tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 24, 2015 6:00am-8:01am EDT
>> these are numbers that he has become with based on conversation and based on his experience. i can't tell you based on my own experience and you don't want me to give military advice. when does he get his bump and when do you expect the bump from the debate? >> if it were -- the -- if the facts were determined today, we wouldn't run a campaign.
i'm not trying to win the race this year. we are going to have a slow graduate climb and that's been our strategy. >> how does he match with iowa? iowa tends to reward conserve ti, socially conservative candidates. >> that's a good point. we have to see how this going to come in iowa. i don't know how it divides up.
senator graham, his focus has been new hampshire and will continue to be new hampshire. >> they're not going to be undercard debate next time and that's a policy that seems to be design today relegate candidates like yours to some sort of energy format and not let them on any stage whatsoever. how is it that you need what cnbc is going to do if you don't have no role of what cnbc is going to do. it's good for our party. we should be embracing this. a good thing conservatism.
a good thing about our message. rather than play the role of the voters. >> if you don't convince for rnc, would you be willing to participating in at earnate -- alternate. >> have two forms. that way you can really see in a smaller setting all these candidates show up their talent and make their case. i would hope that cnbc and others. i don't know how many candidates are going to be left till we get to october 28th. this maybe a moot point. >> he's been out there and forthright about position of a very long time and hammering away, some one would say banging the head against the wall over
it and the party is sliding further right. >> i think the key thing from senator guarantees per spect i -- perspective is immigration is a problem. that's the one thing that all republicans agree on is that we have to do something to solve this problem. people have different ideas of how to do it. senator graham as he thinks as most issues looks at it in a pragmatic way, what's actually doable. i'm going to be honest with the american people and give them what i think is a straight story. >> would you characterize his personal view of donald trump as pulp -- >> i don't think he liked when he gave out a cell phone
number. >> you thought it was a booking for sunday show. >> i hope they are donors. it was not. it was very angry donald trump supporters. his personal views are of donald trump is he's not ready and we should focus on candidate that. >> were you secretly relieved that it made him senator get a modern phone? >> now he knows how to use the apps and read polls and articles. he's getting a lot of information on his own. yeah, i think it's great that he has joined all of us in using a smartphone. as i said to him when it all happened, you know, i've only been campaign for four or five months.
donald trump did something that i didn't do for months. he's pretty good at it. so it worked out well. >> no one else by him fit to be commander in chief? >> i think that we are waiting to see how this race shapes up and how people feel about this particular issue. from his point of view there is no debating it anymore. what we need to do in syria, what we need to do in iraq and the mistakeshat we made before that he's been very vocal against the obama administration. i think he feels that this is a right path forward and he thinks he's best prepared, otherwise he wouldn't be running for president. >> does it require a number of other candidates including jeb bush? >> any time in politics you need
to have a little bit of luck to to hear it's a political consultant it's genius in your head, that's bs. you need some luck. six months ago would have been graham's manager, we are still here because we are running a small discipline, flexible campaign that we can afford. in order to remain in the race you have to be sitting there. that's the campaign we had plan since day and that's the campaign we are going to continue to execute. >> i ask the question of terry of us, can you give us some indication of how small, what corners you're cutting and what means to be lean?
>> we have an extremely small national team, dozen people. we see in one giant room and we all yell at each other all day long. that actually reflects a lot of the candidates personality. our campaign is kind of like that. we are all, you know, small team, there for the right reasons, we believe in graham. if we were doing because of money, front-runner, polls, we would all be there for the wrong reasons. aye asked -- i've asked some of the other candidates that the mood is so much in favor of outsiders and people to have political experience, the single most mistake as candidate, i know things, give me this job.
>> it's a tough case to make right now, isn't it? >> when you get closer to election time, people start thinking about different things. they're going to think about who is ready to be commander in chief. who do i want, you know, commanding my son or daughter as they go up to do their job. who do i trust to make sure the troops have the capacity, weapons to do their job. when we get down to it, when we get to crunch time the importance of who our commander in chief is going to be more relevant and graham is going to shine. >> talk to me about the history of graham in south carolina. >> he has never lost a race in south carolina.
he won the last primary against six opponents with an overwhelming majority. he never till recently, not necessarily been seen as the front-runner in these races but he's great politician, what you see is what you get. that sort of talent that helps him so much in south carolina is perfectly tailored to iowa and new hampshire as well. >> do you expect him to pick up endorsements? >> i don't know if endorsements are really the name of the game. i think the key is how you're doing in iowa, new hampshire and south carolina. that's going to be our focus than what washington thinks. >> do you have a secret weapon in iowa -- >> i think that certainly helps out. senator graham is the only candidate who has served in
military, he's been a reservist, there's a large population of national reserve in iowa that's going to be good for him. >> does he have a particular strategy or tactic for reaching out to those people? >> i think that talking about national security credentials and talking about how we make sure that our veterans are cared for and taken care of is something that's important to that community. >> so last two questions. what is the moment that another candidate that you've been most impress i have that you wish you had thought of first and what is the most endearing quality?
>> one of the things that i find more fascinating in the campaign, hopefully in the long run is a good thing, donald trump has changed, he's done everything that people like me would tell a candidate might do. maybe we have to many political consultants that are operating out of the play book. i think it is. people that are challenging the way things are done. i'm not saying he's doing it the right way. it's good like folks like me think differently. i hope the whole consultant is looking at the race, how else can we look at what we do. in terms of lindsey graham, there's one word i would use and seng -- sincere.
he's a funny person to be around. it's not so much that he has the same kind of jokes that you hear over and over again. i worked with john mccain. every day is something new. that creates an environment that's fun to work with and i'm thankful for the opportunity. >> thanks so much. [applause] >> so up next is berry bennett with the ben carson campaign. [applause] >> so we have this breaking news maybe in about ten minutes.
scott walker is out of the race. what do you analyze, what does it mean? >> i'm surprised. i think the lesson, you know, don't give up. you're in a rough spot. >> so tell us, explain to us ben carson, if you will. what you'll hear over and over again from the pundit class is i don't get it, i don't get the man's -- never apologizing. he took the slightest possible swipe at donald trump and then
apologized for it, which is the completely opposite of what donald would do. what is the appeal of ben carson? >> he's the smartest guy for sure and one of the nicest people i've met. he started out -- he's a physician pediatric specialty. he's smart. >> made for tv? >> and so he's caring and smart and tv q -- >> i'm sorry, what was that? >> people like him.
he's a guy who saw cousins die on the streets. never thought that he would live to be an adult, let alone, you know, get inspired, start reading. never visited campus until he started up on the first day. applying to yale and harvard, a moving story. >> how did you get to know him and become part of the operation. >> a friend of mine called me and said, would you do a presidential -- no, no, i'm way past that. i wanted to do this. of course, when i was younger
and didn't have kids, but so i went to talk to him. i went to florida and spoke with him and david. i called my friend and i said, i'm in. let's do it. he's overwhelming nice and likable and smart. >> and you have no doubt that as someone who has amazing accomplishments and attributes that you mentioned, i think most people wouldn't dispute that never having run for office before or significant executive experience, he will win this nomination and be the president of the united states. >> 100% he's going to win the nomination, no, of course not. >> that's endearing honest.
>> he can make the party bigger, bolder and better and through this i think he probably will be a no, nominee. >> what are your lessons that he's out teaching the republican party. >> so far this month we campaigned or last month we campaigned at harlem, ferguson, detroit, chicago. we are going to places where, you know, we didn't see the romney-ryan team make a stop. baltimore. he talks about lifting the cycles.
barack obama. he speaks some passionate way that's very inspired. people love their kids, to have the same opportunities he had. >> is he talking to african american audiences or -- >> oh, yeah. >> resinated with him? >> we have african american owners with protestors and ministers, policemen, and he, you know, he said something that most politicians never said, i'm here to listen, tell me your story. it was great. >> how important is it that he is soft spoken, because if there's any quality you would nationally associate with political success, that would be very far down on the list. >> yeah, yeah, i agree.
candidates looking, sounding, talking and behaving different is very important. it distinguishes you from the rest of them. at the debate, i was -- i wish you were like yelling and throwing bombs like the rest of him. i will take two hours sitting than donald trump, any day. >> a lot of people missed his standout performance in the first debate, didn't get it. did you know one about race and closing statement, did you think in ben carson terms he is killing it and he's going to have a big bounce. >> we have been watching, i watch --i can tell you how everything is playing, so i knew
through social media to what was really saying was resinating through the media. we got 300,000 new facebook fans during the debate. >> 300,000. so how many facebook fans does he have? >> i think at the times 1.6 and went up to 2 million. since the debate gained 900,000. 3.8million right now. >> do you know that compares to candidates? >> well, it's three times more than hillary. 15 times more than jeb and we will be above donald trump who accumulated his after three years on the apprentice will go back to him this week. >> wow. how do you take advantage of
that? >> i think one way to take advantage of that, 14 candidates on the republican side, how many on the democrat side, not clear yet. if you're counting on winning the election through television advertising in des des moines, you're probably not going to do that. and, you know, through google and search and all the tools because content is king. if you can talk to them effectively in a way that they want to be talked through social media, you know, you can do it and push a button. he said what his wish was, i can't tell you what it was, i know that 19 million people got the post and five and a half million watch the entire thing.
>> i hear you saying that if you happen to be a candidate and has raised $120 million for the superpac, we won't name anyone, that's an asset that may not be as powerful as it was in the past? >> we know that advertising rates is much more in iowa and new hampshire. 100million turns into 10. i've already raised over 30 million. we are going to have funded as well. television is not going to be the break-through medium. >> are you raising the money through phones, direct mail. >> bake sale.
>> overwhelming small donors? >> 535,000 donations as of this morning. >> these are donors that can come back again and again because they are not going to tap out? >> i love sending the emails and watching the dash board. >> so talk to us a little bit about the actual organization of the campaign, because times goes together, there's story about -- to >> this all happened because the campaign chairman terry is one of the people that hired me who had been at the announcement, was leaving and by three weeks later somehow it was a new story. we had 80-something people in staff. we had finance people.
we had campaign tour bus in america. >> the what? i'm not on facebook, clearly. >> let me check the list. [laughs] >> we are doing great. >> so talk a little bit about iowa specifically asking the typical question, you have to win there, two, checking around in iowa a couple of weeks ago, one thing i was surprised to learn that ben carson has a real organization here. he had an organizer. >> we're going to get one. there were 13,000 people in the month of august that attended one of our events.
surprising thing was 29% of them were not republicans, they were independent or democrats. the caucus will be expanding this year and at least that's what we are going to try to do. typically maybe 25,000 votes will win the caucus. 70,000 people. >> so when those people come to an event, how are you establishing the connection with them that you'll maintain over time from numbers, emails. >> text numbers are so much better than e-mails. we start talking to them. the computer start talk to go them. -- talking to them. we warm them up. we release mya angelo bus.
130,000 to lease a bus. what if people put therapy kids' names on the bus? he could see the reason he's running, kids names. we paid for the bus in about three hours. we created pictures of children on the bottom of the bus. why should i pay out of our treasury account? fourty dollars for the 1 oh 40,000. why today? [laughs]
>> it's not possible to have any muslim who is capable of believing and being the president of the united states. >> no, what they asked him if islam and the constitution could be put together. he said as a muslim running for president he couldn't advocate for them until they supported religious freedom, do they support all of these things, of islam. he's not to support all of those kind of silly things, that would be fine. >> do the doctor's plan -- the way he addressed the 11 illegal him grants that are here is to say perhaps, many of them can
come, in my mind it's another word for amnesty. >> i think so. the problem with deporting everybody as donald trump supports, i think he should start with supporting congress. for 30 years they haven't fixed the border. maybe we should start there. but if you were going to deport them, one you have to find, then you have to find out where they are from, the nation to accept them. i mean, it's incredibly expensive. if they would come out of the dark, pay taxes, agree to pay taxes, then we can give them some kind of worker visa and they can go about their lives but they don't get the vote and don't get to become citizens. >> so do you care whether trump inflates, deflates, does it not matter to you because you guys
are just on your own path, you have your unique appeal with this canada? >> there are certainly some commonalities in the boarders. i think donald trump is our best contrast. we'll just let him continue to contrast. >> i've asked everyone this and i'll ask you as well. what is the moment during the campaign that any other campaign has had or candidate has had where you thought that was really smart and what is the most enduring quality of this enduring man ben carson that we might not be aware of? >> i'll take the latter first. he's humble. he is, you know, if i call him and say, maybe we can talk about
this in a slightly different way. he said, that's a good point. >> that's unusual. >> yeah. i'm very proud to be associated with him and what ore campaigns have have done that's brilliant? >> come on, you can think of something. >> i thought cruz announcement was a good idea. >> yeah. >> yeah. we're going to speak there next month. it was certainly a lot of cheaper to pay together an event. >> thanks so much. i really appreciate you taking the time. [applause] >> thank you, like any campaign manager, we need a cocktail.
thanks, rich. >> thanks everyone. [inaudible conversations] >> today senate intelligence committee holds a hearing on cyber security, watch it live at 2:30 eastern on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> now, today reporter for nbc4, yeah, he comes in here all of the time. that's his seat. i'll be back to the office and i called him, mr. mayor, i just went to club 55. don't you realize that people are watching what you do and where you go. you sit there all the time and
watch naked dancing girls. he paused and said, it's nice, isn't it. >> political corruption in d.c., maryland and virginia. >> 44 attorneys general signed a later agreeing that what he did was politics and not bribery, he should have reported the gift. $15,000 for child's wedding, 50,000, 70,000-dollar loan. he had been considered potentially a vice president candidate, went over his head when he got into the government's office. this is a case when you're a public figure and you let your messy life come together. >> on c-span q&a.
>> the supreme court begins next term on october 5, panel previews the upcoming term and some of the key cases the high court will consider. issues before the court include redistricting, abortion, mandatory union dues and fines of the affordable care act. this is two hours and 20 minutes . >> good morning, everyone. >> thanks for coming to discuss the terms for this cases we have a stelar panel.
professor of constitutional law at georgetown. tasha is a partner at jones day. erin murphy is a partner where she also focuses on supreme court and appellate litigation and david cole is another constitutional law professor at georgetown. before i turn things over to the panel, let me give you a brief introduction to the term and tell you about the format for today's program. the story of last term is -- the left side of the court did a lot of winning. that happened not only in the two cases involving same-sex marriage and availability of subsidies but in almost every
big case decided last term. justice kennedy was the justice who join it had west side of the court in those cases, but the chief justice and etch justice thomas occasionally are provide it had margin of vic -- victory. this term i would expect a turn to the norm in which the side of the court wins the majority but by no means all of the big cases with justice kennedy again the key vote in most of the big cases. the big question for this term, i think is how big will the wins be. in a fair number of the big cases, the court will have a choice between broad and narrow grounds for decision and the importance of the term will be determined by which path the
court chooses to take in those cases. we have in our agenda court will hear or likely hear or we might not get to them all. after the panel completes its discussion of each case, the press will be invited to ask any questions that it has. for the first five cases, which i think are the big five, after the case is presented by one of our panelists, i will ask other panel members who want to comment to do so before inviting questions from the press. for the next five, second tier five, i guess, i will invite press questions right after the case is presented but encourage any panel member who wishes to do so to reply to the questions. we are going to start with abbott. we'll present that case. >> this is a case that involved
the one-person-one-vote doctrine . that has major impolitic -- implications of how elections are run in this country so it could be a very significant case. during the supreme court held that when states are drawing districts and putting people in the district for voting, the state basically has to have a fair amount of equality in the districts. you can't have certain districts with much greater population than other districts because that gives the districts with smaller amounts of people
unequal and unfair voting power. but what the court has never really grappled with in most of the cases is what exactly you're trying to equalize. was trying to equalize the total number of people in each district or on the other hand, for example, the total number of eligible voters in each district. the court throughout its cases has largely been diagnostic about this. it's used language that suggest, one-person-one-vote sort of suggests. part of the reason that they have been able to sort of duck this question for a long time is that, you know, for the '60's it wasn't clear -- the radical difference made much difference.
equalizing total population end up being roughly the same thing. today that's no longer the case at least in some states primarily because of the large populations of illegal alien in certain states that are not qualified to vote and other types of population, you know, felons, things like that, populations that can't vote and aren't necessarily distributed. they might be located in certain parts of the state more than other. if you draw districts where there are a disproportion number in one district and you equalize total population there will be more voters even though there's equal population totally. and if you try to equalize
voters, then you'll have different amounts of total people in the district. that's the basic question, what are you supposed to be equal izing? the case arises out of texas. texas like most states chooses to equalize in districts so they all shoot for population. there are certain districts that have many, many more registered voters or eligible voters than others. even though the populations are roughly equal based on total population, the populations are different. the plaintiffs are arguing that should violate the
one-person-one vote doctrine. the voters where there are fewer -- sorry, where there are more -- it gets a little confusing. the voters in the district where there are fewer eligible voters have disproportionate voting power. let me use an example. two u districts has a thousand people and one has 800 eligible voters and 200 noneligible voters and the other district has 400 and 9 oh 0 >> they're worth twice as much. 800 electing. to sort of summarize the argument that each side is making, the plaintiffs are arguing that you should be
equalizing the total number of voters. the whole point of one-person-one-vote is to insure equality, make sure that each person's vote count equally, and by the way you do is that you make sure total number of voters is the same. it doesn't matter how many people are in the district because people who aren't eligible to vote don't matter when it comes to figure out who is going to have voting power. it's a fairly straightforward. i said before, the case law in this area isn't going to be all that -- there's language going each way, largely, in part because it didn't matter a lot when cases were written. texas in response to the argument tries to argue that state should have choices about which population base to
equalize. it doesn't say that you have to do voter population, they should be given discretion as to which population to equalize. and they give basically two main arguments, one is what function voting serves and they argue -- also pressed by a lot that support them as well as texas, is that voting isn't just about serving the people who are eligible voters, once you have an elected official, they represent everyone in the district. and so there's a representation norm that it's important that you have equal numbers of total population in each district because otherwise you'll have, for example, one state official who represents a district with a thousand people and another district representative which represents 2,000 people. you can view that as a form of
>> there's one other, i guess to other issues that are probably worth talking about on the merits before doing the prognosticating. one argument that texas makes is that it would be very hard logistically to equalize voters as opposed to total population. total population of course is calculated by defensive. it's done at a very, very specific level down to the block level when the dude defenses. we have very good data on where everyone lives so you can draw districts to try to equalize total population. but there's much less good data on how many eligible voters there are in a state and exactly where it is a live. for census doesn't ask those questions at the same level of detail so texas makes the argument it would be very difficult to actually try to
equalize voter population. and then the one on the argument that texas makes that will probably get a fair amount of play in the litigation indicates these to point out that in the constitution win, the constitution determines how many congressmen each state gets, which is sort of a portion of across the state, there is the constitution expressly says that you determine each states total congressional representation based on total population. so states with large total population gets more congressmen than states with small populations and it doesn't matter whether the states have different amounts of eligible voters. you do it on total population. by analogy at a minimum it should acceptable for states to do the same when drawing districts within their states.
in terms of predicting how the case will come out and the relative merits of the case, i think there are a couple of things. it's an interesting case because if you think about the conceptual three beyond one person one vote, i think there's a lot of intrinsic merit to what the plaintiffs are arguing, but the cases seem to be about equalizing photo strength and so naturally you would want equalized voters. but there is a lot of residents at least for some of the people on the court who says you should doing that in a circumstance where you can have massive disparities in total population, and district where you're essentially, in some sense, not counting as full members of the political community people who are not eligible voters. i think i will have a lot of residents, especially for some of the liberal justices. the other thing that makes it a
particularly complicated case is about the one person one vote doctrine is sort of a landmark doctrine at this point, but it's also doctrine that doesn't have a whole lot ofclear footing in either the text of the constitution or the history. and so for that reason a lot of the conservative justices may be somewhat skeptical, and what texas come with the plaintiffs are asking for your is a fairly significant expansion of the doctrine in a sense by not only requiring equalization of populations, but been having a very specific definition of what population-based test to equalize. some of the conservatives might be more inclined and notions of federalism and based on skepticism of the doctrine overall to give states more latitude, more deference on how to do this. over all i think those two effects are probably going to make such that texas has an easter path to victory against
again. off some of the liberal justices on the representational arguments and some of the conservative justices on the admin or stability and portability arguments are i think probably the plaintiffs best chance of victory is if they tried to go for a narrower position which is that maybe states don't always have to equalize voter population by at least and circumstances where they can do both, which can roughly equalize both voter population and total population, that at a minimum should have to do that. the plaintiffs have argued that's the case. texas disputes it, potential factual issue, but that's one possible middle ground position that may make it easier for the plans to get to five. >> so anybody else on the panel want to comment? >> sure. i think that was an excellent summary and i largely agree with the hashim said.
just one factual clarification to the disparities in texas and other states are not just a function of fact that certain distance of larger percentages of undocumented aliens but also of documented aliens, aliens and miners living in those districts were not eligible yet developed but will be one day. i would be very surprised if there are five votes to take the plan's position that you must, that the state must drive districts on voting for eligible voting lines. i think the real question is what the course is about the discretion that the states have to deviate from total population. the reason i think would be very surprising in addition to those of hashim offered which i think they're pretty compelling are one coming with me upsetting the practices of all 50 states for 50 years, or almost uniform practice of all 50 states for 50 years, not something the court is going to be eager to do.
and also would seem to set up a system in which the rule, and this is the argument made by the chief justice when he was the deputy solicitor, acting, deputy solicitor general in the case a couple decades ago. it would be an odd result that the apportionment standard that states have to use to distribute their congressional seats is something that is prohibited to them when they're drawing their states. this is the state legislatures. so that oddity makes it unlikely. the real action i think will be whether and how the court says it agrees with texas that the states have discretion to deviate from total population so it'll be interesting to see this friday when the amicus briefs come and whether any other amici argued that states in fact half the total population of most of them have for 50 years, whether that the constitution
requirement. i think it's more likely many other amici arguably inappropriate for the court to reach of the question, that should wait until some state legislature decides to do such a thing to see what its justification is, what its evidence is ample like. because i think there's many who worry that if the court were to say very boldly, texas has discretion chosen total population, but they are free to go to eligible voter population or citizenship or some other criterion for drawing their districts, it will be an incentive or a message to state legislators that are predominately in this case predominately republican controlled to make such moves in a way that could radically affect the makeup of state legislatures. and i think that the real interesting question will be to what extent the court reaches out to a firm what it suggests in this 1966 case which is that
the states have broad discretion on whether the cour court statet question for a later case. >> anyone else speak with i agree with marty and hashim. i have one consideration which is that any time a court has asked to engage in policing the electoral process, there's the risk of the result appearing to be partisan and to politicize the court. at if you look at who's challenging the total population regime, and arguing for voter population regime, it's all republicans and some very conservative public interest groups. and so, and that ruled from the ruled the plaintiffs are seeking, would benefit republicans. that could will politicize the
courts. two of the court's most controversial of escorts models controversial decisions were citizens united and the affordable care act case, both of which were highly, highly partisan we all remember bush v. gore. i think there are reasons for the court in terms of its legitimacy to tread softly in this area and easiest way to tread softly is to leave the matter to the discretion of the states as the court said in 1966. and then one last thing, from the standpoint of sort of originalist and detection lists, but also seems to be the result that should obtain because the constitution just doesn't say whether they should be total population or voter population at a don't think the original meaning of the understanding of the time would anyway direct on one of those result so if you're
an originalist orate contextual list you should take before she left to the states. >> i want to follow quickly on that, which is so i agree that their potential partisan implications here but i don't think it's necessarily as clear-cut as it, i went for the plaintiffs would obviously benefit republicans and heard democrats. out of a shakeout in a given jurisdiction depends on the total population maps onto eligible voter populations. so, for example, a way this could benefit democrats would be if you states, for example, with large prison populations where you take large populations from urban cities who are then in prison after not eligible to votend they are in rural prisons. if you count those people as residents of the rural district into which the rural district at the expense of the urban district and in that context it likely would have april
republican benefit rather than pro-democrat benefit. another way this could happen by the what if you could have gerrymandering. so right now the reason why using total population, using voter population would benefit republicans is because districts are basically drawn such that joe situations where if you have a large population of non-qualified voters, they tend to be living near people who are qualified voters and to agree with them. so you enhance their political power. to be precise about it in texas, for example, in areas with large amounts of undocumented aliens, the people who live near them also to be hispanic and tend to be democrats. so it's enhancing their voting power. but if texas, for example, tried to draw districts where you pulled some of the undocumented aliens from one area into the same district with eligible voters in rural or suburban areas, you together very
different partisan makeup. so whether this shakes out as a pro republican or pro-democrat thing partly depends on how the districts are drawn. but i agree that it has implications. and right now it probably doesn't shakeout more to the benefit of republicans but it's not stripper speaking. >> asserted us with advocates seem to think if you look at the lineup of amici on the case but it's pretty stark. >> one thing i wonder about and i would just ask one question before june to the process why states have all been using total population if as texas has come states are one have had discretion to go either way and are these political advantages to using one or the other depending on whether you're a democrat or a republican, generally speaking. does anybody have any thoughts on that?
>> the census data allows much more specific and reliable breakdowns on total population that on cpap, college proposal population of the other i think is -- i think most people sort of have inculcated the idea that districts are to represent equal numbers of people, that nonvoters are entitled to representation after would have been politically quite striking for legislature to say otherwise until now. i just think the partisan politics of it make which is off the wall arguments now tenable spirit i would characterize this off the wall. let me just make one thing and then i will go to the press which is if the court gives a green light, if you think the states are pretty much thought we had to do about population, texas is pretty much arguing in part of its light for a green
light to do it away. if the court does say there is a green light value could go either way, do you think that that will change the political landscape is not as much as a victory for the plaintiffs, somewhere approaching that? >> i think the court has already said that anne byrnes essentially said that there's a green light in a 1966 case. to me i think it is had led most states to go with the total population figures. they are there, available come easy. but i think i was sort of technology makes it easier and vision to crunch numbers and get specific data, it may well become a easier to go the voter route and people might well come states but will chose to go the voter registers technology has