Home Artists Posts Import Register

Downloads

Content

In today's episode, we look at the history and potential future of gerrymandered congressional districts.

We begin, however, with a listener question that's come to us from multiple sources, including Patrons Greg Boettcher and Adrian Borschow, who want to know if there's any difference between a "jail" and a "prison."  We deliver the goods!

In our main segment, we delve into three recent cases regarding the time-honored practice of gerrymandering a state into congressional districts so as to maximize the number of safe seats for any one political party.  How significant is this problem, and can the courts fix it?  Listen and find out!

Next, our much-beloved segment "Closed Arguments" returns with a look at a British tabloid journalist, Katie Hopkins, who was recently forced to pay more than 300,000 pounds (that's still real money, right?) after mistakenly taunting another journalist on Twitter.

Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #16 that asks whether an administrative assistant has sufficient authority to bind her boss when making contracts. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)!

Recent Appearances:

None.  Have us on your podcast, radio or TV show, or interview us!

Show Notes & Links

  1. The first Supreme Court case to recognize a constitutional right to a non-gerrymandered district was Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986).
  2. Scalia (of course) attempted to overrule Davis v. Bandemer in his 2004 plurality opinion in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 US 267 (2004), but could only garner four votes.
  3. Since then, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the basic principle of Davis v. Bandemer in LULAC v. Perry, 548 US 399 (2006), in which only two sitting Supreme Court justices have endorsed the Scalia position.
  4. This is a fairly awesome video from former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger making gerrymandering the centerpiece of what is likely to be a run for the Senate in 2018.
  5. This is the Whitford et al. v. Gill (Wisc.) decision on gerrymandering that contains a detailed section as to how to detect and remedy "packing" and "cracking."
  6. This is the full text link to the Perez v. Abbott (W.D. Texas) decision on Texas's gerrymandered congressional districts.
  7. Andrew recommends Princeton professor Sam Wang's work on gerrymandering.  The full text of his Stanford Law Review article is here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Files

Comments

Anonymous

TTTBE #16 I'm going with "A". The boss sent her to a convention where orders are often made, and he sent her with lots of his specific company business "stuff"...including order forms. Of course she's authorized to do what she did.

Anonymous

I think Andrew got the Katie Hopkins libel case slightly wrong. Offering an apology does not mitigate the libellous statement, and there is no requirement in law to publicly apologise. The demand for an apology was simply part of the offer to settle from the injured party. This kind of threat, i.e. "do X, Y and Z or I will sue you" could easily happen under American law as well, though seeing it all happen on Twitter is novel. Incidentally I'd be interested to hear a discussion of when that kind of threat crosses the line and becomes blackmail. Bearing in mind that I am a British non-lawyer going up against a non-British lawyer. This is why I wish there were a UK version of OA, except I fear it would be very hard to find a lawyer over here who was as simultaneously entertaining and knowledgeable as Andrew.

Anonymous

Sakashite, we need Daniel Steele from Law and Order UK and Martha Costello from Silk! Too bad they don't really exist right?