July 2, 2018


Listen to the Episode


From The Official Website:

Today’s episode takes a look at three recent decisions from this Supreme Court and how each one will affect voting in the midterm elections: Husted v. Randolph Institute, Abbott v. Perez, and (surprisingly) Janus v. AFSCME.

First, though, we begin by addressing a conspiracy theory that’s making the rounds suggesting some nefarious relationship between Anthony Kennedy’s son, Justin, and Donald Trump. Does this story hold water? Listen and find out!

Then, we break down each of the three cases: Husted, involving Ohio’s efforts to purge voters from its rolls; Abbott, involving Texas’s efforts to racially gerrymander Congressional districts; and Janus, which will result in drastically weaker public sector unions. What does this mean for the midterms? (Hint: it’s not good.)

Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 regarding the search and seizure of heroin from plain sight.

Show Notes & Links

  1. If you missed last year’s Fourth of July Spectacular, that was Episode 83.
  2. You can read the Liptak & Haberman New York Times article about Trump and Kennedy by clicking here.
  3. The Ohio case is Husted v. Randolph Institute, and the Texas cdase is Abbott v. Perez.
  4. Before you read Janus v. AFSCME, you may want to check out our extensive coverage of the case back in Episode 150.
  5. The statute the 5-4 majority blatantly ignores in Abbott is 28 U.S.C. § 1253.
  6. Finally, this is the research Andrew mentioned regarding the correlation between right-to-work states and lower voter turnout and lower Democratic share of the vote.

Law Talkin' Stuff

Lawsplaining
Law Court Thingies
Magic Law Words

Organizations

People

References

Topics


Content

  • [00:00:00] Intro
  • [00:05:45] Are You A Cop? Justice Kennedy's son, Justin Kennedy
  • [00:18:25] Main Segment: Three Voting Rights decisions (Deep Dive)
  • [00:18:50] Husted v. Randolph & the Help America Vote Act
    • [00:25:19] The dissent
  • [00:31:48] Abbott v. Perez & the Voting Rights Act
  • [00:34:39] Commercial
    • [00:36:24] Pre-clearance for Electoral Maps & Shelby County v. Holder
    • [00:39:23] Discriminatory Intent
    • [00:40:53] Pseudo-injunction & Good Faith
  • [00:46:17] Janus v. AFSCME & Right to Work in Public Sector
    • [00:49:12] Right to Work States vs Voting Rights
  • [00:54:14] New Patron Tuesday
  • [00:55:49] Thomas Takes The Bar Exam: Legality of Search and Seizure (answer)
  • [00:59:29] Outro

(The time stamps above are derived from the audio provided on the official website; they may vary from audio without ads that are provided through the patreon feed.)


Follow up

  • Episode 196 has a Andrew was Wrong segment with a correction on the Supreme Court's opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and its application to the Voting Rights Act