This is John Batchel. A conversation with my colleague Richard Epstein, Professor Richard Epstein,

about the recent Supreme Court decision with regard to Louisiana and the redrawing of

congressional districts not allowed because it was done on the basis presumption of race. However,

this is pointing up to what Richard finds inconsistent with the court rulings and the application of how to divide up a state into congressional districts.

If I understand correctly, there is no attention to those states who use politics.

In other words, how you vote to pile up and to gerrymander.

Put all of the troublesome opposition in this congressional district,

and then you'll have narrow majorities for your side and all the other CDs.

Here Richard explains the inequality, the imbalance, the plain hypocrisy of CDs permitting politics, but nothing else

to rule the decision-making. Richard Epstein, more tonight.

So what happens is, no, so what you've done is you've now pointed out the asymmetry

and rightly so.

On the voting stuff, you have an explicit amendment, which was designed to protect against

this kind of behavior, whether by people in favor of minorities or in favor of majorities.

There is no similar constraint with respect to political gerrymandering.

What they could have done in Rucho is that this is such a terrible problem,

we're going to have a rule which prevents you from cracking and stacking, from putting all

the guys whom we don't like into one district and giving us large control by small majorities and

a great many others. That's what they still allow. And so it happens, and that's what the New York

Times editorial morning said today,

we get hit by the 14th Amendment.

They get hit by nothing.

...