Bankman-Fried's Former Girlfriend Testifies Against Him
Oct 13, 2023
auto_awesome
Richard Briffault, elections law expert, discusses South Carolina's redistricting case. Jordan Estes, former federal prosecutor, talks about the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried. They cover topics such as racial gerrymandering, the role of the Fifth Circuit, and the case against Bankman-Fried.
The Supreme Court is considering a case over the redistricting of South Carolina's congressional maps, specifically focusing on whether the changes were driven by race or party affiliation.
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case could have significant implications for voting rights, as it presents an opportunity to establish clearer guidelines for future challenges to gerrymandering practices.
Deep dives
The Challenge of Disentangling Race and Politics in Gerrymandering
The Supreme Court is considering a case involving the redistricting of South Carolina's congressional plan in 2022 following the 2020 census. The district in question, District One, has been subject to changes aimed at making it more Republican. The key issue before the court is determining whether these changes were driven by race or party affiliation. The lower court concluded that the redistricting exhibited racial predominance and constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Arguments in the Supreme Court centered around the burden of proof, the reliance on circumstantial evidence, and the credibility of expert testimony. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for the interpretation of racial and partisan gerrymandering in future elections.
Factual Findings and Deference to Lower Courts
The Supreme Court generally applies the 'clearly erroneous' standard when reviewing the factual findings of lower courts. This means that unless the district court made a clear mistake, the Supreme Court should defer to its findings. However, in the case of South Carolina's redistricting, some conservative justices questioned the level of deference given to the lower court, particularly due to the absence of direct evidence and the reliance on circumstantial evidence. The liberal justices argued for upholding the lower court's findings and emphasized the importance of following the traditional role of appellate courts in deferring to factual determinations.
The Difficulty of Distinguishing Race and Party Affiliation
One of the central challenges in the case revolves around disentangling race from party affiliation in redistricting decisions. South Carolina argues that its redistricting was driven by both race and partisan considerations. The plaintiffs, however, contend that the movement of voters exhibited racial predominance, as a larger proportion of black Democrats were shifted out of District One compared to white Democrats. This case highlights the complexities and difficulties in determining the motivations behind redistricting decisions and the extent to which racial gerrymandering occurs.
Implications for Voting Rights and Gerrymandering Cases
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case could have significant implications for voting rights and future challenges to gerrymandering. The distinction between racial and partisan gerrymandering has been a contentious issue in previous cases, with the court ruling that racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional while allowing partisan gerrymandering to stand. This case presents an opportunity for the court to further clarify the distinction between race and party affiliation in redistricting decisions and to establish clearer guidelines for future challenges to gerrymandering practices.
Elections law expert Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses a Supreme Court case over South Carolina’s congressional maps. Former federal prosecutor Jordan Estes, a partner at Kramer Levin, discusses the latest in the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried. June Grasso hosts.