playing into two thousand and twenty let's talk about anita earls ok she want to see on the north carolina supreme court she's a lady progressive understanding voting rights yet your thoughts on the new north carolina supreme court now being five two in favor of democrats well when i started as chairman of the party it was the other way and we managed to win three seats in two thousand and fourteen which made it for three because we focused on those elections and there was a lot of money that came in to beat us. you know and then of course in twenty two thousand and sixteen mike morgan became the flip seat an african-american supreme court justice and now.

in the two thousand and twenty let's talk about anita earls ok she want to see on the north carolina supreme court she's a lady progressive on defending voting rights yet your thoughts on the new north carolina supreme court now being five two in favor of democrats well when i started as chairman of the party it was the other way and we managed to win three seats in two thousand and fourteen which made it for three because we focused on those elections and there was a lot of money that came in to beat us. you know and then of course in twenty two thousand and sixteen mike morgan became the flip seat an african-american supreme court justice and now anita earls who's biracial whose work for social equity worked against gerrymander worked on on a lot of issues that really matter to the people she gets elected so yes we have a five too but i think across the board it's a very interesting and inclusive court because they're not all the same in terms of where they line up politically on the spectrum she might be more liberal than sam or in the forest for instance but i do think it's a good change for t

farr has defended these districts before north carolina state courts, federal courts, and the supreme court. however, in each instance, his arguments have been rejected. in the covington v. north carolina, a three-judge panel in the middle district of north carolina found this -- and i quote -- race was the predominant factor motivating the drawing of the challenged state legislative districts, end quote. in harris v. mccrory, two of three federal judges on a panel held that the state's congressional redistricting plan violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. farr in 2016 also defended north carolina's restrictive voter i.d. law in the north carolina state conference of the naacp v. mccrory he had served as an advisor to the state legislature as it was considering that legislation. arguing before the fourth circuit, farr strongly denied that racial animus towards african americans was a motivation for the voter i.d. law. the court, however, strongly disagreed, and here's what they said. in striking down the law, the court strongly rejected farr's arguments, noting that t

court found were enacted with racially discriminatory intent. racially discriminatory intent. in other words, the north carolina legislature was totally up front about what they were up to. after the supreme court effectively struck down the part of the voting rights act that required north carolina to preclear any changes to their voting laws, the north carolina state lelgture passed -- legislature passed a law that eliminated or cut back on voter mechanisms that african americans disproportionately used. this is a law that mr. farr defended. in the -- the fourth circuit in that case determined that these voting changes, quote, targeted african americans with almost surgical precision. end quote. in other words, blatantly discriminatory intent was found by the fourth circuit. between his efforts to support suppression of minority voters mr. farr helped companies avoid accountability for discrimination against african americans, women, and minority groups. in 2003, mr. farr argued that female employees at pfizer were not protected under civil rights laws from condescending, sexist comments from their manager because they were in his view were not severe or pervasive enough. he even tried

2016, president obama nominated patricia timmons goodson, a justice who served on the north carolina supreme court, who is also black. that nomination was also held up. as a result this is now the longest judicial vacancy in the federal court system. and instead of two highly qualified women, senate republicans want to fill this vacancy with someone who is an anathema to so many of our communities, and in particular communities of color. so i would echo the north carolina naacp which said that, quote, if this nomination is confirmed, it represents an historic insult to justice and to the people of north carolina. now i know there are folks who might consider the odds of stopping this nominee and throwing the towel, but the way i see it, if it's something worth fighting for, it's a fight worth having. if it's something worth fighting for, it's a fight worth having. and this fight against thomas farr is a fight worth having. because thomas farr is far from what we should accept in a nominee, and i know we can do better and we must do better. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding

department of justice and separately another nominee that serving on a justice of the supreme court of north carolina did not bring her forward but now they want to bring this person forward? there should be some recognition of the history of not only voting rights in our country or the history of the system of democracy for the needs of checks and balances but also that history of this particular seat in terms of those who have been nominated before and did not get a fair process than putting this fellow on who has a history in the state of suppressing the vote. we can do better than this our colleagues can do better than this. there are many talented people in the state of north carolina who are well situated and suited to be nominated to this position. let's do better. >> president determined mom - - determines. >> number one we are for strong voter security the bill we originally put to gather in 2013 had $40 million and we are for strong border security and we have made numerous proposals. number 21.$6 billion of border security negotiated by democrats and republicans is our position we believe

north carolina voters. >> one of women who accused supreme court judge ibrahim bra- judge brett cafe a cough kavanas allegedly said she lied. >> chuck grassley is going after another woman who he claims falsely accused brett kavanaugh of rape. judy to justice department for investigation of potentially criminal false statements and she now faces serious legal trouble, she claimed to be author of a anonymous allegation zone add jane doe letter -- jane doe letter sent to kamala harris, but she later admitted shy of not author and never met justice brett kavanaugh, the president not shying away, he wrote, a vicious accuser of justice brett kavanaugh has admitted she was lying, her story of made up, or fake. can you imagine if he didn't become a justice of the supreme court, because of her disgusting false statement, what about the others? where are the dems on this. >> chairman of judiciaryy committee putting out a statement that reading in part, under questioning by committee investigators, she admitted contrary to prior claims she had not bee sexual assaultd by juste brett kavanaugh. and accuse the brett kavan

absolutely exceptional in supreme court jurisdiction indicating the blatant and flagrant disregard for constitutional law in that gerrymandering. he also defended the north carolina legislature in a challenge to its restrictive voter i.d. law. the day after the supreme court decision in shelby county v. holder, struck down the preclearance requirements of section 5 in the voting rights act. the republicans in the north carolina legislature requested data regarding the racial breakdown of the usage of voting access tools. the first -- the fourth circuit court of appeals found that the law discriminated against african american voters, quote, with surgical -- with almost surgical precision. end quote. the court said, quote, this sequence of events, the general assembly's eagerness to at the historic moment of shelby county's issuance rushed through the legislative process the most restrictive voting law north carolina has seen since the era of jim crowe that speaks a certain purpose. end quote. thomas farr argued in favor of those legislative districts that restricted representation of african american voters in their state and federal governments. president trump

the supreme court upheld voter purging in ohio, upheld racial gerrymandering in texas. >> yet, there was some relief in lower courts. in north carolinae state court struck down its partisan map. and in pennsylvania, the court overturned gerrymandered congressional districts. reshaping the map in time for midterms. >> i think what happened in pennsylvania is going to happen in the future. meaning that where there is really bad gerrymandering, people will try to challenge it in state court and ignore the supreme court. >> in kansas, secretary of state kris kobach had his day in court, and failed to support his claims of widespread voter fraud. >> even his own witnesses agreed there was no evidence for his assertions. >> perhaps the most startling moment in the trial came when the aclu challenged kobach's key witness on his methodology. >> one of his samples, he adjusted statistically based on whether or not people had foreign-sounding names. i said, what if you came across the name carlos mergia. he said, that's probably a foreign name. i said, you're aware that's the name of a federal judge in this courthouse. >> and this science is b

supreme court upheld voter purging in ohio. they upheld racial gerrymandering in texas. they refused to strike down partisan gerrymandering in maryland and wisconsin. >> yet there was some relief in lower courts. in north carolina, the state court struck down its partisan map. and in pennsylvania, the court overturned gerrymandered congressional districts, reshaping the map in time for midterms. >> i think what happened in pennsylvania is going to happen in the future, meaning that where there is relief at gerrymandering, people are going to ignore the supreme court. they're going to try to challenge it in state court. >> how are you feeling today about court? >> in kansas, secretary of state kris kobach had his day in court and failed to support his claims of widespread voter fraud. >> even kobach's own expert witness, his own witnesses who were supposed to testify about the prevalence of fraud in this country agreed there was no evidence of his assertions. >> perhaps the most astonishing moment in the trial came when the aclu's dale ho challenged kobach's witnesses on his methodology for finding noncitizens. >> one of his samples he adjusted statistically based upon whether or not people had foreign-sounding

the supreme court kicked back those maps where federal judges deemed them unconstitutional in wisconsin, texas, north carolinand. there are more pickup opportunities as well. kevin: when you look at the california map, it literally went from red to blue. what is a state you have your eye on in 2020? rep. lujan: in 2020, i just rattled off georgia, kentucky. there are opportunities there. we missed one in kansas. paul davis ran an incredible race. and in the midwest, there is room to grow in pennsylvania. kevin: pharmacy benefit managers on pharmaceutical drug prices, you are willing to play ball with the president on that? rep. lujan: we are willing to work with anyone who is willing to lower the prescription drug costs. if the president is willing to will find someone willing to work with him and the democratic majority of the house. i am convinced we will have bipartisan support. kevin: i will ask it to you. if marcia fudge were to emerge as the person, would you support her? rep. lujan: she was a great mayor in ohio but i'm supporting nancy pelosi as speaker. kevin: i tried to see what would happen. jason:

north carolina that the u.s. court of appeals said targeted black voters with surgical precision. he also defended congressional redistricting in which the supremeourt found that .8 of those districts on target or suppressed racially jerry man mandsmand -- jergerrymandering black voters. >> farr did say hef was not at those meetings. you're clearly very opposed to him. we have seen protests during his hearings early on when he was first picked for this. what is the lobbying effort now. it seems like it's coming down to tim scott. he's not said, at least of 25 seconds ago which way he will vote on this. what are you and other groups doing to put pressure on senator scott, if anything? >> i think that senator scott has already poopposed the nomin because of diskrim criminatory writings back in college. if he opposed one nominee of a written record, he must oppose a nominee who has a long, well documented record of voters suppression. you cannot oppose one nominee based upon writings from years ago and support a nominee who has a current, up to date record of voter suppression. it's not consistent. as senator scott represented of south carolina whi

you have north carolina which has now turned over and changed -- they have a majority on the supreme courtcratic-leaning side. they are trying to sort of attract the research triangle and be the new south. but if states like georgia and florida are going backwards and mississippi is potentially going way back wards does that create competition that north carolina tries to stand out and it is the new south. >> sure. that is the difference between the beginning of the 20th century people thought atlanta and birmingham were peer cities and one city figured out how to actually market itself and attract capital and business. another city never did. and while we're on the subject and think being what happened just three years ago in south carolina when they took down the confederate flag, this was done in a somber, horrific moment after the death of nine people at the emanual a&e church but they wanted that flagged down years before. the university of south carolina, which is not far from the legislature, they don't want to bring in potential faculty or potential graduate students and giving the

supreme court said that in fact you will need an irch.d. to vote today. but they are voting on whether in the future you'll need an i.d. to vote. north carolinao need -- they want it enshrined within their constitution. let's go to florida. >> this is interesting. >> this is really interesting. 1.5 million former felons might be able to vote after tomorrow. and if you put that in perspective, 13 million people right now, brooke, can vote in florida. you're adding 1.5 million people to the rolls if this is approved, that would be amazing. >> that doesn't include, though -- >> rapists, people accused of sexual offenses. >> and then marijuana. >> right. >> legalize it? >> they are projecting right now marijuana will be a $21 billion industry by 2021. it was only $9 billion a few years ago. michigan and north dakota legalizing recreational marijuana. there's a good thing it can happen medicinally, too. in missouri they're voting not on one but three different taxing measures on legalizing medical marijuana. in utah, looks like it's going to pass. we already have opponents and supporters working together to try to get some kind of compromise no ma

supreme court justice brett kavanaugh's confirmation. there are several closely watched swing districts in north carolina as well.my: for more, we are joined by a continuing roundtable of guests. by the way, we will be with you until at least 1 a.m. eastern time, bringing in guests from around the country. in washington, d.c., the columnist from the intercept and host of the deconstructed podcast. he is host of up front. carol anderson is with us, chair of african-american studies department at emory university. author of "one person, no vote: how voter suppression is destroying our democracy." the unspoken truth of our racial 2017e, which won the national books critic award. editor and chief of the intercept. the executive director of color of change is here. still with us, linda sarsour. wow, we have a whopper of a roundtable it will be reporting to you results of these races and also a ballot initiatives and amendments throughout the evening. stick with democracy now! and the intercept. we are going to go first to carol anderson, professor in atlanta georgia. georgia is one of the hottest states to watch right

congressional maps drawn by north carolina's democrats, farr vigorously defended the congressional maps drawn by north carolina's republicans, and even this conservative supreme court, often so insensitive to the voting fairness and rights of minorities, the supreme court actually overturned this map for discrimination -- discrimination, not partisanship, discrimination. farr defended north carolina's restrictive voting laws, the law, passed by a very conservative republican legislature, requested data on the use by race -- by race of a number of voting practices. after receiving the data, north carolina republicans made five changes to voting and registration, every one of disproportionately hurt the voting ability of african americans. under the law, even citizens who showed government employee i.d.'s, student i.d.'s or i.d.'s used to receive public assistance were not allowed to vote. here is what the fourth circuit said. it said the law, quote, had discriminatory intent and, quote, targeted african americans with almost surgical precision. farr, as he defended this law, said it was a minor inconvenience for voters. this is despicable. despicable. a law is parti