suing their former colonizers. know thathough we all nobody is going to win, the good that comes out of it is di dialogue.and when i actually read in the talkinghat they were about ptsd, i just couldn't hadn't it, because i seen that ptsd was something that we carry in our memory, as people, regardless of what collar we are, who are new americans. that becauseink especially in new york city we're so diverse, right, i there's another word we have to come to use for the were diverse. colorful!-- we should be looking at our apart from just north

america. we should be looking at ourselves as americans. if you are latino and you feel like public enemy number one, for example, at yourself on the back. inause of america started the dominican republic. it was the first successful european settlement. the first place where there was indigenous american slavery. that is why we are so racially ambiguous, if you will. we have to start looking at ourselves as an insular community. we are more powerful! was that a little new age-y? >> that was a little new age- y! you have any questions on those cards, if you could send wem to the isles -- aisles,

will bring them up or a will try to dive in. >> talking about taylor swift! >> we want to talk about taylor swift. [laughter] >> easy! is brooklynhat historical tweaking. -- tweeting. tweeted, "i feel what is missing from the national .onversation is paranoia " thank you for touching on that, because we just talked about it briefly. -ness,ea of victim offenders are also victims of the system. >> it is to me ridiculous.

think that we are all products of is the same system. therefore, we are damaged in different ways. there are feelings of superiority there are so ingrained within our culture, and to be white and a product of that society is kind of like growing up the champagne factory. you can't really see, you are a little slow. [laughter] is amazing to me because i have now gone through the looking glass. and i am no expert or genius. i will is podcast a few weeks ago and a very intelligent, commentatorcal said that she had read an

editorial by a filmmaker. there was very little black tv , and then it began the better, but then it died off on the channel upn. see black now that we people are having shows like white people again. i was totally shocked by this. i thought to myself, is that true? data! thought [laughter] him, and then i realized i understand it, i see it. how can you not see that? but some people don't. the parody in the "dear white people" thing is that white

people have black people ghetto parties. they are deliberately trying to but then you think, no -- they really are that stupid! [laughter] and they are my people and i come from that place. [laughter] ambassador ofthe reasonableness and decency? [laughter] >> even though i love my wife and she is a decent person, but -- [laughter] >> be very, very careful. was wrote a book that inspired by president obama, and i thought i don't have a black friend, and i thought that was weird. i have got to this juncture where i don't know any black people, what is up with that? introduce myself

at parties and i would say i am writing a book about white people, and people would get very uncomfortable. wife and a party, and i began to explain what i'd at a party, iife began to explain what i do. she got very nervous because i was being very forthright and dumping it out there. all my friends do that. they've read my book and they like my book, but they kind of seas up and clients up -- clench up and have a difficult time with. the first phase of dealing with race is you either get -- well, you either go one of two ways. you either go bill o'reilly where you get very defensive, and you say shut up. you get that angry, defensive will o'reilly mode.

or you get that hard-core aeling of guilt, and you make youtube video, and you talk about michael brown. white people don't approach it because they don't want to go there, and it is a very uncomfortable place to be with white denial. what they don't understand is if you go deep and long enough, it beer.e talking about you get used to it and you get comfortable, and all of that white guilt and anxiety is gone. >> is that like a white promised land? [laughter] i have been to the promised land, white people! [laughter] >> honestly, when you -- the conversation is very binary.

read the book, or when i saw the movie "dear white three," there were mentions of latinos in p assing, and i just felt orta, not, kinda, s really. we have to have that conversation. i thought president barack obama would open a conversation where it would not be binary. stop met people would if i was getting on an airplane for example, especially older white people, and they would say, is that a latina? we started having this conversation, but everything really does exist in a gray space.

people think that everything is black and white, but that is not how the world works. everything exists in gray. of the racial dynamic, you are absolutely right. there is a dynamic all along the spectrum to be dealt with. we haveso true that some issues to settle -- >> but it does not involve fisticuffs! [laughter] defineslack and white the continuum, rightly or wrongly, as you how the conversations should take place. forut how does that bode latinos as black teen is are neither black nor white? [laughter] [applause] >> thank you for being here! >> thank you, thank you, thank you! when we have these beautiful

and somewhat illegible thoughts here -- [laughter] this is a question, so apology for the lack of citation. " is there a difference between powers within the world that they don't care anymore?" you mentioned the demographic of 2050, etc. ng -- anxiety, roca quelle? >> we are just falling behind what everybody else is doing. i think scandinavia is going to

rule the world. i think so. because they are investing in their children. into concrete because they are vikings. [laughter] it is in their dna! crime is low in technology is up. >> i don't take instead be scandinavia. that i agree with you on us wasting time. whether we are sending our kids off to war or making a binary contribution, we -- >> and what about the challenges from without? >> we need immigration. we need to stay young, technically. america will be like italy. it will be old.

physically old. they have an old population and the young people cannot support the older population. super-anti--foreigner, and what sustains the u.s. through all of this trauma is whether by force or by lure, people keep showing up. i think with what is happening we are riskingd, sending amazing talent and amazing ideas away. we have this short game view that we have to maintain an idea about america, even if it is just black and white. >> i think that -- well, my read it is not going to go the way that people think it is going to go. in 2042, white people are only going to be half. but that is

still a lot of white people. and we can contain them! [laughter] wholepeople still have a lot of money. all of that valuable downtown real estate in chicago and los angeles, white people own it. white people are only going to be 50%. but what percentage of the mixed race people are going to be assimilated into the middle class? going to happen is that the whites are going to split in two. you'll have the old-school white people that will hang everything on being white. they arescared, nervous, and they are retreating further and further into idaho. they are going to go to the mountains and become hill people. then you will have the other class of whites that are going to be like "what ever." i won't care if my son marry somebody of a different race. i won't care.

i am already in the upper middle upper middle-class white people tend to be more tolerant and accepting because you can't really threaten us. as we are going to be ok. i know that my kids are going to have access to these social and cultural and financial capitals and remain in power regardless of how many people -- >> but you are assuming stability. you are assuming that this balance can exist for another 30 years, and i think it's on point -- i think at some point this system is going to break. yes, i think there will be one point when there will be people that will break off and d assimilate themselves. they're going to run -- de-assimilate themselves. they're going to run off to

idaho. an then you're going to have integrated society without. beige is going to be the new white is what i am trying to say. >> no, i don't know. >> do you want to add something? >> should we keep it going? >> yes. necessarily agree, even if race is a social construct. by white i mean skin color, which is a social barrier. >> you are talking about assimilation to rid out of all of the groups that are immigrants, we are probably -- what is happening is that immigrant groups are -- they are selectively acculturated more and more so. they're taking what they like about the country and what they like about being americans and they are fusing them together.

there is nothing about assimilating -- to what? what are we assimilating to? i think we have to define that. >> what is the gold standard of assimilation? white peopleot of with a lot of money and a lot of jobs. to the extent that you want access to those industries and you have to inform a little bit that way, even if you do not go as far as we did a few years ago. that's why i say beige is the new white. >> i definitely disagree, but we will have more discussions on the hopefully on a future for a. that is why i love that. >> is chad toilet in the house? riffing on the toilet! how can i have a meaningful conversation about race with a white liberal friend and a black friend?

do you want to clarify that? [indiscernible] you say that that gives them license to be ignorant? [indiscernible] i can't have any meaningful conversation with them. >> because they are leaning back on that front as an excuse? know everything because they have one person in their lives. thatu should tell them they should never say that and that they also should know that that is just not true. >> i don't mean a my particular friends. >> he hates you! [laughter] is an amazing costume! whiteust think that people who say they already know

all about this, i took ethics sundays, i read all the articles, i talked about this so irene know. studies, i read all the articles, i talked about this so i already know. >> this shifts the category. would this person say that about north carolina versus south carolina? would they say that about scandinavia versus a doorway? -- versus norway? would they say that about baseball versus hockey? does that rule apply anywhere else in their lives? "i have eaten that chilly so i know how mexican food tastes -- chili so i know how mexican food tastes." [laughter] that does not follow.

i think there are people in their lives whether they're talking about gender lives or gay people, if they know one woman, do they think they know all women? there is an opportunity to not take this race. there is uniqueness of diverse and expect them that we can never know everything based on one thing. n, i loveer a. holde your tweet! rse, how aboute "amalgamagical?" that is awesome! that is beautiful, i actually see sparkles! >> that is beautiful, it is the promised land. amalamagical."

remainder of the evening we shall use amalgamagical as the word that we will use in this panel. [laughter] >> what do we think of you people? people, i --y you [laughter] >> i am really impressed by those people because i was expecting it to be -- ummm. [laughter] a little bit more like, "girls" on hbo! >> not dissing, but you had -- >> i had a confrontation with of weeks ago.le she's a live in brooklyn, and

she said that she got tired of oakland because she said it just got to white. i asked her when she leaved -- tired of brooklyn because she white. just got too i asked her when she leaved, and she said 1997. [laughter] was 1996.y, it i just got tired of all the white people, and i wanted it to be a little less like that. it was a little less amalgamagical than what i wanted to see. >> if you identify as male, raise your hand. all right, if you identify as female, raise your hand. ladies night, apparently. it got a discount, apparently. [laughter]

more -- i don't know, it is like 3/5 female by what i can i don't know, i did not have expectations. i was looking around the corner from the illustrious greenroom over there, and we -- [laughter] thought,w it and i while, there is a range of hairstyles. really. say that it isto better about giving a discussion of race in vermont. !hich i have done ings is much better than be a white guy at a race discussion that never goes. it's funny to be able to make

the black people laugh and then the white people say to themselves, ok, it is going to be fine. willof the white people have permission to enjoy themselves at all otherwise. everyone sits there like -- [laughter] it is horrible. is like, i have never been a standup comedian, but i imagine that that would be what it is like to die on stage. i have seen it on wikipedia, and i thought, that is painful, and a tragic u experience. >> i give this audience a thumbs-up. >> yeah, i do too. i feel like we're not talking about intersectional oppression. [laughter] >> well -- >> so that is a two-part question, but let's focus on

that part. intersectional oppression. why has it failed? defineou want to intersectional oppression? >> the idea that there is no single -- not the wikipedia definition, but that race, gender, that these things are separated by class and that they differentiate depending on where you are in different spaces. so you cannot have a solo conversation about race unless you take gender or class into account. that is the intersection of these things and how they play out. >> i think we did talk about lack mail and brown mail -- male male and brown bodies. i am assuming that when you are born, you are either a woman or a male or somewhere in between,

so i think that we did, but maybe we are guilty of not going enough in depth. -- it iss -- this is very difficult to have these conversations because you can never please. and this is such a broad topic. intersectionsany of this subgroup or that, so you can never please anyone. i think the farther the people shy away from these conversations -- i mean, i wrote a 2001 article for slate -- for it was not 2000 words, and so i had to pick to talk about and did not talk about the other 90 things. i'll had 2000 words. page,. is a two someone actually wrote -- two

page comment. "pagee actually wrote one," and then there is a page do. mey say that it seems to that i'm surrounded by white people, but that being said, i wonder how it feels about making whiteness more public. hope that makes sense, thanks! [laughter] the comment just jumped off the page. i hope you do not mind my interpretive lightness! [laughter] andess that you spoke out racquel felt very clearly about this black and white conversation, but this is an between whatawn

people should do. i think we need to talk about whiteness. maybe we don't call it privilege by it allows us to have an escape hatch and to walk through the world as if color does not matter. on my show recently we talked about the whiteness project and a bunch of white people were down in front of cameras and they let them think out loud. they were asking why they were doing a lot of things for the black people and they felt resentful and we were discussing the intersection of class so i pass love to in some ways -- maybe share the baton as to what the conversation is. i mean that is part of why you

are here. is that theund power of white -- i think, white supremacists understand whiteness the least. >> they are very bad with grammar. >> they are very bad with grammar and technology and math. [laughter] white supremacist are these rubes who have bought into this idea of white race and it is all nonsense. banked everything on the purity of white race and keeping the white race pure from all contamination. is i don't think that where the power of white comes from. i think that white power could mean anything. i think it is very freudian in nature. and if you look at the

definition of whiteness from back in the 1800s to the definition of what it means today, it is changed radically. whiteness will be what ever it needs to be to stay where it is. that is the end during power of that idea. idea, it is ale pernicious idea, and we can all admit why it is bad. white supremacy just marches on year after year. why is that? why is it so strong. comingfrench revolution you had 40 families that had all of the money. so the revolution said, let's kill them and then we got a new regime. and then the idea was here, what is the ruling class in america? it's white people. he just mutates from one year to the next and now it includes

catholics and now it includes jews, and if we need to kick out to get out ofsh here and move to, we will do that. i going to come at it from a gray space. i visit the dominican republic often. if you look at the whole island, whiteness and blackness is mix, it has to do with economics. i ran into a doctor and a dentist who typically looks like a shorter version of michael jordan. one of my mentors there said, you know that guy right there? he is considered white here. it is like in brazil when you look at pele, the soccer player.

the more money he got, he bought his way in and he became white. some people stopped referring to him as being black. and in the dominican republic, it is often that way. haiti, the ruling class there is often times considered white. class asof the ruling well in the dominican republic. so they look at basically power, race, and race has to do with typical looks, but it really has to do with the money you have. we look at where america started and where we want to gauge where we are going here in north america. so, maybe it is another way of what you were saying? that whiteness and blackness is fluid? >> i don't know if i wonder or if i civilly hope for at in-stat, but the perseverance of wonder or if i i

instead, thatr it the perseverance of whiteness, we talk about transnationals and then somebody mentioned india and china. china in particular, there are things that are going to change in such dramatic ways that i think are happening outside of the bubble of this conversation -- what is the power of coulter that we have seen, including american culture that has been thatng -- power of culture we have seen, including american onture that has been riding black people so long. when we consider mandarin, and we think about world power shifting -- and it is going

to challenge us. my friend is a linguist, and the interesting thing about english is -- whiteness in english came up in the world extemporaneously. english sort of took over the world in a very pernicious and advantageous moment in technology. french was the language of the court of the world. english came along with the typewriter and with the internet and with the computer and all of these forms of technology, and english has the technology of infinitely flexible. french are very rigid in their language. >> they put omg in the dictionary! [laughter] english is a language that can expand infinitely to be, you know, whatever it needs to be, but mandarin chinese is very ancestral and it is very difficult to learn. and they are trying to change

that to learn and make it more of an international language. continue to mutate and expand and adapt. like a virus! [laughter] i don't know. that is not to advocate for whiteness, but that is what i think the whiteness will do. >> are we talking about an --rican english 4 -or are manyy, there different forms. it can mutate and spread. h -- spell sell like " "honor" three different ways! [laughter] 8:00 i room for -- -- hit his 8:00 and we want to save room 8:00 and we want to

save room for -- 200 bring them out? >> hi. >> hi. to expand on why you would not think intersection allete -- i asked that question in the second question. about mayaybe talk why you would not think it is important -- how does this really make an intersectional conversation? you are talking about race as a social construct, so why not include all other social construct that equally fact our perception of what is race? so if you could just expand on that? >> will give you a quick answer.

ferguson was in the news. it was not intentional. >> it was not a conscious effort. for most of us and all of us, the intersectional conversation is baked in. to give you a quick background on what is happening, which we never did, we -- >> we are going to give you an introduction now. >> i wrote this book, "how to be black," and one of my friends read a book "some of my best friends are black," and it turns out that we learned a few things that were worth sharing. racquel and i thought about going on tour

together. we did do one live event exactly a year ago in manhattan. we talked about the national conversation about race with sold-out o'brien -- sol -- soledad o'brien. we wanted to continue this conversation and expand it. so we reached out to locale -- raquel and we said are you interested? so this came out of an attempt to expand the conversation. we wanted to talk about representing your people and talk about latinos and immigration.

iterations a second of that event. but there was no conscious idea to avoid intersection analogy -- intersectionality. but we all have race titles in our work and we always explore race as a primary variable in identity. abouto, we wanted to talk -- yes, we also thought about doing a podcast. so this is like a test. >> we are going to actually bark at each other the entire time. the shirt man with the hat! >> i wrote about anxiety. i put thatwhy

question together is that it seems like we talked about obama and the election, but what brought me to that was that we came together and we elected a a process that we took to elect president obama, as far as donation, it seemed like the whole community got together. as soon as he came into the courthouse, the supreme just took the power away from the regular americans. it would make a smaller, richer foreign donor get power, and it really rewrites the direction of where america is going. , but italking about race think there is a lot going on that is really taking away our entire definition of what being american really is. >> hear hear! up after got ratcheted

.he election of president obama american democracy has always been kind of a sham. the talk about equality a little bit. the promise has never been matched by the reality. we have tried to get closer, and that is the point of our whole project. the whole reaction to the president, i underestimated it. i got all caught up. i was knocking on doors in texas and in virginia and pennsylvania. yes! thinking, we're creating a democracy and we are rewriting the rules and is going to be great! there,ors were always

the lobbyists were always there, d very concerted and collaborated decisions to make sure that whatever this president said, it was never going to happen. it was just never going to happen, so much so that we even heard them say that out loud. that is what the whole political , like theabout heritage foundation, about nuclear proliferation treaties, about everything. the way the electoral system works here, like the persuasion or the lack of persistence that a lot of us have in the midterms, i mean we showed up for the big game but not the scrimmages in between! >> i think that we really came

together to elect obama. the beauty of the obama campaign was that it was about hope and change and yes we can! and also, not bush! >> please, not again! >> yes, and not palin! people could fill that vessel with anything that they could aspire to. i thought, there are a lot of white people supporting obama, there are a lot of black people supporting obama, there are a lot of latino people supporting obama, and we are all doing it in your friend's zip codes. he is a galvanizing figure and we saw what we wanted to do through here. marketinggn was branding brilliance from day one. but that campaign was genius from start to finish is a phenomenon.

-- as a phenomenon. thatme out two days ago america is no longer a functional democracy, we are an oligarchy. the interests of the middle class is diverted and not followed most of the time because of the interest of the top 5%. when your interests coincide with the top 5%, you will say, democracy is being responsive! but it is not so, you'd did happen to agree with the top 5%. >> hooray! >> i was cautiously optimistic about it from the beginning. he was making a lot of lofty immigration promises and i knew he was just not going to follow through on them. --topped kind of the leaving of believing.

so i voted for him but i think i kind of -- i don't know -- i think he could have been a great president as well as. and one thing that hillary has shown, to he has not or cajones!s balls, [laughter] against what democrats wanted. obama has not done that. he is kind of like -- >> has he not done that or has he done as much as he can? >> he has made a lofty freaking promises, but then he says, i can't do anything because of this congress. >> i think he was shocked.

on -- this ise purple america. red america, there is no blue america, there is just a purple america, and he believed that. the first thing that he did was say, how can i work with you? and they were like, go for yourself -- go fuck yourself! was a level of anger and disrespect and it was totally even billted rate clinton, who was accused of murdering his best friend, he has not been accused of the obama hast president been because he's the first. they want to test him and remind him and there is only so far you can go without us. where is the mic? for this panel.

as a millennial, i feel like we made a very important conversation about race and justice because race is one of how itgest markers for justice is delivered, whether it is in the criminal justice system, whether it is an education, or across the board. i would like to talk about the 1% and how it 96.1% of the 1% is white, and you know, to be invisible, a fifth of us are not even visible within this conversation. includes huge numbers of different kinds of asian americans that are running at many different kinds of companies and tech companies. also, that includes native people. and i also wanted to talk about the role of white supremacy on the native people and as well as on chicanos.

so how do we complex of five this conversation to talk about aboutory of race thinking solutions and moving forward, because that is what my generation cares about, because we are tired of just being beaten down. we can't do anything about it. there is something wrong with us! >> thank you! [applause] thank you! that was great. >> there are two things going on here. complex an incredibly situation happening, when affirmative action of first started and these kinds of issues were going to address the ills of slavery and jim crow, for a long time that was seen as programs for blacks. but they were written for all minorities. and then at one point we stopped

talking about affirmative action because it was dirty, and then we started talking about diversity. then it was no longer about justice, it was about promoting diversity because diversity was good for companies. part of the selling points to the all black establishment was, hey, white people are tired of hearing your complaints, so we're going to take blacks concerns and make them into the trojan horse of other groups like gays and the elderly, and we are going to slip a black people in there with them and then we are going to make a big pitch about how diversity is good for companies. there are black institutions that had been suffering under jim crow. andthere are several asian brown people from around the world, but this is about us. we are the ones who was vick mize -- who were victimized by slavery and jim crow.

so get in line behind the native americans, because this is our conversation. that conversation really got hijacked and turned into diversity. challenges to other immigrant communities and the ones that they face, but asians are doing ok, and indians are moving up, but there is a promise that diversity was going to help everyone including these victims of jim crow. it has not come true. diversity has more helped other groups, and they have scanned at thetops of the indians and other communities and the low income blacks fall farther and farther the hind. now these companies can say, hey, look at our diversity! fromhe blacks who suffer the deprivations of jim crow continue to fall further behind. so yes, we still need to have this conversation. but we need to have both

conversations. [applause] conversations about the conversations about the conversations about race! we have to wrap this, guys, because you are getting tired. i can tell, because we have people like you are. they're going to move the signing thing is happening. that out there? no, we not going to move it all. half moderator, i want to thank youtube for being here, [applause] -- here. [applause] , and it is anot incomplete thing. to be continued, really! >> we will do this again and hopefully we will be coming to a

podcast to your earbuds in the near future. but i don't know where specifically. but thanks for that! [applause] >> all this week on c-span, interviews with retiring members of congress. tonight, we will talk with and that willrnor be at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> there are a lot of talented younger members. ,nd it is not just miss pelosi i think she is a great leader and i think she is wonderful and raising money. that is not one of my fortes.

i was never good at that. we need to start training younger people and bringing it younger people into the caucus to become hopefully the future leaders. ie of the things of that certainly believe with all of my heart and soul is that you have to know when to leave. feel obviously does not that this is the time to leave. that she discussed might stay for may be this coming year. they thought hopefully she would turn the reins over to someone else. d, ishen i look aroun anybody willing and ready to replace her? it is a hard job. it is time that leaders start looking at who is going to film i spot. we are all replaceable. there might be some bumps in the road, but i do always believe that at times younger people

will have to take our spots with fresh ideas and new ways of doing things. i see nothing wrong with that. that is progression and a normal progression. the entiresee interview with carolyn mccarthy tonight on c-span. and starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we will have that discussion. president obama and secretary of defense chuck hagel announced today that secretary hagel was resigning. this is 15 minutes. >> good morning everybody. please be seated. ago, the secretary of defense, chuck hagel, was visiting our troops and thanking them for their service. they asked him the usual topics

about national security and the future of our military. then one soldier, a surgeon from ohio, asked him what was the ohio,- a sergeant from asked him what was the most important football team? nd raisedborn ia in nebraska, i am a lifelong cornhuskers fan. has been no ordinary secretary of defense. veteranlisted combat who served in that position, he understands what our men and women understand and how few others. he has been in the dirt and he has been in the muck. and that has established a special bond. in them, andlf they see themselves in him. their safety and their lives

have always been at the center of chuck's service. when i asked chuck to serve as secretary of defense, we were entering a significant. of transition. the draw out of afghanistan and the need to prepare our forces for future missions and tough physical choices to keep our military strong and ready. for nearly two years, chuck has been an exemplary defense secretary, providing a steady hand as we modernize our strategy and our budget and meet our threats while still responding to challenges like i sil and ebola. been engagingys in these missions and looking forward to the future. chuck came to me and discussed the final quarter of my presidency, and having helped the department through this

transition, it was time for him to complete his service. chuck isst say that and always has been a great friend of mine. i have known him and admired him and trusted him for nearly a decade, since i was a green behind the ears freshman senator , and we were both on the senate foreign relations committee. but there is one thing i know about check that he does not make a defense or any decision lightly. certainly myself lucky to have had him by my side for two years, and i am grateful that chuck has agreed to stay on until i nominated a successor and that successor is nominated by the congress. i will have more opportunity to patriot to chuck's life and service in the days ahead, for now, let me just say this. chuck hagel has devoted himself to our national security and our men and women in the law

the military- in force for four decades. veterans, including his fellow vietnam veterans. at the uso, he always make sure that america honors our troops. g.i.lped pass of the 9/11 bill, which helps many americans see a full education. he has helped our military around the world, and during his tenure, afghan forces took the lead in afghanistan and forces have been drawn down. combat mission their ends next month and we are part of -- partnered with afghanistan to ensure the gains that we have made. we have reassured our allies with error increased presence in

central and eastern europe. he has modernize our alliances and updated our defense posture and recently agreed to improve communications between the u.s. and chinese militaries. allk has been critical of these accomplishments. meanwhile, chuck has ensured that our military is ready for new missions. today our men and women in uniform are taking the fight l in iraq and syria and making sure that though u.s. -- that the u.s. is leading this war against isis. difficult very budgetary environment. chuck has never lost sight. the readiness of our force in the quality of our life and our troops and their families.

he has launched new reforms to ensure that even though our military is leaner, it remains the strongest in the world and so our troops can continue to get the pay, the housing, health care, the childcare that they and their families need. the reforms that we need congress to now support. , after the time tragedies that we have seen, chuck has helped lead the security in our military theallations and keep off scourge of sexual assault within our military ranks. chuck i want to thank you. we come from different parties, but in accepting this position, you have sent a powerful mission word about this

menstruation to this city. you have always given everything to me -- about this administration to this city. q of given everything to me straight. i recall when i was a nominee in 2008 and i traveled to afghanistan and iraq. chuck hagel accompanied me on that trip, along with jack reed. it's pretty rare at a time when -- sometimes this town is so politicized, and to have a friend who was willing to accompany a nominee from another party because he understood that whoever ended up eating mostdent, what was important was that we were unified were me confronted the challenges we see overseas. and that is the kind of class and integrity that chuck hagel has always represented. you said that a life is only as good as the family and friends

you surround yourself with, and with that, you are blessed. i want to thank your wife and children for the sacrifices they have made as well. as reluctant as you are -- as we are to see you go, they are equally excited to get their husband and father back. sure as a cornhusker, your state is glad to see that you will be there to cheer them on more often. treasure and is theces of generations result of the character and wisdom of those who lead the mess well, including a young army sergeant in been on who rose to serve as our nation's 34th secretary of defense. on behalf of a grateful nation, thank you, chuck. [applause]

>> thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. mr. president, thank you. thank you for your generous words, for your friendship, for your support, which i have always valued and will continue butalue until i am not old, my longtime dear friend vice president biden who i have always admired and respected. both the president and i have learned a lot from the vice president over the years. thank you. and i want to thank the deputy secretary of defense and the

chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general marty dempsey, who is also here. i want to thank them for being here this morning. botho want to thank you for your tremendous leadership of the defense department and what you mean to our men and women and their families all over the world. the honor i've had to serve with each of you, and the privilege. it has been in every way. i want to thank the entire leadership team at the pentagon. without their support and wise counsel over the last couple of years, our many accomplishments -- and the president noted some -- i have been part of that. but it's a piece -- it's a team. --s all these tremendous win men and women, as you know, mr. president, and i could not be prouder of them and what we've accomplish in a almost two years

i had the honor of serving of -- in this position. and mr. president, as i have noted, i have today submitted my resignation for secretary of defense. it has been the greatest privilege of my life to lead, and most important, to serve, to serve with the men and women of -- dispense department defense department and their families. i'm immensely proud of what we have accomplished during this time. we have prepared ourselves, as the president has noted, and our allies and afghan security forces for a successful transition in afghanistan. we have bolstered enduring alliances and strengthened emerging partnerships while successfully responding to crises around the world. and we have launched important reforms that the president noted, reforms that will prepare this institution, the challenges facing us in decades to come. we have set not only

this department, the department of defense, but the nation on a stronger course toward stability, security, and prosperity. if i didn't believe that, i would not have done this job. as our country prepares to wantrate thanksgiving, i you, mr. president and you, vice president biden, to a knowledge what you have done -- to acknowledge what you have done, and i'm grateful for both of you and your friendship and leadership in giving me this opportunity to serve a country once again. i will continue to serve you best support you, mr. president, and the men and women who serve this -- i will continue to support you, mr. president and the men and women who serve this country so unselfishly. and as i have said and as the president noted, i will stay on this job and work just as hard as i have over the last couple ,f years everyday, every moment until my successor is confirmed

by the united states senate. i would also like to express my gratitude to our colleagues on capitol hill. my gratitude to them for their support of me, but more importantly, their support of our troops. and their families. and their continued commitment to our national security. i also want to thank my international counterparts for their friendship and partnership and their device during my time as secretary of defense. their involvement with me and their partnership with me in so many of these important areas as we build these coalitions of common notice -- common interest, as you have noted, mr. president, i will be forever grateful to them. and finally, i would like to thank my family. my wife, lily beth, who you mentioned, who was with me this withoutas she has been -- with me throughout so many years. and during so many tremendous

experiences, and this experience and opportunity and privilege to serve as secretary of defense has been one of those. mr. president, again, thank you to you, and to all of our team everywhere, as we know, it is a team effort. is part of the fun of it, to help build teams and to work together to make things happen for the good of the country and to make a better world. for all of that, i'm immensely grateful, and to all of you and your families, happy thanksgiving. inc. you very much. [applause] -- thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> some reaction to secretary hegel's resignation from capitol hill. house speaker john boehner released a statement saying this and from senate majority leader harry reid -- and we will discuss the resignation of defense secretary chuck hagel on tomorrow morning's "washington journal." military reporter

andrew tillman. and then we will talk with billy shore of the group share our strength about hunger in america. liveington journal" is every day at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> this week, c-span is featuring interviews from retiring members of congress. watch tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> the members are partisan, well, tell that to some of the people involved in congress back in 1830's to 1860's. henry clay, certainly stephen a douglas -- these people were struggling desperately to work out compromises to keep the union of float and avoided

splitting up. but i think we have a lot of talented younger members -- >> i think we have a lot of talented younger members. and it's not just mrs. pelosi. i think she has been a great leader and she's really good at raising money. it's not one of my fortes. i was never good at that. got to start training younger people and bringing younger people into the caucus to become hopefully, the future leaders. i certainlyhings believe with all of my heart and soul, you have to know when to leave. thursday,o on thanksgiving day, and american history tour of various native american tribes at 10:00 a.m. eastern on "-- following washington journal. then a groundbreaking of the new diplomacy center in washington with former secretaries of state. and supreme court justices clarence thomas, samuel alito, and soanya soto meyer --

sotomayor. for a complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. >> the supreme court earlier this month considered whether alabama uses racial gerrymandering when drying districts. alabama black caucus sued the state saying that mr.'s are racially segregated, resulting in less influence for black voters. this oral argument is one hour, 10 minutes. >> we'll hear argument in case number 13895, alabama legislative black caucus in alabama v. alabama, and case 131138, the alabama democratic conference v. alabama. mr. pildes. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, alabama employed rigid racial quotas, rigid racial targets to design all its black majority districts based on mere racial statistics alone, and then used only racial demographic data to meet those

targets with astonishing precision. these targets were not based on any consideration of what's required under current conditions in alabama as section 5 actually requires. racial quotas in the context of districting are a dangerous business. they can be a way of giving minorities faced with racially polarized voting a fair opportunity to elect, but they can also be a way of unnecessarily packing voters by race in ways that further polarize and isolate us by race. >> so you want, on the one hand they obviously had to move new voters into the majorityminority districts because they were all underpopulated, and they need to move enough so that the minorities have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, but they can't move too many because that would be packing, correct? >> your honor, we understand that states are in a bind in this situation as has been true under title vii and under the voting rights act under section 2.

>> so but they have to do that. they have to hit this sweet spot between those two extremes without taking race predominantly into consideration? >> they don't have to hit a sweet pot spot. this court has marked out a legitimate path that states can take and must take to comply both with their section 5 obligations and with their equal protection obligations not to use the excessive and unjustified use of racial categories. >> well, i thought the section 5 obligation, gee, it it used to require that there that there be no regression in in in majority black districts. so if a district went from 69% black to 55% black, you would be in trouble. >> your honor, section 5 has always required no retrogression based on the ability to elect under current conditions. >> right. >> so if there's no racially polarized voting -- >> and and they're saying that's all we did. you know, these these districts were underpopulated with respect to other ones, so we had to move new people in them, and we had

to do it in such a way that there was still the 69% black population that they're used to be in order to avoid retrogression. >> your honor, retrogression has never meant merely reproducing racial statistics purely for their own sake. it's meant preserving the ability to elect, preserving majority and minority districts. >> oh, you can say that, but it meant you're the only way to be sure you're not doing that is maintaining the same the same percentage. and that's certainly the way the justice department, in the bad old days, used to interpret it. >> it may be in the first decade or so of the application of section 5, doj employed various kind of practices as you described. as our brief documents in detail, the department of justice has routinely precleared plans that reduce black populations as long as they don't reduce the ability to elect. and, indeed, in alabama in the last round of redistricting, if you look at the blue brief of

the black caucus at the chart at 8a, you will see that alabama dramatically reduced black populations in all of its districts in the senate and in virtually all of its districts in the house. and if you look at that chart, you'll see numbers like a 12-point reduction, a 19-point reduction, a 10-point reduction, 16-point reduction. >> why is that? why is -- >> they reduced districts down to 56%. >> why is that? why do you no longer need as high a percentage of minority voters to maintain a situation where minority voters can still elect their candidates of choice? >> for the reasons that this court adverted to in shelby county and the reasons that alabama rightly celebrates in its briefs. black turnout and black registration rates in alabama now routinely equal or even exceed white registration and white turnout rates. >> you realize, i assume, that you're making the argument that the opponents of black plaintiffs used to make here.

they they they said, you know, by requiring packing of of minorities into certain districts, you're reducing their influence statewide so you the districts can ignore what what what the minority wants because they're all packed into that's the argument the other side used to be making. >> yes, your honor. and when the voting rights act legitimately requires the use of race in the face of polarized voting, then there's a national political judgment that reflects the tradeoffs, the cost and the benefits, as there are, to designing these districts. you can -- >> suppose suppose there are party a in 2001 takes minorities out of heavily minority districts and puts them into opportunity districts for political purposes. it's for partisan gerrymandering

purposes. assume that. >> uh -- >> party b then gets into power ten years later. it wants to undo what party a did, and it puts them back into heavily populated districts. is there a violation when party b does that? >> there's no -- >> and its and its and we'll stipulate that its motive is simply to help its partisan balance -- >> if they -- >> or partisan imbalance. >> if they do not use racial classifications, if they do not use excessive racial means to do it -- >> no, no, they they do. they put minorities back into heavily packed districts, just as they took minorities out ten years before. >> right. but the line this court's precedents have drawn is precisely the line between partisan motivations in districting and racial. >> in both of my hypotheticals, it's partisan. in either case, is there a violation? >> if it's purely partisan in motive and they don't use race,

then there's no problem. >> no, but but they do use race, but it's purely partisan. your the hypothetical is, case 1, they find minority voters and put them into minority opportunity districts, unpacking the very heavily minority populated districts. then next party comes in and simply undoes it, and it uses the same calculus, race. >> your honor, the -- >> are you going to tell me is it your position, and i think it may be your position, that in the first case it's permitted and the second case it isn't? >> no, your honor. our position is that race can't be used excessively and unjustifiably in either case. and the threejudge court found 13 >> was it unjust was it unjustified in case a when they were trying to have more minority opportunity districts? >> if they exceeded their obligations under section 2 and section 5, if they went beyond the limited leeway this court has said that states have, if they have the strong basis in evidence that's required, if they properly interpret the act, that's the legitimate path states have that this court has marked out. >> did they do this for partisan purposes? >> your honor -- >> and i'm asking if party b can then undo it for partisan purposes, because i sense that

there's a one-way ratchet here. >> i don't think that's correct, your honor, and i understand the concern. if, for partisan purposes, a legislature passed a race based barrier to voting, that would surely be unconstitutional. they can't use race in the way this court's cases in the shaw line of cases indicate are beyond the parameters the states have. they have to have a strong basis in evidence. in this case, alabama didn't even ask the relevant legal question.

alabama didn't ask what is necessary to preserve the ability to elect, what might be necessary to preserve the ability to elect. they just reproduced numbers, statistics, and the way they did it is they just used racial data. >> well, you began by by criticizing alabama for supposedly imposing quotas. but listening to your argument, it sounds to me that you are just as interested in quotas. you're just interested in lower quotas. >> your honor, right -- >> so if you if they want to keep it at 70%, that's that may be illegitimate in your view. but if they take it down to the minimum that would be required in order to produce the desired result, that's a that's a permissible quota. so why are you using this term "quota" at all? >> we don't have to use the word "quota." >> well, why did you use it? >> i actually meant to use the word "racial targets." judge thompson used the word 11 >> you think there's a difference between the two? >> well, there's a lot of rhetorical and inflammatory power in the word "quota." but, your honor, the point here is that there must be at least legitimate basis for racial classification. >> so that's to justice kennedy's question, i thought your answer would be there isn't a one-way ratchet. that's cromartie 2, isn't it? >> if you're use --

>> doesn't cromartie 2 say if you're doing this for political reasons, because many, many africanamericans vote democrat, all right? and so what they're doing is they're trying to help the democrats. so, yeah, we're trying to help the democrats. ok. if that's what you can are doing and they can't really prove the contrary, the burden is on the one attacking the district, whether they are doing it by removing some africanamericans from this one or by putting more into it, it's the same issue. am i right? >> yes, you're right. and that's -- >> right. then it's not a one-way ratchet. it is a two-way ratchet, which 12 >> and it's valid in both 13 in both cases. that's your problem. >> if -- >> that's not our case because our case, they don't try to defend on that ground. >> right. and that's your answer is exactly the answer i was trying to give to justice kennedy, which is partisan manipulation, this court has said, may be fine and constitutional, but the one thing you cannot do is use race as a proxy for politics or political affiliation. you cannot use racial targets that don't have a legitimate justification. they're not tied to current conditions. >> you don't i thought you agreed with justice breyer.

>> i do -- >> but now you're saying you cannot use race as a proxy for political affiliation, but that was his hypothetical -- >> i thought -- >> that these people were moved because blacks overwhelmingly vote democrat. >> your honor -- >> you're saying that's bad if that's the reason they move them. i don't think he thinks that's bad. >> i understood justice breyer to be describing the situation in which you're moving people because they're democrats. you have voting behavior data. you look at the data. you move people based 18 >> no, you're moving them because they're black, and you think blacks will overwhelmingly vote democrat. that's why you're moving them, because they're black. because we assume blacks are overwhelmingly democrats. >> your honor, in this area, the court has said that assumptions like that cannot be the basis of the way district lines are drawn or the way people are classified by race. >> mr. pildes, because your time is running out -- >> yes. >> there is in your presentation, you're saying we are attacking the statewide plan. we are not picking one district

or the other. and you have been attacked on that point. the attack is that shaw claims have to be district by district. they can't be statewide. so i would like your answer to that question. there hasn't been a shaw claim, as far as i know, that was statewide. they have all been district by district. >> your honor, our claim is that the exact same policy was applied in every black16 majority district, which is we will use racial data to repopulate as close as we can possibly do it to the exact same black percentage. that's a policy applied in every in all 36 districts. >> and how are your clients hurt by that? it seems to me you have to come up with a client in one of the other districts that would have been, as you put it, more competitive had this packing not occurred. >> your honor -- >> i assume that's the harm that that you're alleging. >> your honor, we -- the record

demonstrates that we have plaintiffs or we have members of the adc in many of the black majority districts at issue, and that at least is sufficient for us to challenge this policy, at least as applied in those districts. >> i thought the record just showed that you you named your plaintiffs by county rather than district. >> but many of the districts are wholly contained within the county. they occupy the full county. we demonstrate in our brief a number of senate districts and many house districts that are whole county districts. >> are you dependent on your district by district challenge? does your claim rises and falls solely on this statewide point you make? >> by statewide, we simply mean a common policy applied to every district in the state. and, mr. chief justice, if i may reserve the balance. >> thank you, counsel.

mr. schnapper. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, this court's shaw jurisprudence channels the conversation that we're having today. this court has identified two constitutional claims that could be raised with regard to the use of race in districting. one is intentional dilution of minority votes for the purpose of minimizing their effectiveness and the second one is shaw. this is we're advancing a shaw claim. >> you lost on the dilution claim. >> we did. we did. the facts material to the shaw claim are were not in dispute at trial. the question is whether they fall within the concept of predominance in this court's line of decisions.

>> did the district court understand you to be asserting a district-specific claim? >> i think it understood us to be challenging each of the districts. >> where do you find that in the opinion of the district court? i thought the district court interpreted you not to be making that claim. >> we advanced evidence as to the motive that was a motive common to all the districts and then we advanced offered

evidence about particular districts to illustrate how that was played out. but this is not there's no conceptual difference between challenging all 36 districts and challenging 36 districts. it's the same claim. >> but you mean had specific in your proposed findings, you dealt specifically with certain districts and not specifically with others. >> the specific information dealt with many of the particular districts, but the claim was that all of the districts were the result of a common purpose, that that common and that common purpose race was the predominant and overriding 19 >> but some of the districts were unchanged. the percentage was exactly the same as it was before. those are the only districts that your clients were from. how have they been harmed? >> our clients -- we have members in all the districts. the theory of harm in the shaw line of cases -- >> was that established in the district court, that you have members in all the districts? >> that was the finding of the district court. the alabama legislature because this concerned the black districts -- >> the finding of the district court was that you have you have members -- >> i think it said all or virtually all. but that wasn't our standing wasn't in dispute. but the the concept of injury in the shaw line of cases is is not injury to the individuals who were in the districts that are become whiter because blacks are moved out.

that is those are the people who don't have standing. in hays, this court made clear it's the -- it's the individuals in the districts into which blacks are put for the predominant racial purpose of for predominant racial purpose. that's the standing doctrine that this court has announced in those cases. predominance involves, under this court's -- >> i don't understand what you just said. they have a claim because there are too many blacks in their district? >> no. it's not about the number. the theory of the court in shaw is that if race is the predominant purpose in putting blacks into a district, that that will likely result in representational harm in terms of the way the elected officials will act. and that's been the theory of the shaw claims ever since shaw. >> and you think it's possible for the state to navigate between not enough minority members in the district and too many minority members in the district without taking race

into account. >> no, we do we do not. >> race predominantly into account. >> but shaw doesn't say that taking race into account raises a constitutional question in all cases, particularly in in the wake of this court's decision in easley, which made it clear, finally resolving an issue that had been kicking around for some time, that the fact that race was a factor in drawing a district doesn't trigger strict scrutiny. a majority of the court held there that for shaw purposes to trigger strict scrutiny the plaintiff would have to show predominance, that race was the predominant, overriding purpose, meaning it was the criteria to which that couldn't be put aside for any other purpose. >> so they have to navigate between too many and too few, but without race being the predominant consideration. >> if race, if in terms of the constitution, if race isn't the predominant purpose and dilution isn't involved, then there's no constitutional claim.

with regard to section 5, let me i think it would be helpful to understand what the government's interpretation is and has been for sometime about what section 5 requires. this is reflected in the government's brief at 22 and 23 and in the 2011 guidelines. the government's view, and this is how this has long been understood, is that the black proportion can be reduced to the point where blacks no longer have the the ability to elect a candidate of their choice. until you get to that point, changes are not retrogressive, and that's not the way 21 >> do you think what do you think well, it's speculative. but i think that if alabama had reduced the number of minority voters in majority-minority districts in any significant way, the attorney general would have come down on them like a ton of bricks. >> that that is not correct, your honor. >> he did preclear the plan that you're challenging today. >> he also precleared the 2001

plan which did precisely what you described. the government's view of this is set out in some greater detail in their brief in georgia v. ashcroft and in the in the oral argument of mr. stewart at the time. as they explained then, and this remains their view, and consistent with the way the department has operated, until the numbers can fall until it gets to the point where the ability to elect is in question. the -- >> i have a problem. can i just go back to your shaw-non-shaw? >> yes. >> basically, you're saying i don't have a shaw challenge. >> i have a shaw challenge. >> all right. you're claiming it's a shaw challenge, but you don't have to describe the injury. it's a it's an ephemeral injury. race played a part in the overall plan, without an effect in a particular district. >> no, no. >> if a particular district -- >> no. >> i mean, if it stayed essentially the same, they didn't move the boundaries much,

they obviously they don't it's an all-white district. if they moved the boundaries, it wasn't to include more blacks or anything else. it was just because of of geographic divisions. so explain to me why you don't have to prove that you were harmed specifically by the application of this policy. >> let me say two things in response to that. first, the the theory of shaw is that if black voters are, for a predominantly racial reason, moved into a district, not just leave it alone, moved into a district for predominantly racial reasons, that would strict scrutiny. -- that would trigger strict scrutiny. now -- >> but that wasn't true any -- >> yes, it is. yes, it is, your honor. when one of the member of the court said the districts hadn't changed, i think what he meant

was that the black percentage hadn't changed. all of these districts changed. they were underpopulated by on average about 15%. there's an average of 6,000 voters, individuals, put in every house district, 20,000 in every senate district. >> well, explain now that you're talking about districts, could i come back to the question i asked at the beginning, so that i understand what we have to decide. on page 128 of the joint appendix, there's a paragraph in the district court opinion that explains what the district court understood to be to be before it on the issue of intentional discrimination. i see nowhere any indication that the district court construed your pleadings and your other submissions to raise a claim about any specific district. the third point is we construe the filings of the democratic conference plaintiffs as arguing that certain senate districts constitute racial gerrymanders. there's nothing with that with respect to your client. maybe i'm missing something. so if that's how the district

court understood your position, then maybe it was wrong, but that would be the threshold question we'd have to decide, wouldn't it be, that if you have to be district-specific, we would have to say the district court misunderstood the claims that you were asserting? >> i think in the context of the way the case was litigated and tried and the briefs at the time, it was everybody understood the plaintiffs were challenging all of the majority black districts. >> the district court understood that? then why did it include this paragraph and why did it not go through any districts that it saw you as challenging? it went through some that it saw the other plaintiffs as challenging, none with respect to you. >> we think in the context in which the case was litigated, there was no conceptual difference between challenging all the 36 districts and challenging 36 individual districts. the reason the opinion reads the way it does is that the state

didn't contend and we didn't contend that there was different district-specific purposes afoot. the state's account of this, which everyone accepted, was that the state had a common purpose in adding those thousands of individuals to each district, which was to which was to continue the black percentage as it had been all along. it was a purpose common to all of them. >> and, mr. schnapper, isn't it right that after trial, when you submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, in fact, you did reference particular districts? you referenced senate districts 18, 19 and 20. in another place, you talked about all the majority black districts in the state's black belt, and you explained how your theory of the case related to each one of those districts. >> we did. this is somewhat analogous to the teamsters decision from back in the 1970's.

for the government to prove racial discrimination in promotions, it made out a pattern and practice case by offering evidence that was classwide, that affected all the individual blacks and hispanics, and then offered some individual stories. but the claim was for all of the individuals who worked in those in those facilities. >> to get there, we'd have -- you're talking, about, second, we construe the filings of the black caucus plaintiffs as arguing that the acts as a whole constitute racial gerrymandering, so we'd have to say that was wrong, they didn't get the complaint right, send it back. so if we're going to have to send it back, i guess what you'd have to would there be anything wrong with saying this: look, tell the plaintiffs please to point district by district to the fact that the primary motive here was racial. i don't think that would be too hard. we have loads of evidence on that. now, if the primary is racial

and this is the crucial part they then to justify this have to show that they are making a and i don't know what word reasonable attempt, good faith reasonable attempt, some other word, to comply with the section, old section 5 requirements, with the section 5 requirements. and now they have to do it over again anyway and so they do it over again, and if in fact some of the questions suggest that that is what they were trying to do. and you'd have evidence there that said, no, no, that isn't what they were trying to do. they didn't even read the guidelines of the attorney general. they didn't even look at what happened in the past. they made no such attempt. all right. so would there be, from your point of view, anything wrong with that holding? >> well, your honor, i think with regard to the question of justification, we think it

doesn't make any sense, in light of this court's decision particularly in shaw 2, to send it back. the court's decision makes clear that there are three parameters to the way you assess this: first, what they did is to be judged by the correct interpretation of the statute, not what they might have thought in good faith it meant. second and the word "correct" is in a number of this court's shaw decisions. secondly, that the purpose to comply with the correct interpretation has to have been their motive at the time. and secondly, at the time, not at trial, but back when they did this, they had to then, in 2012, have had a strong basis in evidence for concluding that not using all these different numbers would have violated the statute. they don't they can't satisfy any of those things.

they can't go back you could send the case back to the district court, but you can't send the case back to 2012 and have them change the purpose or change the evidence before them. so, unless you're going to change the standard of strict scrutiny this court has applied in shaw and other affirmative action-related cases, you could not do that. it's just it's years too late for them to solve those problems. >> i'm still having a psychological problem with your point. there were three reasons. you're saying merely because it was one among the three, it necessarily was predominant as to each district created. the example or hypothetical i posited for you was the primary reason above all others that they said is the 2% district, and there may be districts among these 36 that, as i indicated, had contiguous populations that didn't make a difference about race. so it didn't they are not

affected by this policy. why should we undo that? >> ok. ok. i'm just going to answer the one last question. in fact, as the analysis of the precinct splitting shows, with perhaps two exceptions, there is race-based precinct splitting on the border of every one of the majority black districts in question here. it wasn't a situation where they just took the neighboring districts and they turned out to replicate, to be just the ratio that they wanted. it was very, very calculated and race based. >> thank you, counsel. general verrilli. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the key point in this case is that shaw claims require district-specific analysis.

the district court departed from that principle and in our judgment the plaintiffs' main theory also departs from that principle, and i'd like to address >> i don't understand why that's so, general. i mean, what the plaintiffs are saying is yes, we have common evidence, not all together usual in a shaw claim, but here they have evidence. it's a policy statement that retrogression was going to be a very main priority. i think it was number 2. and retrogression was defined in a certain way, as requiring the maintenance of black voting population. and that was going to be taken into account in every single majority minority district. now, the fact that there's evidence, the principal evidence in the case, that relates to every single district and so in a sense the evidence is statewide, does not make it any less a district by district case. >> that may be right, justice kagan, but it also doesn't prove that race predominated in the shaw sense with respect to each specific district, and let me try to explain why.

the test under shaw is whether race predominates to the derogation of traditional districting criteria. and so it may be that in some districts, the effort to maintain the same african american population resulted in judgments that to draw the districts in ways that derogated from traditional districting criteria, such as compactness and maintaining communities of interest, but it may be in other districts that it didn't, and i can provide specific examples of that. >> well, i guess i would appreciate specific examples, because it seems to me as sort of a going -- in matter that when you say this is the most important thing except for the reynolds inquiry, this is the most important thing, that necessarily it's going to affect the way you redraw or who you put into the districts. >> well -- >> you might not reach the target in every single district, but necessarily you're saying we are prioritizing this race based

this race based thing, criterion, in a way that's going to affect every judgment we make. >> but the question under shaw, your honor, as we read the shaw line of cases, is whether that is done in derogation of traditional districting criteria. >> well, how can it not be? if you have three priorities or three criteria and you say this is the absolute most important criteria, it's just the natural effect of that is going to be to minimize the other two criteria. >> no, that's not necessarily true. sometimes they will conflict, sometimes they won't. and i think the example i can give you examples i think that would illustrate that from the record. for example now, there weren't specific findings about these districts in the district court's opinion, so i'm not trying to say this is what the district court found. but with respect to some districts, for example, house district 67, the state argues that that was a district in which you are going to have

essentially an african american percentage at the percentage that the district was drawn at no matter how you drew it, and that was because the surrounding populations around that district were all of comparable african american percentages. so whatever choice you made in order to get to the 2% one-person-one-vote threshold was going to involve moving african americans. and we'd submit that's not a situation in which race predominated over traditional districting criteria. it's a it's situation in which traditional districting criteria drove the decision. there may, however, be other districts -- and senate district 26 is one that comes to mind, in which, where you had this movement of 14,500 people into a district, which was in the city of montgomery and surrounding areas, all but 35 of whom were african-american. and if one looks at that map and actually, it's very difficult to discern on the small maps that are in your materials. but if you can get a blowup of it, what you will see in that map is that the so-called "crab

claws" that the parties describe that extend out from the district capture african american populations. what they do is carve out the white part of the city of montgomery and attach it by a very narrow land bridge to the next thing -- >> based on economic data? >> be a problem, your honor. -- >> suppose it was based on economic data? >> then i think it would not be a problem, your honor. >> but suppose they did that -- then i think it would not -- but it results in the same -- right. but it wouldn't be race predominating over traditional districting criteria. and i will go back and try to answer the question that your honor posed earlier about when partisanship can be a justification and when it isn't. i think it's a very technical answer, but i think if a state were to move electoral precincts from one district to another, the entire electoral precinct, because there you would have the data on how people voted in that precinct, that would that would not raise a problem under the shaw analysis because you clearly would be making a decision for partisan reasons. but when you split a precinct and you move just based on census block information, there you don't know how the people in

the census block voted. what you know is their race. and so at that point if you're using race as a proxy and i think that's what mr. pildes was trying to describe to your honor, when you're using race as a proxy in that circumstance, that would violate what this court has said in all of its shaw cases is the constitutional norm at stake here because you're making an assumption. you're stereotyping in that situation, so it's -- >> and that's true at the outset if you move them by race in order to increase their capacity to influence districts? >> well, that's a difficult question, your honor, but i think if you're if you're moving people by race in order to ensure that you're not violating the voting rights act that seems to be one thing. >> but then it's a one-way ratchet. >> no, i don't think it is a one-way ratchet, your honor, because you can move in both directions, just move precincts and not and not census blocks. >> general, you say that the district court erred in addressing the claim of racial gerrymandering on a statewide rather than a district-specific

basis. i would assume that that was an error on the part of the district court only if a district-specific claim was asserted by the plaintiffs, but you don't address that issue. >> yes. i'm happy to address it now, your honor. i actually think this is quite a murky question. i think, your honor we agree your honor is quite right that the district court did appear, and jsa 128 is the place where it seems clear that they did to appear, to assume that this was a statewide claim. in some respects, one can understand why, because the basic theory is that the motive influenced every district and it did adjudicate the case on that basis. so it would seem to me that one outcome here would be to say that shaw the proper understanding of shaw is that claims have to be made on a district-specific basis and that the plaintiffs here didn't propound cognizable claims under shaw and that would be one resolution here. but i have to say, the record is somewhat murky on this. judge thompson in dissent did say that he thought that the claims were district-by-district specific. justice kagan has identified

some information in the record. so another option might be to articulate the correct district-specific standard and leave it to the district court on remand to sort out whether the plaintiff has his facts 11 >> but you don't deny that a statewide policy can refer to every district or every majority minority district in the state? >> no. no, we don't deny that, but that's not enough our point is that's not enough to trigger strict scrutiny. you have to look and see whether it's implemented in a manner that is in derogation of traditional districting criteria district by district. >> but again and i don't want to press it if you've given me your best answer to it if a policy says we're going to prioritize this particular criteria, which here was the mistaken understanding of retrogression, if a policy says, we're going to prioritize this over everything else, it seems to me that that's pretty good evidence of a violation. >> only if again -- i guess i am just going to repeat myself, but if it's in derogation of traditional districting criteria

-- >> but if the policy says that it's going to prioritize it over everything else, that means it going to be in derogation of tradition districting criteria. >> when they conflict -- >> sometimes they might fail. sometimes you're not going to be able to prioritize it over everything else, but the intent is still to prioritize it over everything else. >> but the question is -- let me take a step back because i think it might help to put it in this context. a challenge, a shaw challenge, is a challenge to a facially neutral government action. the lines on the map are what are being challenged here. that's the government action. those lines are facially neutral. they may, in fact, reflect a violation of the constitution under shaw if race predominated in the placement of those lines in derogation of traditional districting criteria. but that's what you've got to prove, and the mere existence of this motive doesn't prove it for each district, and that's our point. if i could, i just would like to

raise one point in my remaining time going back to the question of what section 5 retrogression required. mr. chief justice, you asked that question. >> and when you do that, will you also tell us what effect, if any, the preclearance should have. >> yes. so and the two are quite related. i think professor pildes referred you to this charge, but the key thing is to look at not the difference between 2001 and the current plan, but the difference between the 1993 plan and the 2001 plan. the justice department cleared the 2001 plan that alabama submitted, and you will see for every single district listed there, with maybe one exception, there were significant reductions in the minority percentages in those districts. so alabama knew perfectly well that it was completely consistent with its obligations under section 5 to reduce the districts. >> you asked for a remand. the result of the remand may well be alabama has to redistrict. is that right? >> yes. >> and when they do so, that would not be subject to section 5, correct? >> certainly correct. that's certainly correct.

>> and that's not a concern for you? >> well, it's not a concern for us. it is what it is, mr. chief justice. if on remand the district court concludes that some of these districts violated the constitution, then alabama will have to the legislature will get its first chance to a legislate a fix and section 5 won't be a basis for them to take any action. >> thank you, counsel. mr. brasher. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, i think the court should begin with the district court's fact-finding, because the district court expressly found that race did not predominate and the court can affirm on that basis and avoid addressing questions about section 5 and redistricting that are unlikely to arise again because of this court's decision in shelby

county. on page 144 of the jurisdictional statement appendix, the district court expressly found that we did not impose a quota. the court said that we imposed, quote, "no brightline rule," and what the court meant is that we preserved the core of existing districts, we followed preexisting district lines, we followed roads, we followed county lines, municipal lines, we met the needs of incumbents, and we preserved communities of interest. the plan that we proposed the -- the plan that we passed is a status quo plan. the whole point of this plan was to preserve the status quo because the republican party had won a majority in the legislature for first time in 130 years. >> but the other side says it was impermissible for you to preserve the status quo because the opportunity for minority voters in the majority minority districts to participate in the electoral process had improved to the extent that maintaining the status quo would be characterized as packing. >> well, actually, if you look at well, two responses to that, your honor. the first is that if you look at the amicus brief filed in

support of neither party by political scientists, they show that black voter turnout and white voter turnout and registration actually equalized in 1998. so there actually isn't some difference between the districts in 2010 and the new ones that we propose with respect to those criteria. the second point, i guess, i would make to that is that our redistricting criteria our nonracial redistricting criteria were coextensive with the objective here to preserve these majorityblack districts as they have been. and what i mean is that the objective of these nonracial redistricting criteria was to preserve the status quo. and so i think that's what the united states solicitor general was getting at, is that it's difficult to disentangle the notion that we should preserve the status quo with the majorityblack districts. >> is it fair to read the pleadings and the submission in this case as saying that the state did not defend this plan on the basis that it was for partisan purposes, but that it was to comply with section 5?

>> i don't -- >> is that is that a fair reading of the a, of the red brief and, b, of what the district court found? >> i don't think it's a fair reading of either, your honor, and this is the reason why. certainly, with respect to specific districts here, when they were actually challenged, we were able to respond and say this was for partisan political reasons. one of those districts, for example, was senate district 11, which was specifically challenged by the alabama democratic conference, and the district court held that the changes to that district were based on politics. now, with respect to the plan as a whole, our response has always been that there is a lot of factors that went into drawing the plan as a whole and when it's drawing any specific district. and i think it's important here that the plaintiffs have never proposed a redistricting plan that actually meets our raceneutral redistricting criteria, especially the 2% deviation in population that the legislature adopted. and i think that's important for three reasons. >> are you really saying that that's a pleading requirement, that they have to come in with a plan that meets all the rest of your criteria?

>> i do not believe that is a pleading requirement. i believe it's an evidentiary issue and i think the court held that much in cromartie. and i think it's important for three reasons. first, the legislature adopted that 2% deviation to end the previous partisan gerrymander that the democrats adopted in 2001, where they systematically underpopulated majority black districts and overpopulated majority white districts in republican areas of the state, and that's why the plaintiff's brought a partisan gerrymandering claim in the district court below. and the second reason is what i was alluding to earlier, and that's in easley v. cromartie, the court held that the first step of a racial gerrymandering claim is to show that there's some conceivable way to do this differentially that creates greater racial balance. and the facts that they they've never produced a plan that actually does that is a serious problem. and that makes sense, because if you want to see if race was predominant in redistricting, you take race out and then you run it again and you see what happens. >> mr. brasher, i mean, let me just give you some numbers here from from some of these districts. right? hd 52, you needed to add 1145 african americans in order to

maintain the percentage of africanamerican voters, which was your number 2 criterion. you added 1143. you missed by 2. hd 55, you needed to add 6981. you added 6994. sd 23, 15,069. you hit at 15,185. i mean, those numbers speak for themselves, don't they? that in each of these cases, you were determined, come what may and disregarding other criteria, to maintain the black voting age population. >> i don't think that shows that for two reasons. first, i agree with the united states solicitor general that the question here is whether we subordinated race-neutral redistricting criteria to hit these targets. >> that was just a coincidence? >> no. but that goes to my second point, is those house districts that you were reading off are in the city of birmingham. the city of birmingham has over 200,000 people in it, 73% black. >> well, it's 73%, and you hit that 73% exactly.

>> well, and that's my point. there are at least going to be some of those house districts in birmingham that are 73% black and i do not believe that in a place where there's more than 200,000 people and 73% of them are black you need to subordinate race-neutral redistricting criteria to draw a 73% black district. >> well, i think you kind of do actually, because, i mean, you're trying to repopulate these districts, and many of these districts, yes, there are many, many, many african americans. but as you just suggested, there are also white people. and you did it so that you, you know, completely replicated the exact percentage figure. >> well, i'll give you another example of what i mean. house district 67, which we talk about in our briefs, is a single-county district. it's always been a single-county district. it's a single-county district in our plan, and it's a single-county district in every plan that the plaintiffs propose. and it's always going to be 70% black because that county is 70% black. and i think the same thing could be said about many of the neighborhoods in birmingham, is that these neighborhoods are 73% black and that's how we hit the numbers.

and they certainly haven't proven otherwise. i also think that the 2% the failure to propose a 2% plan is important because a 10% plan, the plans that they actually have proposed, are drastically different from a 2% plan. it's like comparing a plan with 100 districts to one with only 80 districts. their senate districts can vary by 14,000 people, and ours can only vary by around 2,000 people. and but even though these plans are drastically different with respect to the criteria that the legislature adopted here, many of their districts have exactly the same black population percentage as our districts. this is clearest if you look at on page 36 of our brief where we lay out the senate districts and their own proposed plans next to the senate districts and our proposed plan. and you'll look and you'll see senate district 18, 19, 20, some of the senate districts that justice kagan was talking about earlier, are almost exactly the same in all three plans. if you look at senate district 33, it's exactly the same in our plan and in the black caucus's proposed plan. the evidence was that the only way you could draw senate district 33 with a different black population percentage --

>> what about district senate district 26? >> senate district 26 was above 70% black in the previous plan and it's above 70% black in our plan and in the black caucus's plan. now, it's not exactly on target, but the plaintiffs testified in this case that the area of montgomery city that we're talking about here is 99% black. and because that was one of the senate districts that they actually challenged, we have actually good-faith credibility determination from the trial court because the drafters actually testified about why they made the changes to senate district 26 they made, and they said that because of the way populations shifted, they had to change an adjoining district, senate district 30, which required changes to all of the rest of the districts. and that left a county, sort of an orphan county, crenshaw county, that is a rural county south of montgomery. they explained that what they did is they took part of senate former senate district 26, took it out to make a way to connect the rural crenshaw county to the rest of senate district 25, which is already predominantly rural.

>> well, the solicitor general just said that if you look at that district, it has a very bizarre shape and the effect of the bizarre shape is to pull in predominantly african-american areas and exclude predominantly white areas. white areas. is he correct on that? >> actually, i respectfully disagree with him about that. i if you look at the comparison map, it's in the joint appendix on 197, you can see a comparison between the former district and the current district. and what you'll see is up at the right i'm sorry, the let me try and orient myself the left the left part of montgomery county, that's where the former district used to be. it was part of senate district 25 that came into the middle of that district, sort of a kind of came in the middle of it. and what the drafters did here is they drew the lines closer to the city of montgomery, and they preserved that part of senate district 25 that came in the middle of it. what they the only thing they did is they took some precincts and some parts of precincts, kind of along those lines, and they moved them from senate district 25 to senate district 26.