Voting: Purging, Packing, Cracking, Standing
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
Slate Audio
4.6 • 3.4K Ratings
🗓️ 23 June 2018
⏱️ 42 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
Dahlia Lithwick takes a close look at the two big voting rights cases decided by the Supreme Court earlier this week with Paul Smith who argued for the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin political gerrymander case Gill v. Whitford. On Monday, the court sent Gill back to the lower courts based on the theory that the plaintiffs had no standing. In the other case, Benisek v Lamone, which involved a Maryland gerrymander, the Justices delivered an unsigned opinion sending Benisek back saying it was too soon to decide. And we take a look at the implications of the court’s earlier decision on Ohio voter purges, a case that was also argued by Paul Smith.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Podcast production by Sara Burningham.
Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | So in 2021, if there's no check, it's going to be off to the races, and we're going to have less democracy as a result. |
| 0:17.4 | Hi, and welcome to Amicus Slate's podcast about the Supreme Court and the law. I'm Dahlia Lithwick, and I cover the courts for Slate. And today we thought we'd have a big, deep look at the two voting rights cases that were decided earlier this week. Gil versus Whitford was the challenge |
| 0:39.3 | to a Wisconsin partisan gerrymander. That was supposed to be the case of the term. Remember, |
| 0:43.5 | we talked about it that way in October. And then its little cousin, which was Benesek, involved |
| 0:49.0 | a Maryland gerrymander. And that was going to give the court cover to decide big, big issues in nonpartisan ways and |
| 0:56.8 | nothing. No dice. On Monday, the Supreme Court sent Gill back to the lower courts on the theory |
| 1:02.7 | that the plaintiffs didn't have standing. And in an unsigned opinion, they sent Benesek back saying |
| 1:08.1 | it was just too soon to decide. So little disappointing. What was going to be a |
| 1:13.1 | landmark voting rights year is just confusing. So we decided to talk about it today with Paul Smith, |
| 1:19.8 | who argued Gill for the plaintiffs. Paul is a friend of the show. And on behalf of the |
| 1:25.3 | Campaign Legal Center, he argued the Wisconsin case before the court way back in October of 2017. |
| 1:32.7 | Paul, can you even remember October of 2017? |
| 1:35.3 | Yeah, barely. |
| 1:36.8 | So welcome. |
| 1:37.6 | Our hope was that they were decided by January because we were hoping to get new districts this year. |
| 1:42.9 | Well, so let's start. |
| 1:45.9 | I start as though we don't know anything and tell us about political gerrymanders. |
| 1:51.3 | We know because we've talked about racial gerrymanders on this show. |
| 1:54.3 | We know that there's constitutional law and their standards. |
| 1:57.8 | Political gerrymanders are harder because in 2004, Justice Anthony Kennedy |
| 2:02.6 | sat down a marker and he said, someday, you shall bring me a political gerrymander case that I can |
| 2:08.6 | decide. And we have been trying to cough up something that would satisfy him since then. Can you just |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Slate Audio, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of Slate Audio and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.