>> well i think someone has to be conveyor of help. i think we really need somebody who sees this country as a single family unit and someone willing to stake their lives on fact that they're right for that and we need leaders who are sacrificial. in order for us to get there without any question and then we need disciplined, focus goal orient leaders who demand best from the country because they're demanding it from themselves first. >> please join me in thanking senator -- [applause] thank you. weekends on c-span2 are every saturday american history tv documents a story and on sundays

booktv brings you the les nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes from these television companies and more including mediacom word changed, mediacom ready internet traffic soared and we never slowed down schools and businesses wngt virtual and we powered a new reality. because mediacom we're built to keep you ahead. mediacom along with these television companies supports c-span2 as a public service. my name is desiree bailey thank you guys for coming out tonight. i did first hear about this book in january when i was reviewing catalog with my penguin random house rep and it was interesting topic when i saw he was from unf i thought well i think that would be greatlet do an event. they were thrilled. they reached out to them and here we are. now, i did not know that we

would have so much activity in our state in the last few months between t now and then and i hae to the fact i didn't know much about jerry commandering and i've never met an expert, doses anyone else feel the same? we are looking forward to a conversation that will enlighten and educate us. for those of you who have not had a chance to scan your faculty page, please let me introduce doctor seabrook professor andnd interim chair of the department of political science andnt public administrationed at the universy of north florida. his research exams the intersection of law and politics in the united states. with a particular focus on redistricting reform and election administration. he is the author of the book drawing the lines, constraints on jerry commandering u.s. politics published in 2017 as well as the feature title of the evening, one person, one vote a surprising history of jerry in

america and been metro columnist for florida time union since 2019 and before that he was a beat in investigative reporter uncovering focus on covering jacksonville city hall -- which is the largest municipal government in florida. and prior to arriving jacksonville in 2013 nate was aa reporter for the newspapers in the florida panhandle and south louisiana. but he wrote about hurricanes, small town corruption, oil spills, army corps mardi gras and bingo nights at the senior center and following conversation between doctor seabrook and monroe we'll be doin a q and a session as mentioned we do have c-span with us this eempg and they'll be recording proceedings when you are ready to ask a question if you will line up at one of the side w mics and wait so everyone can hear you and please don't

forget to stop by the bookstore -- and let us know if you would like to teapgd more events like this again i thank you. have a good evening. [applause] okay thank you very much. hand to marco books for hosting this event tonight and thank you all for coming out. this is the second event that i've had on my book tour for one person, one vote, and at the first event which was in portland on friday night, so four people in the audience. [laughter] they were outnumbered by my wife and the bookstore employees who were there so i can only assume that t almost all of you are hee to see nate tonight -- [laughter] i appreciate him being here to do for my attendance numbers so i think perhaps the best way to begin is to kind of give you a

quick definition and example of what it is that we mean by jar rei jer and how it works. and it is one of those things that they kind of throw into the bucket or the category of bad democracy is one of those elements ofs our government tht is that october people performances into government policy butov it's also something that is kind of complex and complicated and i want to begin with a quote actually and i'm going to read it from my speech here to make sure that i get it right. because this is the quote that i open the book with, and i think it probably isk the best and mt summary of what gerrymandering.

he was a republican political strategist who basksly no one had ever heard of until after he died in 2018 and his estranged daughter stephany released to the media a treasure-trove of files from his computer which really documented the influence that he had been having behind the scenes on american politics through gerry gerrymandering. usually get to pick politicians and redistricting politicians get to pick voters, and that is perhaps bestbe way to summarize we're talkingt about tonight. yes. i think that all of us can feel

from time to time like we don't have as much control as we would like of the political process even though we're voters. how many times have you showed up to ballot box and reviled every choice that you have and redistrict explains a lot of this lack of agency that voters feel and it's -- it's a deliberate thing redistricting gives the people in power a lot of power to determine their own future to determine the futures of their chosen successors and we see this on every level. i expect we'll talk tonight maybe even about the city councilsbo redistricting process and certainly the state of florida's struggle with this for a long time. >> yeah i think that hits on really what is the core of the problem with gerrymandering it

removes to hold government accountability and a lot of bad things that we see in our government the gridlock, the corruption politicians pursuing their own selfish interests rather than the interest of their constituents than from the fact that they know they will not be held accountable in any municipal way bygf what they do while they're in office, and gerry mandering is a part of that because it is taking election that might previously have been competitive, elections where plausibly either democrats or republicans could have won control of the city council and jacksonville or state legislature in tallahassee. and making those elections uncompetitive soaring districts

that are lob sided where the vast majority of the people who live there are either democrats or republicans and when that happens, there's no meaningful choices for the people who live in those districts. particularly if you're one of the unfortunate voters who find yourself as a democrat in a heavily republican seat or republican in a heavily democratic seat. and when that oh occurs it really shifts the entire focus, the entire selection process to the primary election. whether it's the republican primary or the democratic primary and people who vote in primaries tend to be more ideological. and inevitably, the candidates who emerge from those primaries whenes they are very extreme is the district is not competitive those candidates are pretty much guaranteed to win election anyway. and you have to look at some of

the characters who are representing various districts in the house of representatives righto now to kind of see that process in action. i won't name any name bus i'm pretty sure you know who they are. >> i can name names. [laughter] >> one of the interesting things in -- that i took away from your beak that sing a really important point is we talk about redistricting and sort of how things have gotten as bad as they have is that like a lot of criminality, a lot of criminal behavior redistrict has adapted overtime as our understanding about what sort of priorities policymakers ought to have in munged when they draw districts changed as courts have in the past sort of tried to control or set rules for what's allowed although there hasn't been much of that and data tool an our mapping

tools have improved and politicians have adapted to that and they've come up with more insidious ways of preserving their own power. i think that's a really important theme in your book. i also think an important theme in your book and i would argue that you know we saw that play out on the jacksonville city council level is that -- when people hear that term redistricting particularly because of the tenner of national discourse i think there's assumption that redistricting only happens when like one party controls all of the levers of government. but in reality there's something called bipartisan redistricting. which is just as bad, and involves people coming to an agreement to protect themselves. which is the most bipartisan issue there is. >> yeah one of the main things i wanted to accomplish with this book because -- redistricting andnd gerrymanderg

are a lot of things in the media a lot of things by academics. and sod what i think is differet about this book and unique about this book is that it looks at gerryman dering and when i was researching this topic is that it is not only as old as the united states itself. it is, in fact, older than the united states itself. itel has its origins in a somewt clerky practice in british politics known as the rotten bar. and rotten bar is the ways one of the ways that kind of british aristocrats traditionally used the arrangements of government to maintain their strangle hold on power. and it involved essentially controlling the number of people who would get to vote in the

district. and so you could potentially have a seat in parliament that had 500 or a thousand people living in andin ultimately three or four of them were actually eligible to vote.ct and the landowner nobleman would bribeno or often patronage to voters in order to keep control of the seat, and we saw something similar -- translated across to the united states during the colonial era, and these kind of early where they were prior independent or post independent don't look like gerrymandering it is the bizarre and misshapen districts that you see on maps and as nate was saying it is only the technology that is available to politicians

today, and it was not until the 1970s that computers and software were used for the first time in the redistricting process and it was really not until the 2010s that sophisticated algorithm began to enter the scene and what these allow redistricters to do is not only draw districts based on what has happened happened in px so you can draw a seat that the way you can figure it okay it looks like this seat has voted republican or the last two or three cycles we draw the district this way -- we're pretty confident that it will vote republican moving forward. this was kind of historically how it was done they would look at numbers and how people had voted in prior election and

extrapolate that into the future. and oftentimes that would work for maybe one election or possibly twoe elections. but then people would kind of move around a little bit and perhaps the political wins or tides would start to change direction.ge and often gerrymandering wouldn't robust along a decade or longer and what happens today is that they have these sophisticated models by which they can simulate how the districts they draw will perform under a wide variety of hype thet hypothetical and tweak the lines to kind of create the optimalry to remain throughout e deck cad and there are u.s. states that are for all intense of purposes no longer really democracies inn terms of their

legislative option and the example i give the book with and most glaring one is the state of wisconsin.n. after the 2010 election, the republican party controlled state government in the state of wisconsin. ... gerrymander orders in americn history. and as a result of the republican party has control of around about two thirds of the seats two thirds in the wisconsin legislature for the entirety of the last decade. in that decade there were two elections democrats won the operative vote overall in wisconsin for publicans to maintain control two thirds of the seat and that's what

gerrymandering is. essentially an entire state an entire grade. another consequence is up to the most recent test was in control? the same republicans a decade ago and that's what concerns me moving forward gerrymandering is not just going to be something that allows politicians for a couple elections is going to be something that allows the political party to create a one-partye state and gerrymandering decade after decade deponents in that process. >> it is not shocking to see almost every relevant force in america. we took something from britain which correct me if i'm wrong

but the redistricting more like melt apportionment, not changing boundaries as population shifted over time to something incredibly proactive. this regime of data analysis you're describing, this is an effort to take people's voice and vote the way today and into the future and it is effective and worth considering in florida the legislature not the latest round but 2010 redistricting process limbs, is not often described in these terms but that was one of the largest most brazen corruption scandals in

florida history. at trial court level but george found a systemic scheme underway by the legislature to draw maps contrary to the law and the legislator went to great lengths and field communications with political consultants, they deleted like records have to redistricting was done even though it should have been public records as a matter of law but there would be litigation filed to destroy important discovery. these are the stakes in control of our democracy and little democracies and cities. i had no idea about the history and no idea it was as old as you describe and maybe i feel like

you should explain donald trump on turkey because that is something in the book. >> one thing i do in the book as examples of the most interesting or hilarious or this case hilarious and disturbing district in american history and those who like to play to describe districts in which they look like, in the shape it on a map people will go to place to insinuate what it isre that district examples. sometimes they look like the things on other occasions and

it's what they talk about in the book. the first one is district central new york state, an isolated island in the middle of new york if you look at, it resembles almost an uncanny level image of abraham lincoln writing on a vacuum cleaner. i have pictures of these in the books so you can see for yourself by testify it is remarkable all the way down to the hat and another district from a decade later which is a hedistrict that is on the hudson valley north of new york city and my nickname for the district was donald trump, you're on a

smoked turkey and you can see this if you read the book. >> and it's real. it's not the us. >> one otherhe district i write about in the book as well and this is interesting. you go back historically, a lot of times the district is strong in a way were not all of the parts of them were physically connected to one another. the climate on federal law districts have to be particular with, the physical parts of the district have to be geographically connected to one

another. there's a major exception to this, districts are allowed to cross directly over ahmaud arbery of water, river or lake or something because otherwise it's physically impossible to divide into districts if you don't have the ability to cross those. in the 80s there was a congressman from california, phil burton and i credit him in the book as one of the inventors about the gerrymander that relies not so much on now apportionment having different population between districts in

a space, the title in the book one person one vote comes from the same decisions in the 1960s that required under the constitution all districts to have equal population so those decisions really changed gerrymandering from a situation where politicians could draw a district river here that had 500 voters in it and another one over here with 5000 voters in it and that was the way districts were often manipulated. since the 1970s redistricting has been done in compliance this one person one vote principle which means those who are responsible for have to be more creative when it comes to manipulate and the lines to ensure whatever the outcome is they are looking for. phil burton, congressman from telephone you was in control of california's redistricting and the early 1980s. on the other side of the debate

was thomas, his first rodeo in this career. and what he decided to do in order to create the gerrymander to allow the democrats to win in the state of california to basically the district that included three disconnected parts of the bay area and had parts of downtown san francisco and a large section in the county on the other side of the bay. this was described atin the time as the early district in

california history across the san francisco bay twice without the use of a bridge. what heag did was this idea that you can include a territory in a district if it goes directly across a body of water it was a district across the bay twice jammed together entirely neunrelated communities to secuo the outcome he was looking for. >> one thing that is important, we have had fun with this tonight, associate redistricting in the district but isn't the requirement of redistricting. redistricting is any drawing of boundary done to protect somebody's interest. you kind of argue for a specific

definition of what redistricting is in the book and i'm curious if you can go over that. >> i think it needs to discount gerrymandering when it doesn't produced districts that are bizarrely mistaken. one example might be the recent gerrymander by our state governor desantis who rejected the maps proposed by the state legislature. he proposed his own map and the result is an florida state pretty close to 50/50 democrat and republican, almost guaranteed republicans will win 20 of the 28 florida seats in the house of representatives in the november election.

to give an illustration of how gerrymandering works in practice, maybe it is best to think of hypothetical. i'm a college professor, i love looking into hypotheticals and it removes convocation factors messiness you get real-world examples to imagine a hypothetical made up american city. as a city government made up of an elected mayor, and has the counsel elected from districtsua in the districts have to have equal population. to keep things simple, the city

of jacksonville -- the city of jacksonville is made up of 60% of one political party and 50% of another political party and those are the only candidates impacting elections. >> who is the mayor? >> we are going to get to that in a second. [laughter] so the mayoral elections, there's no opportunity for gerrymandering. gerrymandering requires boundaries, districts so the outcome of the election from their can be driven by turnout, the more red team or blue team voter turnout in the election can be re- driven by the quality

of candidates so let's say the blue team nominates a particularly incompetent mayor. he's likely to lose the election because it's a 50/50 city and he's not a very good candidate. let's say the red team nominates a good candidate, young, up-and-coming star politician, let's call him lawrence trevor. lawrence trevor is likely to win the election because again, it's fair. fifty/50, thehe voters decide. we've had a census and the city council district needs to be redrawn to comply with one person one vote.

it just so happens the red team at the time of districting is in control the mayor's office and majority of the city council. there are a couple of ways you could draw a fair line for the city and make all three of the districts reasonably competitive, approximately equal numbers of team red and blue voters in the districts and the elections will depend on how good the candidates are in their campaigns because they connect with their constituents. alternatively it's not practical voters in jacksonville are unevenly distribute and you could draw one district that has a blue team majority and one

district with the red team majority and you control one district backups competitive. that will leave the outcome in the hands of them. most election the red team will win one and blue will win one seat and the competitive districts will determine who controls city council. in theory, that is how democracy is supposed to work. let's imagine gerrymandering only and the red team and control the end they pack in the blue team they can find. the district has 80% blue team in 20% red team. the other two districts they draw them so they have 65% red team voters and 35% blue team voters so you have three

districts in compliance with one person, one vote in the same population, one district is 80/20 blue team and 65 -- 35 and that is the gerrymander because none of the districts are competitive. none of them are likely to change hands even when you take into account things that might happen over the course of a decade. people move around the city and voters come in and people move out but none of the changes will be significant enough to move the seats into a situation where they are likely to change. evennc if lawrence trevor gets misappropriation, his party will be unpopular but not sufficient to shift the ballot enough to make the seats competitive.

redrawing the districts in such a way to guarantee no matter what happens, how the people vote, the red team will win a few districts in the city will win one.ue that's how it works and that's what has occurred not only here in jacksonville but across the state of florida and a host of places around. >> what you're describing, packing a certain subset of voters into a district where you get one district highly concentrated blue team and to maybe not as concentrated but still very red team friendly. it gets to what we talk about about adaptability in american history with minority voters the

strategy was throwing districts to dilute the vote and then court rulings and civil rightsgh movement and emphasis on mandatory minority axis. then the strategy becomes packing. we won't lose the voters and if we have to make space, we will make based in the most number we can so what it looks like and practice in the city council district in jacksonville has a voting aget population like 75% black which is way over amount necessary and sure black voters to elect the candidate of their choice. it varies by district but sometimes the number needs to only be about 48 to 50% voting age population being minority tc

give minority voters to elect the candidate of their choice. in practice we can see districts with 60 to 70% way more than it needs to be and that's what we have in jacksonville, minority axis seat with one axis of what they need to provide to actually be minority axis and the council i would argue engaged in bipartisan redistricting e phenomenon we talked about earlier. the democrats on the city council were in many ways more fierce defenders of the gerrymander map and the republicans. the map disadvantages democrats and minority voters so it's amazing you seeee this play out but it is happening everywhere.

>> one of the major themes of the book is gerrymandering taking ams number of forms. to think about gerrymandering in the context p of partisan gerrymandering unlike the jacksonville example where one political party controls redistricting process and use it to try to keep themselves in power or maintained majority and city council or the legislature or whatever. delving back into the history of gerrymandering i found numerous types of gerrymander's in olvarious political areas whichs by the u definition of gerrymandering is in the book simply the manipulation of districts for some kind of political purpose. it doesn't have to be partisan

but a political goal in mind and i write up a lot in the book how gerrymandering as a tool of racial oppression in this 70s because with the civil rights movement was that and disenfranchisement used to get african-americans from registering from the boat, to prevent them from participating in elections. suddenly they were outlawed by the federalal government and the federal government began r scrutinizing and sure compliae with the civil rights act and voting rights act so racial gerrymandering in the 70s kind of became the new way majority

in states like texas and georgia and louisiana exclude african-americans from political office they could draw the districts in a way black voters were dispersed among among group number of districts where there was a white majority because they were racially polarized voting in operation because white voters tend to vote for white candidates and black tended to vote for black candidates. this insured no black candidates could realistically be elected from the districts in those states. both the supreme court and u.s. congress again to crack down on that racial gerrymandering in the 80s, vote dilution.

legislation passed by congress in 1982 clement the voting rights act to crack down on this vote dilution and a series of decisions by the supreme court frto prevent states from doing that moving forward. thankfully that kind of racial gerrymandering is a lot less prevalent in recent decades but as mentioned, politicians are strategic and to close off onefi avenue of manipulation and they will figure out another way to achieve the same goal so what the republican party began doing in the 1990s was, instead of dividing minority voters among different districts where none of the candidates could get elected, instead they figured if

you had a huge super majority of african-americans or latinos or asian americans into a single district than no matter how large their numbers, the number of the legislature. this had the advantage ofin benefiting republican candidates and surrounding areas because almost all of the minority votersem were there so they coud practice minority democrats as he could into an individual district and would have the effect of allowing republicans to win almost all of the surrounding and started going on all over the south in the 90s and what we see happening here in jacksonville in the most recent districting cycle, jacksonville has a large african-american population in the city council packed the voters into a few super majority

districts which ensures there is no opportunity for black candidates to be elected anywhere else in the city. >> one thing that strikes me is the pace of how quickly things have gotten worse. when i was a reporter in 2010 in the redistricting cycle i was working in south louisiana. the school board and governments and county governments, every little -- no matter how small the boundaries w were, they were redrawn and had to be submitted to the justice department, they were not allowed to approve anything on their own and watching the processors played out, everyone had to hire a consultant in the process was professionalized. it was formalized.

aythe reasons the districts were drawing for hearing disclaimed. they probably have more control than they said. it was a professionally run process. the supreme court has run away with this concept and what we see now, all of the politicians i a covered 2010 are free to drw districts however they like and the only way to hold them accountable is to go to court where they are likely to encounter a judge who is hostile toward the idea with a demand a certain set of political boundaries change. i was wondering if youhrhr could walk us through modern supreme court decisions at least in my view have undermined democracy by closing the course as an avenue for people to get relief.

>> there have been two parallel threads of supreme court cases of gerrymandering and have had cases where activist attorneys have been attempting unsuccessfully to persuade the justices step in and say the most egregious partisan gerrymandering like the one in wisconsin earlier and violate the constitution and equal protection clause and political affiliation. one half of the spectrum has meaningful opportunity to influence election outcome from

the 1980s for the justices said we think there are some circumstances where partisan gerrymandering may violate the constitution and their thoughts how we might go about adjudicating that but justices were split between doves different differences and no clear majority and it was unfortunate because it didn't provide a roadmap to the lower courts what was unconstitutional or constitutional when it came to gerrymandering. in 2004, another case involving a challenge to districts in pennsylvania and it looked like they were getting ready to play

their cards on the table, four conservative justices who wanted to say and four liberal justices the supreme court step in and strike down the bad gerrymander's. they had justice kennedy in the middle and just kennedy refused to make up his mind. we had another split decision, another decade of guidance from the supreme court how lower courts should deal with gerrymandering. in the most recent decade, there were two cases one involving wisconsin gerrymander of the justice dismissed that and then you have the final mail, 28

decision and the north carolina gerrymander and an opinion by chief justice john roberts and they are closing the doors of the federal courthouses entirely. and can no longer litigate these his face in federal court. in addition these earlier dealing with racialwn gerrymandering or in the 80s and crackdown on gerrymandering but then recent decades the county decision they removed that preclearance requirement that was crucial in these states that have traditionally engaged in racial discrimination. and predictably in the decades we have seen that backsliding

occur. it's been happening in louisiana in the redistricting cycle where the states decline to a second black influence congressional district, lower court said it was a violation of the voting rights act and supreme court reversed that decision and said the maps the legislature have drawn did. that decision emboldens from the senses to eliminate the two minority influence district here in north florida and the seat in the orlando area. the dissenters gerrymandering sort of two districts that have widely elected african-american

and this would never have been possible prior to shelby county. it shouldn't be possible under florida law because floor has the constitutional amendment that prohibits admission of minority voting for the florida supreme court did not see it that way and they allowed this act to go into effect. the florida supreme court 720 republican majority on it including three of the seven justice appointed by desantis so it seems he's competent to supreme court will have the. >> and soon to be a fourth. >> will soon have us supreme court where majority of the justices have been appointed. i have a couple of concerns moving forward. first the florida supreme court

will back down the district a minute. the minutes to the state constitution and 2810 prohibits both gerrymandering and second major concern is the supreme court will strike down or limit section two of the voting rights act of 1965. the legislation that requires states to take interest of noted voters into account in the redistricting looking for a chance of those things. >> matching those comments, there is a thread of hope you weave through your book. [laughter] >> i would stop short of saying it's an optimistic book, not a

criticismm i'm an optimist about much but i wonder if you could explain your view how optimistic you are. >> the reason i have at least some hope as i think there has been meaningful progress combating gerrymandering within the last decade or so. it progress that has come not at the impetus of politicians and most of the time not the emphasis of judges either, it's a the emphasis of the people. states like florida where people have the opportunity to collect signatures and place an initiative on the ballot to amend the constitution or put in place regular statute, there

have been a number of redistricting reform can take gerrymandering initiative voted on in the last decade. every one of those been approved by the voters of their pprespective state and not just talking about blue states, we'vd seen them approved in utah and florida, michigan, ohio, every opportunity and chance the people have a way in on this, the messagege they send clear, e don't want politicians in on this process. c we want to choose politicians and choose their voters so in the next we will continue incremental reform at state level particularly in states where initiatives are available

but that is not every state so states you don't have that option of direct change from the people you are relying on politicians to perform gerrymandering and doesn't always work terribly well because those are the ones currently and benefit from thed current system so i have less optimism in those states and greater optimism in states where initiatives are available and somewhere in between level of optimism when it comes to progress because what happens to fix gerrymandering at the state level and state elections will be decided by each individual states, congress has the power to fix gerrymandering when it

comes to federal elections. the constitution in the elections because it gives congress the authority to determine how members of congress will be elected and at various times, they have placed different constraints and requirements on that process. we've seen in the last two years two different bills introduced that would try to fix the problem of gerrymandering. that's the approach i favor the approach that has worked well in states like california and colorado and michigan, we saw another bill proposed as a compromise bill i senator joe manchin which would have placed

legal constraints on state legislatures when it comes to drawing congressional district. it will not surprise you to learn either of the bills was successfully enacted. they were filibustered in the senate and part of the reason is they were introduced as the democrats voting rights reform provision. there'se a lot of stuff that's more controversial. what i would like to see congress do and i hope it happens in the near future is introduced redistricting form and the gerrymandering legislation as a standalone bill and the members of the house and the senate vote on it and where they stand because overwhelmingly popular with the people. would suggest republicans,

independents, no americans like jim gerrymandering and when the people vote on it is clear what they want to happen. we hope to seek more meaningful progress in the next decade. obviously would not done enough toto fix the problem so far.ou >> you're the only person i've heard saying they are hopeful about something congress is doing. >> should we open up to questions? >> i think that's a good idea. don't be shy, come to the microphone. >> the u.s. constitution state legislatures redistricting and what they want by law. >> it works a little different depending on when you talk about

state elections for federal elections. when it comes to state elections, that will be determined by individual state constitution and congress has no authority to interfere with that. when it comes to federal elections for the u.s. house and u.s. senate constitution gives authority to both the legislature and u.s. congress. elections cause and i'll try and recited to the rest of my ability to the top of my head but it basically says state legislatures are responsible for setting time, place and manner of elections for senators and representatives the congress may make or alter such regulations. it allows states to set procedures that will be used to run federal elections but also

empowersti congress to place its own restriction and alterations and what states will do so the provision that allows congress to make or alter regulations that empower them to pass legislation to prohibit gerrymandering but only for elections to the u.s. house. the authority to tell state how to run their own state election. >> i think the reason district in florida and jacksonville tell a competing story what's best for which party. complaining about bipartisan gerrymandering folks supporting it ensuring subservience for the next ten years.

the democrats in the state housg with the opposite way, kicked and screamed and protested an amount that would be roughly 17 to 11. have they got along with the 17 to 11 map with unanimous support in state legislature might not have enabled them to stick with that and overturned the initial veto and we are all. >> if the argument is there is any scenario in which would not have run the centers because the democrats would have been nicer, i don't buy that very. i know it's out there, we were going to get the maps desantis wanted just by virtue of republican-controlled

legislature. >> i tend to agree with you and ultimately -- >> that is intense (. >> ultimately it is a lose lose situation if you go along with the process, that's basically whatat the democrats here in jacksonville decided to do. i think it's notable once again ins a city basically 50/50 betweento democrats and republicans once again would have city council you have nine to for when you exclude the at-large, 94 republican majority for the next decade, maybe it

will shift but essentially there isac 0% that democrats will wine majority and cognizant of that, the council decided they would put their own careers ahead of the people. they play the republicans and basically get to hand tailored their own district to make sure they get to stick around as long as this will want to in the democrats in tallahassee i think we'll get a rough shot by desantis whatever the did. a lose -- lose situation. i almost think sometimes the bipartisan jury members are most worse and person once, one thing fore a political party to use s influence to gain as much of an

edge as it can and that to some extent is politics as usual and something politicians have done for a time. when you have two polar opposite agree on nothing but the one thing they cooperate on getting together when it comes time to drop the district basically out the maps so theyth could to keep their seats, all of them get a say in office, it's been fiscally 50 years in the state in the 1960s and new york state in a situation of the democrat party controlled the assembly and a publican party told the state decade chamber

gerrymandered their own district to keep control while agreeing allow the opposing party in the chamber to withdraw their individual and his congress. his loss of uninterrupted legislative in u.s. history. and for five decades the same voters would turn on democratic majority to state assembly republican majority state senate solelye because of how the district was drawn and almost seems worse because politicians coming together think we can't agree on anything else other than the will of the electorate undermining the ability of the voters to hold us accountable and we get to keep our job. >> one final piece, i would

agree local democrats were in practical terms not in a great position to affect the outcome they got. this super majority in the city council, certainly not just going tocc okay the creation of minority access. this bizarre spectacle we saw they out the democrats on the city council argued as forcefully as any republican this map was not only the best we would get but morally outstanding how dare you suggestion we could have done something different otherwise map which is odd. if you're concerned about minority voters and their ability to choose a candidate, it is demonstrably not the best map or the best they could have done or could have pushed for. whether they could have gotten

it or not is a different question but when we call it bipartisan gerrymandering act, that's what it is, democrats co-opted in this map and it's not a good map. >> in this day and age this technology we have we have latitude and longitude using technology to evenly distribute areas and hitting it than a brc. and it was world base and automate its instead of letting their opinions f run. >> things for the question, the

research that has looked at doing redistricting so instead of having humans sit down and decide where the district would be drawn and you could have an algorithm draw thousands of maps and choose one that optimizes whatever criteria whatever it i. you are looking for. that can be a valuable tool but also a solution.od there is this ideal of redistricting. they are mutually exclusive they may want to achieve and cannot

achieve all of those things at the same time. you could perhaps have the algorithm you want to draw a lot of competitive districts, you can tell the algorithm he wanted to follow unities, existing county and municipal boundaries. you can tell the algorithm to draw districts that are compact, fairly regularly shaped and don't have proportions and appendages and things that look weird on a map. you can tell the algorithm you wanted to prioritize protection of the interest of minority voters in draw districts to ensure they have opportunity and candidates of their choice. he cannot tell the algorithm to do these things at the same time as it's impossible.

they are more democratic and constituents in a district not especially competitive so i think you're right that kind of technology can be a useful tool when it comes to redistricting but ultimately depends on the algorithm and depends on human choices but to prioritize. >> the take away in your book in a lot of ways, our system by and large relies on people we elect to make the right decision instead of the decision protecting themselves. politicians overtime our

fundamentally incapable of making that choice enough times to not have a completely screwed up system. >> right. gerrymandering incentivizes them to make the wrong choice in that situation. one off the effects of gerrymandering is we have fewer competitive districts today than any other time in u.s. history. of the 435 seats in the u.s. house of representatives, somewhere around 30 to 35 are going to be competitive seats in the november elections later this year. thirty to 35 seats out of 435 where both parties have meaningful opportunity to win that seat and others open drawn so lopsided you that the democrat or republican is basically guaranteed to win.

when elections are not competitive politicians cannot be held accountable for what they do in office is all the more tempting to prioritize their own interests over the interests of their constituents. >> thank you for being here today. things like the their district amendment in the process and the florida supreme court reacted certain super majority of the national supreme court, what is the alternative, strategy for redistricting even in places where you have laws in the book that require either nonpartisan or fair redistricting when you have courts that to decide the

meaning. >> i think the their district amendment worked well a decade ago or at least as well as they could have been expected to work so what happened is voters place provisions and state constitution, provisions said you cannot engage in partisan gerrymandering and and districts for congressional seats in the state senate that were republican gerrymandering and it took a few years but in 2015 the state supreme court struck the districts down and required legislature to redraw them. but replaced it was a fair map. democrats have a reasonable shot

and didn't end up doing it but had a reasonable shot and had run better candidates and campaigns winning the state senate at the tail end of the last decade. congressional seat. either of those are possible anymore but the supreme court even though it had republican majority or may have been more close to evenly divided but it was less ideologically skewed than it is today. i have less confidence the state supreme court will uphold andro apply the fair district amendment this time is why i think what we need to do in florida is put a new constitutional amendment on the ballot and say we give you the opportunity to abide by this, hw

failed to do it a few consecutive decades and now take that power away from you and create nonpartisan independent commission made up of regular florida citizens and they will have the power to control districts. the main thing i took from this book is the main problem with redistricting in the united states and the problem every other nation has managed to fix is the fact that we allow politicians to control it. when you take politicians out of the equation you're not only going to get a fair map and you shouldn't expect a fair map but you will get one a lot more often than we do now. >> thanknk you for your book, thank you for this call. i've lived here my whole life and apparently have been

swimming in this sea of denial. i have tried to get the vote out and get people involved in politics. i'm not hearing a lot of hope. i guess i always knew it was happening, but this spells it out in black and white terms. ist star i am struggling to maka question how to get people to vote? is it the response ability of thee voters to find a solution? i think it is. is it the responsibility of the voters to use the people in office they voted for them are not? i see no reason for change. there has to be a way for me to present a woman that her vote will count and it matters as

much as the woman in marie hill. or i don't see a democracy anymore in the cannot live in that country, i certainly am having a hard time living in that state. any hope outside of the ballot initiative we can push for, can we get the initiatives by sheer numbers are getting people to unite under this scenario you have presented do we go out about our business the way you have alle of my life i don't kw where to proceed and i appreciate you bringing this to our attention. >> i think we are all screwed up so you better take this question. [laughter] >> i guess i have to try to find the silver lining in this. what i would say is a lot of

times you will go to the voting booth and most of the things and choices you have are not going to be meaningful. ... be for it to make a difference. and i that as. as depressing as things are in our political system right now, i do think there is hope to try and fix those things. it's not to be easy. and i that it's it's depressing to have to kind of fight constant holding action to to cling on to sort the vestiges of democracy that we still. but the alternative is all of that going going away and i think people have to put in put

in the effort that an engaged citizenry and this is people have to put inhi the efft and this is something that i had in quite a bit of work on. one of the things that i do is work as a consultant for the florida department of education under civic literacy initiative which is designed to try and get students in k-12 and universities and public colleges to engage inno politics equipped with knowledge and the tools that they need to become effective in engaged democratic citizens. hopefully that has an input and an effect but i think it's hard and they think we just have to kind of say that we need to

fight for this. we need to fight not only to make things better but we need to fight to preserve what we are to have. maintaining a healthy representative requires citizen engagement. it doesn't take care of itself. the framers of our constitution provided us with many of the institutions to have such a system and a lot of those institutions have led us for centuries now. they did not supply the virtues and the norms necessary to sustain that in perpetuity. that is our responsibility as citizens and it's only through participation, no matter how small voting in an election gettingr involved in your community, doing volunteer work. all of these things make a contribution towards improving our politics and it's only by

aggregating all of us together and getting as many people as possible involved that changes it eventually. >> i will say and i won't say we are totally. i think all of us struggle, anyone who is typically engaged with this feeling of helplessness and certainly a newspaper if you are a campaign organizer he might feel like your efforts don't measure up to the challenges of today.se the one thing that you can do that will guarantee something will get better is to stop those things. so i see that as an argument for carrying on. civic engagement is the only way we are going to get ourselves

out of this. >> wow. that was i would have to say and intellectually stimulating event that i want to thank everyone for coming out of being part of the engaged citizenry that we have in jacksonville. i'mt really excited with the turnout that we had they didn't know what to expect and again i want to thank everyone for coming. you ox available and he will be signing outside on the left if anyone wants their book signed. so thank you. [applause]