state sanctioned racism because it mandates

(18:37):
state racially created districts. And I want to play something
for you. This is Jani Nelson. She is arguing arguing
for the NAAPCP, the National Association for the Advancement of
Progressive Colored People. She and listen to what she said
in her oral arguments.

Speaker 5 (18:55):
That's right.

Speaker 7 (18:55):
And in the state of Louisiana, that analysis was conducted
in the NARN case, and it was clear that regardless
of party, white Democrats were not voting for black candidates,
whether they were Democrats or not. And we know that
there is such a significant chasm between how black and
white voters vote in Louisiana that there's no question that

(19:18):
even if there is some correlation between race and party,
that race is the driving factor.

Speaker 1 (19:24):
Can you comment on Yeah, okay, so did is it
my imagination or did Janni Nelson just admit the Democrats
or racists in front of the Supreme Court.

Speaker 6 (19:37):
Well, I'll even relate it to the case. I was
watching a lot of NAACP there, not NAAPCP, but.

Speaker 5 (19:46):
It was so consistent.

Speaker 6 (19:47):
From their side that they were trying to argue both
at the same time that racial discrimination took place on
the behalf of Republicans, but also that Republicans didn't do
a good enough job of considering race because they have
to consider race to protect certain districts, and under Section
two right now, the precedent is that although Pedaway did

(20:07):
away with coalition districts, we still have to protect majority,
single minority districts. And that's what this case here is
about before the Supreme Court is whether that's going to stand.
And it certainly does not seem as if it's going to.
But yes, what Democrats are wanting is for mandated racial

(20:28):
considerations and jerrymander. When jerrymandering for redistricting to ensure that
certain racial minority groups have representation and can elect their
candidate of choice.

Speaker 5 (20:40):
The reality is what Republicans.

Speaker 6 (20:41):
Have always believed is how about we vote on our
values instead of our race. And that's something they're fundamentally rejecting.

Speaker 1 (20:49):
But see, to me, it goes a little deeper than that.
The Democrats are saying that we need to to Jerry
Mander based on race to direct and I'm gonna play
this for you because it was rather extraordinary and extraordinary
back and forth. We're going we need Jerry Mander to
to to basically use race as as a mechanism to

(21:15):
correct the racists who are Republicans. So we must use
race to Jerry to Jerry Mander uh and basically say
that we don't what we don't need. And I guess
I don't have that sound by queued up here. But
basically the argument was sometimes you can use race to

(21:36):
correct you can use racism to correct racism, which is
basically what they were saying. So it's like, you've got
to be kidding me. That was their oral argument, right.

Speaker 6 (21:47):
I went through the public education system, you know pub
public universities in California of all places, and I saw
this on full display, you know, English classes. We were
forced to read an anti racist theory and depth.

Speaker 5 (22:00):
And that's exactly what it was.

Speaker 6 (22:01):
It was you have to have racist policies now to
correct past discrimination. Right, It's genuinely what they believe. It's
their ideology. It's it's anti racism on full display. And
it's now it's before the Supreme Court, and I have
a good feeling about where it's going to go.

Speaker 1 (22:21):
Yeah, I did get Clarence Thomas and he made some
very compelling arguments seeming to dismantle the I mean, it
did such a wonderful job. And of course no better
spokesperson for getting rid of racism because the Chris Alsado Show,
there's an axiom that says that you want to stop racism,

(22:42):
stop being a racist, and that's what Section two of
the Voting Rights Act is, it's racist. Listen to this.

Speaker 8 (22:48):
What role did Robinson play in the development of SB eight.
Justice Thomas Robinson is the only reason SBA exists. We
fought tooth and nail in Thebinson litigation itself in telling
the courts that we did not think the Constitution permitted
us to draw a second.

Speaker 5 (23:07):
Majority black district.

Speaker 8 (23:08):
As you know, under protests, we drew sbight because the
threat was that the federal courts were going to do
it if we didn't. And that's I mean, I think
that's the best way to conceive of why SBAIGHT exists.
We would never pass SBAIGHT in the first instance without Robinson,
Justice Thomas, what.

Speaker 5 (23:24):
Were the findings in Robinson?

Speaker 8 (23:26):
The finding by the middle District in Robinson was that
the plaintiffs in this case were likely to show a
violation of Section two and the likely violation. And I'm
using very broad terminology because I do not know what
the underlying violation is. I can't articulate that for you,
Justice Thomas, because I don't think anybody can. But I
think the finding in the district court's mind in that
case was that the likely the likelihood of a Section

(23:49):
two violation meant that a majority black district was required
a second one. And I think like that was the
bottom line. And when our legislature saw that, we understood
the marching order and that that's why you see Sbaight
as it exists today.

Speaker 1 (24:02):
So basically, Benjamin A. Gun Naga, I believe I'm pronouncing
his name correctly. He is the Louisiana Solicitor General. He's
talking with him basically saying, Okay, give me the predicate
as to why that. The other side is saying, you
need to have a second black congressional district, even though

(24:22):
even though politically speaking, it's not called for, number one,
number two, even demographically it's not called for, but you're
being forced to create it to somehow come into compliance
with Section two of the Voting Rights Act. There is
no natural existence, so you must create it for some

(24:44):
sort of crazy idea of fairness or to not be
discriminatory Travis, when really all that what they're trying to
say without saying it is you need to create a
black district that advantages Democrats. That's what they're trying to say, right.

Speaker 6 (24:59):
I try not to sound partisan, but this entire issue
is inherently partisan. And the reality is Republicans tend to
have more of a principled moral basis.

Speaker 5 (25:11):
To what they believe.

Speaker 6 (25:12):
And the reality is, what do Republicans believe here in
regards in regards to redistricting. It is, you know, maybe
partisan gerrymandering isn't super popular, maybe it isn't the best
for the country if both sides do that, But the
reality is Democrats have always done this Massachusetts hasn't elected
a Republican to the House this century, and it's not

(25:35):
fair for the Southern states to not be able to
match that when they are overwhelmingly Republican because they have
to protect these districts that were created on the basis
of race, to elect candidates based on their race. It's
just not fair. What Republicans believe as a principled approach
is that you should not consider race when drawing maps,
because considering race at all is unconstitutionals against the fourteenth Amendment,

(25:59):
against the fifteenth Amendment.

Speaker 1 (26:00):
Yeah, and here's here is that the Paist resistance in
this hearing about congressional districts based on race. The basis
of the left wing argument is this, the use of
race is permissible in remedying perceived discrimination. Right, so we

(26:21):
because we call you Republicans racist, that way we get
to create Democrat districts based on race. And to me,
it was classified by Gunter Eagleman on on X as
a circle jerk, and that's exactly what it is. I'm
gonna play this one last sound bite. Let's see if you.

Speaker 3 (26:40):
Can hear this. Just New York.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
Know that.

Speaker 9 (26:48):
States maps joined people in districts from the far north
all the way down and across the state. That's correct,
the map that it put into effect. So the district
was in compact, and neither were the interests necessarily compact,
except that they were write voters correct and Republican correct.

(27:10):
All right, now, you have not addressed the issues of
the unconstitutionality, which is what this reargument was about. Just
a sparait mentioned congruence and proportionality. Others have suggested that
our Harvard case is appropriate.

Speaker 1 (27:34):
Yeah, well, she's talking was sort of. I was actually
kind of shocked that sorta myr went down kind of
this road because she she kind of backed herself into
a corner on this one. But at the end of
the day, in my mind, and Travis, I don't know
how you see this, but I think most legal experts
are settling on look, you're creating these districts based on race,

(27:56):
and the act of creating a district based on race
is in itself a violation of the Constitution under the
equal Protection Clause. And I think that's where a lot
of constitutional scholars are settling.

Speaker 6 (28:09):
What do you think, Yeah, I mean that really sums
it up. And then it's Democrats dancing around that reality
with their anti racist theory. But I'll go back to
one thing I heard from the closing arguments from Brian Kircher,
who was the lead attorney representing the state of Texas
in the cases I was witnessing an Elpaso and he said,

(28:32):
it is not fair that just because Republicans tend to
have more of a white base at least as of
right now, and Democrats have more minorities that Democrats can say, aha,
when you are Republican redistricting that's racially discriminatory. It is
not fair that Democrats get to redistrict because of the

(28:53):
racial makeup of their base and Republicans cannot. That's not
equal protection. Republicans are in titled to their redistrict. That
was a point he made that I thought just really
summed up everything they're doing here. That's the claim they're
trying to make, and that is partisan. It's disingenuous.

Speaker 1 (29:10):
It is incredibly disingenuous. And not to mention the fact
where we started the soul conversation in Texas, the creation
of Latino districts. The creation of Latino districts. The Democrats
are opposing it. Why because those Latinos are not voting
for Democrats. They're they're now voting for President Trump and
the America First coalition and they and that's and they

(29:30):
opposed that. So they let the cat out of the
bag when when they start opposing Latino majority districts and frankly,
as you put it out, two black districts which were
not present before. So this is this is I think
going to fall apart not only on the on the
district discussion about our redistricting here in Texas, but every

(29:53):
redistricting argument around the country. And can you imagine it's
And I'll ask you this last bit of analysis, when
when this all comes down right before the twenty twenty
sixth election, before the maps start, you know, before they start,
people start filing that this is going to be a
potential And you saw CNN out there saying, oh, no,

(30:15):
Democrats could lose nineteen seats, Republicans could gain nineteen seats.
Everybody knows the game, everybody knows what's going on here,
and they're all panicked. And I think that's the tell,
don't you right.

Speaker 6 (30:28):
I think it is again, it's disingenuous, and it's partisan.
That's that's their real concern. That is their real concern here.
And one of the greatest points the state made in
the hearings in El Paso was they showed a clip
of al Green in the legislative record telling Democrats that
aspects of the Voting Rights Act keep getting stripped away.

(30:48):
The only thing we have left in section two is
vote dilusion, essentially, so we are forced to whenever they
throw new maps, new partisan redistricting maps at us is
to claim to scrim nation and take them to court
alleging discrimination. That sums it all up. The only way
they're going to protect these Democrat stronghold districts is by

(31:09):
claiming it is racist to remove them.

Speaker 5 (31:11):
That is all there is to it, and it's.

Speaker 1 (31:14):
Not true, and it's just not right true. Well, Travis Morgan,
I know this is going to be quite something. This
is kind of a rare occasion where your job at
the Texas Scorecard to keep an eye on what's going
on here in Texas is going to really coincide with
what's happening on the national level as these two major cases,

(31:36):
the Supreme Court case. Well, of course we're not going
to learn about this until June. I think unless they're
going to expedite because of the impending twenty six primaries,
they may rule sooner. I don't know if there's a
precedent for that, but you know, they start hearing oral
arguments now and we don't get the results on the
Supreme Court until June, but I think the Texas maps

(31:58):
will be decided long before that because of the import
it has to next primary election. So you're gonna be
a busy guy.

Speaker 5 (32:06):
I will be a busy guy.

Speaker 6 (32:08):
But you know, I've become very familiar with redistricting loss
since covering the case n L Pass, so anything from
here is just a good deal of fun following it.

Speaker 5 (32:16):
And I think things look good. I think Republicans can
have a good outlook on what's happening.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
Well, we'll make sure we get you back on, Travis Morgan.
Everybody covering the legal issues for the Texas Scorecard, appreciate the.

Speaker 5 (32:28):
Four to one one man as only thanks for having me, Chris.

Speaker 1 (32:31):
That right there puts a wrap on this Alcedo Storm
podcast till we visit again. My friends. Remember this society's
worth isn't measured by how much power is stolen by government.
A society's worth is measured by how much power is
reserved for you and me. We the people, keep fighting
for freedom out there, my friends,