HOUSING TRUST FOR SYRACUSE?

SHOULD DOMESTIC ISSUES IMPACT FOREIGN AFFAIRS?

AID AND GERRYMANDERING FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE?

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED BY TONIGHT'S PANELISTS, NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, AND LUKE PERRY AND RICK FENNER, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

SYRACUSE AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES HAVE A HOUSING SHORTAGE, ONE THAT WILL LIKELY GET WORSE WHEN MICRON COMES TO TOWN.

ONE SURVEY SHOWED MORE THAN A THIRD OF HOMES AND APARTMENTS IN SYRACUSE SUFFER FROM CHRONIC DISINVESTMENT.

MANY ARE WORTH LESS THAN WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO FIX THEM.

NOW MAYOR BEN WALSH WANTS TO CREATE A HOUSING TRUST THAT COULD BUILD HOMES, OWN APARTMENTS, ISSUE BONDS AND LOAN MONEY TO HOMEOWNERS.

THIS NEW ARM OF CITY GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE COMMON COUNCIL.

RICK, SHOULD 9 COUNCIL APPROVE THIS PLAN?

>> WELL, I'M FAIRLY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THIS.

FIRST, IT'S PROPOSED TO BE SET UP AS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND NEW YORK STATE HAS A PRETTY SPOTTY RECORD WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.

THEY TEND TO LACK TRANSPARENCY AND HAVE LIMITED ACCOUNTABILITY AND, AS YOU SAID, THIS ONE IS GOING TO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF POWER.

THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO ISSUE BONDS AND MAKE LOANS.

ULTIMATELY IT IS GOING TO BE THE CITY AND ITS TAXPAYERS.

WHAT WE NEED AFTER A VERY INTERESTING EXPERIMENT THAT IS GOING ON IN MONTGOMERY MARYLAND, WHERE THEY PUT UP AND BUILD APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND THEY BUILT TWO-THIRDS OF THEM AT MARKET RATE, AND THEN RENT OUT THE REST TO MODERATE INCOME INDIVIDUALS AT 1200.

THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE HERE IS THAT MONTGOMERY STARTED OFF WITH $100 MILLION TO DO THIS.

SYRACUSE HAS A $5 MILLION GRANT FROM NEW YORK STATE BUT THE BIG PROBLEM IS THAT THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IN SYRACUSE IS A PROBLEM WITH LOW INCOME HOUSING.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY HAS A MEDIAN INCOME OF $110,000 WHERE IT'S ABOUT $38,000 FOR SYRACUSE.

THE MODEL THEY'RE WORKING WITH, I'M AFRAID IS NOT GOING TO WORK HERE FOR THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE HERE IN SYRACUSE.

>> FIRST OF ALL, I THINK WE HAVE TO DRAW SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENS IN NEW YORK AT LARGE VERSUS HERE IN SYRACUSE.

SYRACUSE HAS A FAIRLY DECENT TRACK RECORD OF DEALING WITH, AS BEST IT CAN, THE HOUSING PROBLEMS AND IT HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB.

AND THE SYRACUSE LAND BANK HAS ALSO BEEN QUITE USEFUL.

I WANT TO SAY DEFINITIVELY THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS HOUSING SHORTAGE, YES.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST FOR THOSE WHOM WE WOULD NORMALLY THINK ARE WITHOUT HOMES.

IT'S ALSO, AS THE POST STANDARD RECENTLY HAS SHOWN, FOR FOLKS WHO HAVE JOBS, FULLY FOLKS WHO HAVE JOBS BUT 2340 HOUSING.

BUT IS THIS ABOUT PROVIDING HOUSING FOR THE MICRON FOLKS WHO WILL EARN UP TO A SIX FIGURE SALARY, OR WILL IT BE FOR SYRACUSEANS WHO REALLY ARE STRUGGLING TO FIND HOMES AND SO I HOPE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, AS IT IS THINKING ABOUT HOW BEST TO TRUR IS THIS, WILL-- TO STRUCTURE THIS WILL SET ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA THAT ARE MEANS TESTED; THAT IS WILL LOOK AT FOLKS WHO HAVE LIMITED INCOME AND ALSO ARE LONG-TERM SYRACUSEAN RESIDENTS.

>> I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THE POST STANDARD TO GIVE THEM A SHOUT OUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF REPORTING ON HOUSING IN SYRACUSE.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> A GREAT JOB WITH THAT.

SO IN SYRACUSE, MOST OF THE PROBLEM IS IN LOW INCOME HOUSING >> COMPARED TO WHAT MAJORITY LEADER IS TRYING TO DO.

>> AND THAT EXAMPLE IN MARYLAND, THEY'RE RIGHT OUTSIDE WASHINGTON D.C.

SO IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT PLACE.

WOULD THIS ENCOURAGE THE PRIVATE MARKET TO PUT MONEY INTO HOUSING IN SYRACUSE?

>> IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE MARKET DATA IS SAYING, LIKE 46% OF PEOPLE IN SYRACUSE EARN LESS THAN $35,000 AND MANY OF THEM ARE TREMENDOUSLY TRENT STRESSED AND SUBS SUBSIDIES WHO CHARGE SOMETHING LIKE $2400 A MONTH, WHICH ONLY 18% CAN AFFORD THERE COULD BE INCENTIVES FOR DEVELOPERS TO SET ASIDE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTS AND THE MEDIAN INCOME IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY IS $100,000.

I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THE MODEL MIGHT NOT WORK.

THE IDEA IS THAT YOU GET A GRANT AND THEN YOU SELL BONDS AND CHARGE HIGHER RENT TO SUBSIDIZE LOWER RENTS.

SO AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU MIGHT END UP WITH MORE MONEY TO BUILD MOMENTUM FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

YOU KNOW,.

THE MARKET SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK.

IT CANNOT PROVIDE HOUSING TO PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.

I WOULD SAY IT'S A MARKET FAILURE IN THAT SENSE.

THEN WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE REALLY BUT THAT WOULD BE AN INFLUX OF INCOME FOR PROFESSIONALS.

>> HAVING GROWN UP IN THE CHICAGO HOUSING PROJECTS, THERE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH HAVING ANY SORT OF INCOME OR HOUSING RESTRICTED SOLELY TO LOW INCOME PERSONS.

SO MORE LIKE MIXED HOUSING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE BUT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROVIDING HOUSING FOR MICRON WORKERS.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PRIVATE MARKET CAN DO.

IT SHOULD BE FOR THOSE WHO ARE REALLY IN NEED.

>> PRIVATE MARKET DEVELOPERS WANT TO BUILD EXPENSIVE HOMES AND EXPENSIVE APARTMENTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT IS.

>> WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING HOUSING AS AN ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO SYRACUSE WHICH MAKES SENSE.

ONE THING THAT STOOD OUT TO ME ABOUT THIS AS A FORMER GOVERNMENT ELECTED OFFICIAL, USUALLY WHEN PEOPLE WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM IT'S EXPENSIVE AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

WE HAVE $5 MILLION SEED MONEY.

THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T HAVE AN INSTITUTION IN PLACE THAT IS CLEARLY DELINEATED TO DO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, HOWEVER THAT TAKES SHAPE, RIGHT?

SO THE MAYOR IS TRYING TO GET APPROVAL THIS MONTH, THE CITY COUNCIL HAD A MEETING AND ASKED A LOT OF THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS, VOICING SCEPTICISM ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK AND THE MAYOR WANTS TO GET THIS DONE SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD AND USE THE GRANT.

BUT THAT'S GOING TO LEAVE IT UP TO THE BOARD TO FLESH OUT WHAT THE INSTITUTION LOOKS LIKE AND THAT MAY OR MAY NOT WORK OR SERVE THE OBSERVATIVES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

THAT DETAIL IS IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY.

>> THE OTHER ISSUE IS $5 MILLION IS NOT GOING TO GO VERY FAR AND THE PROGRAM IS NOT GOING TO BE SUSTAINABLE.

IN MARYLAND, THEY RELY ON THE UPPER INCOME INDIVIDUALS TO SUBSIDIZE IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH FOR THEM TO PUT REGULATIONS AND STIMULATIONS ON DEVELOPERS BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T LEAK WHAT SYRACUSE IS ASKING THEM TO DO, THEY CAN GO TO FAYETTEVILLE OR CAMILLUS.

>> BUT IF THIS PUBLIC TRUST, TO LUKE'S POINT, IS NOT CONSTITUTES APPROPRIATELY, THEN THERE CAN BE PROBLEMS.

AND I HOPE TO GOD THAT SYRACUSE DOES NOT TURN TO THE SAME PEOPLE THAT HAS BEEN RELIED UPON TO FIX, REALLY NOT FIX THE PROBLEMS OF THE CITY.

AND YET CONTINUE TO TURN TO THOSE FOLKS.

HEEM WHO HAVE A BACKGROUND IN BUILDING AND PRODUCING SHOULD BE THOSE WHO SERVE ON THIS PUBLIC TRUST BOARD.

>> CONGRESS IS BACK IN SESSION AFTER THE THANKSGIVING BREAK AMONG THE MANY DIFFICULT ISSUES ON THE "TO-DO" LIST IS AID TO UKRAINE AND ISRAEL.

THESE USED TO BE EASY VOTES, NOT ANYMORE.

REPUBLICANS ARE PUSHING BORDER SECURITY IN EXCHANGE FOR AID TO UKRAINE, WHILE DEMOCRATS HAVE A GROWING DIVIDE OVER AID FOR ISRAEL.

ANIRBAN, SHOULD CONGRESS DO WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS AND JUST PASS THESE BILLS, SEND THAT AID OUT WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED?

OR DOES DOMESTIC POLITICS... >> I THINK THE WAY THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM IS THERE WOULD BE DEBATE ABOUT THESE THINGS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND REPUBLICAN PARTY AS YOU POINT OUT ARE BOTH DIVIDED.

WHAT DOES BIDEN WANT?

BIDEN IS ASKING FOR $60 BILLION FOR UKRAINE $14 BILLION FOR ISRAEL AND ANOTHER $14 BILLION FOR THE BORDER.

THE STICKING POINT FOR THE REPUBLICANS IS THE IDEA OF PAROLE AND ASIGH ASYLUM TO BE SEVERELY RESTRICTED.

THAT IS A NO BRAINER.

THEY WANT TO MAKE IT CONTINGENT ON UKRAINE.

ON THE OTHER HAND THE DEMOCRATS, EVEN BERNIE SANDERS WHO HAD CONDEMNED TO DEFEND ITSELF IN THE FACE OF THIS KIND OF ATROCITY HAD COME OUT SAYING THAT WE STAND FOR ISRAEL BUT WHAT DOES ISRAEL STAND FOR, AND WE CANNOT REALLY STAND FOR, YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF ANNIHILATEIVE THINGS FOR PEOPLE.

THERE NEEDS TO BE RESTRICTION ON HOW THE AID WOULD BE USED AND WHAT IT WOULD BE USED FOR AND SOME PATH TOWARDS A BIGGER SOLUTIONS TO PEACE.

WHAT I'M SEEING IS THAT I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO-- I DON'T THINK THIS IS GLOWING TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE END OF THIS YEAR.

AND THERE IS ALSO ON TAIWAN REGARDED FUNDING INCLUDED IN THERE.

>> ONE BIG PACKAGE WITH AID TO MANY... >> WE'LL HAVE TO REVISIT THIS IN JANUARY.

THE DIFFERENCES SEEM TO BE INTRACTABLE IN BOTH PARTIES.

>> THE DIFFERENCE OVER THE BUDGET?

>> BETWEEN THE REPUBLICANS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS SEVERE RESTRICTION IN PAROLE AND ASYLUM IN ORDER TO GET THE AID FOR UKRAINE AND AMONG DEMOCRATS, RESTRICTION FOR ISRAELIS WITHOUT-- ISRAELIES WITHOUT ANY... >> BECAUSE THE BUDGET ISSUE IS OUT THERE AS WELL.

>> BUT THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF WHAT POLITICS IS, RIGHT?

IT ALL CONVERGES ON THE BUDGET PROCESS.

IF WE TAKE THE CLASSIC DEFINITION OF WHAT POLITICS IS, IT'S THE DISTRIBUTION OR THE DECISIONS ABOUT WHO GETS WHAT WHEN AND HOW.

AND THE IDEA THAT THERE IS A BACK AND FORTH, THAT THERE IS COMPROMISE, NEGOTIATIONS, TRADE-OFFS DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, IS ALL TOGETHER NORMAL.

THE FACT THAT IT CONVERGES ON THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH ON DEFENSE SPENDING AND FOREIGN AID VERSUS SOCIAL PROGRAMMING, THAT IS ALSO NORMAL.

SO THE IDEA THAT BIDEN SHOULD EXPECT CONGRESS TO JUST SIGN OFF REALLY DOESN'T FIT WITH THE HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME ATTENTION, MORE ATTENTION, GIVEN TO BORDER CONTROL.

THE OTHER THING I FIND STRIKING HERE, AND I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT, ANIRBAN, IS THAT WE ARE NOW FINDING DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OVER AID TO ISRAEL.

THAT IS UNUSUAL.

AND I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT THERE.

>> THE BORDER, YOU MENTIONED THE BORDER.

AND I GUESS THAT IS LEVERAGE NOW.

UKRAINE AID IS LEVERAGE TO DO SOMETHING AT THE BORDER.

THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO AGREE ON ANYTHING ON THE BORDER IN DECADES AT THIS POINT.

>> THAT'S TRUE AND THAT HAS PROVEN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT.

ON THE UKRAINE FRONT, I CONSIDER MYSELF A LARGE PROPONENT OF UKRAINE BUT EVEN I HAVE TO ASK WHAT IS THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY, WE SPENT $76 BILLION IN UKRAINE AND ISRAEL $3 BILLION.

THIS IS INFINITELY MORE THAN THAT WE ARE SPENDING IN UKRAINE AND IT IS CLEAR THE WAR IS NOT GOING TO END ANY TIME SOON SO RAISING REQUEST ES ABOUT THE LONG-TERM STRRNLG AND HOW THE FUNDING FITS INTO THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT IS HOLDING UP THE AID FOR U CRAIB.

MOST OF IT IS DISAGREEMENT ON POLICY AND NOT JUST BUDGET BUT POLICY WITH RESPECT TO IMMIGRANTS COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES.

AND THAT'S WHAT IS UNUSUAL.

USUALLY FOREIGN AID MILITARY PACKAGES HAVE GONE THROUGH ON THEIR OWN.

THERE HAVE BEEN DEBATES BUT NOT TIED TO TOTALLY DIFFERENT TYPES OF POLICY AS WE ARE SEEING NOW.

>> WHY SHOULDN'T THEY BE?

AS NINA POINTED OUT.

THAT'S PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROGRESS THEY ALWAYS HAVE.

WE CAN GO BACK TO THE REAGAN YEARS WHEN REAGAN CAME IN AND WANTED TO MAKE HUGE CUTS IN SOCIAL SPENDING AND DEMOCRATS WANTED TO MAKE HUGE CUTS IN DEFENSE SPENDING, THAT'S USUALLY JUST, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THE GAME IS PLAYED, AS IT WERE.

AGAIN, I THINK HERE THE DIFFERENCE IS WHEN WE GET TO THE PARTICULARS, BUT THE TRADE-OFF BETWEEN FOREIGN AID AND DEFENSE SPENDING VERSUS SOCIAL PROGRAMMING, THAT'S NOTHING NEW.

>> AND TO REFLECT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S OPINION ALSO, LIKE THE OPINION REGARDING UKRAINE'S AID HAS SHIFTED FROM THE BROADER AMERICAN PUBLIC, RIGHT?

THIS WAR IS NO THE ENDING.

IT IS RITTLED WITH CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND AT THE SAME TIME THE MASSIVE COUNTEROFFENSIVE THAT WE WERE HEARING IN THE SUMMER THAT WILL CHANGE THE GAME OF THE WORLD, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL.

AND ISRAEL HAPPENED AND MOST PEOPLE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEW YORK TIMES, I HAVE TO REALLY FIND WHERE IS THE STORY ON UKRAINE, RIGHT?

SO I THINK THE PUBLIC HAS MOVED AWAY FROM IT AND THE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS REFLECT THAT AS WELL.

AND AS YOU POINT OUT.

>> I THINK THERE IS STILL VERY STRONG SUPPORT FOR AID TO UKRAINE.

THERE ARE THOSE ON THE FAR RIGHT AGAIN THAT REALLY WILL AGREE TO NO AID UNLESS ALL OF THE IMMIGRATION POLICIES ARE FORWARD.

I THINK THE LEADERSHIP, BOTH IN TERMS OF ISRAEL AND UKRAINE AGREE THEY'RE HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THE FRINGES TO AGREE WITH THEM HERE.

>> IT'S THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS THAT YOU NEED THE VOTES, RIGHT?

SHOULD WE HAVE NEW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS IN NEW YORK?

THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HEARD ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHETHER THE CURRENT MAPS SHOULD BE REDRAWN BY AN INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION.

IF THAT ARGUMENT SUCCEEDS, CONTROL OF THE HOUSE COULD FLIP NEXT NOVEMBER.

THE CURRENT MAPS WERE DRAWN BY A SO-CALLED "SPECIAL MASTER" APPOINTED BY A JUDGE AFTER A CHAOTIC PERIOD IN WHICH HEAVILY GERRYMANDERED MAPS WERE THROWN OUT BY THE COURT.

NOW, THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN ALBANY WANTS THE MAPS TO BE REDRAWN YET AGAIN.

SHOULD THEY GET THEIR WISH?

>> THIS IS THE WAY IT USUALLY IS IN NEW YORK, AT LEAST THE LAST FEW DECADES.

I THINK THE MAIN CONSIDERATION FOR ME IS DOING WHAT THE CONSTITUTION PRESCRIBES IN THE 2014, THE CONSTITUTION PRESCRIBED THAT PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING OF THE DISTRICTS IS NO LONGER ALLOWED AND THERE IS A COMMISSION-- I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT INDEPENDENT BECAUSE IT IS POLITICALLY ENTANGLED BUT A COMMISSION IS SUPPOSED TO DRAW THE MAPS AND THE COMMISSION DIDN'T DO ITS JOB LAST TIME AROUND AND THE COURT INTERVENED.

THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS SHOULD THESE DISTRICTS STAND IN PERPETUITY OR NOW SHOULD THE COMMISSION BE RETASKED WITH DOING ITS JOB AND FOLLOWING THE PROCESS?

AS UNFORTUNATE AND PROBLEMATIC AS IT SHOULD BE, I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

THEY NEED TO FULFILL THEIR JOB AND THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION PRESCRIBES.

>> YOU SAY THE CONSTITUTION MAKES IT CLEAR.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION.

>> YES.

>> POLITICS IS WAR BY OTHER MEANS AND WE ARE SEEING IT ALL AROUND THE UNITED STATES.

NORTH CAROLINA DREW THIS MID DECADE MAP AND THEY ARE GOING TO DEFINITELY HAVE A LOT MORE REPUBLICANS THAN DEMOCRATS.

AND THIS HAPPENED A LONG TIME BACK IN TEXAS ALSO IN 2000, THEY COULDN'T AGREE AND THE FEDERAL COURT HAD TO DECIDE THIS AND THIS ALSO COMES DOWN FROM THE VERDICT IN 2019 WHERE THE SUPREME COURT BASICALLY SAID THE FEDERAL COURTS, THE LAST STOP FOR ALL THESE KINDS OF REDISTRICTING REGARDING CASES, SHOULD BE ENDING AT THE STATE LEVEL AND NOT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

SO THIS HAS OPENED UP A WHOLE CAN OF WORMS ABOUT ALL DIFFERENT STATES TRYING TO REDISTRICT ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN IMAGE AND, YEAH, I MEAN OUR COUNTRY IS , YOU KNOW, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AND I DON'T THINK DEMOCRATS ARE WRONG IN DOING THIS BECAUSE I THINK IF REPUBLICANS WERE THERE, THEY WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME THING.

SO, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WILL SEE HOW THE, YOU KNOW, POLITICS AS WAR BY OTHER MEANS PANS OUT.

>> I LIKE THAT CLEVER TWIST.

NINA.

>> BUT MY DEAR COLLEAGUE ANIRBAN, TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT AND JUST BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS DO IT AND THE REPUBLICANS DO IT, DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD PERMIT IT.

THE 2014 REFORM THAT LUKE TALKED ABOUT OFFERED SOME HOPE THAT WE WOULD GET BEYOND PARTISANSHIP AND WHEN WE ARE THINKING ABOUT, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ISSUE, WHEN WE ARE THINKING ABOUT COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS, WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THEM IN TERMS OF PARTISANSHIP, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GET BEYOND, CERTAINLY THERE IS A CASE TO BE MADE FOR NOT SPLITTING DISTRICTS THAT HAVE CULTURAL OR RACIAL AND ETHNIC OR LANGUAGE OR RELIGIOUS TIES.

BUT BEYOND THAT, I REALLY DON'T SEE THE ARGUMENT TO BE MADE HERE IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT 27 SEATS ARE EVENLY OR FAIRLY DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.

I THINK THE BASIC RULES OF POPULATION PROPORTIONALITY AND CONTINUITY SHOULD BE ALL THAT APPLIES THERE AND THAT IS A VERY IDEALISTIC VIEWPOINT, I UNDERSTAND.

>> EXACTLY.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT DIFFERENT STATES PLAY BY DIFFERENT RULES AND ULTIMATELY THE GAME IS PLAYED AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

IT'S NOT-- IF THIS WAS ONLY DEALING WITH THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE IN NEW YORK STATE, THAT WOULD BE ONE THING.

BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SEATS THAT ARE GOING UP FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT VERY LIKELY COULD DECIDE WHO OUR NEXT PRESIDENT IS AND IF NEW YORK IS OR DEALING WITH ONE SET OF RULES AND NORTH CAROLINA IS OR DEALING WITH ANOTHER, THEN WE ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE LOSS BY PLAYING BY THESE RULES.

>> HOW CAN A NEW YORK STATE COURT LEGITIMATELY THINK ABOUT, AS YOU SAID, THE GAME IS BEING PLAYED AT A NATIONAL LEVEL.

WE CAN'T ASK A NEW YORK STATE COURT, WHAT ARE THEY DOING IN NORTH CAROLINA.

NINA, YOU ARE SHAKING YOUR HEAD.

>> THE SUPREME COURT RULING MAKES NO SENSE.

AND PARTISAN REDISTRICTING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BUT NO FEDERAL RESOURCE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

>> YEAH, BUT ULTIMATELY, WHAT THE DISTRICT DRAWING IS ABOUT IS HOW NEW YORKERS ARE GOING TO BE REPRESENTED AND DECIDED AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL.

>> RIGHT, I MEAN FEDERALISM.

FEDERALISM IS MESSY.

WE HAVE 50 DIFFERENT STATE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS AND 50 DIFFERENT REDISTRICTING PROCESSES.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET AWAY FROM THE STATE LAW IN THIS CASE AND I UNDERSTAND THE POLITICAL ANALYSIS BUT IF I'M ON THE COURT, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DOES THE LAW MEAN IN THIS SITUATION AND IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE PARAMOUNT.

>> CLEARLY.

THEY DO SAY, THE PURPOSE OF FAVORING OR DISFAVORING INCUMBENTS OR OTHER POLITICAL CANDIDATES OR PARTIES, SO YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT WE ARE GOING TO SUFFER GREATLY BECAUSE OF THAT.

>> WE ARE GOING TO SUFFER BECAUSE OF LESS PARTISANSHIP?

>> YES, IF EVERYBODY CHEATS AND YOU DON'T CHEAT AT THE POKER TABLE, YOU ARE SAYING OKAY, I'M BETTER BUT HERE IS ALL MY MONEY.

>> WE HAVE ONE VOTE FOR CHEATING HERE.

[LAUGHTER] >> I DID NOT SAY THAT.

WE HAVE TO GO TO THE As AND Fs.

WE'LL START WITH NINA WITH YOUR F. >> HAPPILY.

I'M GIVING AN F TO A RECENT DECISION BY THE EIGHTH U.S.

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH BARS PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE ACLU AND THE NAACP FROM BRINGING PRIVATE LAWSUITS TO ENFORCE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965.

THIS RULING UPROOTS DECADES OF CASE LAW THAT HAVE ALLOWED MORE THAN JUST THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO SUE IN REDISTRICTING CASES.

HOPEFULLY, WHEN THIS GOES TO THE SUPREME COURT, THIS CONSERVATIVE COURT WILL CONTINUE ITS MORE RECENT PATTERN OF UPHOLDING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965.

>> ANIRBAN?

>> MY F GOES TO THE FLORIDA LAWMAKER CALLING FOR GENOCIDE OF PALESTINIANS.

IN THE SPEECH THAT WAS SUPPORTING A CEASE FIRE RESOLUTION, THE DEMOCRATIC FLORIDA STATE REPRESENTATIVE ANGIE NIXON ASKED, HOW MANY WILL BE ENOUGH BUT COMING FROM FLORIDA, THAT'S NOT SURPRISING.

>> LUKE, YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO LOYAL SOURCE, A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR THAT WE MAY $25 A MILLION A MONTH TO PROVIDE SUBSTANDARD MEDICAL CARE TO PEOPLE AT THE BORDER UNDER CUSTODY OF BORDER PATROL.

THEY WERE THE SUBJECT OF A MAJOR WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AND CONGRESS NEEDS TO RESPOND.

>> RICK.

>> PA TREEN OWE, HEAD OF THE ARKANSAS RAZORBACK FOOTBALL TEAM UNTIL HE WAS FIRED IN 2012 AFTER HE HAD WHAT WAS A ONE PERSON MOTORCYCLE CRASH.

IT TURNED OUT HIS MISTRESS ON THE LEFT WAS ON THE MOTORCYCLE AND HE HIRED HER TO BE PART OF HIS FOOTBALL STAFF AND PAID HER $20,000.

HE WAS DISMISSED FOR ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE REPUTATION OF THE UNIVERSITY.

THIS WEEK, ARKANSAS WELCOMED HIM BACK TO BE THEIR OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR.

I GUESS WINNING FOOTBALL GAMES IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE UNIVERSITY EATS REPUTATION.

>> AS, NINA.

>> SCIENTISTS BELIEVED THAT BLIND GOLDEN MOLES WERE EXTINCT.

BUT AFTER ALMOST 100 YEARS, RESEARCHERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA DISCOVERED THAT THE GOLDEN MOLES ARE ALIVE AND WELL AND REPORTS OF THE MOLES DEATH IS EXAGGERATED.

>> MY A GOES TO THE LOCAL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN SYRACUSE HOUSING AND SYRACUSE FOOD SYSTEM ALLIANCE FOR CREATING A PROGRAM THAT WILL BRING CHEAP FRESH PRODUCE TO FAMILIES THAT NEED SUPPLEMENTARY NUTRITIONAL ASSISTANCE ESPECIALLY IN AN AREA WHERE IT IS HARD TO COME BY.

>> AND LUKE.

>> MY A GOES TO THE UTICA CITY FOOTBALL CLUB WHO KICKS OFF THEIR SEASON TOMORROW FOLLOWING THEIR BIG OFF SEASON TRADE FOR THE BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE THEY CALL THE KING.

>> NOT LIONEL MESSI?

>> HE IS GOOD BUT NOT THAT GOOD.

>> I HAVE MELON MELANCHOLY A CHARLIE YOUNGER PASSED AWAY AT THE AGE MUCH 99.

HE TURNED HATHAWAY INTO ONE OF THE LARGEST MOST SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

IN THE SAME HOUSE FOR THE LAST 60 YEARS, MY FAVORITE MUNGERISM IS PEOPLE KEEP TRYING TO BE SMART.

ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS NOT BE AN IDIOT BUT THAT'S HARDER THAN MOST PEOPLE THINK.

>> SO, RICK, I MEAN WE ALWAYS HEAR WARREN BUFFET WITH BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, SO WAS MUNGER THE BRAINS BEHIND THE OPERATION.

>> MUNGER ACTUALLY CONVINCED HIM TO CHANGE HIS STYLE OF INVESTING TO GO AFTER (INAUDIBLE) AND SO HE HAD A BIG IMPACT ON HOW THAT COMPANY WAS RUN.

>> THAT SEEMS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENINGMENT FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN, YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.