now the economy was growing approximately by 5% for the past five years before the revolution. and in order to create growth that growth can only come from investment both domestic and international . .. the establishment of the independence judiciary. these things are very important

and they usually lead these reforms in these areas need to -- lead to direct percentage points and growth. the second pillar is to introduce 13 sets of reforms, the reform of the investment growth, the reform of the tax codes, the reform of the public tendering law, the transportation code, the knowledge economy code. all of these reforms need to be carried out now. some of them will finish by june of this year. some of them will take a year and will finish during the government. others might take two to three years but are going to start now. and others will be subject to the society. the second pillar is to introduce the set of reforms which make the business environments before investors.

the third is for sustainable growth, the development of infrastructure and the government has increased in the complementary budget law public standing for infrastructure development from $5.2 billion to 6.4 billion, an increase of 1.2 billion for infrastructure projects, roads, the industrial zones, all kinds of infrastructure is necessary in order for businesses to come and in best, especially in the regions of the interior. now what we did between december and now is have the national consultation in the region, and we asked people what kinds of infrastructure projects you would like to see in your region. why didn't the other regime or previous regime do for you? is at a hospital? is it an industrial zone? would you like to see a plan?

and they got all that information after one month of compilation within the region and afterwards we decided onto priority projects for each region. so for this year, each region will get in addition to the program infrastructure project, at least to priority projects that will be executed, and the cost for those will be estimated at 1 billion. now, this sustainable track will take us from minus 2.2 growth in 2011, 23.5 and 2012, 25 points in 2013 and the 6.27 points in 2014. obviously, the sustainable track is the main track of reform of tunisia and that is the way we are going to develop our economy but this will yield the first in

a year and a half to two years. we have 800,000 unemployed youth today, so we needed to introduce another track, which is the tunisian component in the economy for two years, 2012, 2013, and we are going to increase government spending through stimulus in three major programs. one program is to create immediate temporary jobs for about 100,000 people. just like the new deal did in the 1930s, which is to provide the youth with some temporary jobs, waiting for the economy to take us. the second program is to do an on job training for college graduates in order to change and make them more adequate for employment. some of the college graduates have degrees maybe in certain

disciplines that are not required today for a job. to give them english skills, to give them itb skills which makes them more attractive for employers. and the third program is to build 30,000 social housing units over a period of two years. now, this will be done through increased government spending, but to reassure the world bank and imf, it has got to be a -- which means these programs are clearly slated for two years, 2012 and 2013 and they will stop after 2013. by then, hopefully this sustainable track will catch up with the economy to provide the necessary jobs. now, the announcement of this program has a good psychological effect in tunisia today. although, clearly in the steps that are going to be carried,

the government was careful to say this is the general program, this is the vision, this is where we are heading economically but we can only do this much in a year, because our mandate is for one year. so we don't scare the opposition and we don't say, like the question today, when islam is come to power they don't intend to leave. that is why in the program in the first days on the political program, the government has announced officially that it will seek the date of the 20th of march, 2013, as the date for the next election so today we have a target date for the next election. also the government has announced that it will maintain an independent election commit he and that to maintain the president of that election committee, who did a fantastic job. he is known to be a -- so for those of you who you know, would like to know where

we are heading. the idea of giving a clear roadmap, a clear direction, a sense of object diffs for the investors and society and introduce some production of practice to go back again. that, alongside the decisions to maintain article i of the constitution, has created a climate of security. there are less disputes, less tension between them and it is very important for business. business and politics are closely interrelated, you know, and good lyrical framework in the sense of direction is good for economics. so, at the same time as i told you, we introduced the complementary budget which increases public spending by

2.5 billion from the original law. now the financing goes back and would come mostly from the sale of the confiscated assets from the ben ayed family for the tunisian economy. also, although we did the public stimulus package for the economy for 2012, we will only, we will reach a budget deficit of 6.5. we are on a budget it deficit of approximately 3% and the debt issue was 40% before the revolution and now it is 46%.

through the modems that you have at the imf, we estimated three kinds of shocks. the devaluation shock, the inflation shock and the international, and all of that has shown that our economy is sustainable up to 55%. so, we are in the safe zone even compared to what is happening in the world, and our debt situation -- obviously our objective is to come back in 2014 to a deficit level of 3%, and inflation level of 3%, a growth of 67% and a debt ratio

of 5.5 of 40%. so it is the economic strategy that tunisia will be adopting. there are many signs, encouraging signs that investment will go well in the country. many, many countries have shown a lot of support for tunisia economically. the united states has shown a lot of support recently and has announced that it will give tunisia $100 million to direct budgetary aid and there are other packages as well. europe and european firms have confirmed that -- their intention to stay in the country and increase their investments in the country. a lot of companies from the gulf countries also are visiting tunisia and their intention to invest. we have every intention that the

environment will be good for these firms to make money and to have real economic continuity. we are seeking a privilege partner with europe, and the process is underway for tunisia to get that. secretary clinton announced to the prime minister a few days ago in a phonecall that president obama gave the greenlight to start the agreement negotiation with the united states, which is obviously a good sign for investors and for american firm's. so, you know, growth, investment, these are going to create jobs and the government -- >> thank you very much. it's a very clear plan and you have laid it out very nicely. i'm sure many people have specific questions they want to

come back on but before we do that i do want to turn to the other panelists. of course jordin is not the same situation as tunisia. both in terms of laying out a government plan, so in a sense your perspective will be at bit different from that. but also, economically, tunisia has a bit more space for doing that kind the kind of fiscal expansion, because the initial debt levels were low. the budget deficit was quite small before the 2011, two or 3% this year. jordin is in a slightly different place, so less space to do the kinds of things tunisia is doing in the short-term, and yet some of the same challenges that you are facing in terms of youth unemployment, in terms of the shock of high energy prices. so i wanted to get a sense from

you now of how you see the kinds of policies package that you think would make sense from where you sit, which may be different from what the government is doing because obviously you are not in a position to speak for them. >> okay, thank you. actually i am a -- the economic language is not my language and that is why i have to speak in arabic. it will be easier. nate saad. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: this is a model of the islamic economy, which the principles of a free economy or private sectors. no doubt, we cross with other

islamic movements. the nature of the reform program and its general direction as far as economic reformation is concerned, i believe that any islamist movement that wants to start, that wants to start toward economic reform should work to stop the bleeding. in medical terms, that is hemorrhaging or bleeding. we have to stop that so in order to support other signs for life. so i think, the summit movement has suffered and many people have suffered a lot from corruption and disposition of public funds. i believe that it's imperative that there should be a serious

step in this direction so that we are able to control the resources that are being wasted. no doubt, corruption is a general phenomenon and we in the other world population, about $50 million of course here there is a shortage of -- therefore the number of unemployed is more than 50%. those that are below the poverty line, it's about one third of their 350 million. so if we wanted to -- if there is any reform movement to look at these numbers, they'd would be concerned with stopping

that waste in the resources. the islamic movement is not again the public sector. i personally have experience in the public sector and i am sure others in other areas have experience in the private sector. for example, i have about 1000 people working with me. there are 100 people like me and it country like jordin and would employ about 100,000 people. currently the government employs annually about 6000 people because of regular manpower. this is the government that tried to -- unemployment i employing equal in the government sector. so you will find that the ones

who produce are more productive. i think it is opposite in the private sector and economic reform must be a major step and a fundamental step. we cannot stop the western experience, because we cannot compete by establishing -- for instance. that requires a huge amount of capital. now we focus on small businesse. this is adopted through development. small andrew sees that would be able to produce at least in the domestic market and also to produce some immunity for the

domestic economy in order that it will provide the necessary basics and a decent life for them and we are not talking about luxury. that is something else. we are concerned firstly in providing the basic needs. after that, we will work with the prosperity among individuals in the society. i believe development projects should be part of this. that will be employed by those who will be in the government and other issues i believe. the infrastructure and the focus on the infrastructure projects, there are long-term projects

both in the provision of the means for infrastructure projects. no doubt, there is a problem in this financing sources. i believe that the islamist movement can work with the infrastructure. the first plan is to gather the citizens from abroad. most of the people who are there at the revolution have many -- and they have infrastructures for businesses. these projects could be gradually moved by providing the right climate, so that they can invest in their mother countries. i believe the governing party is an islamist leaning party.

they are providing for secure investments. according to statistics more than to mean turks have have returned to turkey and investors there are -- about the prosperity of the country. this is another example. it is not the same in any economy to borrow nor is it the same in every country because there is no country that can do completely without having economic relations with other countries. this is the principle of benefits so i believe balanced investment, which is probably guided to ensure that it will lead to projects in the

infrastructure. i believe it is something that should he studied. there are no reservations in cooperation with the imf. not to interfere in the sovereignty of the country but to maintain the price of the currency and i think this is a very serious problem for a recovering nation. the issue of currency is not a domestic matter. it is an international matter sometimes. so it is imperative, the focus should be on the international integrity of the currency. the relationship with the islamic measure, believe that islamic --

[inaudible] it is possible to depend on the world model, competing with the commercial. to make it imperative that ordinary islamic systems should not apply because lots of relations are commercial relations. therefore, they should be looked at from the point of, what is good for the country and the economy and for the success of the country. i believe it is possible to cooperate. we have now commercial banks and of course, the choice now is

finally left to the citizens. they therefore will decide which bank they want to deal with. if the islamic thinkers are more favorable to them, and easier to deal with so it is not really prohibiting or allowing. i will stop talking after this point. i believe, that international economics, there are agreements on international relations. that should be respected. and it should be seen as an integral part of globalization, which we cannot avoid in the islamic movement. it is now affecting great aspects of life and most likely also in the economy. thank you.

>> thank you very much. that was very helpful. is also going into some of the detailed elements that i think many people have on their minds. so you have already giving some of the answer to the questions that were preparing to read. before returning to that, let me now turn to our final panelist. perhaps you can give us the egyptian perspective. one topic if i made, which affects both jordan and egypt as well as tunisia is how you see dealing with one big source of problem for the budget, which is the generalized subsidies on energy products in both countries, and as you know, the benefits of these energy subsidies are set mainly to go to rich people rather than poor people particularly when it

comes to gasoline and products like that. and yet, ultimately the way to help poor people seems to be to have a system which mainly helps rich people. so i would be interested also in your thoughts on how you see the reform of subsidies. >> thank you very much for making this event possible. the freedom and justice in egypt has outlined an economic strategy and launched to processes. one is the process of dialogue to get as much feedback in perspectives and so on, and the other process is to technically formulate a policy package that would support that strategy. my role in the next five to 17 minutes is too tried to lay out the strategy and i hope in clear terms.

the strategy comes in for terms. one is to expand the private sector, limit and ultimately shrink the government in power power -- empower the civil society and fourthly integrate egypt and the global economy on more favorable terms. let's go a little bit for each one of these very briefly. just to give you an idea of how oppressed the egyptian economy is and how underperforming it is and how there's a huge need to expand the private sector, egypt's contribution to world trade is close to .23 of 1% of the global trade. that comes from a population of 1.2% of the world population so this is definitely an economy that is not for forming up to the potential of its people. just a very macropicture.

this is very depressive and why is the economy not performing to that extent? there is a great book that i would recommend to everybody to take a look at. it tackles not just many other countries. it's called white nations fail. it is a great read and in that book he describes and the co-author describes what they called extractive political institutions and economic institutions versus inclusive political and economic institutions and of course one of the classic examples, extractive institutions are ones that extract the resources, opportunities and so on of an economy for the interest of a very narrow group of people in a particular country. political institutions that support that kind of abstraction

tend to be oppressive to their people. the end result is the creation of albeit very rich and very capable, but very very tiny -- people who have enormous amounts of power, enormous amounts of money, enormous amounts of wealth but at the end of the day, when you look at it and economy of 85 million people, on the other hand, it creates a very very low demand. the rest of the population is suffering. this awful statistic that i always suffer with, because we say sometimes economists used numbers that you actually have to go to an egyptian village and spend the day there to feel it. the numbers are we say that 30% of egyptians spend $2 a day or less. it's not just -- if you actually go and spend the day in the one of the villages you'll get a

feel of what this feeling means on a human level. it's just awful. i don't want to go, and it's just awful. anyway, so what we are going to do actually is remove that extractive institution and put in its place and inclusive institution. in other words, we like to include more and more people in egypt and give them more access to economic opportunities in the country. we would like to do that first evolved by reversing with the previous regime has done. is again you look at this book that i assert to it is outlined in very interesting ways how this extractive institution -- it gives examples of five or six key industries. the cement into shea, the media industry and so on and it details how these industries are

so limited. there are barriers like -- and it details how it actually happened, which coincided with, they said we are now receiving not from our people but the government agencies, the central bank, the finance departments of people are coming forward to say how this actually happened, how this was possible. amazing government contracts, tax breaks that you have never heard of, land deals, real estate deals, totally unheard of, that kind of thing. fuel deals. when you look at these privileges that were given to these few and the political institutions that supported it, the outcome as i said is a strong economy. we would like to reverse that and give access to people by reversing these trends.

here is where the second and third pillar come in. we would like to restrict the government. we would like to make it simpler for people to practice economic stability. we would like to make it simpler for people to reinvest. first of all to save, to invest and take the project they would like to go to. we would like it to make it easier for them to get licenses and so on and so fourth. again, numbers sometimes help. ..

through these measures. the, why we include the empowerment of the civil society? because we need a much stronger civil society to serve the mechanisms of checks and balances on the government because it's not, by the way, it is not just about a party taking over. i'm sure we all have this experience. it is about the institution of the government and the institution of the government can very easily defeat the program of any party unless you institute the checks and balances that would put enough pressure on the government bureaucracy and start reversing the trends of this widespread

corruption. you asked the question of corruption and corruption i guess in egypt is a very interesting one and i will get to this in a minute. the fourth pillar of this strategy to integrate egypt in the global economy on more favorable terps. by that i mean we looked at the strength of egypt, the competitive advantage of the nation, if you will and we looked at the practices of the previous government and how they articulated the strength of egypt. i think they articulated the strength of egypt basically in terms of location, in terms of it being a country which it is easy to go and institute polluting environment and polluting industries, so on and so forth. we identify the strength of the egyptian economy, the competitive advantage in the workforce. egyptians have very schrage, young, relatively disciplined, relatively homogenous workforce that is definitely underutilized.

and again, i agree 100% that the revolution was not about bread but a huge part of it was about apathy. it is just about millions upon millions of youth who have been looked at by the previous regime not as assets, not as resources, not as an advantage but actually as a burden. and we would like to reverse that and by giving more access to these millions of egyptians we, we aim at increasing the competitiveness of the egyptian economy. and one way of course of doing that is to redefine what we call the industries and value-adding industries and those associated with the elevation in the capacity of the workforce. so whatever industry is going to add to the capacity of the workforce to go on and produce, number two, join the knowledge economy

at much more favorable terms is to us a value adding industry. we're looking closing looking at i-t, medical i-t, energy and so forth in addition to some of the other industries. we would like with these four pillars to achieve four objectives. one is clear which is broaden the demand base of the economy the second is, to create more fairer distribution system in the economy. and we don't want to do that through regulating it centrally because that would not work. we would like to do it by stimulating the economy. when we stimulate the economy, improve the checks and balances in the system, give more access, then hopefully we'll get a better distribution of income and wealth. the third objective is we would like to get, and this is really huge, anyone who knows egypt or read the history of it knows how hard this is but this is part of what we think the legacy, if

you will of our party should be given where we come from. we would like, with this restriction of the government to redefine the relationship between the state and the population, the state and the society in egypt. as you know egypt is one of the few societies that were born with a state. it did not start with people who went farming and so on and then decided to have some sort of a central system. it started with the central system. so egyptians relations to their state is so unique, it is sort of hate-depend kind of relationship, you know what mean? you go to any egyptian and usually at the end of the day he will curse his government two or three times in different ways. then you go by the way the government needs to trim itself down a little bit and rationalize the subsidy and people will go and riot in the streets. in other words people are still so much connected to this government. we would like to change that

with time and change the concept of the government and the state from that of a controlling one-to-one that's empowering. and hence, really, latching on the potential of the egyptian society, not just the economy in ways that are very consistent with the values of the revolution. the freedom, the dignity and so on. these things will not come, by the way, if people are still occupied within their own minds with a perspective the state being the pharaoh kind of state. finally the fourth objective to increase the competitiveness of the egyptian economy. in terms of programs, we're looking at three streams in order to kick off the strategy. the first theme we're looking at is trying to attract foreign direct investment to egypt but not in sort of a sentimental way, let's come and save egypt kind of thing. we're trying to come up with in the next couple of years with between 50 and 100 very

sound projects, projects that have really good business plans behind them. financial models and so on. in a number of select industries. this is what you're working on now. trying to look at what industries would qualify to host these megaprojects. each one of these projects we hope will require and attract an investment around one billion dollars. which means we're pumping into the economy the next couple years between 50 and $100 billion. we're looking at two kind of industries. some which egypt is already strong but these industries are suffering now. like tourism, like textiles and so on. we're also looking at another stream which is the industry we believe, with the workforce we have in egypt we can excel and excel quickly. so we're looking at i-t and energy and so on. that is one stream. the second stream to create jobs we're looking at very ambitious small and medium enterprise campaign to be

launched as soon as we take over. there is bad news and there is good news news. the bad news is, ewe actually know small and medium enterprise campaigns have been done in egypt before and the problem was not with finance but it was with the way it was managed. small and medium enterprise is a many could plex undertaking. it requires a system in place, a system not just to finance but a system to educate, to train, to integrate and of course to finance and to look at the -- socioeconomic picture what is going on the ground so people can actually repay the loans they get. can have a success rate at projects they are doing and so on, and so forth. we're hoping by being a grassroots movement we would probably have better luck with designing and executing

as one intermediate enterprise campaign in egypt. the third stream we're looking at is similar to what our brothers in tunisia are looking at which is a infrastructure kind of a program. we will probably do a massive government spending in infrastructure and we'll go through the same process of identifying what kinds of infrastructure would probably help in egypt. we're looking at sort of a highway kind of a project amongst a number of other possibilities. these are the three streams we're looking at in terms of programs.

and and be responsible torre paying it and we're not sure if this is the right formula so we're working on that. we have, the imf loan by the way is not just important in its own right in terms of the money it provides to egypt which is very important but it's very important in terms of integrating the new government of egypt in the global financial institution as a very responsible kind of a deal and opening the door for more deals in the short term. if you look at the numbers, there is no escaping the egip unshp economy -- egyptian economy will need a lot of the boost from the outside and this will not happen unless a responsible government is in place that will spend the money wisely and is going to repay on time. the second challenge we have is, that huge expectationses. people in egypt now who think that with the revolution and with the coming of the freedom and justice party to power all

government workers should become permanent. everybody who used to have a certain income needs to go to a higher income and so on. these are very, very dangerous expectations at a time like this. so our second challenge is to help to be extremely open, transparent, frank with the people and also go to them with a plan. we just don't want to go to people and say, you know, it is a very dire situation. we want to go to them this is a bad situation but here's plan. stick with us and let's work together and so on. we have the challenge of removing obstacles which doesn't require a lot of money by the way. removing obstacles from local and international invests. there is no need for the kinds of bureaucratic complications that we have now. we can deal with that. we need to score on a couple quick things. we have a team in the party working on something we call the first 100 days plan. we're trying to make sure

that the very first few months of the working of this government will mean some tangible benefits for people with things that do not require necessarily a lot of money and stuff like that. we're looking at some of the basic services. has any of you ever driven a car in cairo? you know what i mean. that's a huge, you know, thomas friedman visited cairo in the midst of the debate whether we call it, and he came in the office an hour later. he sweating and he said in a broken arabic, said, [speaking in native tongue] i think the guy was right. so, the kinds of things we're facing in the short term. there are two conditions and that is my final remark. there are two conditions for this program to work. and we're not kidding ourselves about it and we're not being naive. this is, this is the kind of program that will not

succeed because the party --. [laughing] is it time to go? >> no. >> there are two conditions. the first condition is one of ownership. if we can not get very significant segments of the egyptian institutions, institutions and egyptian society to own this plan, it will never work. it will never work. if we don't get very significant parts of the government bureaucracy to accept that. the private sector, this is why we're appealing to the private sector to look at the situation favorably. to come and shoulder the enormous task because this is not the enormous task of the party. this is the enormous task of the revolution, of the people. so on the one hand we need a lot of partnership. on the other hand, i mean

ownership. on the other hand we need a lot of partnership outside of egypt with global institutions. with groups of investors. with multinationals and we're working on that as well. if we succeed in securing these two conditions then this plan or strategy has a chance. thank you very much. [applause] >> i have to say that, you know, have now had really very clear three plans laid out. of course now it would be good to get some questions. i would encourage people to be a little bit provocative in their questions because i'm sure people who laid out the plans want to hear what are the kind of issues that are on your mind so they can be implemented. as before i would encourage you to identify yourself when you speak. let's go right to the back, the lady over there first. then we're going to take three or four questions and

then have a -- >> thank you for taking my question. my name is suzanne with the psai s-corporation. i was interested in three of you approaching the conditions of structure and with the conditions. both tunisia and egypt, it appears you are in a dialogue to figure out priorities which sound laudable. however as a veteran of the industry i'm cautioning you that if you don't have a master plan or if you don't look holistically especially as to the transportation infrastructure, you will end up with a hodgepodge that it will be very difficult to fix later. so that's a comment. my question though is, how do you plan on letting contracts for major infrastructure projects? and, can -- candidly how

welcome are u.s. firms coming in to help to work with you opposite to a construction engineering firms coming from other parts of the world? candidly, please. thank you. >> thank you very much. your question, i want to go to this side, the gentleman. yeah. >> thank you and thank you for the korpg. i have other questions that previously i didn't have a chance to ask but i have a question for egypt and the question for the three of you. for egypt would you consider or agree to transfer the military aid that goes for airplanes and tanks, et cetera, to the economic and development of aid? may not be great but symbolism is valuable and would be helpful building hospitals and schools. the other question for the three panelists, i didn't hear the word education in

any of you, and that is critical especially technical education and developmental. the kind of background investment. >> okay. thank you. i now have, lady in the front here. thank you. >> just to follow-up on the question about military, speaking of favoritism, will you be able to get the military out of the economy? and also could, speaking to the egyptian panelists, and also how can you revive the tourist industry? will there be a political problem especially with solify members in parliament? will this scare the industry off? what are your plans for handling that touchy problem? >> and i will take one more question and then i will come. >> thank you. my question is to

mr. kazzaz. true you will need ownership from the whole society on the part of the current businessman who certainly have for some of them benefited from the old system and don't share your political views. my question how will you try to convince them, knowing that some of them are liberals and some don't even want to participate with you in the writing of the constitution? how will you overcome this challenge? >> great. so we have some questions, what i would like to do, there was some specific questions for egypt, so i will come to egypt at the end. there were two more general questions which applied to everyone. one was the issue of education and the other was a question of how will you let out contracts candidly? so maybe i start with mondher on that. >> the yes, the first question is easy to answer. infrastructure projects will be tendered through public tendering in a most transparent fashion.

whether you are u.s., the french or saudi firm, you have exactly the same chances as any other firm. so u.s. firms are very much welcome. and many u.s. firms have already visited tunisia and we've been talking to them and exposing to them the different opportunities that do exist and they're welcome to tender. i think they have good chances to win. they don't need favorite treatment. they have good technology, good know-how and tunisia can benefit from that. the second question regarding education is a very important one. i talked about the program of on-the-job training which is one important program destinned to fix some of the problems we have of, with our education problem but you're right. one of the 13 projects, i said there are 13 structural reform projects is about education in general. education has been very

important in tunisia. we have a high literacy rate. we have a good education program. we have 500,000 students in the university system today, which is 5% of the population approximately. as a matter of fact we want it turn our problems into an opportunity because today we're graduating approximately 70,000 new graduates every year and we have a problem with employing people with college degrees. we have 200,000 people who have college degrees and do not find jobs for them and that's very, very painful situation for us. so the reform of the education system is a very important issue and thank you for mentioning it but it is mentioned in the program. it's one of the 13 programs where we're going to undergo massive restructuring program.

one last point regarding education is that we are cautious that anything that touches education and medium and long term so it's not something we will be able to do in one year but there are many things that we will start in this government and that will be carried later on by future governments. >> i just want to say i know that meran is sitting in the second row and he is passionate about the need to really rethink the whole basis for education systems in the whole of the region, not simply in terms of structure but in terms of how they approach learning and teaching because it's an interesting phenomenon that in this region the more education you have the harder it becomes for you to get a job which is sort of actually the opposite what you see in other regions. so i'm very glad, and i think marwan wants to make a two-handed intervention before i turn to neal.

>> thank you for giving me the -- [inaudible] my concern with all the education reform including what i've heard so far from you, is that they are concentrating own the engineering aspects the technical aspects of the problem, trying to increase our scores in math and sciences, trying to build more schools, et cetera. what we don't hear enough about is the value system. are we teaching our students to criticize, to question, to, you know, to see truth as relative rather than absolute. are they being taught scientific reasoning. these are all issues if they are in the old systems taught how to do that, the fear was they would be able to then criticize their own

governments whether secular or religious and that is why they have not been taught that. is there realization in today's world unless you teach people the elements and the value of diversity and tolerance and acceptance of different points of views and accepting that what you are being taught in class is not necessarily the truth, is the realization in all of our countries that unless we do that we're not going to produce productivity economies? we're not going to solve the unemployment problem? or are we still talking about investment in the technical aspects in the engineering aspects but not in the value system? >> thank you. you want to respond to that before we move? >> yes. thank you for making the point that's a very important point. now there are, like just like in the economy, we're facing special circumstances today. we're not in a country

sitting where we can have the luxury to plan and do everything at ease. we come out of a revolution. we've very specific short-term demands and the long-term society project. so just like in the economy we have two tracks. a sustainable track and a short-term urgent track. in education we will have to do the same thing. there are students today who have degrees. and it's too late for us at least to think of programs such as you have been described because these kinds of things start from the pray marry school, the secondary school. we have 500,000 students in the university system already. they will be graduating soon. so our worry to be frank with you and to be practical is to find ways to give them employability. to try to improve their skills so that it meets the

demands of the job market. now we are have in tunisia, of course if you make a revolution you have to build a new society based on new values of democracy, prosperity, criticism, critical thinking, that sort to make better citizens, not just better employees and we're talking about that and that we will do just like in the constitution in the context of a consensus and general discussion because we don't want to doctrine nate a model of society in the educational system. we want to engage a global discussion that where islamists, secularists, all components of society will come in and discuss about the kind of educational system we would like to do. so the short-term programs for education will include these technical programs and

means in order to improve employability. the long-term programs will have to grow on the basis you just described. >> nael. >> i think actually in jordan we have a good experience in investment in education. although taking into consideration what dr. marwan said, but in jordan we don't have oil or gas. we have, we have manpower. we have in jordan 25 universities. 50% of students are from abroad, from the gulf countries mainly. and the manpower wanted in the gulf countries immediately and dozens of jordanian after graduation

go to gulf countries for work. but you think still the problem of skills and training and to direct the education toward a special programs, to build a special skill wanted inside the country and outside the country i think is a good opportunity for these countries to invest really in education. >> then you had the general point and then there was also, what about the role of military, military aid versus development aid. how can you convince everyone and can you do tourism with the salafi party and your partners. >> easy question. if i may say something personal number one about education, the only investment i personally ever done in my life is in education institution is my wife and myself have a

school and i'm just saying that to say that the whole idea of a different model of education is so vital. we went out and spent three years researching here in the u.s. and in the u.k. and we came up with something called the creative curriculum and so on. i can give some details. and i can not agree with you more. and when we provided this service to kids in egypt, the, the demand was amazing. it's, i don't think we need to wait for very long to actually rethink the whole modeling of education in our country because there are already things done out there. there are different debates. there are models that have been tried. there are school institutions. we have associations that are helping us. training our teachers as so on and so forth. so my thinking is, hopefully in egypt we will go with this as a faster track

because the educational system in egypt is just in an amazing need for, for reform and development at all levels. but i think the whole modeling thing is very much aligned with a statement we put out in the party that is not yet very famous. we put out a statement called the renaissance program for egypt. and we of course took, again and another person of note. i think we are all indebted to tunis in particular. and i am personally a student of ashani. . .

>> now to the easy questions. getting the military out of the economy in egypt, i don't think we do that by colliding with the military. we'll do that gradually. this has been the subject of negotiations with the military. the military has a percentage of the economy depending how you look at it. looking at the state lands and so on and so forth, it's larger than if you look at if -- it from a productive gdp perspective. it's significant. we'd like to gradually expand the civil part of the economy. with time, shrinking the military, but by all means, they

do not intend to go in commission with the military over that subject. we want to learn about countries that move from a military paradigm to civil -- like spain, and we have one workshop with people who brought us the biggest lessons in that experience goes along the lines of the liberal business and so on. we went to south africa to learn about the reconciliation program. we are not, i think, in any position -- in our country, we're not in any position to exclude anyone now. we're not in any position to go into unnecessary premature fights for no reason. we'd actually like to include everyone who has even been part of the business effort and the old regime as long as they accept the new rules and ease them into it and think about discussions that, hey, these

were the rules, you know, these were the rules. in order to do something big in egypt, you have to go through this, but the book lists 32 families in egypt, imagine how narrow the base is, and they tell us we have to go through the 32 families. that was the system, otherwise you didn't do business in egypt. how can you incriminate now after the fact the behavior that was more or less rude. what we'd like to do is gradually stop it going forward, create all kinds of new measures, checks and balances and so on, but ease people into as well. there's no point in running them out of the country, and nothing will happen. nothing good will come out of it by the way. tourism industry? one of the first meetings we had with the parties of the different industrial teams in

egypt was with the owners of the tourism industry. we had like two huge town hall meetings, and they, of course, had all of these concerns. what are you going to do about people in swimming suits and beaches and stuff like that? our answer to them is we'd like to not only maintain the tourism industry, but we'd like to expand it and make it align with the promise of egypt. you know, that the repeat tourism in egypt is one of the most in the world. although it's an amazing country for those who are visiting, but how many people would like to come again? very few. not because of -- it's because of what happens when you go, when you experience, as we say in business, you see the pyramids just once in your life. the repeat tourism in egypt last year was 4% versus france when was 60%.

you go there once, you want to go every year. you send your kids on a honeymoon there, not to egypt. [laughter] no, we actually want to work with that industry to improve it. okay? >> very good. okay. let's have another round of questions. in the front row here, if you can bring -- >> questions now to tunis now and joseph. [laughter] >> okay. >> thank you very much. i think this was music to my ears listening to, starting with this in regards to the plan and where to go forth. the revolution started not because of food and bread on the table. it started for dignity and freedom.

what a fantastic plan put forward with the pillars, with objectives, same thing with the way you're doing for the next 12 to 15 months what you want to do. i think you'll have bread and food revolution coming to you if you think you're going to go through that and it's going to be done. as obama said last year, this is history in the making. it's the beginning of history. you're starting from zero, not zero in a world where everybody's bankrupt, we have crisis from europe to the united states and elsewhere in terms of financial crisis, economic crisis, and even sovereign crisis. you have to kick start the economy. the only way is you're not having stability coming like that because stability is not going to come through like normal process from any economic model, but through stainability. you have to create stainability, sub substantiate stability means immediate job creation. jobs, jobs, jobs. it's not a question of are we going to give you this?

we create jobs, and in the next one or two or two and a half year, and if you don't do that, we'll have revolutions big, big time. i come, and i actually would look at egypt because egypt, what happens, and we think all of us as arabs, we have to thank the tunisians today. we should be paying taxes to tunisia every year for the next 50 years. >> how about that. [laughter] >> i think he'll be happy to take it. [applause] >> there's the envelope. [laughter] >> being serious, egypt is where things would happen. if egypt is sexist, well, all the 300 million arabs would be sexist in the future. egypt plays the role. it's not just the interest of egyptians, but all arabs have an interest in egypt to get it right, and to get it right, you need to create jobs

immediately. to create jobs, it's not the way you put it forward. it's not going to happen. you need 20 million jobs in the next two to three year, and you have to create them. the only way to do that is infrastructure. you need big time infrastructure in two to three years. it's not going to happen easy. we had discussions back and forth and happy you are here to push jobs, jobs, jobs, and that's what they want. this place here can help you, not pay you. there's only one place who can do that. we thank the libya problem, iranian problem, and oil price today is $125. that increase is sitting here, most will be treasury bill. we are doing nothing. that money and the next five years, we have basically $500 billion across the board $100 billion a year coming through in

the country to create jobs through investment, not through giving a loan, not through donation, but investment and investment infrastructure. anybody who knows the lady in the back, business of 20 year return. you need that investment. that's what you got to push for to go forward. my problem is you are not going to be sexist with who you said. i without like to bring back, and we would have been fighting this elsewhere when he was younger on this issue of critical thinking. the reason the sme does not work in egypt because the critical thinking was not there, it was not allowed. entrepreneurship by definition needs critical thinking. it's not to do with skill, but values. we don't allow values to be there for argument's sake. i was going to ask the question talking about the constitution, but it's a silly obnoxious question, but we talk about basic human rights, all of our rights are protected under the

constitution. now, would the muslim brotherhood accept what a muslim-born egyptian for argument's sake changes, say, when he's 26, he wants to be a christian or buddhist or atheist or whatever. would the constitution protect his rights? those are the questions that needs to be answered in long term basis. that is critical thinking allowed to go through. i think we need to think from that aspect to create jobs. >> thank you. >> thank you. i think the legitimate man in the become had his hand up from the beginning. his turn now. >> thank you. i have a question about -- for tunis. for the last decade, tunisia has not applied the arab league boy cot against israel, and there's been statements in the media -- >> repeat that part. >> sure. over the last decade, tunisia has not applied the arab league

boycott against israel, and there's stories in the american media that some plebs of different -- members of different islamic party in indonesia are saying the boycott should be reinstated. i want to know what the brotherhood's position was on this, especially moving forward with free trade treatment and any free trade agreement needs to be approved by the u.s. congress. thank you. >> good question. then the gentleman over here. >> hello. interested to know the -- there's a lot of talk over here about the support of gulf countries to islamic groups, be it in tunisia, jordon, and even in my country in egypt. if you could kindly expand on that, i would be really grateful. expanding on the question actually, i'm -- there's a general feeling over here that

the west in general, even in egypt or most of the countries, many of the countries have taken from the economic dimension and economic needs of the arab spring countries as the real -- as the only tool of which to influence and have leverage and coming out of such revolutions. based on your experience and on your interaction with such factors, to what extent do you agree with their statement, and if you do agree, how do you plan to deal with it? thank you. >> so just to be clear, the two questions you wanted to raise were the second one about the extent to which you feel that the panelists agree that there has been a -- the economic lever is the one being used. >> [inaudible] >> do you find that there is a

use of the economic lever by the rest, i think you said, as a way of influencing the policies of the new governments. is that the issue? one question over there. >> thank you. i'm from georgetown university. my question is for both -- relevant for both. i think we've tended to under imp size economics. dignity and freedom were important, but it began in the interior of the country, and the egyptian slogan on the fist day of the revolution was bread, freedom, and social justice. i have not heard anything about social justice. i've heard the comment that there will be an attempt to establish 100,000 jobs in tiew tunisia initially, but i heard none of that with regard to

egypt so, for example, will under your program and leadership, unions be able to be up dependent with the right -- independent with the right to strike and are you at or below poverty? that was an important part of the tunisians and elsewhere. thank you. >> that's four questions now. again, maybe this time we'll switch the order. there's more questions for tunis. great to start. >> call this an arabic summer -- that's an egyptian kind of a joke. sorry. they are creating jobs for infrastructure, and i thought i said we're looking at three programs, one of which is the 500 to 50-100 projects, $100

billion each, and the infrastructure, and we look at the infrastructure in its own right. you're absolutely right. this is where we would probably in the next year or two pick up projects for infrastructure sites to get the economy going. it's not going to work with the 1 million or 2 million jobs we'd like to create with the sme program if it's successful because this is not on the one hand, and because of the pressure from the government bureaucracy as well. it needs some to shrink. i definitely agree with you. on the social justice issue, i think that's a very key question because i agree with you. the revolution, i think, we have to pay tribute to the revolution. the revolution succeeded because i think it emphasized basic human values, basic human values. it didn't emphasize any narrowly defined kind of interests, and

else social justice would be a very integral objectivity of the revolution and hence any objective of anyone serving the revolution, and i have to state my potential view it was legislated because people felt it's the party to serve the revolution. if they fail, they would -- the values of the revolution are -- would dominant in my mind than the agenda of any party so i agree with you 100%. part of the pillars of the program is to have civil society with all action, not just the union. that's one part of trying to create social justice. by shrinking the government and sort of listing some of the grip on society, we try to introduce mechanisms by which people have access to jobs that are in education, health, economical opportunities and so on, hence, creating social justice. by working on the judicial

system and so on and so forth. this was maybe an abstract kind of a statement, but if you look carefully, it's intended and designed to actually achieve that. the economic lever, i think if i just may, at least in my own experience so far, i have seen people very interested in the arab spring, with the economic, the cultural, the political, and so on. i've been engaged and seen engagement from -- and i lived in this country for very, very long -- i've seen a renewed level of energy and interest in interacting with the arab world after the revolution that is far beyond economic issues. i don't think it's just the economic lever, but part of a broader dialogue that i think this event, to me, is sort of a historic kickoff.

i think it goes beyond that. >> there's another question the gentleman had which was how -- what is your experience vis-a-vis the gulf countries in terms of their interests and in actually supporting the process of transition? >> i think that there's two levels to the issue of the gulf countries with the arab spring. one level is the immediate perception at least that the arab spring is bringing a destabilizing factor to the region, and i wouldn't blame anyone for feeling that way because if you lived in the arab world in the last year, it is a very volatile kind of an environment, which would make anybody nervous. on the other hand, i think that the integration, the pride, be it social, cultural, economic, and so on between the gulf and the rest of the arab world is actually the core of the relationship. we're hoping in egypt to calm

down the concerns and worries by making two statements that we're sincere about. number one -- we're in no mood to export anything to anyone because we understand to begin with the revolutions are not something you export, you know what i mean? some change in any society has to come from within. we are not at all interested in instituting or pushing any change in any place outside the country and trying to work on it. the second message is we definitely would like to integrate with the gulf countries, not just on economic issues, not just to get investment, but a much broader scale as well because we see these revolutions as sort of a civilization kind of a project if you will, and we are not going to go it alone. we're going to go with the rest of the world and starting with our region. i don't think the gulf states

are anywhere detached from the factors that have created the change in egypt or tunisia as anybody else. >> okay. thank you. anything to add to what -- >> no. >> okay. anything you'd like to add? the questions raised? there were a few questions to tunis. >> yes. i think i was surprised by the last question. the social justice part of the revolution is very important. when i said that the revolution is that of dignity, you said it the other way around. that does not mean we do not recognize the importance of economics into this, and that if we don't succeed in economics, that we'll have the next wave of the bread and food revolutions, and so we're very conscious about that. it is important to remind people when they just have bread and food point of view to tell them

the economic -- the democratic politician process and the political process is very important, and it's a project in society that is taking a lot of energy and we're not losing focus out of this. let me marse it another way for a person in my generation. the way i see it is that is we did many things right, but we failed to do democracy. it gives democracy for tunisia would have been swifter in the arab world, okay? with ben ali some things went right and other things went wrong. i'm not here to state what went wrong. all of you know what went, but also we failed to do democracy. this time, the society's paying the big. the economy is not functioning. there is insecurity. there is absolutely a social and

economic bill that needs to be paid. now, if we do the political process reform right, in three years when we look back, when the economy comes back to normal functioning, you would be proud if we say the bill was paid, but it was worth it. we have achieved what was lacking to our society which is the establishment of freedom, human rights, and democracy, but if we're starting economic prosperity and fail to do that, then it would not have been worth the hassle. we would have failed. that's started by, you know, refocusing the point on that that's from that point of view. it's not to downside the size of the challenges. now, in tunisia, as you know, the labor unions are strong, and they contributed a lot during the revolution, and now the government is engaging in dialogue in order to establish a

model of development where we achieve prosperity, but not at the cost of regional development or the cost of the social justice, and that's why in the government program, we have -- i didn't go into detail, but we have at least 12 measures, social measures. we have increased, for example, the number of families that benefit from what we call poverty stipends from 150,000 to 250,000. we raised the amount from 50dineros to 75. the social actions those aimed at the very delegate and poor segments of the society because we feel that we need to do things urgently, and we have to do it now in order to alleviate the weight of the suffering of these people.

the other question is regarding -- the free trade agreement -- >> israel. >> it's economics being alleviated for -- there is a lot of unthursday yasm and a -- enthusiasm and a lot of respect for the tunisian revolution. we, in the tunisian government, have dignitaries and prime ministers and presidents of states and ministers of foreign affairs visiting tiew tunisia on a daily basis. almost 30% of the prime minister's time is receiving these people and these people come to tunisia in order to congratulate the tunisian people for what they did and in order to also offer help. however, in the past 10 months, tunisia received more visitors and more dignitaries in its history than in the past 50

years, and we have a lot of support from many countries from europe from the united states to the united states with tunisia, president obama and the administration since the first day, and with the tunisian people, we're also receiving a lot of senators, people from the house, the administration also out visiting, and a lot of encouragement, and, of course, there is a lot big focus today in the world on making the tunisia as a model of a successful democracy which is modern and prosperous in the arab and muslim world. this is very important. this is important to us. in the beginning, because we're concerned, and this is important for the world, and i think the united states does it because it's in the interest of the united states to see a country like tunisia or egypt become a model. it's such an important thing.

it's the key to many of the problems towards stability and towards peace. today when we talk with these countries, we don't feel really any pressure, honestly speaking, and candidly as you said, that the only message we get, what can we do for you so that you succeed? the only focus is not on, you know, regional issues and other issues. it's on domestic issues and how to make this model work and succeed. there are common goals. we want the model to succeed. the u.s., europe, and other partners want the model to succeed, and we're welcoming these countries and these companies to come and help us succeed together in building these democracies, and i think that's the best way forward for us all, not just for our countries, you know? the other alternative, god

forbid, if these models fail, it's a complete disaster. there was nothing that said what happens if all of these revolutions failed. it's a nightmare for the countries and for the world, so really there is a concerted effort from the international community, and we feel it so that we succeed. there is economics and things that come with conditions, and anyways, things have changed. you don't have kick taiters anymore. you don't have regimes that are come place sent. now you have to deal with democracy and convince the people. even the governments are not free to take any position or to do whatever they want to do. it's not like in the past. you know, if there's things offered that are not in the national interest of these countries, these countries will refuse, and they will not be able to do, and 23 the -- and 23 --

if the governments accept something against the people's interest, they'll lose the next election because the people are watching. it's not as easy as it used to be. it's a new equation that, you know, we have to dole with, 245 -- that you have to deal with. thank you. >> now, as far as the free trade agreement is recorded, it's good, it needs to go through congress, but it needs to did through the constitution of tunisia as well and be approved by the two parties. [applause] we are very confident that we will succeed in meeting the requirements because we have a free trade agreement with europe, and with europe, we're moving to privileged status so we know how to operate in an international context. as far as the israeli-palestinian conflict is concerned, i would rather have the minister of foreign affairs

of tunisia answer your question. this is a session about economics, but tunisia operates within the frame work of the arab league and did not take any initiative outside of the arab league, and in that regard, it's not any different from any arab country, and there are arab countries that are members of the arab leagues that have free trade agreements with the u.s., like bahrain, morocco, and like jordon. i don't think that's a problem, and there are no particular policies or options that are being taken that i know of. >> thank you very much. i just want to try to bring this to a close now, and what i'd like to do is maybe just say, from my perspective, i want to end on making two fairly obvious observations. the first one is that i think in the next 12-18 months, the big challenge is really the one that

you've raised, which is how to manage the gap between expectations and delivery because there is almost no model of delivery whether it's on the politics, whether it is on the jobs front, whether it's on making societies more open, that one can imagine will be fast enough to respond to the expectation which are sometimes unrealistic, so managing that gap is going to be the big short problem because a failure to manage that gap can derail the process, and the second observation i have is that, you know, we're very focused on the short term. you talk about the challenge for the medium term, is the rest of the world as conscious that what we're talking about is an engagemented that is a long term partnership engagement, that

what we're not talking about is a bit of financial support in year one, a free trade agreement now, and then, you know, we move on to the next issue. this is going to be about to make it work, to help support the transformation of societies. this is a five, 10, 15 year project, and in that, the rest of the world would need to sort of take not just the ambition of the engagement, but also whether we are ready, and i speak of we, in this case, also of the ifis. it's like the imf, are we ready to rethink the way we operate in ways that will actually respond to the needs of very different kinds of societies as they merge over 15 years? i think this is a bigger, more ambitious challenge than a sort of quick response challenge, although there's the need to manage the short term as well, and so i do think this is something we should also, you know, certainly i speak for the imf, but take away in terms of

how this means we need to do our business differently to be responsive to the needs that will emerge from the transition countries, but before ending, i'd like all of you to please join me in thanking our panelists for their great contributions. [applause] >> what is redistricting versus reapportionment, and why are states going through it now? >> caller: well, reapportionment really refers to the reallocation of congressional seats to states according to population, so following the census every ten years, you take a population count, figure out the total

population of each state, and then reallocate the number of congressional seats based on that population. redistricting, the term "redistricting" has to do with the actual process of redrawing the maps. >> seems like every ten years when this happens, it's always a controversial thing when states go through this process of redistricting and reapportioning. >> caller: yeah, i mean, really the process of redistricting is inherently political, and the party that is in power, you know, often does try to use its majority to draw a map add venn tashes to the party in power, but there's a lot more that goes into it. it's a body of state and federal laws, and when drawing the lines, legislatures, you know, they look at the politics involved, but they also look at things like equal population requirements.

they have to comply with the voting rights act, and they have to adhere to traditional redistricting principles. it's not just all about politics. >> where are the states now in regards to drawing their congressional lines? >> well, right now, 39 states passed their congressional lines, and as you probably know, you know, seven states only have one congressional seat so they don't have to redraw their congressional lines. florida and arizona are corveed jurisdictions in section 5. they are now waiting for preclearance from the department of justice before their plans are enacted. the only two states yet to finalize plans are kansas and new hampshire. kansas has passed their plans in the senate, and they are just waiting for the house approval -- approval in the house to pass their plans, and then new hampshire passed plans in the house, and they are just waiting on approval from the senate. most states have completed their

congressional maps now. >> you mentioned section 5 and preclearance. what does that mean? >> caller: well, section five has to do with section five of the voting rights act. section five is reserved for states that have shown a documented history of discrimination in their election laws. currently, there's 16 states that are either completely or partially covered under section five which means they have to file for precleensz with the department of justice or dc district court before changes can be made to their election laws, and that includes laws that govern redistricting as well. >> that played a lot in the supreme court decision about texz. where do things stand in texas for redistricting efforts? >> caller: well, texas is covered jurisdiction under section 5. this round of redistricting, texas decided to go to dc

district court instead of filing directly with the department of justice, which is a much more time consuming process so the protracted legal battle that ensued created a lot of challenges for texas because thaw -- they had to delay their state's primary for three months in order to get things figured out. you know, the thing about texas and all eyes on texas right now because there's just a ton at stake politically in texas simply because of the huge growth that has occurred in the state, you know, over the last ten years. texas has grown by 4.5 million people, and they have added four new congressional seats, so the way things play out and how lines are drawn in texas could inevitably have a huge impact on the 2012 elections. >> an update with state redistricting efforts with morgan cullen.

thank you for joining us. >> caller: thank you. >> more than 30 states in litigation over redistricting plans created by state legislators or commissions. this panel examined past, present, and potential court cases around the country. >> well, thank you, all, so much for coming, and i want to also offer thanks to the folks in the laverne center and policy review, and especially those of you in the audience. i first met nate 15 years ago about -- what would you say? about five yards from here, straight down, when he was a student in the course i taught on the political process, and he organized, i think, probably the first voting rights symposium here at stanford, and i wrote an article for it about the upcoming then my len yal redistricting. in the article, i compared redistricting to another important fundamental human

activity. redistricting like reproduction combines lofty goals, deep passions about identity, instincts for self-preservation, and increasing reliance on technology, and often a need in just a suiter's word to pull an all rather than delegately at the end. [laughter] of course, most of the time it involves somebody getting screwed. [laughter] that was before the redistricting, but we're now in the middle of the next cycle, and to quote what many of you know as one of my favorite poems, where much is taken, many abides. that strength in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. part of our topic today is going to be who are we, and why are we here? our format will be that we're going to set up the rest of the

day by identifying and briefly talking about in our interactive conversation various laws that govern redistricting. there are, i think, nine potential constraints, and they fall into three overarching categories. there's federal constitutional constraints on how redistricting can be done. there's federal statutory constraints on how redistricting can be done, and there are state law constraints. i'm just going to list them very briefly for you, and then we're going to talk about them in this panel to give you a sense of where the law is now and where we think the major questions will be this next coming time around. the federal constitutional constraints begin with one person, one vote. they involve the question under the equal protection clause of no accepted political gerrymandering, no purposeful discrimination against minority voters, and then no sub board

nateing reconditioning principles to racial considerations. you can't take race too much into account in either direction. the statutory con straints are seldom talked about, but requirements initiated first in 1842 that federal congressional elections be conducted from single member districts. section 2 of the voting rights act, which in addition to forbidding purposeful discrimination, also prohitted the use of plans that results in minority voters not given the equal opportunity to participate and elect candidates of their choice, and section 5 of the voting rights act, which in addition to bidding for racial discrimination also provide that a plan can want reduce minority voting strengths relative to the pre-existing plan. there's state law constraints. there are substantive ones and

they vary from state to state, and for example, in some states, there's definitions of compactness and requirements about districts being compact. in other states, there's things like whole county provisions that require redistricting keep certain political subdivisions in line, and then on top of the con straints, there's a variety of procedural rules in the states for how redistricting is accomplished. with that very broad overview, we're now going to go through the nine different kinds -- nine different kinds of con straints on the redistricting process to talk about where we might see some important movements in this coming decade and what some of the issues are. nate, i think maybe we'll start off with one person, one vote, and here there are two rules. one of the nice things about the constitution for those of you who spend a lot of time looking at the text of the constitution is you can look at the text of

the constitution forever, and you're not finding the words "one person, one vote" there, but you find provisions that don't overlap at all and supreme court holds as means one person, one vote. article i section ii of the constitution says members of the house want representatives shall be held by the people and held that "by the people" means one person, one district. the supreme court held the equal protection clause with regard to state and local elections requires the use of one person, one vote, and so where are we now on one person, one vote, and what do you think is potentially changing about it? >> let me also thank the folks from slipper, which is what it was called when i was here. during my first year, i was an editor on slipper. not only was a pam's student -- >> a cautionary tale of where you might end up. >> right. be careful what you wish for.

[laughter] so now like many people in this room, i've been for the last year obsessing about the redistricting process. one of the great things about this field is just when you think you're getting clarity, all you get is more chaos and ambiguity. the supreme court looks like it's going to entertain a case dealing with congressional districts. we had previously thought, or everyone's gone into the redistricting process thinking you basically have to draw districts to be perfectly equal. they have not said exactly that, but looking where most states have behaved, you draw districts where the deviation is plus or minus one person; right? now, of course the the census is not that accurate. it's legal fiction. at most, it's a constraint an partisan jerri mapped -- gerrymandering, and now in west virginia, there's a case coming up that has plus or minus

deviation of 0.5%, and it looks like the supreme court might reconsider the precise rule of population it has there which is interesting because there's been a push in the other direction when it comes to state legislative districts, and so for the last decade there was a case out of georgia, lawyers versus cox, and i did the remedial plan, and there was a congressional gerrymander that overpop pew layed the republican area and underpopulated the democratic areas. the supreme court said, well, normally people think that you're allowed with state legislative districting to deviate -- we're not going to require absolute population equality based on the argument pam mentioned and other considerations. you're allowed to deviate. you don't have to be so exact, but you can't deviate for these reasons whether it's for

overpopulating one party's supporters or favoring another part of the state at the expense of the other, and so then it looked like you're going to have a more precise population equality when it comes to state legislative district, and a lot of state bodies, this term, have been behaving like that, pushing down deviations much lower than they have been historically. now, one of the funny things about the one person, one vote rule, is that it's a misnomer. while the courts say you have to have equality, it's not clear as to the equality of what? so while we all, at the congressional level and state legislative level pretty much use aggregate populations to adds the total number of people equal between districts, the court, at least just, you know, has one case where they say, well, you can use total registered voter pope pewlation and break up districts according to that, but we all pretty much thought districts were based on equal numbers of of people. now, that's caused two issues this time around.

one has to do with the prisoner population, and so new york, delaware, and maryland all passed laws requires the reallocation of prisoners to the preincarceration address. in new york, there's a serious regional effect because the prison population comes from the city and prisons are mostly upstate and there's a rationally impact, partisan impact, and regional impact, and now there's challenges to the laws in the courts. one thing the task force that's supposed to give us the data, we don't have the new data sets useful to draw districts based on that, but the prisoner issue is a live one for this cycle. the other one, which is not really live, but it is on the radar, has to do with citizens, and there's sort of a frivolous case that was litigated in texas saying, realm, you shouldn't be drawing districts on the basis of the total population, but on the basis of citizens, equal

number of citizens. now, we don't have the short form of the census we all get doesn't ask you whether you're a citizen or not. that poses a little bit of a problem, and -- but because we've paid attention to citizenship in other context, particularly section 2 of the voting rights act, there is this looming question out there as to how, you know, the interaction between what we've called the dee nominator of one person, one vote case. in louisiana, they tried to petition for an original action in the supreme court saying that the apportionment was unconstitutional based on the counting of the non-citizens, but that went nowhere, appropriately so. as i said, this is one area where there's the supreme court gives and takes away. it makes it good for those of us who profit from blood on the highway in this area. we'll see what happens in the west virginia case and see whether they're willing to roll that back.

why don't i introduce the next one and throw it to you. >> okay. >> let me say one thing before you do that. in his autobiography, chief justice warren, what was the author who announced the one person, one vote requirement for state and local elections, said he considered reynolds against run as the most important opinion he wrote. henceforth, this ensures the public interest and not special interests are in charge of elections which is one of the predictions that's right up there with huey beats truman, but i think he thought as nate eluded to, one person, one vote was thought to be a real con -- constraint on political hijacking process. >> with respect to race and

so-called shaw versus renaud claim, i think the history here is sort of interesting that one of the criticisms of the cases, and use of drawing for the districts was going to be open season, and each cycle there was an unending flow of claims. that didn't happen in the 2000 round in part because people didn't say things in the 2000 round that they said in the 1990s round, and also that people figured out ways to try to not make it look like race was the predominant factor in the districts, and the supreme court backed off from the ledge at the end of the 1990's redistricting cycle. looking at this cycle, if anything, and correct me if you disagree with this, pam, it seems like intentional racial discrimination claims are coming up and being prevalent, and shaw

claims, getting some of them i suppose, but none that are terribly prominent, but where we're back to classic mobile claims coming out from different states. >> i think that's right. i don't think there's going to be a lot of shaw claims this time around, and i think part of the reason for that is that the supreme court in 2001 in the kind of end of the review of north carolina's post-1990 redistricting, and it's worth saying the 1990 census came out, and north carolina began its redistricting, the case went to the supreme court once early on on partisan redistricting where the supreme court summarily confirmed the dismissal, and went to shaw against renaud, back to the supreme court again, back to the supreme court a third time, and finally in april of 2001, just as the census

numbers from the 20 # 11 census were handed to the states, the supreme court finally signed off on the 1990 round of redistricting, but the result of that is that most of the legislative district run for african-american american communities today are districting that were there already, and they are just being preserved, and therefore, you can always explain those districts as simply preservation of existing districts or protection of incumbents, and so shaw claims, i think, there's going to be few shaw claims involving majority black districts except where the black population is decreasing so much that you have to really struggle to comply with one person, one vote to keep the districts in place. the other thing is because of the political realignment, the places where latino districts are drawn, they are not generally gerrymandered. and what happens is purposeful

discrimination against latino populations rather than attempts to draw districts where there's really not enough voters to effectively create a district. i think you're right that almost all the intentional racial discrimination claims this time around are going to be claims by minority voters challenging existing districts or proposed districts rather than by non-minority voters claiming race played too much a role in the process. >> something that the students often don't appreciate until they sit in dpront of -- front of a computer, and i'll pump the website called drawcongress.org where we drew maps for the whole u.s.. >> it's not part of quarter congress -- >> should have been craft congress. it's not that hard to draw compact majority/minority districts a lot of the time, and a lot of the disfigurement in

the early days was the push of so many different considerations at once like incumbency considerations, partisan considerations, and so then you end up with wigly districts. it's the case with the african-american districts that not only because of incumbency but because of other factors that a lot of the more heavily packed districts that historically were necessary are nots as necessary in a lot of these areas. as you said, sometimes you just can't draw them. there are some because of the relative decline of the black population in particular areas. when i say "relative," i mean, not keeping up with the pace of latinos and in some cases, whites, you just can't draw the majority african-american districts. there's some districts out there like in florida, it's a sight to behold, and there's a few others here and there, and then you look at the white districts. the districts i live in, the

harlem district and south of us goes all the way from the upper west side of manhattan all the way down through grennich village, the brooklyn bridge, gets burrough part of brooklyn, and goes until it ends in koney island. funny shapes happen all over the place for many different reasons, and i've drawn districts where i drew the plan for georgia, i drew a nice square district in northern georgia, and there was a mountain range in the middle where you had to go outside the district to get the one side, and so shapes can be deceiving, but i see, yeah, in this redistricting cycle, particularly in texas and elsewhere, claims of intentional discrimination are coming up. justice kennedy decide there's

authentic gerrymandering? >> yeah, the last time the supreme court looked at the issue in depth was in a case from the 2000 round of redistricting in pennsylvania where the republicans were in control, and although the state lost -- was losing, i think, three seats 21 to 18, they managed to tear all democrats and try to get additional seats for the republicans, and i guess a little bit wrong about this because some -- i think they didn't succeed in getting as many seats as they hoped for, but the supreme court split into three groups. four of the justices led by justice scalia thought that although political gerrymandering might well violate the constitution, and therefore there's not happen argument -- it's not like the justices think gerrymandering is constitutionally acceptable, but four of the justices led by justice scalia thought claims

are not suspicionble, that is that the remedy for political jerri mappedderring is to quote the wonderful line of justice is to "sere the conscious of the people's representativings to persuade congress to deal with the problem of excessive gerrymandering." you know, it's unlikely that the people's representatives are capable of having their conscious viewed in quite this way, but those four justices would have left the question of political gerrymandering and how to probe the system entirely to the political process. to contrast, four other justices thought that political jerri mappedderring are justiceble, but they -- and in the middle, no surprise to people who watch the court is justice kennedy who said one has the feeling lines were crossed here so he did not want to hold

that political gerrymandering should never be justiciable, but on the other hand, he had not seen a standard that allows courts to stand in and decide gerrymandering claims, but he didn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be standard that someone would come up with in the future, and so that means that people still have an incentive to file political gerrymandering cases in the hopes that they can come up with a standard that justice kennedy finds sufficient or judges to intervene and then have been violated in their particular case. >> i'll add one thing. he says, well, look in the first amendment, maybe that's where you can find constraint in partisan gerrymandering because political parties are associations, and that discriminates on the basis -- >> [inaudible] >> that reminds me of bad law

school exam answers where students say, oh, if only i could find that part of the constitution, you know, and i'll remedy this part, you know, of the court's decision, and so if you have, you know, go look in the first amendment and see if you can solve the problem of manage manageability political gerrymandering. >> there's theories that the supreme court found one person, one vote measure, sort of what justice stewart referred to 6th grade math, and tried to do first amendment based arguments, but what really, i think, happens, and i think this supreme court forces constraint on partisanship, they use other final boats to get there. they eluded to cox against larious and sad although we held in the class that deviations of less than 10% are not a

violation of one person, one vote, we're going to aform a district court decisions striking down a 9.9% deviation on the grounds that the only thing that explained that was incumbent protection and partisanship, and those are legitimate reasons for deviating. a number of cases can be explained in part of the supreme court using the voting rights act as a tool for limiting the amount of the partisan gerrymandering and because it's back to the point of the shaw cases. what really happened in the shaw cases was the supreme court essentially saw districts oddly shaped not for primarily racially relevant reasons, but because the democrats who were in control of the process at that time drew those districts with the intent of also moving a number of minority voters into the districts of white democratic incumbents to serve as a kind of what i refer to as

a kind of meal extender, a hamburger helper because you don't have enough meat in the district, you have to get some from someplace else, and so there are constraints on political gerrymandering, but the question is what does the supreme court use as the constraint this time around? i think that's pretty much it on the constitution -- giving you a sense of the constitutional constraints. you can't take race in effect too much to affect minorities or at all to hurt minorities, comply with one person,ing one vote with some form of the like. ..

to draw plans that legislatures can't. that is, you might think and, indeed, in 1964 and 1966 i believe, alabama actually ran its primaries this way. that if you can't draw a new plan that complies with the constitution it gets put in place and time, then all of the congressional districts would be elected at large. but because of this stature, courts don't do that. courts will in joined a existing plan. they will draw a plan themselves for special district. that's probably the major importance of that.

>> section five, let's talk about it while it's still around. [laughter] >> stop that. it will be around until 2027. [laughter] when it will be renewed. >> there are i think five no constitutional challenges to section five, four or five of them going through the courts. we had a case -- >> you might want to see what section. >> it applies to some parts of the country and not others based on various criteria, such as whether in 1964 these jurisdictions had letters to test or some kind of testing device and had voter turnout below 50%. but it was reverse engineered to try to target areas where there was discrimination against minorities from sort of 1964 to 1972. parts of california are covered, but most of the areas that are covered are in the south.

and so there's a series of cases going through court. one called the mud? from the municipal till the district. >> utility district number one, came through, i guess four years ago. and the court cast some serious, well, showed its concern as to the constitutionality of that coverage formula for section five of the voting rights act. the state of arizona challenge it now. you have cities in north carolina, shelby county, alabama is coming up in florida, texas, as to the constitutionality of section five. we will see whether the court is willing to take that on. that would be a pretty major decision. they will take it on. the question is whether they'll use a scalpel or cleaver, i think it's striking down section

five. and that is sort of has to shout a bit on the redistricting process that the supreme court is potentially going to roll section five unconstitutional. even the most recent texas case they sort of reiterate their concerns about the constitutionality of section five. and at the same time that we have those cases that are hanging out there, we can talk more about them, we have a new standard for section five of the voting rights act which is passed in 2006. and the voting right voting rigt reauthorization an amendment of 2006 said that the department of justice, which is charged with reviewing voting laws by these jurisdictions, the district court when it reviews the voting laws, must make sure that they don't have any discriminatory purpose, and that they do not have any discriminatory effects, which is that they don't diminish the ability of minorities to elect their

preferred candidates of choice. and so now the question facing the district court in the texas case, facing justice department, for example, in the preclearance of denial, voter id law in south carolina is, well, what types of redistricting plan to making minorities worse off. those words that were inserted in the statute were overturning an earlier georgia case that said jurisdictions were allowed to trade off districts that would elect a minority against those where minority's might have some influence over the election. and so by moving toward the ability to elect the standard tries to bring back what preexisted the supreme court decision. the long and short of it is, you know, there's a lot of, i won't

say controversy but there is a lot of disagreement among parties as to what the standard means and how doj -- doj is actually not struck, has not interposed an objection for a denial of redistricting plan except into very small cases. 1g with a parish in louisiana and amity county, mississippi. they are participating, of course come in the text its redistricting litigation which is going on, and so we get a sense of how they interpret this provision from the. and there are several states that have opted not to go to the doj route this time around undergoing indeed stated litigating the section five voting rights cases in district court, then delete the supreme court review. besides those three examples, south carolina at us to redistricting cases, there's also this case out of the city

of kinston, north carolina which is challenging the constitutionality of section five with the department justice denied preclearance of a move to nonpartisan election there, and so i think those, those three objects and, or for objections, south carolina plus texas, is an indication as to what this new section five means. and a lot of these cases, texas is an example of it, as was the to redistricting situations i mentioned, they make the argument that there was a discriminatory purpose. that is underlying the voting laws in the redistricting controversy. >> so i think obviously the question of the constitution of section five will get back to the supreme court sometime in the next term or so at the very latest. in the meantime, it's clear that section five has been working, that is, there's been very

little retrogression. and the places where there has been retrogression either doj has objected or in the texas case they are litigating the retrogressive nature of congressional and state legislative plan. this is one of the things i think is difficult to get a true handle on, how do you know that a statute that is designed to deter or prevent something is working? and so people oftentimes they will, doj isn't objecting very much, that's a sign that the voting rights act isn't a. but, of course, that's a little like saying we have a law against murder. we don't need anymore because very few people are killed. it may well be that the presence of the law is the thing that deters or prevents the behavior. moreover, the voting rights act now i think has become so institutionalized, so institutionalized that a lot of places that it takes jurisdictions off the hook of having to of some kind of

conversation because they said they said well, doj will never preclude this it would do it this way. instead of talking about it would be the wrong thing to do. they just take doj won't clear, therefore we can do this. and provides a lot of political coverage to jurisdictions to simply do what i think is the right thing. i agree with nate that the real question i think when section five goes back to the supreme court is not going to be up or down as the whole thing unconstitutional because i think it's not super likely the supreme court wants to issue the kind of opinion that will lead to popular press coverage that the supreme court strikes down a crown and crown jewel second reconstruction. so on the supreme court now i think what you tend to see is narrowing constructions of the act, hence, congress attempted to 2006 act to override the decision about what

discriminatory purpose means and to override the supreme court decision in georgia. you get that kind of back and forth, and i think the mud was a example of the. but i'm not sure there really is a consensus on the supreme court of the voting rights act is unnecessary. and, indeed, the decision of people who are losing purpose-based challenges, objections, to take this up as a constitutional objection is a very bad tactics on the part of those opposed to the voting rights act. because the ideal case would be a totally blameless jurisdiction saying we don't understand why we have to do this. i think they tried to do that in the mud case but it was premature. they said shelby county, alabama, a part of the state that has a statewide objections, and the county to objections to what subdivisions have done. they have texas, with the supreme court just saw i think

powerful evidence of racial discrimination. that was a very bad tactic if you want is an outlaw is no luck are necessary. people are the best their targets of law going up and sing local to do, there's someone blameless out there. so it'll be interesting to see where that goes. >> i will say one other thing. in many ways the voting rights act might be the greatest beneficiary of the citizens united decision. the blowback of citizens united may make the court a little bit more timid to come within be clear to the voting rights act in the short term. you know, you will get some narrowing construction. i think for sure if this case goes to the supreme court can find some way to say that that was the doj objection there was wrong. but you can do that in any number of ways by trying to so limit what, you know, the statutory language, what that means.

so shall we move to section two? section two of the voting rights act which prevents against -- and were in the country not just in coverage jurisdiction. there was some action over the last decade in section two, two major cases, more than that, boris versus strickland and lulac versus perry. in general, the stand under section two was that if you're a large and compact minority community, and you are in an area with history of discrimination and particularly present conditions richly polarized voting, that you were going to be entitled to a majority-minority district. bartlett versus strickland says yes, we of majority we meant majority. so it has to be over 50%. unfortunately, they didn't say over 50% of what. economic question i said before, susan h., voting age population,

the fifth circuit and ninth circuit, 11th circuit, as on search we might care about this issue are all saying yeah, you've got to look at citizen age population which cause some challenges, some don't have the same citizen data, you can't don't have it on the census form. just use census data. so bartlett says it's over 50%, at least those two issues, the first is that one about the denominator. the other is about minority coalition districts. so can you group together african-americans and hispanics in order to serve out the 50% threshold? the recent texas decision has language that says well maybe not, saying that the district court decision in texas, if they thought that you could do that, might not, they might not have really understood what texas is about. if they wanted to be clear they could then and they weren't in that case. on the lulac versus --

>> the supreme court was so focused on the word coalition that they didn't focus on coalition of what. that is, in bartlett v. strickland the claim was a coalition between black and white voters would be an effective voting majority in the district. in the texas case it was a coalition between black and latino voters, and i think the supreme court didn't focus quite as much on that as they might have in trying to figure out whether minority coalition districts are something people can bring a claim on. that's something that in areas where there are large cohesive minority communities made up of more than one racial or ethnic minority, people have been bringing claims since the 1980s as opposed to the bartlett v. strickland style which is really much more of a post-2000 sort of claim. >> particularly confusing because justice kennedy decides

to rename all the claims in bartlett v. strickland. renamed edition. what we thought were coalitional districts are not crossover districts, and then have minority coalition districts. and so they confuse us and they confuse them so. that's the underlying texas, i can see where they're coming from. eli versus perry, which was litigated. we should give credit where it is due. so this is the rare section two victory of the supreme court whether supreme court says that the dilution of the latino vote in south texas by shaving off the district which was on the verge of electing a latino candidate of choice, you cannot compensate for that shaving off of the district by drawing a district that stretches from the mexico border all the way to austin, which is a culturally very diverse district and the

latino population there did not have an entitlement to a district under section two of the voting rights act. the way i read is that justice kennedy stipulates a little bit shoppers as remus now is trying to merge it into his -- shaw v. reno. but part of the interesting inquiry that thing comes out of this is it's not just geographically compact minorities that have claims and thomas under section two, but how cultural similar to the have to be to have the sort of had something to this notion of compactness. >> i think the question in section two cases come in addition to geographical issues and the like is going to be how we think about racial bloc voting. justice kennedy is very much an individual as opposed to a group oriented justice. i think part of what upset them so much in lulac versus perry was the idea that you had a

really quite vibrant politically organized mexican-american community on the verge of electing a congressman, and they were told, you don't get anything, and here, we will just pretend this by drawing a district another assault on a shirt that of the district had been okay okay that justice kennedy would have upheld congressional district 23. i think he was offended by what he saw as purposeful discrimination. this goes back to one of the things that the voting rights act allows you to do which is allow courts to strike down plans that need to be unfair without court and out right races. whereas the constitution required that you hold, that some person acted with discriminatory purpose. so the voting rights act allowed him without saying, you know, the legislature in texas where bunch of racists to say this district wasn't there. so that is to end up on the other two is how you measure

racial bloc voting, what counts is sufficiently significant racial bloc voting. as we move and over the past 50 years this has become increasing, we move into world in which partisan affiliation and racial identity or ethnic identity are much more closely linked in some important ways. in the south the question of how you decide this racial discriminatory is political discrimination comes up again. that is, you know, the state of texas often claims that they are screwing over because they are latinos, they are screwing them over because they are democrats and they're perfectly happy to have latino republicans elected. therefore, how can you say this is racial discrimination? well, that raises important issues but i think the supreme court is going to confront. that confronted them several times already, simply about correlation or do you have to show some sort of causation which we are now in court into the motive of individual voters.

so i think that set of issues that could end up back in the court this time around. >> i will say one thing about bartlett and how it is relevant. in justice kennedy's opinion in bartlett v. strickland, he had the victim suggesting while 25% white crossover voting might be enough to immunize section to claim, and most people thought that that was a low enough level of white crossover voting that it is a public a section two be viable. but you will frequently over to get 25% crossover in certain areas, but a lot of it in my experience, you really can't even look at stake as a whole, the areas of racial polarization, there will be places we can have a 40% minority district, african-american district, said, which will perform for the african-american committee. and other places where you can get well over 50% of a performing district. >> the interesting thing about

what course look at and see significant crossover voting, if i were to tell you that any particular election, one candidate won 75-25, no one would say a significant number of voters voted for the losing candidate. when we talk about landslides in america, we're talking about 60-40, like reagan's landslide. what did he get? 61% of the vote. that's what we think of as a landslide. so in a court start talking about 25, having 25% of the white voters willing to vote for a minority candidate of choice is a lot of people. is a lot wrote to the zoo but it's not a lot relative to what we normally think of as significant, a significant attraction of votes. >> state law. that's where things get really interesting i think. is it all interesting up till now, right? >> but now they're about to get fascinating. [laughter] >> just because they have

similar provisions in different states which means completely different things, depending on the supreme court's other states and how they interpret things like compactness or the political subdivision requirement. i did a plan for maryland after they struck down the state's plan because it didn't show due regard for political subdivision lines. whereas some states have much more rigid pronouncements about city lines and the sort of get a test. so different states, that we have, i was just counting, missouri, pennsylvania and idaho have all had courts that struck down the plants on political subdivision ground. in the last month. and then you have some of these other criteria like arizona which has the commission, has a requirement that some of the district be competitive. they were in litigation for six years in the 2000 round because of that. others have, you, certain types of key areas of interest criteria.

and a lot of it, you know, if you are a great by the redistricting plan for partisan reasons otherwise, you throw that at the wall and see what sticks. there's been some success in state courts on different grounds. >> and, of course, a lot of the state courts themselves are elected in partisan elections, and so they are perhaps more closely tied to the political process and federal courts. that's what the other things we haven't mentioned yet is worth mentioning, is in addition to all of the rules, the major effect that one person has is the minute the senses to shove all of the district in the country become unconstitutional. that means somebody can race to court immediately, and i think one thing that has been resolved is the supreme court has held that if state courts and federal courts both have cases in front of them, the federal courts are supposed to wait until the state courts have adjudicated the state claim before they step in

and adjudicate the federal claims on top of the. leaving aside section five for the moment, which is an immediate injunction. and so i would predict that especially when you come to a lot of local -- people going into state court, rather than into federal court come in even on plants that could've been challenge on federal court, on the assumption -- >> i'm trying to think was happening around the country. i should say 34 states now have, are in litigation of one or another redistricting plans. >> and that's a little. [inaudible] >> new york, i was working for the federal court drawing a plan 10 years ago, there were simultaneous proceedings with the state court. and i'll say, i guess this is being taped but what the hell, you know, they took basically the plan we could and did little tweets here and there. you should see what they build from the. but it was, you often will have

simultaneous proceedings in state and federal court, but with the abstention doctrines that pam is document you will get the federal court, but a lot of what happens is the race to the courthouse, people think they will be favorable for them as opposed to another. >> and then the last group of kind of strength on the states, how you're supposed to get there. hit i think one of the major shifts from 1964, which is really when the reinforcement revolution got steam, is the number of states that have gone to our thinking about going to some form of redistricting, other than having the politicians draw their own districts. for many years, we have been saying that, you know, the kind of public space of democracy in the trend is every two years people go to the voting booth to select a representative. the private face is every 10

years, the representative goes in the back room and select their voters. [laughter] that has changed, and because they have moved to independent redistricting commission, but the variety here, the very patient and how those commissions are set up, how they are selected, what happens to the plan is kind of staggering. so that some of the commissions have been really quite successful, and others of them it's hard to think of it any difference in the outcomes from what would've happened if it had been truly political process. >> and one commission during one redistricting cycle be differently than others but will talk more about this on the panel about moderating later in the day. but arizona, it was in litigation for sections, nonpartisan enterprise at the beginning of the 2000 round, then found itself in political controversy where they teach the independent head of the commission that reinstated by the supreme court. i want, and less with more legal

things, i want to put all my political scientist hat for just two minutes but i know we're over time, but -- to give just a sense of just a large theme that i see in this redistricting cycle. you can think about them sort of race, party and region. and that while we talked about a particular legal claims, a lot of, redistricting can be a went on demographic change in the united states, so we take a count every 10 years but we do it with the census in many ways. the time we would really get a sense of changing political geography. so if there's a theme, i think the rising latino population, and you see it obviously in controversy in texas and elsewhere. also, people tend to think about

in classic areas like texas and california and maybe florida come but it's really throughout not just the south but in northern cities as well, where i live in harlem which has historical been seen as majority black area, is now plurality latino. so the district is proud to, like, you know. so there's a similar theme there which is, that the african-american population has not been as keeping up with pace and so that it comes on the more challenging to draw some these districts as we talked about before. but also not as necessary because certain african-american comments and others are getting cross over voters. the relevance of the obama election i think is in the background of a lot of discussion of these issues, even though it doesn't really come up in court. i'll be interested to see if it does leave the supreme court to

think about section five in one way or another. but even though with a presidential election, it might be one of the most irrelevant pieces of information if you're trying to get racial polarization in a school district election but i think there's some sort of cast to the way a lot of people think about the voting rights act based on that. and as a bridge between think about race and party, it was often thought, pam was described in the 1990s, that the voting rights act and restrictions on minority votes was a hindrance to democratic parties gerrymandering. i think now in this cycle we are seeing the voting rights act he a constraint on republicans maximizing beyond what they got in 2010 election. so you see that texas, you see it in louisiana, and an area that is very -- were in many ways the one majority african-american district that is there in new orleans is one that if you really being

gerrymandered, you might have a split it up as a result of that district is safe under the voting rights act. with respect to party, republicans have more state lead to succeed at any time since 1920. they also have total control of the redistricting process, twice as many states as in the 2000, and particularly and a lot of battleground states. and so a lot of that has meant that this high watermark of republican dominance has been transferred into them trying to protect their incumbents in much of, much of the country. whereas in 2000, a lot of it was trying to extend their advantage. they certainly tried to do that again in texas, but if you had this look at what was happening any difference between 2000-2010, a lot is trying to preserve the gains of the 2000-2010 raise. now last on party, i think in talking about commissions, it's

clear i think given the criticisms of both california and arizona, republican second commissions are not in the inches. it wasn't always that way. it wasn't always thought that nonpartisan redistricting would have that kind of affect, but he seems pretty clear to me that the belief that as an institutional forum, a lot of it is because they control so many ledges and house. taking redistricting away from those legislators might be seen against their district. finally, just regionally the shift of congressional from the northeast and midwest and the south and southwest obviously has a huge effect on congressional district. texas, that former district, to play with. the sunbelt does as well. but it we have been described issues that are coming up at this time, demographic shifts, with louisiana losing congressional district as result of katrina, all of the interesting cases that happened there that are occurring in texas.

.. once a decade phenomenon is about 30 years per decade i guess in the litigation that results from the. so we are just at the beginning of it. >> yeah, this panel is called introduction to redistricting. and so far we have been talking about what the states internal

process, which is what will the section five rupees? what will the political terror beat? but i think it is worth ending our remarks and will have a little bit time for questioning. what is at stake is of course who controls the legislatures determines the nation of policies. and so one of the things that elections are supposed to do is to enable a kind of nimbleness in response to changes that people see in their situation. but if you find the redistricting we have in the united states, when the districts are set in stone, it is pretty able who will in the next 10 years be without knowing anything and the candidates are going to be. so i think there is a lot at stake in how the districts are drawn to the interest of the particular candidates in the

particular elections and it's worthwhile to remember that and talk about what sorts there should be. we have questions and comments and please keep those short and come to one of the microphones or have one of the microphones brought to you. just a reminder for everybody, you are being taped. so you are consenting to being taped. so please give your name, home address and social security number. [laughter] >> my name is ken ecole and i live in port family. just nearby for those who are not from this area. my question is about the concept race. is it a legitimate situational concept in the sense that raise is a predict or social disadvantage? and if so the concept of race in 50 years may be no longer important as a determinant of

voting policy. so my general question is about the concept of race as a factor in its future. >> so they're a couple of different answers to that question. one is how is raised thought of in the political process? the starting point is constitutionally race could he different from some other criteria. that is the 15th amendment to the constitution prohibits discrimination on race or color encoding. on the 14th amendment has been interpreted, although it doesn't use the word race to contain additional focus. now, the borderline itself uses the term race about defining it, but also contains protection for what are referred to by the language minority. and this is asian-americans, spanish surname americans, which

is a little bit of a misnomer. alaskan natives and native americans. that is american indians. in the scripts are protected not by racial groups, but members of racial minority groups. i think the congressman is struggling to come up at the way of explaining who is trying to reach unprotect. i don't think it is mostly about social disadvantage is as much as historical political disadvantages. people were identified by the state, members of racial groups and the state with their political participation. i've written that when it comes to section two cases, if race no longer has an important meaning in people's lives, a 50 years from now we reach that kind of assimilationist nirvana in which you ask somebody to describe someone else so it would never come out come the voting rights act was nothing to say about race because at that point i will not be racially polarized

voting and there won't be restrictions on people's ability for candidates because of race. right now lefthandedness versus righthanders based on the political role per process. there's polarized voting. people don't have distinctive means that they feel the political process ought to be responding to. so in the long run it stopped being about investment in american history for the last 400 years. the voting rights act i hate to ever quote karl marx, especially on television, but the literary that they state that traditional marx has will be a living at the voting rights act because it will no longer have any meaning. it will be on the books, but it won't plan the operative role. >> just one thing today, which is -- it varies between different groups. how we measure race in how you identify populations so that in

the 2000 census for the first time from individuals were allowed to check off more than one race. and for some groups, and the variance, which is your maximizing categorization make a big difference. so native americans, depending on how you count people who merely check out native americans, plus the other race, the numbers will increase by over a third. asians in some parts of the country he will get sacramento actually is in many ways the area that has a very high rate of asian multinational identification so it's really meant to differ. but african-americans do not see much of a shift. you get some small differences, but she just don't have identification that is as

broadly multiracial and some of the other groups. the area for you to get some of that is in new york. it is very interesting looking at the different groups and how they define themselves as african-american groups and how they define themselves in levels of multi-rationality. and so, can progress the director of the 2000 census that has a book coming out on this question. his ceiling is outside the redistricting round that pay attention to the census on the racial categories and see how that will alter people's consensus. but with respect to the redistricting outcome of the question is if there is that different than voting behavior there is no claim. so then we don't even need to accomplish. >> thank you had my name is jeff schwartz. i live in saratoga. my key computer passwords are -- [laughter] could you comment generally on

the interaction and challenges as there has been some district determination in the primary process and particularly here in california approaching the first open primary, where it would seem that that my either add to or undo some of the court imposed restrictions and some of the statutory restrictions in the voting rights act? >> i'm positive they get that. i think that there's a lot of ways to talk about that topic. depending with your that close to primary, it is sometimes the case that certain groups, racial groups also will be -- do better under one type of primary system or another. this is actually the issue in that case i'm a north carolina case for the department of

justice said the move to nonpartisan elections makes it less likely for a minority african-american to elect their preferred candidate of choice and it's tonight under the voting rights act and that is an interesting area where that is happening. that -- you know, a lot of what what -- i look to your research i've done on that case in north carolina, which is that depending on whether there are parties on the ballot and depending on whether it is a partisan primary, it will affect turnout among different groups so that if you don't know if someone is a democrat or republican, there are groups that will not vote in elections. there is a racially disparate impact, but also the recall blow off come the likelihood they will vote for nonpartisan races as they go down the ballot. but on the general question of kind of the interaction between race and party depending on the primary system, it really sort

of depends. very different eras eras if you look at louisiana, where it was often thought that the nonpartisan primary, similar to what you are going to here, but the fact is basically a one off from a general election was thought that david duke when he was trying to run for office, but i think there's a lot of variables you have to look at to keep them out. >> the other thing going on with people's registration with the district often leads them to try to take the primary. i think that is part of the motivation in california. if you have districts drawn largely, what do the districts tend to be overwhelmingly one party controls, the districts. the general election is kind of meaningless because whoever gets nominated in the dominant party

primary controls how the election will come out. the result is people who don't like that tend to say, is there anything we can do to create more moderate representatives, that was the impetus between don campbell's open primary. and this is something worth thinking about more generally, which is the system is an ecosystem in which each of the pieces affect other pieces. why has there been such a push for term limits in almost every state that has initiatives. there are term limits on legislative spirit in part because people say we can't vote them out of office because they bought an interest in a way that makes it impossible to vote. the only way to get them out of office is to put term limits in. if the supreme court as they have made it impossible to have meaningful campaign finance reform and a variety of ways pushes money and to wait that leads people to say we have to do something about him, otherwise they can raise this money. so part of what you are talking

about in the question as, what effect on the districting process do things like open primaries have in which people are prosecute primaries or blanket primaries changed the failings of the feeling primary label in the more meaningful election. we don't know exactly how yet it will vary from to place. the changed is the turnout may change who gets nominated in the seats that are safe for one particular party better than others. if davis had severe in party identification. >> just to get out but i think this sort of political strategic issue is here, depending on the primary system, do you have to create districts of a certain level of minority concentration to elect their preferred candidates of choice? so for example, if you have a

nonpartisan election, where basically the top two candidates with general election is that the case that you need to have over 50% african-americans for the district for them to elect their candidate of choice, where if you have a democratic primary, kenya, in on someone crossover voting in the general election for whoever the candidate would be? of african-americans dominate the primary and their preferred candidate advances, will then pull there be some white democrats and others who would vote for that candidate? that was sort of the issue in the social science and the simpson case. laura vesely and david loveland have a piece that is right with alan katz is also here with a piece from a few years ago the folks at the issues dealing with blanket primaries and party rights and also racial vote dilution. and it says it's an interesting area and the courts have been reluctant to get into it.

the supreme court is going to get because once you start going down the road they get really worried about the merging of race and parties. >> it's time for one last question. night. >> i am mike stoller. i saw from oakland. i would like to hear a comment on how reapportionment commissions have performed in the two different context. when a citizen's reapportionment like the one we have in california this round that has been created by legislation or popular votes through the political process compared to other reapportionment commissions are referees that have been appointed by courts in the past as part of a judicial redistricting process. but substantively for the same purpose of doing political neutral reapportionment process, but with very different reporting structures and authority bases.

>> well, i've now worked they think before chorus. and certainly the special master during the congressional districts in connecticut, but i'm under categories are not talking about that. but during new york, maryland and georgia and then also it ties the commission and puerto rico and also through the districts and prince george's county maryland recently. i worked at the commission for months and months and then revert to the city council that then treat their own plan. so, bernie crossman has a view that compares and courts and legislatures. the courts get involved at really expedited timeframe so they can't do what he commissioned us. so angela says. the amount of time and i walked

in the room we worked with the commission, just the amount of time they spend in california gathering testimony, you know that you should get phd is that they didn't have them already for what they put together for us. so the level of the involvement. now when i'd done hearings for the court, you probably one hearing, maybe two. when we gather testimony and another where he will capture the plan. and for states like new york, the congressional districts had just one hearings and kind of the new process, even though it brings out really interesting people and can be very fun. but the court is trying to get a plan done in time for the election, or the commissions tend to gather information that will make for a rational plan according to the criteria and we should say the obvious that not

all commissions are created equal and there are places like arizona and california, for defendant commission here and then commissions that are basically the outgrowth to the political parties, commissions that art the only person they care about is the tiebreaker appointed by the chief justice or something like that. and my view based on what is happening when comparison is that i was impressed and surprised by the success of the california system. i do not know whether we've had a weather will be a successful the next time around and maybe that is part of the lesson of what happened in arizona, which is that once partisans see how the system works, they figure out ways to get more involved. but at a minimum, you can see commissions are least one step removed from the legislature. and so that has its benefits and costs. >> thank you all very much.

we'll take a brief break now, five minutes and come back with the second panelist on the demographics emerging community center redistricting case. [applause] speenine next will have a panel of demographics and access to voting. but first a look at our schedule tonight. tonight starting this week at 7:00 p.m. what the producers, directors and subjects of documentary films and today carl cobey discusses his film about his father, former cia or william colby.

>> now, more from stanford law school. it's been on ballot access and participation with a focus on voter i.d. laws of voter suppression. also a discussion about latino vote in california and the state redistricting process. [inaudible conversations] >> and the associate dean for public service and law here. and a frightening fan of the redistricting process. i go to hearings all the time and look at maps way to match. what this panel is really going to be exploring, i would say, is the heart of the region that many of us who are possessed with redistricting and the ability to exercise the franchise gets so the. so as you well know, establishing the right to vote that was meaningful was a long fought battle. and what we will be looking at in many ways that this panel is

the why of that battle. as our body politics continue to change and shift in many ways as we've seen% this data and american community service data come at the heart of many of our communities conversation at the same ideas that motivated those who thought the voting rights act itself, concept of fairness, aspirations towards actual representation by those whom we elect. and self-identity is the thing we call it being an american. full membership of which is defined through this ideal of the right to vote and to be heard. be the one person who could actually exercise the one vote. so before we moved in the future panel to the specifics of the voting rights act, the preclearance and all of that, we are through this panel going to explore some of the issues that we think again are kind of at the heart of this discussion. i am going to introduce

everybody out once in the order that they will be speaking and we are going to ask people to state their questions for later. we have a really remarkable group of folks with us to help us explore this. gaddie is at the university of oklahoma. he joined the faculty in 1996 after four years on the faculty at tulane and school of public health and tropical medicine. he's the authored many books and articles on elections and southern politics. he is going to ask for kate phares this whole concept of citizen doting and the way that arguments have observed and the potential impact of that argument. they said garcia bedolla's associate professor of education in political science and nature of the center for latino policy research at berkeley. she taught at and long beach.

they centered on civic engagement and community activity and political incorporation of racial and ethnic groups in the united states. at least i will be talking with that specifically about her research on latino voter population participation in california elections and some of the emerging issues for that community. danny ichinose is that the legal center is california and los angeles. the drp informs community programs and advocacy through data collection and analysis and empowered community groups to utilize research and grantmaking program planning and advocacy. dan is going to talk is about his most recent experience in california, really running a statewide program through which community and pope was solicited that informs the knobs that the legal center with their consortium of community states

gruen submitted during the latest california redistricting process. and i will wrap but that will be provided by keesha gaskins at the democracy program. prior to joining the brennan center ms. gaskins is that the legals women's voters where she worked on a wide range of voting rights and civil rights issues. ms. gaskins portfolio was up in the voting and election that the particular focus on voter suppression issues including voter identification and proof of citizenship. she is going to close us out with an overview of what is going on nationally and emerging issues regarding voter suppression and senate the national litigation. >> first of all it is a pleasure to be here. the invitation to come out on the issues both opportune and appreciated. my colleagues, justin moore

crafted what is a 40 page of the slipper untitled seats, both citizens and the one person window problem. and in an endeavor to try and foil the 40 page 210 pages or more of a storytelling approach, and an expert with litigation consoles on the top. helping jurisdictions develop redistricting plans are hoping to send them are working with plaintiffs who attend redistricting plans. most of my clients have been republicans. many of my clients have been jurisdictions, some have been minority groups. i support a variety of areas. my interest was i was content to work in what is the frivolous lawsuits, the packing city of irving. i will not speak to frivolousness that revocation of may testimony, which volunteer

cross-examining the prowess and i will not in any way contradict my testimony at that time. [laughter] i am the favorite opposition expert she tells me. we count things, we draw lines around them and the colored man. as long as you don't color the facts. so we will endeavor not to do that. but in the city of irving, the issue is whether or not tremendous deviation in the citizen population, citizen voting age population created distortion that violated one person, one vote. dan carlin, professor lee did a wonderful job of laying the foundation unrelated issues, which will save time. but there are three preliminary questions are we to what the

newspaper that i want to make photos and study briefly the answer before i move on to discussing the conclusions we reach about issues and citizen reapportionment and redistrict team. there are three empirical questions that come up that lead us to examine the issue of whether or not political portion based on citizenship. the first is to what extent is the use of one person, one vote. equalizing district population and empirical truth to one person one vote in terms of turnout. the second question is, are there political consequences to participation variations across districts in congressional and state legislative elections? and the third question is what factors exist that structure variations and participation range among the several states of the union? well, first and foremost, and one person, one vote is to a

certain% a legal fiction, much like the synthesis of, deemed accurate. in the 1960s, before the reapportionment revolution, in those states receive variations the level of turnout between the lowest or no congressional districts and the highest turnout congressional districts between three and five to one with the most extreme instances been turnout ratios of as much as 16 to one. so you have a district or 16 times as many people voting in the most populous district compared to the least populous district or one person one vote would not count these ratios into a certain certain extent it did. by the end of the 1960s, through the 1970s, turnout ratios by comparison of the highest turnout in a district in the state compared to the lowest turnout had been substantially reduced. are we still saw variations were you had a district with as much

as four to one turnout and the high turnout district compared to low turnout district and all the data in the paper said there is discussion in about this. one thing that we did not see it we have seen mr. time we get to the 90s, previous decade and you still see variations from 1.5 to one to three to one of turnout ratios across the various districts. so even though we legalize populations for precision of a single person comeau saw substantial rates across the districts. now this wasn't particularly news to the political scientists in the room. back in 1996, political scientist jim campbell now in sunni, buffalo published a book called cheap seats in which jen observed that there is a relationship between rates of turnout in congressional districts in who wins. and put simply, democrats went low turnout seats, republicans when high turnout seats.

so if you go to texas and south valley, you might find turnout of 120,000 individuals and a congressional district in a competitive -- in a two-party contest that will be one with a democrat and then you go to suburban dallas combined 375,000 voters turning out in a district of equal population. as for the example concludes that there is a bias in congressional apportionment that cost republicans more seats when majorities than democrats and those surpluses are somehow wasted. subsequent research shows similar variation and state legislative concepts around the united states. some scholarship is footnoted in the article and i can direct you to that. so there is a political implication or political correlation to the variation turnout. what is interesting in the last two decades is there is a structure to these turnout ratios that if we look across the 50 states, across elections

in each state, since 1992, there are up to predictor variables that are very powerful and explaining states that have large ratios of turnout, but had very high turnout districts and are low turnout districts. the first one is the growth of resident non-citizen populations. this relationship didn't exist before the 1990s but has 1990s moving forward. and the second one as the coverage of the state under section five of the voting rights act. section five which professor persily requires a change of election pretty clear to be nondiscriminatory either by the d.c. court or the doj. the trigger for coverage is based in part upon historic turnout. this variable didn't explain turnout variations before 1992, but it does subsequently and

since 1992 we see the dramatic majority minority opportunities and section five, six pairs of part of what we could be seen here as an intervention affect to be more aggressive use of section five authority by the department of justice in 1991 and 1992. so we have a relationship between noncitizen population and variations in one person one vote outcomes among congressional districts in the u.s. we have a policy intervention designed to protect equal participation on the basis of race. how does this come to bear on issues of apportionment? the citizen apportionment argument has to intervention. first is that in apportioning teats among the states come apportionment should occur on basis of citizen populations rather than based upon apportionment of total population. if you pursue this approach to apportionment, would have been in states would lose

congressional seats they returned predominately to the midwest and the northeast. so, there is a consequence to the apportionment of political power that results in the movement of not an insignificant number of seats. for five from texas, as many as seven through california. if you are to adjust on the basis of citizenship. second and former congresswoman from oklahoma offered an apportionment though in 2003 at 2005 that would've argued for citizen apportionment is worth noting that congressmen nearly lost his seat and redistricting in 2001, so yes impersonal motives personal motives because oklahoma would picked up one seat under citizen apportionment but with regard to seats, there is also tremendous consequences. citizen apportionment and attempt to equalize citizen

population or citizen voting age population resulted in tremendous movement of seats inside many states, especially california, texas, florida, arizona, new york, areas of tremendous population, but not necessarily tremendous citizen populations stand to become mature populous and citizen population. now, the effort and we pack as a test case that the ascertain could be done. the way the argument works is that a right to vote is vested in the individual. if we lived in this united states, voting rights are invested in citizens and the right to vote in congress is determined by eligibility vote for the more numerous legislative seats in a state -- more numerous legislative body in the state legislature. so because all states require citizenship is a condition for

vetting. the argument for citizen apportionment is in part taste on the assumption that this is an individual vote, vested only in the individual. it is recognized by legislators as a precondition to though, so apportionment is deemed to dilute the vote based upon where someone lives in a state makes some votes more than others based on the districts among the sentiment that violates equal protection. that is the sum of the argument. the flipside argument though and this could be a seductive argument for some people as i observed during a break to somebody in the light of day in super, there are problems with this argument is that these are practical in terms of policy and semi legal issues. in the first and foremost is if you look at these other cases subsequently and the actual 14th amendment and the reframing of the constitution and the reconstruction period,

voting was not seen as just being an individual at dignity. the vote had to have other values in other concepts of representation that enter into the decision to guarantee people access to the vote. but those get access to representation, ability to engage in an effective rate of detention, all of which we delineate in the text. this approach to reapportionment will reapply citizenship can result in an encumbrance of the effective representation for individuals who may not be citizens, but are still residents of the united states and to enjoy a tremendous rights and liberties even if they don't enjoy the right to vote. there are practical province to implementing citizen apportionment as was indicated in the previous date issues with regards in determining citizen population that we have made themselves evident in those apportionment cycle. the elimination of longform

citizenship data and the movement to the use of the american community survey that leaves us with larger predictive errors in determining citizenship allocation. we did not add the sauce until he got the data of certain districts. also citizenship data was not readily viewable to states when they went to draw districts. they weren't able to readily access and make use of added compared to 10 years ago and it worked out the longhorn. so we have less confidence in our data about citizenship to make precise determinations of citizen apportionment and these are very real in terms and concerns of implementing this policy. so finally there is one tremendous legal issue here that we elaborate on, which is citizenship apportionment is going to interact with section two in section five. section five assumes that she will not change the voting -- to equal access to the ballot and equal ability to affect

elections might go to the status quo. if you move from a total population apportionment to citizen-based apportionment, one consequence is going to be that the size of minority districts almost by necessity,, especially latino populations, you will have greater difficulty making her baseline under section five. set the application of citizen data could very well be retrogressive in applying section five of the voter rights act and this is one aspect of really hasn't been discussed yet, but merits further consideration. that issue is because you need citizen of equal numbers are rough equal numbers in the district, and makes it harder to craft section to voting naxalite remedies. because you need to have generally compact majorities who vote cohesively and are capable of electing to have an equal opportunity to elect a candidate, you have to reach

further to get these populations if you use only citizen data and equalize across all districts regardless of whether it is a remedy or not. so they're very willing congress is to implementing bot designed to protect equal access that arise under citizen apportionment. this offer as i indicated this very subject to. it's very interesting because it starts with the assumption of the individual voting. it points to a larger political issue when we talk about rights and liberties in the united states in the context of zero, which is that the argument for the representative model, which is one we currently use in an apportionment political power articulated by judge garza as partial dissent in cars of --

gars -- inherent rights to the political process. the assumption of the individual right to vote and equalizing on the basis of citizenship terms representations for privilege. in terms of the assumption of the vote is privilege. the political environment of the united states, this notion of rights is inalienable and inherent versus privileges earned is one of the principal divisions of american politics. and that speaking is legal, so i think of this in the context of the democratic hearing. this seems to be the big difference that defines where people the politics come down as a quarter opposition to this approach and it is where the debate will be held. because until the court and face the ambiguity, those individuals who seek to define voting is a privilege or continue to run a concepts of qualification for apportioning power,

qualification based on the notion of earned privilege rather than inherent rights. >> so thank you. i want to thank diane for having me here today. what i would like to talk about is more in the first panel talked about the dominator of the question. i want to talk about who the voters are and who are the people who we are drawing lines around her particularly in the state of california, what those folks look like from the standpoint of the racial identification. so i'm just going to provide you some simple slide to help you visualize some of what was just alluded to in terms of the issues of who votes in the state of california and to the extent to which you both actually looks

like a population of the state of california. so the first five summarizes the likely voter population. these are from the public policy institute of california which defines not just people who say they are likely to vote because people ask when answer that question, but also the tune and have questioned or so people who follow the election, people who say they voted in the past and who also say they plan on voting in the future. with a little better to measure than saint you plan to vote? you can see if we look at these numbers not only the fate of california are over represented in the electorate among licensed voters to the tune of 25%. i thought it was a likely voter category because these are the posts are not most likely to turn out. these are the folks most likely to be these are the folks most likely to be organizations focusing their polling not only during election years, but other years organizations focusing their polling not only during election years, but other years on those people who are seeing and comprising the electorate of folks are less likely to be

called by those polling organizations and therefore representatives are less likely to hear about what's your interest areas. this is an important category of voters within the american political system. they also on average are more wealthy and educated than the rest of the voting age population in the state of california. you can see african-americans aren't act more or less at parity in the population. what we know from six years of political behavior research and science is socioeconomic status is the greatest predictor of how you're going to go. it actually doesn't complete. they actually vote higher than one would expect. many people attribute this to the history of the voting rights in the way in which that community voting has different values attached to it that people vote more than you would expect other construction world restraints. latinos and asian-americans people see are significantly underrepresented in the

population. some underrepresentation is because of the large noncitizen population and those groups. among latinos is 40%. among asian-americans more or less 50% of folks of voting age and otherwise eligible are noncitizens ineligible to politics. among latinos who also have a large under 18 population. because latinos tend to be younger than other after racial groups in the state of california also has a larger proportion that is under 18 and therefore ineligible to though. you have a combination of factors driving differences, but there is also a gap and registration rates particularly among latinos and asian-americans to keep them from having a voice in the elect. levels that they would given their population numbers. and so, in many ways i'd like to focus at the electorate as a political process. they been talking about the

structures alluded to how the redistricting process needs people to see the legislature have a sense of their own political power, budget chairman that then none at all so does these people to not engage in the process and we have that engagement affecting different groups of people differently, which of course benefit the decisions that policymakers are making. and to say that sometimes we talk about redistricting is, as kind of static. is there and we have to draw lines around it. but in fact, part of what you're doing but that is in fact created the voting population through our politics. so i just want to go through and point out that infrequent voters the nice thing about this poll is they actually also interview voters and people who are not registered, which is usually not the case in polling. again, this is just a state of california through 2011 numbers compared to census data from

2010. we see among frequent voters who have over representation of bites. you have latinos even amongst infrequent voters, not voting at the population rate and again, asian-americans you see that we have many african-americans who are not likely voters. they vote, but they voted frequently. and finally if you look at the nonregistered in the california to see him as a flip of what we saw on the first slide that unregistered california tends to be latino and asian-american disproportionately to their non-latino white or african-americans. and finally i wanted to just talk about what are the political -- potential political implications. why should we care whether or not people actually voting at the rate they showed given their proportion of the population? part of my colleagues, eric sheckler and others have written at the national level but if everyone voted in fact elections would be very different.

but they came out really nice book look in the local elections in talking about how if you were to change especially at the local and state level that it would have a very strong impact on the types of policies that have been because you have a large enough number of people to actually impact policymaking process. we get some sense of that if we look at just party identification among likely voters and again who is a likely voters racialized in this context, so we have to remember that. we have more democratic identification among infrequent voters, much less republican identification among those for and much higher independence. these are for those of you are from california the kinds of states and people are still claim a political party. in fact, independence is the fastest growing among latinos in the state of california and nationally and that is really important factor that much of the redistricting conversation

doesn't capture what we think about partisanship versus gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering. the fact you have large portions of the new electorates that are not identifying with the current structure and don't really know where to go and what that means in terms of votes affect intern amounts and the partisanship has a strong effect and now attached and involved and engaged they feel in the system. so that is reflection we talk about independent voters in the national race. again we just came out with a book called joining the party, where they talk about the fact independent voters are actually much more likely to be a color than white, even i think the perception the national media is soccer moms and a statue of middle-class white folks that are in the battle in terms of being centrist when in fact do have a lot of voters of color who in fact are centrists or just don't go tremendously attached to either party because the parties aren't necessarily speaking to their interests.

so there is a process where you are not identified, not voting and they are not responding to your needs and therefore you remain detached. so i'd named thinking about the lack electorate is used for her way to start the conversation. the other fact in california thinks about non-citizenship in the idea of moving towards citizen voting would have a true menace impact in the state of california because in fact, we just got data from the office of immigration statistics, where they gave us permanent resident data by county across the state because usually you can't get that level of geographic details from that agency and we found that half of the mexicans in the united states are eligible for citizens to ship, of legal residence for five years or greater and therefore of 1.4 million people live in the state of california. just think about the scale of the problem or out of the

process and noncitizens basically because they haven't committed themselves to the $6.75 charge of the legal requirement to naturalize. but the folks are to naturalize commutative changes the size of the electorate, particularly in the central valley in california the ratio of 15% to 20% increase. so our electorate is in fact not at all reflect to as the people who live here, who use government services and how the naturalism that government does. so i just want to spend a couple minutes talking about what we can do about it. i have the privilege of being part of a really unique project, which was one of our partners are the foundation in 2004 called the california book initiative college was designed to change the electorate in the state of california and so they heard three academics. i was among them, to evaluate the work of community organizations in southern california adventure valley

trying to mobilize voters which in california tend to be low income as the racial. to come up with a set of best practices as to what would be the population. these are folks that political campaigns have a presumption of it is a waste of money and they will not turn a good anyways. at the time the initiative of foster was not clear necessary that the things they network with other voters said they would in fact work in this community. the good thing we found is yes if you infected by somebody in person, either by phone or at the doorstep to participate in the process, even if you're a low propensity voters, the forecastle turnout info. so that is important just to know for a campaign that this is something that needs to have been. we have some really interesting findings particularly with aipac but if you run the nine languages, they deserve a tremendous round of applause for the difficulty we have to steel the nine languages. it's very difficult to find.

it's complicated. but they did. and if you ask people to first-round whether or not they will vote and they say yes and you call it to people as they asked, there's a small group of people who say no. if you focus on the people who say yes, it means they have some sort of tradition towards voting, which you can get double-digit increases and that is something that's really important if you're an organization trying to target language when voters are just not the capacity to fill the door-to-door campaign or trying to target voters and not be campaigning, that is a really big finding. so i think to try to close, the important thing to think about in terms of what the electorate looks like and what it means for public policy is that the problem is especially in places like california that are progressive, you don't have any entities and a string that on the work needed to infect change the numbers that i've shown you

on the slides and part of what is going on with the idea of how many votes it takes to win a district, the fact of the matter is a political campaign only needs 50.1% of the go. with its 12 people or 20 for people really doesn't matter to them. and so in the electorate we tend to believe it will be something political parties will do. the fact of the matter is there's very little structural incentives to do so and it's very expensive to do so. the other concern is we don't know how the forecastle though. in the state of california with hundreds of thousands of new voters to come into the system. not just democrats or republicans because they don't know if they'll actually vote for them and that is what matters for political parties. we think about how to build structures into a system so we have this redistricting and potential for meaningful representation, we also work to create an electorate that is in fact reflective of the population that those lines are drawn around.

and with that alternative over. -- and with that, i'll turn it over. >> okay, thanks so much. so, i'm going to start with a brief recantation at the democratic wrist aches and then discuss how these dynamics shaped our involvement in the past statewide redistricting process. so as of the 2010 census, there were nearly 5.6 million asian-americans with 90,000 pacific islanders in the state of california and 15% and 1% of the state's population respectively. americans set down in california.

between 202,010, the state america population combined 34%, pacific islands through 29% and in comparison with latinos with a healthy rate of 24%, native americans or 15. in contrast the states decreased 9% over the past decade. so while it asian americans are geographically dispersed throughout the state, they are more concentrated in urban centers. over one quarter of california is the asian population live in los angeles county alone. asian-americans in other counties are growing at much faster rates. among the 10 counties with a large iced asian american population, asian-americans are growing fastest in places like sacramento, kostka, san diego county parents about asian-american counties los

angeles and from cisco continue to grow, those peripheral for urban center is grow a much faster rate. >> historically growth in this means that disproportionate numbers of asian-americans are the only group whose populations are majority by comparison 39% of latinos and 20% of pacific islanders were born outside the united states. in concept, only 10% of native americans, 9% and 6% of african-americans were foreign-born. okay, asian-americans are ethnically diverse. so while americans together make up roughly half of all asian-americans living in california or the asian-american has a multitude of ethnic groups with dozens of languages. while the rates of growth are

high with nearly every ethnic group, with indian pakistanis, sri lankans and growing dramatically. >> with the ethnic diversity, social and economic diversity as many indicators what this chart looking for the ses data. philip ennio in tokyo in indian japanese american of poverty rates equal or lower than non-hispanic whites. cambodians, lao and vietnamese have poverty rates that approach or exceed those in latinos. so there's kind of a quick demographic of the api community. so how did these demographic features impact our involvement in california statewide redistricting process? because most asian-americans

engaged in redistricting state why it couldn't rely an illegal hammer. organizing was a critical tool, given the concentration of asian-americans pacific islander communities in several population centers. throughout the city was necessary to develop a statewide network to organize their community's involvement. recall that statewide network the coalition of asian-americans for fair redistricting and 10 organizations and sacramento, california santa clara county, further south, area of los angeles, mr. halliday, orange county california. so we have the lead agency providing legal research and wartime. each region's statewide a local

partner convened a coalition of community stakeholders to establish regional priorities than testify before the city since redistricting commission. stakeholders are mostly represented from community-based organizations and interested community members. while some local elected officials are dissipated, members of congress and the state assembly, state senate, their staff and those closely tied of partisan politics were prohibited. each result coalition to stakeholders with communities of interest to explore mapping scenarios and decide on a map. the coalitions also identify numbers to present testimony regarding their priorities to the commission. the geographic dispersion of an ethnic diversity within the asian-american community present eight challenging, often sails

across stakeholders from a remote areas, still meant to stakeholders are in different parts of the region didn't see each other face-to-face as we would have liked. a related problem is trying to solicit input from a variety of ethnic groups and often meant targeted outreach and communication between its radars but had no prior relations. okay, so clearly these demographically driven community dynamics impacted our organizing and how they affect her ability to protect human pacific islander communities. so here i will discuss her ability to draw majority american districts and drying majority latino districts sometimes the fact that communities and polarized voting. growth in the asian-american community you so resulted in

california's first asian american districts and the sandia bow valley district, state assembly district 49 on your screen. in this area in the united states is the first majority asian-american city, miley park and surrounding majority or near majority american cities including hamburg, proceed at saint gabriel. interest in me this region of alley is also very latino. in fact, it is cradled by a majority latino districts, including as you see in your screen, status and the districts of 51 to the west, 58 and 572,048 to the east. so establishing 8049 as a section to protect district and demonstrating how it could be john roberts that he and the voting of latinos is a major achievement.

okay, growth in latino population over the past decade also presented new opportunities for greater latino influence. one area in which advocates were exploring possibilities was in the central valley were already in place advocates here were looking to protect the voting rights of growing latino communities, a model american of their community should be outlined for a rather small -- make sure you've got the good picture here. the community argued a shared much in the poverty rates of unemployment, education attainment, language barriers and the two should be drawn into a majority latino district. ultimately, neither latinos born american scout they wanted. ..

diversity and asian-american communities can post challenges to demonstrating that kind of cohesion. we only commissioned an analysis in the region which he saw 8049, were an asian-american district could be drawn and the asian-american community was more ethnically homogenous.

in his analysis, the professor of announced statistically different polarization. asian american candidates and non-asian american voters were voting against those candidates. yet the questions would that be the case in areas like, asian-american ken are becoming increasingly diverse. so that's certainly a question that should be answered. given limitations, the supreme court has placed on use of race and redistricting and the fact that we could really only draw one reasonably, one reason the majority districts statewide demonstrate communities of interest was particularly important. obviously, the question is isn't it difficult when you have kind of a community with so much social and economic diversity.

so identify committee of interest, convene stakeholders in each region and let's do an exercise in which they talk about the problems facing their communities and the ties that bind them. in every region, stakeholders talked about the immigrant character of the committees, about language barriers, about educating english language learners in school. certainly there were regional differences, folks in fresno talked about extreme poverty facing them, while folks in santa clara county talked about the high-tech industry. but more often than not such social and economic diversity wasn't as prevalent in contiguous areas that could reasonably be drawn in the same district. just to give you a sense of the type of data that we presented to the commission, here's a table that we submitted. it's important testimony in san diego. which included population

characteristics that reflected the news of interest, identified in our region. so folks in san diego were concerned with immigrant issues, those in the north county were also concerned about how the wealthier folks in fairbanks ranch and santa fe, were drawn into the same district with a moderate to middle income immigrant communities that they represented. here is, san francisco is a great example of how one of our regional coalitions chose to privatize the need of low income immigrants communities of interest over the possibility of drawing a majority asian-american state assembly district in san francisco. here you can see the purple area, eastern part of the peninsula is that kind of low income area. asian america in part.

to the west we've got higher income communities to the south, the beige area is daly city in south san francisco where there are large number of latinos. and certainly in some courses there's pressure to create, try to maximize the asian-american population in those districts. certainly coalitions recognize the limit of the law but also really, i think worked was informed i the kinds of priorities that they had, the work they were doing were folks were really, felt like low income, asian-american immigrants would be better served by were drawn into the same district as low-income latino districts. so this was, these are districts that were adopted that more or less resemble their proposal

that we had submitted to the commission. so hopefully that gives you a sense as to what we did at how changing demographics impact of our work. as a look to 21, and we expect, i don't know if i will be your, but we expect greater geographic and ethnic diversity, possibly majority asian-american status in the districts in san francisco in the areas i mentioned earlier. and hopefully greater influence. so certainly more opportunity to challenges as we work to ensure fair representation.

>> still morning. good morning. i'm not sure how to begin. good morning. >> good morning. >> ride on. thank you so much. i'm going to ask you, offhandedly different track. a lot of my comments are going to be centered around a lot of the particular trends from the laws that were in 2011-2012. so i'll have a few friend and comments around that. i think we'll talk with his comments, we'll build you some information on the activity. and then cut a circle back to the courts, at least to some degree to redistricting, and i think you will see some of the other comments that we started out today sort of mirrored. and so survey my perspective of places i'm a lawyer by training and organization -- organizer by

boat. my father took me to a committee organizing meetings was too young to know is going on. it stuck. i haven't been successful, but it is something that is incredibly important to the king and the. so as we think about maximizing fairness within the practical application of power, i think of a lot of the lottery district, a lot of the voting work and put in a practical point. as part of that we have the brennan center, myself, we're litigating and waiting for south carolina to file, expect to be in that case. mystified by mississippi's section five submission, although they haven't passed enabling legislation that goes along with it. so we are seeking to come up but

don't know if we'll have anything to truly comment on. so on that sort of cryptic note, let's talk a bit about 2012. what am i pointing out? [inaudible] >> registry for people to vote is like any of burglary tools to criminals, is profoundly antisocial, nonproductive segment of the population to destroy the country, which is precisely why barack obama -- welfare recipients to vote. these, truly go to the idea that we are really elevating voting. in the battle in new hampshire, voting of a liberal, that's what kids do. there have especially if they just voted feelings. this had a lot to do with the legislative debate in terms of what laws are being passed and really concentrating on students voting.

we see those ethics continuing in those areas. my personal favorite, this endless cheerleading, let's go to rock concerts and register the kids. i'm not saying we shouldn't have -- after nothing attention i think it is your patriotic duty not to vote. that's kind of the frame that we're seeing a lot of legislation being passed in, using this earth approach and mentality that we think about voting rights. so very quickly a look at demographic shifts, from 2011 to 203,110,000 people per day, for those 80 and over, the population growth rate is twice that of the 65 and over. i think is are all important to think about, at least with these comments going forward. as a look at new voting restrictions, look at photo id restriction. we've had so far seven laws passed and we have additionally

constitutional amendment in mississippi, three documentary proof of citizenships, laws making voter registration are, and making it hard to restore voting rights. we talk about the voter id laws. in most cases we're talking about the no photo note vote requirement. we saw 34 states introducing laws, to require some form of government issued id in order to vote. i will note now that some of these states have included affidavit exceptions or other qualifications around photo id. however, most of them are fairly illusory slung to the example of texas affidavit exceptions that says that if your idea was lost in a natural disaster that was declared by the state or the

federal government within 45 days of the election, you may then at that point execute an affidavit. so certainly these affidavit exceptions exist but they're not really far-reaching. they really aren't doing anything in a meaningful way to change the impact of these laws. photo id laws are pending still. let me note that these states are only a fraction of the states where they are technically still penny. states would identify you are the ones would actually see a likelihood of additional passage. so what we're seeing in minnesota it the details, the constitutional in the process does not require the governors -- every republican legislature in that state, very likely to see the question of photo id getting the bounce in minnesota in 2012. new hampshire, that's of course what we saw the voting staying calm down with apparently zombie voting in that sort of thing.

really targeting and putting some pressure to avoid another veto in new hampshire. pennsylvania, tennessee. tennessee has a whole group of, introduced legislation in response to the photo id law that has but one i think is most interesting that permit was overlooked by the drafters of the legislation was that seniors in tennessee, if you're over 50, you're not required to have your photo on your drivers license so now they've introduce new legislation requiring seniors get their photos taken, making it even harder to access the full. and then, of course, in 2012 we will see a amendment on the ballot. proof of citizenship for registration, we have 13 states introducing laws, passed in three additional states. south carolina and apparently in a single effort to make sure that there are reasons to demonstrate the need for section five is now introducing even

more restrictions on the vote, and now saying proof of citizenship are very concerned about the passage of those laws. so as we think about proof of identity and race of citizenship let's look at who doesn't have history. we know 11% of american citizens lack photo id, 18% of americans over 65 lakh current government issued photo id. 25% of traffic at americans, 80% of you and people 18-24. 7% of americans lack proof of citizenship, and 34% of women lack proof of citizenship with their current legal name. so then as we go on when look at restrictions on voter registration. texas and florida pass legislation restricting third party registration drives with morelos bending once again south huron and also in michigan. we saw additional laws in wisconsin, and a high reducing the ability of voters to move

within counties and remained registered. we have been at hundreds of thousands of voters registered in voter drives in florida in both 2004 and 2008 at wilson of african-american and hispanic voters are twice as likely to register through committee registration drives as white voters. a look on restrictions, and for those cases we are really talking about changes to absentee voting procedures, changes to early voting days and those sorts of things. we talk about those kind of restrictions. with a reduction in early voting signed into law in five states, florida, georgia, ohio, tennessee and west virginia. georgia, tennessee west virginia, what would primary saw was a reduction in days for early voting. west virginia did at saturday in. where we start to saw changes was the elimination of golden week in ohio. that was the week if people do

it, that was the week with there was overlap between the ability to register in -- register and vote on the same day. that is gone. elimination of souls to the polls on sunday, and that was the sunday before election day, reduce the early voting period from two weeks to one week in four. and i think florida really demonstrates what the impact of just this one day. so when we look at african-american voters, we see over 30%, about 33% of the people to vote on the sunday before election day were african-americans and even though african-americans represent about 12 to 13% of citizens voted in population in florida. so hispanic voters we see similar numbers, close to 24% while representing 16%. that elimination will have a real impact on voter

mobilization in these communities. also worked to make it harder to restrict voting rights. one in florida and one in iowa. and in both cases making it almost impossible for felons to restore the rights but in iowa not only must people with felony convictions apply after they finish, once they're off state supervision they must have payback everything associate associate with the penalties. and the cost associated with incarceration and court fees and all that can be onerous. if not entirely preclusive. florida again not only reversed the previous executive order but added some new barrier. one of the things they didn't photo was they said look, now in five years once you get off parole, probation them any sort of state-sponsored supervision you have to wait at least five years before you can apply for a

person with a felony conviction to get the rights reinstated if at anytime during that five years you're simply arrested, not convicted, if you're simply arrested, the clock starts over on the five years. and so when we talk about populations they're very likely to get picked up by the police, provide by the police. it sort of like saying the intention here was to completely disenfranchise these photos. the one thing that is important to note as we think about this reversal in trend in the franchise that we haven't seen since jim crow, these have been in place since jim crow, since the 1890s, targeted specifically the african america's. when we look at students, we certainly have texas and tennessee that specifically, and arizona that specifically exclude student ids, it's fairly eliminating as you can use your gun license but you

can't use your university of texas student id. [laughter] and so certainly, voters are concerned and it's just there's far more motivations than simply the integrity of elections as oftentimes thrown forward. i already talked about the quote in new hampshire. in maine, the secretary of state targeted students, even went to the length of action sending letters to individual students who are registered voters and explain to them that if they don't go there very likely breaking the law. that we're seeing really organize opportunities now. the 79%, if we look at a loss that were passed and once expect to go through in the next few weeks, targeting specifically and only pennsylvania and virginia because we're fairly certain of those will pass, all those states that pass additional restrictions come if you added the total the total

electoral vote, they are 79% of the 270 needed to elect the next president. so when we think about demographic shifts and democratic power, we are seeing the democratic, demographic population growth into correct proportion to the law most severely affected by restricting voting laws. to put a lot more sober, power goes one way, democrats are going to another way. with respect to race, and i want to try to bring it back to redistricting i think him and with the things that struck me as most notably, that with respect, these redistricting patterns, some the things were saying they demonstrate reinforcement of these patterns resulting in a real impact in the ability of population to create and develop effective infrastructure for political engagement. what do we mean by that? we talk a lot about partisanship we talked a lot -- i'm not

convinced, and i think it can be set a lot of people are convinced that political parties serve the interests of minority voters. no matter how closely i find african-american voters in particular, you see a line with political parties, i think pam karlan's comment struck me was black people as political hamburger helper when we are drawn, like using them as fodder to advance a poker party. the interest of a political party but it is unclear that any of the policies are put in place by parties even when they are in power do anything to advance the social and economic position of these growing population. and so when we have these systems and structures that make it more and more difficult for these populations to engage, a political engagement, political infrastructure is spent entirely on reactive measures. there is no development of political infrastructure and political power to move the agenda forward.

in that lack of accountability, talk about losing that for a decade these huge. we are not talking about just saying oh, well, you know, the lines will change so than people be able to go vote. right now the only political infrastructure that exists is that of the party, which means all of the total power is co-opted within a system that is set in my mind, doesn't necessarily serve these population pics when we talk about inversion of power within version of democratic growth were also talking about a delay in the ability of these populations to action develop a medical infrastructure to engage in a way outside of the two-party process. to really talk about real advancement. i'm not going to dally on my sort of masters tool, masters

talk your and now at this point i think is important to think about that as long as these populations are schiavone -- shoehorned, the masters token of dismantled a master's house. how can you talk about changes and shifts in real political power, not just numbers, not just how populations fit into these but actually changing power dynamics such as these populations are better served, i think that's what we're really talking about here when they talk about when the entire democratic structure is served and undermined. >> thank you. we have time for some questions. nate? [inaudible] >> i think this goes first to lisa's paper. one thing that steven and i found is the gender gap in voter turnout among minorities is so

enormous that it even consumes the gap between racial groups. that the black woman in the 2008 election are voting at levels almost kabul to white men. that summit i think political science is really paid attention to over the last -- income in general. [inaudible] >> in general, no, we don't talk about it. >> a whole different way of thinking about the social capital that is available to different groups, and somehow part reforms under different reforms are going to effective at things. i have olympic caliber specifically. i don't know whether you have. i have a question for dan, which is i thought it looked like one could create a majority asian voting age, at least voting age

population district for the senate in the south bay and east bay, if you do it almost like a wide. i'm wondering if people consider that, and if they were, whether you think the communities a real california specific question, the community in the south bay and east they are sort of emblematic of what you're talking about in terms of their diversity that would not make sense to either socioeconomically or other countries where they're coming from. >> we look primary at cpac data. were hesitant to submit proposals based on voting age population, a some kind of -- >> just leaving aside the trainer per second which is in terms of advancing asian-americans, and power, could made one of the argus is

look, this advantage is the asian committee, that the committees are so diverse, for the same preserve talk about before comparing moms to chinese or other -- >> our local coalition and the area i think actually preferred it that. while we didn't treat it as a two cd, folks in the fremont area, asian-americans, in santa clara certainly saw similarities between them, and they're how many different -- so i think we recognize those communities felt like there were those kind of commonalities that might benefit from that kind of configuration. we didn't treat it as -- >> i have to say the national

vision they would have, that's a huge area, and so i would think, i would predict in the next generation will have a very different and much larger proportion, especially in the south asian area. they'll have to be brought in. i think this speaks to the problem of how we conceptualize. when we study women and study race, women of color have nowhere, i think it is a huge area that we know very little about, and the fact that not going to have this gender gap in voting among latinos and african-americans, it varies more, but also elected office. they look at the congressional delegations in the state of california and latinos is almost all women. we know very little about why pick everything that how to break the process, called it a secret weapon, they would organize and get every to go but i found women talked about dragging their sons by the

years, threatening not to feed their families if they didn't turn out to vote. and it works. we don't study their site think we do a disservice in terms of thinking about the reason why we see these patterns and what it can tell us about american politics. >> and gender -- it is historic, bob talked about this 25 years ago, and part of his theory was that it went to a higher level of participate in african-american churches, among african-american women, social capital creative is institutio institutions. so one avenue for hypothesis we can% spent but we also say that catholicism decreases. for latinos we don't have that. >> i don't know if any of michelle -- informs him of his around permanent disenfranchisement. >> when i first saw this, the

gender gap jumps out in north carolina pretty starkly. both at registration and then at voting. and so you community think i will disenfranchise it whenever you see that kind of gender because we know -- there will be a gender gap also there but if you look across states, it seems to be in variance to disenfranchisement laws. [inaudible] >> and definitely historic when you go back and look. particularly around when women were trying to get the vote. the issue when the black vote was even give black men if oh, there won't be a difference. at the black women about and is going to be a problem. >> and it gets messy because go back to national around the 1910s and you find republican

women organizations, look at the black women in pursuit of a franchise. it gets -- the deeper we go in history. >> the point of an amendment actually came. working with the extent that -- as long as you actually take out that but whatever. >> my name is long. i graduated from law school i guess just four years after the running of rights act of 64 bit a question for lisa. you mentioned there were a million and a half latinos in california who qualify for citizenship. but one of the bears is the 6-under $75 fee, which to me de facto sounds like a poll tax. and i wonder if that had ever been challenged spent to my nose, and i would just defer to, to my knowledge it hasn't been. it's basically my quick math

quadrupled. those are just the mexicans. that is just the folks of mexican origin in the state of california are currently eligible. if you think about it's not just the 6-under $75 fee, you need a medical exam our pictures but there are other costs involved. many advocates have been saying that if we want to have a true indication program for immigrant winston that part of american society and should be brought into the policy. in fact, you should provide that service for free. with the connection and the fourth and the service with the reorganization and homeland security, it is expected to basically pay for itself. that's the current model. and so if you can imagine her family, you have -- the amount of money, how do you decide? who's the one? so the costs and just the cost of going, putting yourself to

the test, all those things are to minister hundreds of species great is that yet another barrier that we're putting in the face to we don't want him to produce the in the process. that he is expected to only go up. >> specific the question of poll tax that was addressed. and crawford simply said look, even an 18-dollar birth certificate that you must get to get a drivers license in order to vote, even if the license itself is free was not considered a poll tax by the supreme court. >> sorting not just a latino issue. a day that i've seen, very same situation. we see the in the work that we do. >> basically there's a kind of backlash. there's documentation that mud pits required what it senior citizenship, and the court is not recognize any of the costs associated with that to qualify as a poll tax. that is why. >> question over here.

>> i have a question primarily about florida. you showed us some numbers before about the impact of the legislatures restricting early voting on black and latino voters. this may have some bearing on other states as well. in florida, it strikes me as perhaps an anomaly in that it has a very large cuban-american population that is more conservative, better off and tends to support republican candidates. and clearly they have done very well, cuban-american republicans have done very well in elected office in florida. so do you think built into the legislations restructures was expectation or and a something that would not have a negative impact on cuban americans? and is there any sort of similar expectation or assumption among other state legislatures in crafting, restrict in voting

laws? >> i think when you look at what the assumptions may become a bigger but somehow these are carved out. so you see states like wisconsin where we know that more senior voters tend to be more conservative. there's a variety of exceptions for certain citizen. with talked about across as whether certain types of ideas with exceptions. so there's no question in my mind alleges is were very purposeful how some of these id laws were crafted. whether it would be surprising to me that there wasn't some analysis of drilling down in terms of what populations specifically would be impacted versus others. but i can't speak to what is in the hearts and minds necessary of legislators when they doing what it is they do. >> i can say it's understood, it is a very powerful and well organized machine to turn out american vote in miami-dade county. so one could imagine cuban-american legislators

saying well, it's not going to affect is necessary because that's not where cuban voters are necessarily going to be voting. that said, i think there's a perception that cuban americans are powerful. if you look at social issues, that's not conservative. they vote for republicans, if you look at new jersey they are, in fact, democrats. so it's kind of a little different than what people think. but you're getting a diversification of the latino command in florida very dramatically over the last two decades so they're no longer majority population. and they really aren't necessarily driving republican party in florida. they may have an influence on issue towards the foreign policy of the may not have had the power to keep it from happening in the broader sense. >> commissioner? >> good afternoon. i had a question for dan and will take off my commission had for second. i used to work at your office many years ago, was attorney for

a cap in his to give emphasized at the state level redistricting, including congressional reducing. i think i've gotten the most attention in california and nationally, but just given the relatively small size of asian americans in many parts of california, local redistricting efforts, county, city, board of education districting where there are districts might seem an area where you might want to do more advocacy. there are strategic reasons. it seems to me that if you're going to focus on various levels of them -- at the local level, states might be more fruitful, just given the numbers we are seeing right now. >> during the straight white process, our involvement around the 2001 process was exclusively at the state a similar.

obviously smaller districts, commute had the opportunity. normally we would kind of segue into the l.a. city counsel that was more engaged in a. we recognize the importance of working at the local level as a smaller community. so yeah, the foundation representatives in the crowd. could certainly use more money to address more of those local committees spent i think one thing that's important to note about local redistricting efforts is that some people think about politics. when people think about politics, people think about whether government needs common to think about how many teachers in the schools, how many police are on the road, all the sorts of things which are really needed at the local level. so helping people get their heads around redistricting and what it means i think and be very effective at the local level. the downside is in most states with the exception of wisconsin it comes after.

the congressional and then you have to hope to hold the interest for another decade, which isn't easy. >> i'm a student at the law school and have a question that is sort of a follow-up on the gentlemen's earlier question about a poll tax. keisha, your talk gave us a really informative and to be really scary overview of what's going on in terms of destruction's on voting rights and for his producing sectors a couple different strategies people might try to employ against those restrictions. one would be to try to politically mobilize people in the legislative arena as voters fight against these. the other which is what i'm curious about, do you have a sense of what sort of purely legal strategies that effective

or ineffective, you know, what you say about strategies appealing to u.s. constitution would be ineffective, but if there's anything that has been effective look into state constitutions or looking to other legal aspects? >> certainly. to take your questions in order, there have been a lot of legislative effort on the ground. people have been working very, very hard, and as a result people were successful in the legislature in nebraska, and a couple small areas where we actually saw people able to push back. in maine do is ask what people veto reversed the elimination of early election day registration. there was also a significant campaign in ohio that block the implementation of all those laws and are often going to the ballot for referendum in 2012. so there is a lot of citizen responds to it. the challenge is that the votes

appear to be primarily with the exception of rhode island come primarily along party lines. and so whether legislator sort of has the vote has been much more difficult to mount some response. weather isn't some sort of mechanism like maine or ohio weather is a way to get at it. we think about the legal strategy all time. one thing that we are seeing is strict facial challenges public are going to work anymore. crawford has sort precluded that possibility exception of some of the lost their so much more restrictive, then indiana which the law considered in crawford, that there are some possibilities where there's id is required for election day, for absentee balloting as well as no manageable affidavit systems that we see in texas, wisconsin and a few other places, that those laws may be constitutionally firm based on crawford. and are the whole stack of legal

ideas, and one that is been thrown around lightly is a first amendment right association? and that's going to people with ids. the idea that a person with id, the association rights are being challenged because they cannot organize into need for massive number of people are without id. so that's very mushy, like very, very mushy. don't, number questions about that. [laughter] we acknowledge that one is very new. and may not work. but we continue to try and come up with new theories, other than simply straight up, this is a poll tax, but certainly where it's been made so restrictive that the burden tax, verdict, were really trying to find that balance and it's been a real challenge. >> you are going to need a creative judge for the first

amendment. you may have looked at this decision already, try to run -- gerrymandering challenge and the district court just laid it aside and he argued that the first amendment guarantees political speech was coming have those rights to association, you have those right to political speech but you don't have a right to political success. so success of organized is not duty the success of your getting -- expressing your voice is not guaranteed. so i think you have to try the impediment or if you're going back to political tools, political mobilization and it's a question for the public. and what we are seeing first principles differences if the american public with regard to culture and the assumptions made about how one approaches citizenship and rights and liberties, whether they are earned in the context, whether there's a larger social gift that comes from someone being

here, enjoying those rights and liberties. >> we have time for one more question. no? okay. well, thank you everyone. [applause] >> we are going to take about 10 minutes to gather lunch, which is outside, and then come back in. [inaudible conversations] spent more from stanford law school's forum on reducing and representation in just a moment. before that, we spoke toward the border to learn more about redistricting commissions. >> joining us is morgan cohen of the national conference of state legislature is a policy analyst

with and acquire states now going through the redistricting process? >> well, then all states are constitutionally mandated to undergo redistricting every 10 years, in order to comply with the one person one vote principle handed down by the united states supreme court, and so what that means is that all congressional and state legislative districts must be equal in population. so states are required by law every 10 years following the decennial census to redraw their lines. >> in many states the legislature has the authority redraw the lines but the authority is given to a board or commission, is that correct? and why do they do that? >> yeah, that is correct. while all states are constitutionally required to undergo redistricting, it doesn't mean that states all carry out the process in the same way. in 37 states the initial

authority to redraw maps resides in the legislature, but in 13 other states the authority to redistrict for legislative lines rests with the board or commission. >> in california they created a new redistricting commission. what is special about california, how they operate their commission? >> while, california was the most recent state to adopt a commission. in 2008, california voters approve proposition 11, which transferred responsibility from the legislature, the responsibility for redistricting from the legislature to a 14 member commission, and really what's interesting about it is it is made up entirely of california registered voters from california who were randomly selected, some are democrat, some are republican, some are independent, and what's really interesting is that they need a super majority of commissioners to approve of a

redistricting plan before it is ultimate adopted. >> at the legislature, board or commission, are there any other alternatives to that? >> well, another really unique way is in iowa. iowa, in iowa, the maps are not drawn directly by the legislature, but they are drawn by nonpartisan staff. and the staff are not allowed to look at any income addresses or political bad at all when they're drawn their maps. and the reason they do that is so that you can either favor or disfavor a but take your income and corporate. >> have you seen any best way to go about redistricting or states with the board or commission more successful than states with the legislature draws the line? >> it's really hard to say. several states that it had commissions, you know, states like hawaii, idaho and alaska, those are commission states and

action at their original plans struck down by the court. we have also seen intense political fights in redistricting. this redistricting cycle in arizona, california, colorado. just because a lot of these commissions were created, one of the main reasons these commissions were created was to try to remove politics from the process. but that doesn't necessarily mean they are immune from it spent with the november election ahead, what can you tell us about the status of how many states have gone through redistricting, and where does redistricting go from your? >> well, you know, just because, you know, most states have passed their plans but that doesn't mean that the process is over. and the reason i say that is just because of all the litigation that, you know, inevitably surrounds the process. every 10 years, given, as the saying goes, redistricting lawsuits can be added to death

and taxes as one of the certainties in life. and that is deathly true for 2010, just this past redistricting cycle we've seen 154 cases filed nationwide, and there is still 54 active cases on the books in 22 different states. so, you know, just because we are -- redistricting is one and it doesn't mean it's completely over. it could be years before these disputes are ultimate result. >> an update on state redistricting efforts with morgan cullen of a national conference of state legislatures. thanks for joining us. >> thanks a lot. i appreciate it. >> as we just heard, 11 states use nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting commissions. among them about california which passed a law in 2008 creating its commission. the 14 person panel is split evenly by party and made up of members of never served in the legislature or participate -- or paid congressional staff or

contribute more of $2000. one of those speakers, angelo ancheta, a speaker at this symposium. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am the executive director of the center. on half of the center, we want to thank you for participating in today's symposium. and we are delighted to have angelo ancheta as our keynote speaker. mr. ancheta is a member of the california business redistricting commission, so we are excited to hear about his perspective on how the process has gone. a really unique perspective as well as scott of civil rights, voting rights, constitutional law and clinical education as well as that of a longtime civil rights and legal services attorney. just yesterday the california supreme court ruled that the state senate maps drawn by the commission will be used in this years election, despite pending referendum to overturn them. so there's a lot of exciting developments happening right now and we pray look forward to

angelo ancheta's talk. thank you. >> thank you. is this coming through? i'm on a wireless microphone. i measured the great. good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to speak today. this is a great symposium. i think in my normal life why do clinical teaching, do some occasional writing in the voting rights a, mostly around language rights, i think, i am here today to basically talk about my extracurricular of goodies on the commission. so i'd like to highlight some of those activities over the next few minutes. but i think it's important to note, as i've been looking back, we are still so active on the commission but we produced our final maps back in august. it's been a few months to so take a low bit of a break from a very, very hectic process. you start reflecting on what you actually did and how important

it is but and, of course, all of us in the room know how important redistricting is, but when you are in a different setting, the holidays with my in-laws and got to see a lot of relatives down in southern california, you realize that not everybody is as interested in redistricting as we are, right? [laughter] my wife who is it very proud of my membership on the commission, angel is the redistricting commission a. and she said this to all the relative. and, of course, they all seem very impressed by that, but there's also this very blank stare that typically pops up like okay, that sounds great, but what does a redistricting commissioner do our what does that commission to? that's a challenge because when you think about all the technicalities we do, the software and the criteria we are involved in, it's not easy explained. i'd kind of come down to one minute version every now been. as you know, as you might know,

both the legislature and congress are elected from districts. they vote for people to get elected to office. and every 10 years because of the senses we have to redo the lines and we are in charge of doing that. the commission works on the. that's a brand-new thing. talk about the time we spent doing input and public hearings, gathering testimony, putting graphs together. did a lot of traveling, when all across the state and we produce maps back in august. so on the commission would give them with lawsuits. and we're doing a little bit of work to forget what we did right and what we did wrong. it's a ten-year commitments i'm going to keep doing it. that's the one minute version, right? that usually removes the blank stare, but folks still don't really know exactly what you do. want to want to do today is worth give you the 15 minute version of the same story. most of the folks in this room are very fluid in the process of redistricting. some of you may have been setting our commission very

thoroughly, this is a very open and transparent process with a lot of public scrutiny. so it's very different being on that side of the policy process. but i think -- it continues to be so. as you know, proposition 11 which was passed in 2008, proposition 20 which is past two years later, major shifts in the political alignment of who does redistricting in california shifted from the legislature to an independent commission in charge that have produce maps to look at status in the, state amendment, the house of representatives. and as we know, a big change in the power structure. who draws the lines in california. and to the extent that california was an initial

process often good or bad, leads the nation in some novel policymaking, i think it's an important development. it's certainly worth the study. i have had to live up for the last year or so, and i think it's worth talking about how all that in about and what the result is or how the process resulted in i think a very good map that came out several months ago. at some of you know, there was a very extensive selection process. it took over a year for all the commissioners to be picked. over 30,000 people filed initial applications to be on the commission. there was a supplemental application, only about 4500 people submitted applications to a lengthy set of essays, financial disclosures coming any possible relationship with the legislature, to lobbyists if your background checks that were done. and the bureau of state audits which was in charge of narrowing the pool, over 4500 applications

down to 120. so you can imagine it was a very hard process for them, but one that really went down to a very qualified group of people together. even with the 120 there were sets of interviews. we all had to go in and talk for an hour and a half during the summer. they got it down from 120 down to 60. after his down to 60, the legislative leaders had basically a veto, sort of veto votes and you're able to narrow down from 60 down to 36. and once it got to the 36 we're broken up into pools of democrats, republicans, and those affiliate with neither party. and there was a lottery system. and it's all the stuff you might see on television with ping pong balls and wire basket spinning around, and you. at that point the first eight commissioners. and then after that the eight commissioners will pick the remaining six. so you ended up with 14 people

at the end of that process to work him into, and it into practice actually, was supposed to represent a good cross-section of california geographically, racially, ethnically, gender balance as well. now, i have to say i was even picked in the first 14. i didn't get picked -- i didn't get picked. my ping pong ball number didn't come. if you look at the demographic mix with a particular group of eight, i was not going to add to the diversity of the pool. and asian-american democrat and seven cisco was already in that pool. you're not going to get a second one. highly unlikely. and i understood that. we tried to diversify the panel of many commissions so that was understood that the one of the commissioners stepped down in january. despite my sort of not so great demographic set of characteristics, they decided to pick me. so i became the replacement commissioner in february of last year. so, the process itself took over

a year, and if you look at the actual timeline, one year to take the commissioners, seven and a half months from january to august 15 was the time to actually draw the line. okay, so you can imagine that that was a very thorough process, thorough vetting process. we have a great team of people on the commission, an attorney, urban planner comment engineer, and a lot of professional folks very well-educated, very talented group of people, all worked tremendously well in group settings. we are very mission-driven and trying to do our work. so there's no question to us that this is a really group -- really good group of people. if you think about how much work have to do to redistrict in a state of california for its legislative boundaries and congressional boundaries, seven and a half months is a pretty short amount of time. we had to pull together a staff. we had to find office space.

get consultants, get attorneys. .. >> we try to remove incumbency protection and those sorts of influences and all the hooter -- horse trading that might occur and try to get that out of the process as much as we could. we're very ambitious, and set up 5 process that we're initially

trying to get up to 50 hearings done in that period, produce two draft maps before august 15th. we didn't get all the way there. we ran out of time in some instances, but we did over 30 hearings. we received over 20,000 comments with our individual maps or districts or e-mails and faxes and postal mail, hundreds of people often came to the hearings. it was a very extensive and i think a very great process to get people to come out of the district to do it. it was a great process, but could have been done better, certainly, but we did well given the time constraints. now, if you think about redistricting, and some of you have done redistricting yourselves, you know it's a time consuming process. you just can't slap it all together. it's not all done by computer. you have to look at all the

things you have to put together whether it's public testimony, or demographic data, and it all comes into play. it is an inherently political process. a commission is an attempt to remove as much as possible legislative interests, direct legislative interests, but it is impossible to remove politics from the process, individuals, groups, organizations from the public have interests. they want to see certain districts. they want to see certain alignments, and if you think about the power structure within the legislature, who has power who wants to get more power, you know people try to change the lines, obviously, and if you look at the descrur of the commission which is -- structure of the commission which is divided five democrat, five republican, and four other, nonpartisan or minor party afghanistans, -- affiliations, you know that doesn't necessarily reflect the

california. the democratic party is 50% higher than the republican representation in the lock -- electorat. i'm a democratic member, and i'll note that. our friends on the republican side certainly were expecting something different out of this election, and that was reflected in the process of 11 alignment. democratting did not support prop 11, but republicans did. the republicans are suing us largely in state and federal courts. we had a very extensive process, a lot of hearings, a lot of testimony. we produced one draft map in june. we sort of ran out of time trying to produce a second one, but had an open process so people could see what we were doing while we were doing it. we made missteps every now and

then. if you put out a draft map in june, you better make sure you've done your voting rights act and your voting analysis before you release a draft because if you don't do that before you release the draft and not lucky enough to hit the lines where they probably fall, you'll get criticized, and we were. we were criticized, but we had set certain deadlines, and we had a lot of testimony already, but we had not put together the complete data set, and that's something we had to learn from experience, and as we moved forward, we addressed those concerns, and we revised those drafts as well, and so i think there were imperfections in the process, and given the time constraints, we did the best that we could. now, we ended up, i think, with the process that is no doubt, in my mind, far more open, far more transparent, for more accessible to the public than what we've

seen in california prior. we had individuals running from all over -- coming in from all over the state, multiple languages, english certainly, spanish, asian languages, a number of european languages spoke at the hearings. there were teens testifying, and folks in their 80s and 90s testified. some drove hundreds of miles to come to the hearings. it was amazingly encouraging what we saw, and as we were putting our maps together, and we had a number of criteria to follow, follow the one person, one vote rule, the voting rights act, continuity requirements, compactness requirements, known as nesting, trying to put two assembly districts in the senate district as well as an important prohibition, and that is we were not allowed to look at incumbency. we were not allowed to look at candidacy. we were not allowed to look at

party registration. if you think how this is done, how could that be? how do you take out of all of those interests? that's how the law was structured to try as much as possible to remove those kinds of considerations. now, is that the best way to go? that's something to think about. putting the maps together, we had to make a lot of hard choices. redistricting is a zero-sum game. you can't pull in the next part of arizona or oregon for a creative solution. you have to deal with what you're dealt with. we had a lot of tough choices to make. in a lot of the state, the testimony was consistent. it led us to very clear solutions, but in many parts of the state, we had difficult decisions to make. we had to reconcile different points of view, two or three maps, different communities, no

more tougher than in southern california looking at the core of los angeles. dealing in particular be minority populations, looking at what was a relative decline in the african-american population in many parts of central l.a., growth of asian populations, trying to reconcile different interests, hearing different kinds of testimony, and if you followed the hearings or looked back at the transcripts and tapes, it became emotional, and the issue of race which is an up hairnt part of re-- inherent part of redistricting came up in the meetings, and a lot of tears shed trying to decide what to do in l.a.. if you think redistricting is all about maps and drawing lines on a computer screen, there's a lot more to it. it's how people identify themselves. it's how people think about communities, how they think about power within the state. all of those come to play, not just the technical side to it. it was a great process trying to put it all together.

i think all of us, for the most part, other than in the section 5 count is where we had to look at existing districts to ensure there was not retrogreat depression. -- retrogression. we wanted to start with a blank slate. i think that's what we did. we had our districts and how the alignments generally work, but other than the section 5, we didn't have to stick to prior maps, let's look at something new and look at the testimony. let's look at what people had to say, how they define themself, what do you think based on our own experience, and that was a very effective process. now, we were successful. our maps came down to a vote, at the end of the july, looking at an august 16th deadline, and we thought going into it, can we get the votes? the voting structure of the

commission where you have to have a certain number of each subgroup voting in favor of a map, we thought, well, if we lose a couple people, can we get a map out? all of this work, the hundreds of hours that we spent listening to people going through testimony, working on this, we lose that if we didn't get the votes. fortunately, we did get a vote on state map we had a 13-1 vote, and the congressional map there was a 12-2 vote. although there's divisions among the commissioners, it's clear it was a multipartisan effort, and all of us felt the mission was accomplished when we produced the maps in mid-august. now, our job's not done, and those of you who have been following the developments around the commission r you know there's been some lawsuits, a couple of state lawsuits filed in the state supreme court back in september.

the court u.ly -- ultimately dismissed the maps on both state and federal grounds. those were dismissed. there was a federal lawsuit still pending. that is focusing on congressional districts in southern california primarily looking at federal and voting rights act claims. we have, at this point, a potential referendum that may be appearing on the ballot. the senate map is being challenged via referendum. the signature count is still not in yet. we'll know probably by the end of february whether there's a referendum appearing on the novak -- november ballot this year. even if the referendum qualifies, and by law the maps have to be stayed pending the resolution of the vote, the court says as an interim measure, the states must use the commission's maps, so in that

sense; the commission's maps are still in place. i think we're confident regardless of whatever format happens to be within the litigation or through a referendum process that we'll see the maps upheld, and we're confident about that. now, again, i have a 10-year term. i'm going to be a commissioner at least until the next commission is picked in 2020 or 2021, and there's still a lot of work we're doing. we're looking at what went right and wrong in the process, trying to evaluate the process, and there's no question that we've looked at the timing and the calendaring of all of these activities. it was much too tight. the schedule we were dealt was much too compressed. not that we would have done maps differently necessarily, but that we had to put in a lot of data gathering, a lot of work with far too tight time line. i think we're all going to be recommending the lobby change at least give us the next

commission more time to do that. be great to have a higher budget. okay, you only have a couple million dollars to do redistricting, and at this appointment, we're probably spending more on legal fees defending the maps than we are drawing the maps, but as you know, that's the nature of the redistricting process. somebody's going to sue and somebody has to pay lawyers for money to defend the maps. that's an issue. is this system other places ought to adopt? that's a question we're looking at. it's been a grand experiment. i think it was a successful one, but is this the kind of system you ought to adopt? now, whether you can adopt one in the first place is a tough one. this is a product of direct democracy. a set of ballot initiatives were put together. the legislature didn't initiate this process, and trying to get a legislature to change the process, that they give up the power to put in the hands of the commission is a daunting one. i don't know if you can do that

in states that don't have valid initiative procedures, but it's worth trying. in the states that do, can you put together an initiative to create a commission like our commission? i think you could. do you want to do it the way california has done it? well, that's a really good question. it's 14, is that the right number? can you represent an entire state among 14 people? , is 14 people too many? can you get work done? we got work done. we did a lot of very good work with that number and was very effective, and for the most part, it's consensus driven throughout the whole process. that might not be the case in every state. is that the right number? is the party balance right? if you're the minority party, you love having the same amount of seats as the majority party. if you're the majority party, maybe you don't like that. how do you divide that? the legislative leaders had

essentially a veto over part of the pool. we don't know what they -- why they did, why they removed who they removed, sort of like a challenge if you look at a jury pool. they could have told us why they did it. they didn't. maybe you want to know. maybe that's something you ought to mandate, but in any case, the legislature did play some role, and somebodiments -- some may want a larger role and others a lesser role. it's something to think about. there's a lot of combinations and ways to go. one thing that should be of special concern, particularly given the theme of this symposium is the commission necessarily a good thing for racial and ethnic minority rights? okay? does a commission system work better in terms of voting rights enforcement, in terms of guarantees political empowerment from minority groups, and i think the answer is yes, but i don't think it's necessarily so even though, in this case, with our commission, i think we did a

very good job in terms of satisfying concerns raised by many civil rights groups in proposition 11. now, some of you may remember most of the major civil rights groups in california did not support proposition 11 back in 2008. there were concerns about the composition of the panel, whether the commission would be representative of the minority interests, whether the actual outcomes would reflect sufficient input by minority interests, and given how the law was written and what occurred in practice, those concerns were late. if you look at the membership of the commission, 11 out of 14 members are people of color, okay? all five of the democratic members are either latino or asian-american so if you are thinking in terms of scriptive representation in the circle, that's not bad. 11 out of 14, that's pretty

good, but that's not the same as substantive representation; right? if you think about what the outcomes are, what the policies that come out of commission, will you necessarily get a good outcome? again, i think we did a very good job, complying fully with the constitution, with section 5, with section 2, and i have no problem saying we did the right thing. we can defend our maps against all challenges. is that guaranteed by a commission? commissions, after all, like legislatures are majority bodies, and even though california is often labeled a majority-minority state, that's not the case when you look at the electorat. it's not the same when you look at who votes in california. to the extent a commission might not lead you to the results that you would like to see given minority interests, i think thras a very -- that is a very legitimate concern.

we have the voting rights act to check those potential problems, but it is not necessarily a guarantee. i think if you look at the process that we went through, all of the outreach and input, the commission in and of itself was not sufficient to ensure that the minority communities got or received the outreach that they needed to receive in order to participate in the process. the james irvine foundation poured in well over a million dollars to local community and civil rights organizations to ensure minority communities in the state received the right information, that they were able to participate in the process, and as we saw and heard earlier, there was very good participation. that's not guaranteed if you don't have sufficient funding, and when a private foundation injects that much money, over half of our budget for all of our work in the initial stages, that tells you a commission

might not be enough, that you need partnerships or you have to fund it at a higher level so to make sure minority interests are protected, you have to ensure there's sufficient resources. given all of this, and this is a question i was often asked in august and september after, again, having spent hundreds of hours working on commission work, and, of course, i was well, given all you've done, the time sacrificed, time spent away from your family, and by the way, i owe my wife several months of time spent away. i was away for a long time. i'll probably spend the next ten years making it up to her, all that lost spring and summer, but given all of that, would you want to do it again? of course the answer is yes, absolutely. i would always want to do this again. this has been an amazing experience. again, as someone who continues to be an advocate on civil