The Legal and Political Implications of the SCOTUS Rulings
Special | 24m 48sVideo has Closed Captions
The Supreme Court's decisions on affirmative action, gay marriage and voting rights.
The Supreme Court handed down decisions this week on key social issues including same sex marriage, affirmative action and voting rights. What are the legal, political and policy effects of these landmark decisions? Joining Gwen: Pete Williams, NBC News; Joan Biskupic, Reuters; Dan Balz, Washington Post; and Amy Walter, Cook Political Report
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
Major funding for “Washington Week with The Atlantic” is provided by Consumer Cellular, Otsuka, Kaiser Permanente, the Yuen Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The Legal and Political Implications of the SCOTUS Rulings
Special | 24m 48sVideo has Closed Captions
The Supreme Court handed down decisions this week on key social issues including same sex marriage, affirmative action and voting rights. What are the legal, political and policy effects of these landmark decisions? Joining Gwen: Pete Williams, NBC News; Joan Biskupic, Reuters; Dan Balz, Washington Post; and Amy Walter, Cook Political Report
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
How to Watch Washington Week with The Atlantic
Washington Week with The Atlantic is available to stream on pbs.org and the free PBS App, available on iPhone, Apple TV, Android TV, Android smartphones, Amazon Fire TV, Amazon Fire Tablet, Roku, Samsung Smart TV, and Vizio.
10 big stories Washington Week covered
Washington Week came on the air February 23, 1967. In the 50 years that followed, we covered a lot of history-making events. Read up on 10 of the biggest stories Washington Week covered in its first 50 years.Providing Support for PBS.org
Learn Moreabout PBS online sponsorshipGWEN: A SPECTACULAR NEWS WEEK COURTESY OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
COURTESY OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
WE EXAMINE HOW THEIR DECISIONS COURT.
WE EXAMINE HOW THEIR DECISIONS COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE.
WE EXAMINE HOW THEIR DECISIONS COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE.
COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE.
>> � GOD BLESS AMERICA >> � GOD BLESS AMERICA >> I THINK THE SUPREME COURT >> � GOD BLESS AMERICA >> I THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULING YESTERDAY WAS NOT SIMPLY >> I THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULING YESTERDAY WAS NOT SIMPLY A VICTORY FOR THE LGBT RULING YESTERDAY WAS NOT SIMPLY A VICTORY FOR THE LGBT COMMUNITY.
A VICTORY FOR THE LGBT COMMUNITY.
I THINK IT WAS A VICTORY FOR COMMUNITY.
I THINK IT WAS A VICTORY FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
I THINK IT WAS A VICTORY FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
GWEN: GAY RIGHTS TRIUMPHS AT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
GWEN: GAY RIGHTS TRIUMPHS AT THE SUPREME COURT.
GWEN: GAY RIGHTS TRIUMPHS AT THE SUPREME COURT.
>> TODAY WE CAN GO BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT.
>> TODAY WE CAN GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA AND STAY TO OUR OWN >> TODAY WE CAN GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA AND STAY TO OUR OWN CHILDREN, ALL FOUR OF OUR BOYS, CALIFORNIA AND STAY TO OUR OWN CHILDREN, ALL FOUR OF OUR BOYS, YOUR FAMILY IS JUST AS GOOD AS CHILDREN, ALL FOUR OF OUR BOYS, YOUR FAMILY IS JUST AS GOOD AS EVERYBODY ELSE'S FAMILY.
YOUR FAMILY IS JUST AS GOOD AS EVERYBODY ELSE'S FAMILY.
GWEN: BUT WILL THE VICTORY EVERYBODY ELSE'S FAMILY.
GWEN: BUT WILL THE VICTORY HOLD?
GWEN: BUT WILL THE VICTORY HOLD?
>> WITH THIS DECISION THE HOLD?
>> WITH THIS DECISION THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED THE DESIRES >> WITH THIS DECISION THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED THE DESIRES OF ADULTS TO TRUMP THE NEEDS OF COURTS HAVE ALLOWED THE DESIRES OF ADULTS TO TRUMP THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN.
OF ADULTS TO TRUMP THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN.
EVERY CHILD DESERVES A MOMMY CHILDREN.
EVERY CHILD DESERVES A MOMMY AND A DADDY.
EVERY CHILD DESERVES A MOMMY AND A DADDY.
EN: GWAND MIXED RULINGS ON TWO AND A DADDY.
EN: GWAND MIXED RULINGS ON TWO RACE-BASED CASES.
EN: GWAND MIXED RULINGS ON TWO RACE-BASED CASES.
AS THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS RACE-BASED CASES.
AS THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS SCALED BACK.
AS THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS SCALED BACK.
>> I AM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED, SCALED BACK.
>> I AM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED, DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE >> I AM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED, DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE COURT'S DECISION IN THIS DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE COURT'S DECISION IN THIS MATTER.
COURT'S DECISION IN THIS MATTER.
OUR NATION'S LAWS ARE ONE SIZE MATTER.
OUR NATION'S LAWS ARE ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
OUR NATION'S LAWS ARE ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
AND EACH STATE IS ENTITLED TO FITS ALL.
AND EACH STATE IS ENTITLED TO THE EQUAL DIGNITY AND RESPECT AND EACH STATE IS ENTITLED TO THE EQUAL DIGNITY AND RESPECT OF OUR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES.
THE EQUAL DIGNITY AND RESPECT OF OUR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES.
GWEN: AND THE FUTURE OF OF OUR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES.
GWEN: AND THE FUTURE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS LEFT GWEN: AND THE FUTURE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS LEFT UNRESOLVED.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS LEFT UNRESOLVED.
>> WE'VE GOT MORE WORK TO DO UNRESOLVED.
>> WE'VE GOT MORE WORK TO DO BUT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE >> WE'VE GOT MORE WORK TO DO BUT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS.
BUT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS.
GWEN: WE EXAMINE THE LEGAL, NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS.
GWEN: WE EXAMINE THE LEGAL, POLICY, AND POLITICAL GWEN: WE EXAMINE THE LEGAL, POLICY, AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF AN HISTORIC POLICY, AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF AN HISTORIC WEEK AT THE NATION'S HIGHEST IMPLICATIONS OF AN HISTORIC WEEK AT THE NATION'S HIGHEST COURT.
WEEK AT THE NATION'S HIGHEST COURT.
WITH DAN BALZ OF "THE COURT.
WITH DAN BALZ OF "THE WASHINGTON POST," JOAN BISKUPIC WITH DAN BALZ OF "THE WASHINGTON POST," JOAN BISKUPIC OF ROUTERS.
WASHINGTON POST," JOAN BISKUPIC OF ROUTERS.
AMY WALTER OF THE COOK OF ROUTERS.
AMY WALTER OF THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT AND PETE AMY WALTER OF THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT AND PETE WILLIAMS OF NBC NEWS.
POLITICAL REPORT AND PETE WILLIAMS OF NBC NEWS.
>> AWARD-WINNING REPORTING AND WILLIAMS OF NBC NEWS.
>> AWARD-WINNING REPORTING AND ANALYSIS, COVERING HISTORY AS >> AWARD-WINNING REPORTING AND ANALYSIS, COVERING HISTORY AS IT HAPPENS.
ANALYSIS, COVERING HISTORY AS IT HAPPENS.
LIVE FROM OUR NATION'S CAPITAL IT HAPPENS.
LIVE FROM OUR NATION'S CAPITAL THIS IS "WASHINGTON WEEK WITH LIVE FROM OUR NATION'S CAPITAL THIS IS "WASHINGTON WEEK WITH GWEN IFILL."
ONCE AGAIN, LIVE FROM WASHINGTON, MODERATOR GWEN IFILL.
WASHINGTON, MODERATOR GWEN IFILL.
GWEN: GOOD EVENING.
IFILL.
GWEN: GOOD EVENING.
EVEN IF WE WERE GIVEN TO HYPE GWEN: GOOD EVENING.
EVEN IF WE WERE GIVEN TO HYPE AROUND THIS TABLE, THIS WEEK EVEN IF WE WERE GIVEN TO HYPE AROUND THIS TABLE, THIS WEEK WOULD DEFY ANY TEMPTATION TO AROUND THIS TABLE, THIS WEEK WOULD DEFY ANY TEMPTATION TO OVERSTATE.
WOULD DEFY ANY TEMPTATION TO OVERSTATE.
SO WE'VE ASSEMBLED THE SMARTEST OVERSTATE.
SO WE'VE ASSEMBLED THE SMARTEST FOLKS WE COULD THINK OF TO SO WE'VE ASSEMBLED THE SMARTEST FOLKS WE COULD THINK OF TO BREAK IT ALL DOWN FOR YOU.
FOLKS WE COULD THINK OF TO BREAK IT ALL DOWN FOR YOU.
THE LEGAL REASONING, THE BREAK IT ALL DOWN FOR YOU.
THE LEGAL REASONING, THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES, AND THE THE LEGAL REASONING, THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES, AND THE POLICY EFFECT OF ALL THE BIG POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES, AND THE POLICY EFFECT OF ALL THE BIG CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME POLICY EFFECT OF ALL THE BIG CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT THIS WEEK AND THIS TERM.
CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT THIS WEEK AND THIS TERM.
EDITH WINDSOR, THE PLAINTIFF IN COURT THIS WEEK AND THIS TERM.
EDITH WINDSOR, THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE THAT OVERTURNED THE EDITH WINDSOR, THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE THAT OVERTURNED THE FEDERAL DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT THE CASE THAT OVERTURNED THE FEDERAL DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT PUT HER VICTORY THIS WEEK.
FEDERAL DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT PUT HER VICTORY THIS WEEK.
>> FOR MORE THAN FOUR DECADES, PUT HER VICTORY THIS WEEK.
>> FOR MORE THAN FOUR DECADES, LOVE AND JOY, IN SICKNESS AND >> FOR MORE THAN FOUR DECADES, LOVE AND JOY, IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH, UNTIL DEATH DO US LOVE AND JOY, IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH, UNTIL DEATH DO US PART.
IN HEALTH, UNTIL DEATH DO US PART.
WHEN THEA DIED A PART.
WHEN THEA DIED A HEART CONDITION, TWO YEARS WHEN THEA DIED A HEART CONDITION, TWO YEARS AFTER WE WERE FINALLY MARRIED, HEART CONDITION, TWO YEARS AFTER WE WERE FINALLY MARRIED, I WAS HEARTBROKEN.
AFTER WE WERE FINALLY MARRIED, I WAS HEARTBROKEN.
ON A DEEPLY PERSONAL LEVEL, I I WAS HEARTBROKEN.
ON A DEEPLY PERSONAL LEVEL, I FELT ANGUISH THAT IN THE EYES ON A DEEPLY PERSONAL LEVEL, I FELT ANGUISH THAT IN THE EYES OF MY GOVERNMENT THE WOMAN I FELT ANGUISH THAT IN THE EYES OF MY GOVERNMENT THE WOMAN I HAD LOVED AND CARED FOR AND OF MY GOVERNMENT THE WOMAN I HAD LOVED AND CARED FOR AND SHARED MFE NOT MY HAD LOVED AND CARED FOR AND SHARED MFE NOT MY LEGAL SPOUSE BUT WAS CONSIDERED SHARED MFE NOT MY LEGAL SPOUSE BUT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A STRANGER.
LEGAL SPOUSE BUT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A STRANGER.
GWEN: JUST AS ANTHONY KENNEDY TO BE A STRANGER.
GWEN: JUST AS ANTHONY KENNEDY WRITING FOR THE 5-4 MAJORITY GWEN: JUST AS ANTHONY KENNEDY WRITING FOR THE 5-4 MAJORITY FOUND THAT LAW IN 1996 WRITING FOR THE 5-4 MAJORITY FOUND THAT LAW IN 1996 UNDERMINES THE PRIVATE AND FOUND THAT LAW IN 1996 UNDERMINES THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF STATE UNDERMINES THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF STATE SHANGSED SAME SEX MARRIAGES.
PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF STATE SHANGSED SAME SEX MARRIAGES.
THE WORLD THAT THEIR SHANGSED SAME SEX MARRIAGES.
THE WORLD THAT THEIR OTHERWISE VALID MARRIAGES ARE THE WORLD THAT THEIR OTHERWISE VALID MARRIAGES ARE UNWORTHY OF FEDERAL OTHERWISE VALID MARRIAGES ARE UNWORTHY OF FEDERAL RECOGNITION.
UNWORTHY OF FEDERAL RECOGNITION.
JUSTICE ANTON SCALIA WROTETE ON RECOGNITION.
JUSTICE ANTON SCALIA WROTETE ON THE MAJORITY'S TELLING THIS JUSTICE ANTON SCALIA WROTETE ON THE MAJORITY'S TELLING THIS STORY IS BLACK AND WHITE.
THE MAJORITY'S TELLING THIS STORY IS BLACK AND WHITE.
HATE YOUR NEIGHBOR OR COME STORY IS BLACK AND WHITE.
HATE YOUR NEIGHBOR OR COME ALONG WITH US.
HATE YOUR NEIGHBOR OR COME ALONG WITH US.
THE TRUTH IS MORE COMPLICATED.
ALONG WITH US.
THE TRUTH IS MORE COMPLICATED.
SO WHAT WERE THE COMPLICATIONS?
THE TRUTH IS MORE COMPLICATED.
SO WHAT WERE THE COMPLICATIONS?
>> JUSTICE SCALIA WOULD SAY THE SO WHAT WERE THE COMPLICATIONS?
>> JUSTICE SCALIA WOULD SAY THE MAIN COMPLICATION IS THAT NOT >> JUSTICE SCALIA WOULD SAY THE MAIN COMPLICATION IS THAT NOT EVERYBODY WHO VOTED FOR THE MAIN COMPLICATION IS THAT NOT EVERYBODY WHO VOTED FOR THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT WAS EVERYBODY WHO VOTED FOR THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT WAS MOTIVATED BY ANIMOSITY TOWARD DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT WAS MOTIVATED BY ANIMOSITY TOWARD GAY PEOPLE.
MOTIVATED BY ANIMOSITY TOWARD GAY PEOPLE.
THAT IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN GAY PEOPLE.
THAT IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT.
THAT IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT.
BUT TWO OTHER POINTS ABOUT THAT.
BUT TWO OTHER POINTS ABOUT THIS.
BUT TWO OTHER POINTS ABOUT THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE DECISION THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE DECISION STRIKES DOWN THE PART OF THE FIRST OF ALL, THE DECISION STRIKES DOWN THE PART OF THE LAW THAT PREVENTS THE FEDERAL STRIKES DOWN THE PART OF THE LAW THAT PREVENTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM RECOGNIZING THE LAW THAT PREVENTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM RECOGNIZING THE VALIDITY OF SAME SEX MARRIAGES GOVERNMENT FROM RECOGNIZING THE VALIDITY OF SAME SEX MARRIAGES IN THE STATES WHERE THEY'RE VALIDITY OF SAME SEX MARRIAGES IN THE STATES WHERE THEY'RE PERMITTED.
IN THE STATES WHERE THEY'RE PERMITTED.
BUT IT DOES ALSO CREATE INSTANT PERMITTED.
BUT IT DOES ALSO CREATE INSTANT COMPLICATIONS.
BUT IT DOES ALSO CREATE INSTANT COMPLICATIONS.
WHAT HAPPENS IF A COUPLE GETS COMPLICATIONS.
WHAT HAPPENS IF A COUPLE GETS MARRIED IN ONE OF THOSE STATES WHAT HAPPENS IF A COUPLE GETS MARRIED IN ONE OF THOSE STATES AND THEN MOVES TO A STATE WHERE MARRIED IN ONE OF THOSE STATES AND THEN MOVES TO A STATE WHERE MARRIAGE IS NOT ALLOWED?
AND THEN MOVES TO A STATE WHERE MARRIAGE IS NOT ALLOWED?
DO THEY STILL GET FEDERAL MARRIAGE IS NOT ALLOWED?
DO THEY STILL GET FEDERAL BENEFITS?
DO THEY STILL GET FEDERAL BENEFITS?
THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO BENEFITS?
THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO WORK THAT OUT.
THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO WORK THAT OUT.
AND SECONDLY, IT'S COMPLICATED WORK THAT OUT.
AND SECONDLY, IT'S COMPLICATED BECAUSE THERE ARE PARTS OF THE AND SECONDLY, IT'S COMPLICATED BECAUSE THERE ARE PARTS OF THE RULING THAT CAN BE USED BY BOTH BECAUSE THERE ARE PARTS OF THE RULING THAT CAN BE USED BY BOTH SIDES IN THIS DEBATE AS IT GOES RULING THAT CAN BE USED BY BOTH SIDES IN THIS DEBATE AS IT GOES FORWARD.
SIDES IN THIS DEBATE AS IT GOES FORWARD.
FOR EXAMPLE, FOR GAY RIGHTS FORWARD.
FOR EXAMPLE, FOR GAY RIGHTS GROUPS, IT'S THE LANGUAGE.
FOR EXAMPLE, FOR GAY RIGHTS GROUPS, IT'S THE LANGUAGE.
IT SAYS SAME SEX MARRIAGES HAVE GROUPS, IT'S THE LANGUAGE.
IT SAYS SAME SEX MARRIAGES HAVE DIGNITY.
IT SAYS SAME SEX MARRIAGES HAVE DIGNITY.
A WORD THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE DIGNITY.
A WORD THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE OPINION, ANTHONY KENNEDY, USES A WORD THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE OPINION, ANTHONY KENNEDY, USES 10 TIMES.
OPINION, ANTHONY KENNEDY, USES 10 TIMES.
HE SAYS IT'S A LEGITIMATE 10 TIMES.
HE SAYS IT'S A LEGITIMATE PERSONAL BOND THAT DESERVES HE SAYS IT'S A LEGITIMATE PERSONAL BOND THAT DESERVES DEEP RECOGNITION.
PERSONAL BOND THAT DESERVES DEEP RECOGNITION.
BUT THE OPPONENTS WILL SAY NO, DEEP RECOGNITION.
BUT THE OPPONENTS WILL SAY NO, NO, THE KEY TO THE RULING IS BUT THE OPPONENTS WILL SAY NO, NO, THE KEY TO THE RULING IS THAT THE STATES GET TO DECIDE NO, THE KEY TO THE RULING IS THAT THE STATES GET TO DECIDE WHAT MARRIAGE IS.
THAT THE STATES GET TO DECIDE WHAT MARRIAGE IS.
SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE WHAT MARRIAGE IS.
SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE COMPLEXITIES.
SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE COMPLEXITIES.
GWEN: JOHN, THE ONE THING THIS COMPLEXITIES.
GWEN: JOHN, THE ONE THING THIS DID NOT DO WAS GIVE ANY KIND OF GWEN: JOHN, THE ONE THING THIS DID NOT DO WAS GIVE ANY KIND OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO DID NOT DO WAS GIVE ANY KIND OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO GAY MARRIAGE.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO GAY MARRIAGE.
IT STOPPED WELL SHORT OF THAT.
GAY MARRIAGE.
IT STOPPED WELL SHORT OF THAT.
>> THAT WASN'T EVEN THE ISSUE IT STOPPED WELL SHORT OF THAT.
>> THAT WASN'T EVEN THE ISSUE IN THAT CASE, IT WAS THE SECOND >> THAT WASN'T EVEN THE ISSUE IN THAT CASE, IT WAS THE SECOND CASE INVOLVING CALIFORNIA'S IN THAT CASE, IT WAS THE SECOND CASE INVOLVING CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION EIGHT WHERE THE CASE INVOLVING CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION EIGHT WHERE THE JUSTICES COULD, IF THEY HAD PROPOSITION EIGHT WHERE THE JUSTICES COULD, IF THEY HAD CHOSEN TO, GONE ALL THE WAY AND JUSTICES COULD, IF THEY HAD CHOSEN TO, GONE ALL THE WAY AND ACTUALLY DECIDED WHETHER THERE CHOSEN TO, GONE ALL THE WAY AND ACTUALLY DECIDED WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONAL ACTUALLY DECIDED WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE SHOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE.
RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE.
NOT JUST IN THE STATES THAT NATIONWIDE.
NOT JUST IN THE STATES THAT ALREADY HAVE IT.
NOT JUST IN THE STATES THAT ALREADY HAVE IT.
AND WHAT THE COURT DID IN THAT ALREADY HAVE IT.
AND WHAT THE COURT DID IN THAT CASE WAS ESSENTIALLY SAY WE'RE AND WHAT THE COURT DID IN THAT CASE WAS ESSENTIALLY SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DECIDE.
CASE WAS ESSENTIALLY SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DECIDE.
THE CHALLENGERS IN THE CASE, NOT GOING TO DECIDE.
THE CHALLENGERS IN THE CASE, THOSE WHO HAD DEFENDED THE CHALLENGERS IN THE CASE, THOSE WHO HAD DEFENDED PROPOSITION EIGHT, WHICH THOSE WHO HAD DEFENDED PROPOSITION EIGHT, WHICH EVERYONE REMEMBERS WITH 2008 PROPOSITION EIGHT, WHICH EVERYONE REMEMBERS WITH 2008 BALLOT INITIATIVE THERE, THAT EVERYONE REMEMBERS WITH 2008 BALLOT INITIATIVE THERE, THAT DEFINED MARRIAGE AS ONLY BALLOT INITIATIVE THERE, THAT DEFINED MARRIAGE AS ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND DEFINED MARRIAGE AS ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND STOPPED ALL LOCAL EFFORTS TO BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND STOPPED ALL LOCAL EFFORTS TO ACTUALLY HAVE SAME SEX STOPPED ALL LOCAL EFFORTS TO ACTUALLY HAVE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, THE QUESTION WAS, WAS ACTUALLY HAVE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, THE QUESTION WAS, WAS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?
MARRIAGE, THE QUESTION WAS, WAS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?
LOWER COURTS HAD SAID NO.
THAT CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?
LOWER COURTS HAD SAID NO.
THE PROPONENTS OF IT HAD COME LOWER COURTS HAD SAID NO.
THE PROPONENTS OF IT HAD COME BACK UP TO THE SUPREME COURT THE PROPONENTS OF IT HAD COME BACK UP TO THE SUPREME COURT AND SAID, YOU ASSESS THIS BUT BACK UP TO THE SUPREME COURT AND SAID, YOU ASSESS THIS BUT THE SUPREME COURT SAID BY AND SAID, YOU ASSESS THIS BUT THE SUPREME COURT SAID BY ANOTHER 5-4 VOTE DIFFERENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT SAID BY ANOTHER 5-4 VOTE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT POET WAS TALKING ABOUT, ANOTHER 5-4 VOTE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT POET WAS TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DECIDE.
WHAT POET WAS TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DECIDE.
AND UNDERNEATH ALL THAT, FIRST WE'RE NOT GOING TO DECIDE.
AND UNDERNEATH ALL THAT, FIRST OF ALL, ONE THING IT DID IS IT AND UNDERNEATH ALL THAT, FIRST OF ALL, ONE THING IT DID IS IT JUST ALLOWED SAME SEX MARRIAGE OF ALL, ONE THING IT DID IS IT JUST ALLOWED SAME SEX MARRIAGE TO GO FORWARD IN CALIFORNIA.
JUST ALLOWED SAME SEX MARRIAGE TO GO FORWARD IN CALIFORNIA.
WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF IS TO GO FORWARD IN CALIFORNIA.
WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
GWEN: AND TONIGHT, 8:30, 8:40 REALLY IMPORTANT.
GWEN: AND TONIGHT, 8:30, 8:40 ON THE EAST COAST THEY'RE GWEN: AND TONIGHT, 8:30, 8:40 ON THE EAST COAST THEY'RE STARTING MARRIAGES.
ON THE EAST COAST THEY'RE STARTING MARRIAGES.
>> THAT IS NO SMALL THING.
STARTING MARRIAGES.
>> THAT IS NO SMALL THING.
THAT CALIFORNIA CAN NOW DO IT.
>> THAT IS NO SMALL THING.
THAT CALIFORNIA CAN NOW DO IT.
BUT DAVID BOIES AND TED OLSON, THAT CALIFORNIA CAN NOW DO IT.
BUT DAVID BOIES AND TED OLSON, THE SUPERLAWYERS WHO HAD BUT DAVID BOIES AND TED OLSON, THE SUPERLAWYERS WHO HAD BROUGHT THIS CASE TO THE THE SUPERLAWYERS WHO HAD BROUGHT THIS CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT, THOUGHT THAT BROUGHT THIS CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT, THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS THEY COULD WIN THIS SUPREME COURT, THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS THEY COULD WIN THIS NATIONWIDE RIGHT TO SAME SEX PERHAPS THEY COULD WIN THIS NATIONWIDE RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN THE SUPREME COURT NATIONWIDE RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN THE SUPREME COURT SAID WE'RE NOT GOING THERE.
MARRIAGE IN THE SUPREME COURT SAID WE'RE NOT GOING THERE.
AND FRANKLY SAID NOT FOR A SAID WE'RE NOT GOING THERE.
AND FRANKLY SAID NOT FOR A WHILE.
AND FRANKLY SAID NOT FOR A WHILE.
GWEN: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE WHILE.
GWEN: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BROADER IMPACT OF THIS.
GWEN: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BROADER IMPACT OF THIS.
WE HAVE A MAP UP HERE.
BROADER IMPACT OF THIS.
WE HAVE A MAP UP HERE.
LET'S LOOK AT ALL THE STATES WE HAVE A MAP UP HERE.
LET'S LOOK AT ALL THE STATES WHERE SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS LET'S LOOK AT ALL THE STATES WHERE SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS EQUAL.
WHERE SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS EQUAL.
MID ATLANTIC, D.C., DELAWARE, EQUAL.
MID ATLANTIC, D.C., DELAWARE, MARYLAND, ALL OF NEW ENGLAND, MID ATLANTIC, D.C., DELAWARE, MARYLAND, ALL OF NEW ENGLAND, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND, MARYLAND, ALL OF NEW ENGLAND, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, NEW CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE, VERMONT.
MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE, VERMONT.
AND I WONDER, AMY, IF YOU LOOK HAMPSHIRE, VERMONT.
AND I WONDER, AMY, IF YOU LOOK AT THESE WHETHER THIS MEANS AND I WONDER, AMY, IF YOU LOOK AT THESE WHETHER THIS MEANS THERE IS A GROUNDSWELL THAT'S AT THESE WHETHER THIS MEANS THERE IS A GROUNDSWELL THAT'S BUILDING IN ALL OF THESE STATES THERE IS A GROUNDSWELL THAT'S BUILDING IN ALL OF THESE STATES ALREADY?
BUILDING IN ALL OF THESE STATES ALREADY?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'RE ALREADY?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A GROUNDSWELL.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A GROUNDSWELL.
IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR WHEN YOU GOING TO SEE A GROUNDSWELL.
IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHERE IT'S LEGAL AND IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHERE IT'S LEGAL AND WHERE IT'S NOT, IT DIVIDES ALSO LOOK AT WHERE IT'S LEGAL AND WHERE IT'S NOT, IT DIVIDES ALSO PRETTY WELL -- HOW PEOPLE VOTED WHERE IT'S NOT, IT DIVIDES ALSO PRETTY WELL -- HOW PEOPLE VOTED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, PRETTY WELL -- HOW PEOPLE VOTED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, RED OR BLUES.
IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, RED OR BLUES.
GWEN: AND WHETHER IT WAS ON A RED OR BLUES.
GWEN: AND WHETHER IT WAS ON A BALLOT INITIATIVE -- GWEN: AND WHETHER IT WAS ON A BALLOT INITIATIVE -- >> OR WHETHER BY THE BALLOT INITIATIVE -- >> OR WHETHER BY THE LEGISLATIVE.
>> OR WHETHER BY THE LEGISLATIVE.
>> OR BY A COURT DECISION.
LEGISLATIVE.
>> OR BY A COURT DECISION.
>> OR BY A COURT DECISION.
>> OR BY A COURT DECISION.
>> OR BY A COURT DECISION.
IN IOWA'S CASE.
>> OR BY A COURT DECISION.
IN IOWA'S CASE.
AND WE STILL SEE WHILE THE IN IOWA'S CASE.
AND WE STILL SEE WHILE THE TREND IS HEADING TOWARD AND WE STILL SEE WHILE THE TREND IS HEADING TOWARD ACCEPTANCE OF GAY MARRIAGE, TREND IS HEADING TOWARD ACCEPTANCE OF GAY MARRIAGE, IT'S STILL PRETTY EVENLY ACCEPTANCE OF GAY MARRIAGE, IT'S STILL PRETTY EVENLY DIVIDED.
IT'S STILL PRETTY EVENLY DIVIDED.
'S SOMETHING LIKE 50-43 OR A DIVIDED.
'S SOMETHING LIKE 50-43 OR A 52-45 FAVOR.
'S SOMETHING LIKE 50-43 OR A 52-45 FAVOR.
THE PROBLEM IN TERMS OF WHERE 52-45 FAVOR.
THE PROBLEM IN TERMS OF WHERE IT'S GOING, FOR OPPONENTS OF THE PROBLEM IN TERMS OF WHERE IT'S GOING, FOR OPPONENTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT IT REALLY IS IT'S GOING, FOR OPPONENTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT IT REALLY IS OLDER PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST THIS ISSUE IS THAT IT REALLY IS OLDER PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST OPPOSED TO THIS.
OLDER PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST OPPOSED TO THIS.
AS THOSE FOLKS SORT OF FADE OPPOSED TO THIS.
AS THOSE FOLKS SORT OF FADE AWAY AND YOUNGER PEOPLE -- AS THOSE FOLKS SORT OF FADE AWAY AND YOUNGER PEOPLE -- GWEN: A POLITE WAY TO SAY IT.
AWAY AND YOUNGER PEOPLE -- GWEN: A POLITE WAY TO SAY IT.
>> AND YOUNGER PEOPLE START TO GWEN: A POLITE WAY TO SAY IT.
>> AND YOUNGER PEOPLE START TO MOVE UP IN AGE.
>> AND YOUNGER PEOPLE START TO MOVE UP IN AGE.
THIS IS JUST NOT AN ISSUE AT MOVE UP IN AGE.
THIS IS JUST NOT AN ISSUE AT ALL.
THIS IS JUST NOT AN ISSUE AT ALL.
BUT I THINK THAT TO ME IS THE ALL.
BUT I THINK THAT TO ME IS THE BIGGEST QUESTION.
BUT I THINK THAT TO ME IS THE BIGGEST QUESTION.
WHICH IS WHAT DOES HAPPEN IN A BIGGEST QUESTION.
WHICH IS WHAT DOES HAPPEN IN A STATE WHERE IT'S NOT LEGAL?
WHICH IS WHAT DOES HAPPEN IN A STATE WHERE IT'S NOT LEGAL?
DO PEOPLE IN THAT STATE THEN STATE WHERE IT'S NOT LEGAL?
DO PEOPLE IN THAT STATE THEN HAVE TO GO TO A COURT -- DO PEOPLE IN THAT STATE THEN HAVE TO GO TO A COURT -- GWEN: RIGHT.
HAVE TO GO TO A COURT -- GWEN: RIGHT.
>> TO GET THEIR MARRIAGE, YOU GWEN: RIGHT.
>> TO GET THEIR MARRIAGE, YOU KNOW, VALIDATED.
>> TO GET THEIR MARRIAGE, YOU KNOW, VALIDATED.
KNOW, VALIDATED.
GWEN: HERE'S THE INTERESTING GWEN: HERE'S THE INTERESTING THING, DAN, WHICH THE CHANGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM OLD TO THING, DAN, WHICH THE CHANGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM OLD TO YOUNG, FROM JUST GENERATION -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM OLD TO YOUNG, FROM JUST GENERATION -- SOME OF THE POLITICIANS WE YOUNG, FROM JUST GENERATION -- SOME OF THE POLITICIANS WE COVER JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, IN SOME OF THE POLITICIANS WE COVER JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, IN FACT, BILL CLINTON SIGNED DOMA COVER JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, IN FACT, BILL CLINTON SIGNED DOMA IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT.
FACT, BILL CLINTON SIGNED DOMA IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT.
HILLARY CLINTON AND BARACK IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT.
HILLARY CLINTON AND BARACK OBAMA WERE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE HILLARY CLINTON AND BARACK OBAMA WERE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE IN 2008.
OBAMA WERE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE IN 2008.
NOT THAT LONG AGO.
IN 2008.
NOT THAT LONG AGO.
THEY WERE ALL CHEERING THIS NOT THAT LONG AGO.
THEY WERE ALL CHEERING THIS WEEK.
THEY WERE ALL CHEERING THIS WEEK.
WHAT CHANGED?
WEEK.
WHAT CHANGED?
>> PUBLIC OPINION CHANGED.
WHAT CHANGED?
>> PUBLIC OPINION CHANGED.
AND AS A RESULT, THE >> PUBLIC OPINION CHANGED.
AND AS A RESULT, THE POLITICIANS FOLLOWED.
AND AS A RESULT, THE POLITICIANS FOLLOWED.
AND TO SOME EXTENT THE COURT POLITICIANS FOLLOWED.
AND TO SOME EXTENT THE COURT FOLLOWED AS WELL.
AND TO SOME EXTENT THE COURT FOLLOWED AS WELL.
AND THEN TWO POLITICAL SIDES TO FOLLOWED AS WELL.
AND THEN TWO POLITICAL SIDES TO THIS.
AND THEN TWO POLITICAL SIDES TO THIS.
ONE IS THE CONTINUING EFFORT THIS.
ONE IS THE CONTINUING EFFORT NOW STATE BY STATE THAT THESE ONE IS THE CONTINUING EFFORT NOW STATE BY STATE THAT THESE DECISIONS WILL SET OFF WHERE NOW STATE BY STATE THAT THESE DECISIONS WILL SET OFF WHERE PROPONENTS WILL TRY TO CHANGE DECISIONS WILL SET OFF WHERE PROPONENTS WILL TRY TO CHANGE THE LAWS OR IN SOME CASES TO PROPONENTS WILL TRY TO CHANGE THE LAWS OR IN SOME CASES TO STATE CONSTITUTIONS.
THE LAWS OR IN SOME CASES TO STATE CONSTITUTIONS.
THAT'S A LONG PROCESS.
STATE CONSTITUTIONS.
THAT'S A LONG PROCESS.
THE SUPREME COURT COULD HAVE THAT'S A LONG PROCESS.
THE SUPREME COURT COULD HAVE SHORT-CIRCUITED THAT AND CHOSE THE SUPREME COURT COULD HAVE SHORT-CIRCUITED THAT AND CHOSE NOT TO.
SHORT-CIRCUITED THAT AND CHOSE NOT TO.
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT A FUTURE NOT TO.
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT A FUTURE COURT MIGHT DO.
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT A FUTURE COURT MIGHT DO.
BUT THAT'S ONE FIGHT.
COURT MIGHT DO.
BUT THAT'S ONE FIGHT.
THERE'S ALSO THE OTHER SIDE OF BUT THAT'S ONE FIGHT.
THERE'S ALSO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL FIGHT AND THAT IS THERE'S ALSO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL FIGHT AND THAT IS HOW DOES THIS FIT INTO THE POLITICAL FIGHT AND THAT IS HOW DOES THIS FIT INTO REPUBLICANS VERSUS DEMOCRATS IN HOW DOES THIS FIT INTO REPUBLICANS VERSUS DEMOCRATS IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND WHO REPUBLICANS VERSUS DEMOCRATS IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND WHO STANDS ON WHICH SIDE?
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND WHO STANDS ON WHICH SIDE?
AND I THINK EVEN BEFORE THESE STANDS ON WHICH SIDE?
AND I THINK EVEN BEFORE THESE DECISIONS, WHAT YOU SAW WAS AND I THINK EVEN BEFORE THESE DECISIONS, WHAT YOU SAW WAS THAT IN ESSENCE, THERE HAD DECISIONS, WHAT YOU SAW WAS THAT IN ESSENCE, THERE HAD ALREADY BEEN A TIPPING POINT IN THAT IN ESSENCE, THERE HAD ALREADY BEEN A TIPPING POINT IN THAT.
ALREADY BEEN A TIPPING POINT IN THAT.
NOT THAT LONG AGO, REPUBLICANS THAT.
NOT THAT LONG AGO, REPUBLICANS SAW THIS ISSUE AS ONE THAT WAS NOT THAT LONG AGO, REPUBLICANS SAW THIS ISSUE AS ONE THAT WAS HELPFUL TO THEM THEIR SAW THIS ISSUE AS ONE THAT WAS HELPFUL TO THEM THEIR BASE AND CERTAINLY IN THE 2012 HELPFUL TO THEM THEIR BASE AND CERTAINLY IN THE 2012 ELECTION, WE SAW PRESIDENT BASE AND CERTAINLY IN THE 2012 ELECTION, WE SAW PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS AND ELECTION, WE SAW PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS AND EVER SINCE THEN MAKE IT CLEAR OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS AND EVER SINCE THEN MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY NOW THINK THAT THE EVER SINCE THEN MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY NOW THINK THAT THE MOMENTUM OF THIS ISSUE IS MUCH THAT THEY NOW THINK THAT THE MOMENTUM OF THIS ISSUE IS MUCH MORE ON THEIR SIDE POLITICALLY.
MOMENTUM OF THIS ISSUE IS MUCH MORE ON THEIR SIDE POLITICALLY.
>> AND -- MORE ON THEIR SIDE POLITICALLY.
>> AND -- >> VERY INTERESTING TO LOOK AT >> AND -- >> VERY INTERESTING TO LOOK AT THE STATEMENT BY JOHN BOEHNER >> VERY INTERESTING TO LOOK AT THE STATEMENT BY JOHN BOEHNER BECAUSE THE DEFENSE OF THE THE STATEMENT BY JOHN BOEHNER BECAUSE THE DEFENSE OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT WAS BECAUSE THE DEFENSE OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT WAS PICKED UP BY HOUSE REPUBLICANS DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT WAS PICKED UP BY HOUSE REPUBLICANS AFTER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PICKED UP BY HOUSE REPUBLICANS AFTER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAID WE WON'T DEFEND IT.
AFTER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAID WE WON'T DEFEND IT.
WHAT BOEHNER SAID IS NOT THE SAID WE WON'T DEFEND IT.
WHAT BOEHNER SAID IS NOT THE SKY IS FALLING.
WHAT BOEHNER SAID IS NOT THE SKY IS FALLING.
HE JUST SAID WE DID OUR PART TO SKY IS FALLING.
HE JUST SAID WE DID OUR PART TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE CHECKS AND HE JUST SAID WE DID OUR PART TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE CHECKS AND BALANCES AND ON OPPOSITE BRANCH MAKE SURE THERE ARE CHECKS AND BALANCES AND ON OPPOSITE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT GETS TO WEIGH IN.
BALANCES AND ON OPPOSITE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT GETS TO WEIGH IN.
I PERSONALLY HAVE MY VIEWS BUT OF GOVERNMENT GETS TO WEIGH IN.
I PERSONALLY HAVE MY VIEWS BUT NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.
I PERSONALLY HAVE MY VIEWS BUT NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.
>> NOT A CALL TO THE NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.
>> NOT A CALL TO THE BARRICADES.
>> NOT A CALL TO THE BARRICADES.
>> WHAT'S INTERESTING, THOUGH, BARRICADES.
>> WHAT'S INTERESTING, THOUGH, IS THAT THERE'S A -- THERE'S A >> WHAT'S INTERESTING, THOUGH, IS THAT THERE'S A -- THERE'S A MAJORITY SENTIMENT AMONG THE IS THAT THERE'S A -- THERE'S A MAJORITY SENTIMENT AMONG THE PUBLIC AND THERE'S A -- NEAR MAJORITY SENTIMENT AMONG THE PUBLIC AND THERE'S A -- NEAR MAJORITY COMING NOW BOTH -- PUBLIC AND THERE'S A -- NEAR MAJORITY COMING NOW BOTH -- CROSSING OVER REPUBLICAN AND MAJORITY COMING NOW BOTH -- CROSSING OVER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT, BUT NOT MAJORITY.
CROSSING OVER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT, BUT NOT MAJORITY.
STATES.
DEMOCRAT, BUT NOT MAJORITY.
STATES.
AND THAT'S WHY IT WILL STATES.
AND THAT'S WHY IT WILL ULTIMATELY COME BACK TO THE AND THAT'S WHY IT WILL ULTIMATELY COME BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT.
ULTIMATELY COME BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT.
SOME STATES THAT WILL JUST SUPREME COURT.
SOME STATES THAT WILL JUST PLAIN HOLD OUT.
SOME STATES THAT WILL JUST PLAIN HOLD OUT.
GWEN: IN THE MEANTIME THERE ARE PLAIN HOLD OUT.
GWEN: IN THE MEANTIME THERE ARE PRACTICAL IMPACTS.
GWEN: IN THE MEANTIME THERE ARE PRACTICAL IMPACTS.
WE SAW THAT THE PENTAGON CAME PRACTICAL IMPACTS.
WE SAW THAT THE PENTAGON CAME OUT AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO WE SAW THAT THE PENTAGON CAME OUT AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO START GIVING BENEFITS TO GAY OUT AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO START GIVING BENEFITS TO GAY PARTNERS.
START GIVING BENEFITS TO GAY PARTNERS.
AN E ALSO SAW THAT IN PARTNERS.
AN E ALSO SAW THAT IN IMMIGRATION, THE WORD IS GOING AN E ALSO SAW THAT IN IMMIGRATION, THE WORD IS GOING TO COME OUT, 36,000 COUPLES WHO IMMIGRATION, THE WORD IS GOING TO COME OUT, 36,000 COUPLES WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS.
TO COME OUT, 36,000 COUPLES WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS.
SO THIS DEFUSES AT LEAST ONE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS.
SO THIS DEFUSES AT LEAST ONE KEY PART OF THE ARGUMENT IN THE SO THIS DEFUSES AT LEAST ONE KEY PART OF THE ARGUMENT IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL.
KEY PART OF THE ARGUMENT IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL.
>> THOSE ARE THE TWO EASY ONES IMMIGRATION BILL.
>> THOSE ARE THE TWO EASY ONES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE LAW IS >> THOSE ARE THE TWO EASY ONES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE LAW IS CLEAR.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE LAW IS CLEAR.
IT'S NOT CLEAR YOU GET MARRIED CLEAR.
IT'S NOT CLEAR YOU GET MARRIED IN A MARRIAGE STATE AND MOVE TO IT'S NOT CLEAR YOU GET MARRIED IN A MARRIAGE STATE AND MOVE TO A NONMARRIAGE STATE, WHAT IN A MARRIAGE STATE AND MOVE TO A NONMARRIAGE STATE, WHAT BENEFITS GO WITH YOU?
A NONMARRIAGE STATE, WHAT BENEFITS GO WITH YOU?
THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE THAT BENEFITS GO WITH YOU?
THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT NOW.
THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT NOW.
ONLY TODAY THE OFFICE OF OUT NOW.
ONLY TODAY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT PUT OUT ONLY TODAY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT PUT OUT THE FIRST DIRECTIVE THAT PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT PUT OUT THE FIRST DIRECTIVE THAT APPLIES TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN THE FIRST DIRECTIVE THAT APPLIES TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN SAYING NOW SAME SEX PARTNERS, APPLIES TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN SAYING NOW SAME SEX PARTNERS, WE'RE GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU SAYING NOW SAME SEX PARTNERS, WE'RE GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU FOR HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE WE'RE GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU FOR HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE AND THOSE ARE THE EASY ONES.
FOR HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE AND THOSE ARE THE EASY ONES.
IT'S TAXES.
AND THOSE ARE THE EASY ONES.
IT'S TAXES.
VETERANS BENEFITS.
IT'S TAXES.
VETERANS BENEFITS.
SOCIAL SECURITY.
VETERANS BENEFITS.
SOCIAL SECURITY.
SOME OF THESE THINGS MAY SOCIAL SECURITY.
SOME OF THESE THINGS MAY ACTUALLY REQUIRE AN ACT OF SOME OF THESE THINGS MAY ACTUALLY REQUIRE AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO ALLOW THE BENEFITS ACTUALLY REQUIRE AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO ALLOW THE BENEFITS TO FOLLOW PEOPLE TO A CONGRESS TO ALLOW THE BENEFITS TO FOLLOW PEOPLE TO A NONMARRIAGE STATE.
TO FOLLOW PEOPLE TO A NONMARRIAGE STATE.
>> THAT'S FUNNY, ISN'T IT?
NONMARRIAGE STATE.
>> THAT'S FUNNY, ISN'T IT?
>> AND WILL ANY OF THIS COME >> THAT'S FUNNY, ISN'T IT?
>> AND WILL ANY OF THIS COME BACK TO THE COURT?
>> AND WILL ANY OF THIS COME BACK TO THE COURT?
>> I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS BACK TO THE COURT?
>> I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS A COUPLE THAT GETS MARRIED, SAY >> I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS A COUPLE THAT GETS MARRIED, SAY IN MASSACHUSETTS, AND MOVES TO A COUPLE THAT GETS MARRIED, SAY IN MASSACHUSETTS, AND MOVES TO ALABAMA, AND SEEKS TO HAVE ITS IN MASSACHUSETTS, AND MOVES TO ALABAMA, AND SEEKS TO HAVE ITS MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED BY THE ALABAMA, AND SEEKS TO HAVE ITS MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE, IS GOING TO SUE THERE.
MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE, IS GOING TO SUE THERE.
BUT -- SO THAT'S HOW THE NEXT STATE, IS GOING TO SUE THERE.
BUT -- SO THAT'S HOW THE NEXT ROUND OF COURT BATTLES WILL BUT -- SO THAT'S HOW THE NEXT ROUND OF COURT BATTLES WILL START.
ROUND OF COURT BATTLES WILL START.
BUT AS JOAN NOTED, THEURT WAS O START.
BUT AS JOAN NOTED, THEURT WAS O HUSTLE THE PROP EIGHT CASE OUT BUT AS JOAN NOTED, THEURT WAS O HUSTLE THE PROP EIGHT CASE OUT THE DOOR.
HUSTLE THE PROP EIGHT CASE OUT THE DOOR.
THEY DON'T WANT THIS NOW.
THE DOOR.
THEY DON'T WANT THIS NOW.
THEY DON'T WANT THIS NOW.
AND I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AND I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE -- GWEN: BECAUSE THEY REASONS, TOO -- GWEN: BECAUSE THEY REASONS, TOO >> NO.
GWEN: BECAUSE THEY REASONS, TOO >> NO.
YES.
>> NO.
YES.
FOR TECHNICAL REASONS ON THAT.
YES.
FOR TECHNICAL REASONS ON THAT.
BUT IT WAS A VERY SHREWD SET OF FOR TECHNICAL REASONS ON THAT.
BUT IT WAS A VERY SHREWD SET OF VOTES.
BUT IT WAS A VERY SHREWD SET OF VOTES.
THE 5-4 GROUP THAT GOT RID OF VOTES.
THE 5-4 GROUP THAT GOT RID OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT THE 5-4 GROUP THAT GOT RID OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT PROVISION SPLINTERED IN A WAY THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT PROVISION SPLINTERED IN A WAY THAT SAID -- SUGGESTED, AND I PROVISION SPLINTERED IN A WAY THAT SAID -- SUGGESTED, AND I REALLY THINK THIS IS THE THAT SAID -- SUGGESTED, AND I REALLY THINK THIS IS THE SIGNAL, PETE -- IS THAT EVEN REALLY THINK THIS IS THE SIGNAL, PETE -- IS THAT EVEN THE LIBERALS DON'T WANT TO HAVE SIGNAL, PETE -- IS THAT EVEN THE LIBERALS DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO HANDLE THIS NOW.
THE LIBERALS DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO HANDLE THIS NOW.
THEY DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THE TO HANDLE THIS NOW.
THEY DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THE VOTES.
THEY DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THE VOTES.
>> DIFFERENT COALITIONS.
VOTES.
>> DIFFERENT COALITIONS.
>> EXACTLY.
>> DIFFERENT COALITIONS.
>> EXACTLY.
SO I THINK THAT'S THE MESSAGE.
>> EXACTLY.
SO I THINK THAT'S THE MESSAGE.
MEANWHILE, THE PROPONENTS, TED SO I THINK THAT'S THE MESSAGE.
MEANWHILE, THE PROPONENTS, TED OLSON AND DAVID BOIES ARE MEANWHILE, THE PROPONENTS, TED OLSON AND DAVID BOIES ARE LOOKING FOR ANOTHER STATE TO OLSON AND DAVID BOIES ARE LOOKING FOR ANOTHER STATE TO BRING A CHALLENGE BUT THAT LOOKING FOR ANOTHER STATE TO BRING A CHALLENGE BUT THAT MIGHT TAKE A COUPLE OF YEARS BRING A CHALLENGE BUT THAT MIGHT TAKE A COUPLE OF YEARS AND MAYBE THE COURT WILL BE MIGHT TAKE A COUPLE OF YEARS AND MAYBE THE COURT WILL BE READER.
AND MAYBE THE COURT WILL BE READER.
GWEN: A DECISION INVOLVING THE READER.
GWEN: A DECISION INVOLVING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND SECTION GWEN: A DECISION INVOLVING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND SECTION FIVE OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND SECTION FIVE OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT WHICH REQUIRES PRECLEARANCE IN FIVE OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT WHICH REQUIRES PRECLEARANCE IN CERTAIN BAD ACTORS OR PEOPLE -- WHICH REQUIRES PRECLEARANCE IN CERTAIN BAD ACTORS OR PEOPLE -- STATES AND JURISDICTIONS, BAD CERTAIN BAD ACTORS OR PEOPLE -- STATES AND JURISDICTIONS, BAD ACTORS AND VOTING RIGHTS HAD TO STATES AND JURISDICTIONS, BAD ACTORS AND VOTING RIGHTS HAD TO GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTORS AND VOTING RIGHTS HAD TO GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND GET -- AND ANYTHING THEY GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND GET -- AND ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO TO CHANGE THE AND GET -- AND ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT LINESCHAN, GE THE WANT TO DO TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT LINESCHAN, GE THE POLLING PLACE AND CLEARED BY DISTRICT LINESCHAN, GE THE POLLING PLACE AND CLEARED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
POLLING PLACE AND CLEARED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THAT WAS BEING CHALLENGED.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THAT WAS BEING CHALLENGED.
AND THAT -- AND THE CHALLENGE THAT WAS BEING CHALLENGED.
AND THAT -- AND THE CHALLENGE WON.
AND THAT -- AND THE CHALLENGE WON.
JUSTICE ROBERTS WAS WRITING FOR WON.
JUSTICE ROBERTS WAS WRITING FOR THE 5-4 MAJORITY.
JUSTICE ROBERTS WAS WRITING FOR THE 5-4 MAJORITY.
HE WROTE, OUR COUNTRY HAS THE 5-4 MAJORITY.
HE WROTE, OUR COUNTRY HAS CHANGED AND WHILE ANY RACIAL HE WROTE, OUR COUNTRY HAS CHANGED AND WHILE ANY RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING IS TOO CHANGED AND WHILE ANY RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING IS TOO MUCH, CONGRESS MUST ENSURE THAT DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING IS TOO MUCH, CONGRESS MUST ENSURE THAT THE LEGISLATION IT PASSES TO MUCH, CONGRESS MUST ENSURE THAT THE LEGISLATION IT PASSES TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM SPEAKS TO THE LEGISLATION IT PASSES TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM SPEAKS TO CURRENT CONDITIONS.
REMEDY THE PROBLEM SPEAKS TO CURRENT CONDITIONS.
CURRENT CONDITIONS.
JUSTICE GINSBURG, WHO ACTUALLY JUSTICE GINSBURG, WHO ACTUALLY WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS, AND WROTE A VERY I THOUGHT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS, AND WROTE A VERY I THOUGHT DIRECT COUNTER TO THIS, WROTE, AND WROTE A VERY I THOUGHT DIRECT COUNTER TO THIS, WROTE, FOR THE MINORITY, THROWING OUT DIRECT COUNTER TO THIS, WROTE, FOR THE MINORITY, THROWING OUT PRECLEARANCE, WHEN IT HAS FOR THE MINORITY, THROWING OUT PRECLEARANCE, WHEN IT HAS WORKED AND IS CONTINUING TO PRECLEARANCE, WHEN IT HAS WORKED AND IS CONTINUING TO WORK, TO STOP DISCRIMINATORY WORKED AND IS CONTINUING TO WORK, TO STOP DISCRIMINATORY CHANGES, DISCRIMINATORY WORK, TO STOP DISCRIMINATORY CHANGES, DISCRIMINATORY CHANGES, IS LIKE THROWING AWAY CHANGES, DISCRIMINATORY CHANGES, IS LIKE THROWING AWAY YOUR UMBRELLA IN A RAINSTORM CHANGES, IS LIKE THROWING AWAY YOUR UMBRELLA IN A RAINSTORM BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GETTING YOUR UMBRELLA IN A RAINSTORM BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GETTING WET.
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GETTING WET.
>> WELL, WHAT THIS IS ACTUALLY WET.
>> WELL, WHAT THIS IS ACTUALLY -- AS A TECHNICAL MATTER WHAT >> WELL, WHAT THIS IS ACTUALLY -- AS A TECHNICAL MATTER WHAT THEY THREW OUT IS NOT THE -- AS A TECHNICAL MATTER WHAT THEY THREW OUT IS NOT THE PRECLEARANCE REQUIREMENT.
THEY THREW OUT IS NOT THE PRECLEARANCE REQUIREMENT.
IT'S THE MAP.
PRECLEARANCE REQUIREMENT.
IT'S THE MAP.
IT'S THE PLACES WHERE IT'S THE MAP.
IT'S THE PLACES WHERE PRECLEARANCE APPLIES.
IT'S THE PLACES WHERE PRECLEARANCE APPLIES.
>> RIGHT.
PRECLEARANCE APPLIES.
>> RIGHT.
>> SO NUMBER ONE, THIS SHOULD >> RIGHT.
>> SO NUMBER ONE, THIS SHOULD COME AS A SURPRISE TO NOBODY >> SO NUMBER ONE, THIS SHOULD COME AS A SURPRISE TO NOBODY BECAUSE THE COURT SAID FOUR COME AS A SURPRISE TO NOBODY BECAUSE THE COURT SAID FOUR YEARS AGO, ATTENTION CONGRESS, BECAUSE THE COURT SAID FOUR YEARS AGO, ATTENTION CONGRESS, WE THINK THAT THE MAP AND THE YEARS AGO, ATTENTION CONGRESS, WE THINK THAT THE MAP AND THE DATA DON'T MATCH.
WE THINK THAT THE MAP AND THE DATA DON'T MATCH.
THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER IN DATA DON'T MATCH.
THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER IN THE SOUTH.
THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER IN THE SOUTH.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK OR WE'LL THROW THE SOUTH.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK OR WE'LL THROW THIS OUT.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK OR WE'LL THROW THIS OUT.
CONGRESS DID NOTHING AND THE THIS OUT.
CONGRESS DID NOTHING AND THE COURT THREW IT OUT LIKE IT SAID CONGRESS DID NOTHING AND THE COURT THREW IT OUT LIKE IT SAID IT WOULD.
COURT THREW IT OUT LIKE IT SAID IT WOULD.
NOW THE ADMINISTRATION HAS TO IT WOULD.
NOW THE ADMINISTRATION HAS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIX NOW THE ADMINISTRATION HAS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIX THE MAP PROBLEM.
TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIX THE MAP PROBLEM.
AND THEY'RE ALREADY TALKING THE MAP PROBLEM.
AND THEY'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT THAT.
AND THEY'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT THAT.
I TALKED TO AN ADMINISTRATION ABOUT THAT.
I TALKED TO AN ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TODAY WHO SAID THEY'RE I TALKED TO AN ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TODAY WHO SAID THEY'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT MAYBE OFFICIAL TODAY WHO SAID THEY'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT MAYBE SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD TRYING TO LOOK AT MAYBE SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD IMPOSE NATIONWIDE THAT WOULD SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD IMPOSE NATIONWIDE THAT WOULD LOOK AT CERTAIN PRACTICES.
IMPOSE NATIONWIDE THAT WOULD LOOK AT CERTAIN PRACTICES.
OR CERTAIN ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE LOOK AT CERTAIN PRACTICES.
OR CERTAIN ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE VOTING PATTERNS.
OR CERTAIN ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE VOTING PATTERNS.
THAT WOULD THEN MAYBE TRIGGER VOTING PATTERNS.
THAT WOULD THEN MAYBE TRIGGER SOMETHING LIKE YOU HAVE IN THE THAT WOULD THEN MAYBE TRIGGER SOMETHING LIKE YOU HAVE IN THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES SOMETHING LIKE YOU HAVE IN THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION WHERE YOU HAVE TO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION WHERE YOU HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FIRST TO FILE A COMMISSION WHERE YOU HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FIRST TO FILE A LAWSUIT.
GET PERMISSION FIRST TO FILE A LAWSUIT.
THEY KNOW THE PROBLEM.
LAWSUIT.
THEY KNOW THE PROBLEM.
IF YOU GO BACK TO CONGRESS AND THEY KNOW THE PROBLEM.
IF YOU GO BACK TO CONGRESS AND SAY LET'S DRAW A NEW MAP, THEN IF YOU GO BACK TO CONGRESS AND SAY LET'S DRAW A NEW MAP, THEN THERE'S NOTHING BUT HORSE SAY LET'S DRAW A NEW MAP, THEN THERE'S NOTHING BUT HORSE TRADING.
THERE'S NOTHING BUT HORSE TRADING.
I'LL KEEP YOURS OUT IF YOU KEEP TRADING.
I'LL KEEP YOURS OUT IF YOU KEEP MINE OUT.
I'LL KEEP YOURS OUT IF YOU KEEP MINE OUT.
>> THE REALITY, THOUGH, IS THAT MINE OUT.
>> THE REALITY, THOUGH, IS THAT NEITHER REPUBLICANS NOR >> THE REALITY, THOUGH, IS THAT NEITHER REPUBLICANS NOR DEMOCRATS WANT TO GET RID OF NEITHER REPUBLICANS NOR DEMOCRATS WANT TO GET RID OF THE WAY THAT THESE LINES ARE DEMOCRATS WANT TO GET RID OF THE WAY THAT THESE LINES ARE CURRENTLY DRAWN.
THE WAY THAT THESE LINES ARE CURRENTLY DRAWN.
AND THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CURRENTLY DRAWN.
AND THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PRECLEARANCE.
AND THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PRECLEARANCE.
PACKING DEMOCRATS INTO A PRECLEARANCE.
PACKING DEMOCRATS INTO A MAJORITY-MINORITY DISTRICT PACKING DEMOCRATS INTO A MAJORITY-MINORITY DISTRICT HELPS THAT DEMOCRAT WIN THE MAJORITY-MINORITY DISTRICT HELPS THAT DEMOCRAT WIN THE ELECTION, RIGHT?
HELPS THAT DEMOCRAT WIN THE ELECTION, RIGHT?
IT MAKES IT A VERY SAFE ELECTION, RIGHT?
IT MAKES IT A VERY SAFE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT.
IT MAKES IT A VERY SAFE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT.
THE INCUMBENTS WHO HAVE THOSE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT.
THE INCUMBENTS WHO HAVE THOSE SEATS WANT TO KEEP THOSE SEATS.
THE INCUMBENTS WHO HAVE THOSE SEATS WANT TO KEEP THOSE SEATS.
REPUBLICANS LOVE THOSE SEATS.
SEATS WANT TO KEEP THOSE SEATS.
REPUBLICANS LOVE THOSE SEATS.
YOU KNOW WHY?
REPUBLICANS LOVE THOSE SEATS.
YOU KNOW WHY?
IT MEANS THERE ARE NO DEMOCRATS YOU KNOW WHY?
IT MEANS THERE ARE NO DEMOCRATS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE.
IT MEANS THERE ARE NO DEMOCRATS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE.
THEY'RE ALL IN ONE DISTRICT.
ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE.
THEY'RE ALL IN ONE DISTRICT.
SO IT MEANS THAT YOU HAVE ONE THEY'RE ALL IN ONE DISTRICT.
SO IT MEANS THAT YOU HAVE ONE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT AND ALL SO IT MEANS THAT YOU HAVE ONE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT AND ALL AROUND IT A LOT OF REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT AND ALL AROUND IT A LOT OF REPUBLICAN DISTRICTS.
AROUND IT A LOT OF REPUBLICAN DISTRICTS.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO DISTRICTS.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO CHANGE THOSE LINES FOR THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO CHANGE THOSE LINES FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
CHANGE THOSE LINES FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
>> IN 2006 THEY ACTUALLY LOOKED POLITICAL REASONS.
>> IN 2006 THEY ACTUALLY LOOKED AT IT.
>> IN 2006 THEY ACTUALLY LOOKED AT IT.
AND THEY THOUGHT CAN WE WRITE A AT IT.
AND THEY THOUGHT CAN WE WRITE A NEW FORMULA THAT DOESN'T JUST AND THEY THOUGHT CAN WE WRITE A NEW FORMULA THAT DOESN'T JUST TARGET THE OLD SOUTH MOSTLY?
NEW FORMULA THAT DOESN'T JUST TARGET THE OLD SOUTH MOSTLY?
THE NINE STATES THAT ARE TARGET THE OLD SOUTH MOSTLY?
THE NINE STATES THAT ARE COVERED ARE MOSTLY IN THE OLD THE NINE STATES THAT ARE COVERED ARE MOSTLY IN THE OLD SOUTH AND A COUPLE OF OTHER COVERED ARE MOSTLY IN THE OLD SOUTH AND A COUPLE OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
SOUTH AND A COUPLE OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
GWEN: AND JUSTICE ROBERTS, JURISDICTIONS.
GWEN: AND JUSTICE ROBERTS, SUGGESTED THEY COME UP WITH A GWEN: AND JUSTICE ROBERTS, SUGGESTED THEY COME UP WITH A PLAN, DID HE HINT PRETTY SUGGESTED THEY COME UP WITH A PLAN, DID HE HINT PRETTY STRONGLY -- PLAN, DID HE HINT PRETTY STRONGLY -- >> DEFINITELY.
STRONGLY -- >> DEFINITELY.
HE DID.
>> DEFINITELY.
HE DID.
BUT CAN'T TELL YOU HOW HARD IT HE DID.
BUT CAN'T TELL YOU HOW HARD IT WOULD BE TO DO THAT.
BUT CAN'T TELL YOU HOW HARD IT WOULD BE TO DO THAT.
BUT HERE IS REGULATION THAT IS WOULD BE TO DO THAT.
BUT HERE IS REGULATION THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DETERRENT.
BUT HERE IS REGULATION THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DETERRENT.
IT'S NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO SUPPOSED TO BE A DETERRENT.
IT'S NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATE.
IT'S NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATE.
IT'S SOMETHING OUT AHEAD OF INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATE.
IT'S SOMETHING OUT AHEAD OF TIME.
IT'S SOMETHING OUT AHEAD OF TIME.
THAT'S WHY IT'S HARD TO SAY THE TIME.
THAT'S WHY IT'S HARD TO SAY THE WHOLE NATION MUST BE COVERED.
THAT'S WHY IT'S HARD TO SAY THE WHOLE NATION MUST BE COVERED.
SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE WHOLE NATION MUST BE COVERED.
SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY TOUGH FOR CONGRESS TO SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY TOUGH FOR CONGRESS TO ACT ON IT.
REALLY TOUGH FOR CONGRESS TO ACT ON IT.
GWEN: EVEN THOUGH PRESIDENT ACT ON IT.
GWEN: EVEN THOUGH PRESIDENT OBAMA PRAISED WHAT HAPPENED ON GWEN: EVEN THOUGH PRESIDENT OBAMA PRAISED WHAT HAPPENED ON THE GAY RIGHTS CASE, HE WAS OBAMA PRAISED WHAT HAPPENED ON THE GAY RIGHTS CASE, HE WAS VERY CRITICAL OF WLAP ON THE THE GAY RIGHTS CASE, HE WAS VERY CRITICAL OF WLAP ON THE VOTING RIGHTS CASE -- OF WHAT VERY CRITICAL OF WLAP ON THE VOTING RIGHTS CASE -- OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE VOTING RIGHTS VOTING RIGHTS CASE -- OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE VOTING RIGHTS CASE.
HAPPENED ON THE VOTING RIGHTS CASE.
WHAT HE HAD TO SAY AND THE CASE.
WHAT HE HAD TO SAY AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE WHAT HE HAD TO SAY AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA.
>> IT WAS THE CORNERSTONE AND OF ALABAMA.
>> IT WAS THE CORNERSTONE AND THE CULMINATION OF YEARS OF >> IT WAS THE CORNERSTONE AND THE CULMINATION OF YEARS OF STRUGGLE.
THE CULMINATION OF YEARS OF STRUGGLE.
BLOOD.
STRUGGLE.
BLOOD.
SWEAT.
BLOOD.
SWEAT.
TEARS.
SWEAT.
TEARS.
IN SOME CASES DEATHS.
TEARS.
IN SOME CASES DEATHS.
I MIGHT NOT BE HERE AS IN SOME CASES DEATHS.
I MIGHT NOT BE HERE AS PRESIDENT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR I MIGHT NOT BE HERE AS PRESIDENT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THOSE WHO COURAGEOUSLY HELPED PRESIDENT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THOSE WHO COURAGEOUSLY HELPED TO PASS THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
THOSE WHO COURAGEOUSLY HELPED TO PASS THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
>> I WANT TO REASSURE ALL THE TO PASS THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
>> I WANT TO REASSURE ALL THE VOTERS OF OUR STATE, BLACK AND >> I WANT TO REASSURE ALL THE VOTERS OF OUR STATE, BLACK AND WHITE, AND ALL MINORITY VOTERS, VOTERS OF OUR STATE, BLACK AND WHITE, AND ALL MINORITY VOTERS, THAT NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN WHITE, AND ALL MINORITY VOTERS, THAT NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN TERMS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE THAT NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN TERMS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND WE'LL ENSURE TERMS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND WE'LL ENSURE THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO RIGHT TO VOTE AND WE'LL ENSURE THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND THEY'RE NOT THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND THEY'RE NOT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN ANY VOTE AND THEY'RE NOT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN ANY WAY.
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN ANY WAY.
GWEN: DAN, THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE WAY.
GWEN: DAN, THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE PROBLEM'S ALL FIXED, RIGHT?
GWEN: DAN, THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE PROBLEM'S ALL FIXED, RIGHT?
>> WELL, IN ONE WAY WE ARE PROBLEM'S ALL FIXED, RIGHT?
>> WELL, IN ONE WAY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT SOUTH >> WELL, IN ONE WAY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT SOUTH THAN WE TALKED ABOUT UNDER THE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT SOUTH THAN WE TALKED ABOUT UNDER THE RULES OF THE ORIGINAL VOTING THAN WE TALKED ABOUT UNDER THE RULES OF THE ORIGINAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
RULES OF THE ORIGINAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
AT THAT TIME, VOTER RIGHTS ACT.
AT THAT TIME, VOTER REGISTRATION AMONG BLACKS WAS A AT THAT TIME, VOTER REGISTRATION AMONG BLACKS WAS A FRACTION OF WHAT IT WAS AMONG REGISTRATION AMONG BLACKS WAS A FRACTION OF WHAT IT WAS AMONG WHITES.
FRACTION OF WHAT IT WAS AMONG WHITES.
TODAY, IT'S EQUAL AND IN SOME WHITES.
TODAY, IT'S EQUAL AND IN SOME CASES HIGHER.
TODAY, IT'S EQUAL AND IN SOME CASES HIGHER.
A HIGHER PERCENTAGE.
CASES HIGHER.
A HIGHER PERCENTAGE.
ON THE OTHER HAND THE VOTING A HIGHER PERCENTAGE.
ON THE OTHER HAND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT GETS CREDIT RIGHTLY ON THE OTHER HAND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT GETS CREDIT RIGHTLY SO FOR HAVING BROUGHT ABOUT RIGHTS ACT GETS CREDIT RIGHTLY SO FOR HAVING BROUGHT ABOUT THOSE CHANGES.
SO FOR HAVING BROUGHT ABOUT THOSE CHANGES.
AND THE POLITICAL DEBATE AT THOSE CHANGES.
AND THE POLITICAL DEBATE AT THIS POINT IS DO YOU STILL NEED AND THE POLITICAL DEBATE AT THIS POINT IS DO YOU STILL NEED THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP THAT THIS POINT IS DO YOU STILL NEED THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP THAT MOVING FORWARD?
THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP THAT MOVING FORWARD?
THE COURT SAID THERE IS STILL MOVING FORWARD?
THE COURT SAID THERE IS STILL DISCRIMINATION.
THE COURT SAID THERE IS STILL DISCRIMINATION.
AND THE QUESTION IS, AT THIS DISCRIMINATION.
AND THE QUESTION IS, AT THIS POINT, WHAT DO YOU DO, WHAT AND THE QUESTION IS, AT THIS POINT, WHAT DO YOU DO, WHAT KIND OF ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM POINT, WHAT DO YOU DO, WHAT KIND OF ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM CAN YOU HAVE?
KIND OF ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM CAN YOU HAVE?
THE OTHER THING THAT'S HAPPENED CAN YOU HAVE?
THE OTHER THING THAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT THE KINDS OF THE OTHER THING THAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT THE KINDS OF IS THAT THE KINDS OF DISCRIMINATION THAT GO ON ARE DISCRIMINATION THAT GO ON ARE NOT THE -- THEY'RE NOT POLL TAXES.
NOT THE -- THEY'RE NOT POLL TAXES.
THOSE ARE OUTLAWED.
TAXES.
THOSE ARE OUTLAWED.
THEY'RE NOT THE KIND OF THINGS THOSE ARE OUTLAWED.
THEY'RE NOT THE KIND OF THINGS THAT TRIGGERED -- THEY'RE NOT THE KIND OF THINGS THAT TRIGGERED -- GWEN: THEY'RE NOT OVERT.
THAT TRIGGERED -- GWEN: THEY'RE NOT OVERT.
>> IN 1965.
GWEN: THEY'RE NOT OVERT.
>> IN 1965.
BUT WE SAW IN THE LAST CAMPAIGN >> IN 1965.
BUT WE SAW IN THE LAST CAMPAIGN A BIG DEBATE WHICH WAS A BUT WE SAW IN THE LAST CAMPAIGN A BIG DEBATE WHICH WAS A POLARIZING DEBATE ABOUT VOTER A BIG DEBATE WHICH WAS A POLARIZING DEBATE ABOUT VOTER I.D.
LAWS AND OTHER CHANGES -- POLARIZING DEBATE ABOUT VOTER I.D.
LAWS AND OTHER CHANGES -- GWEN: AND IN PLACES LIKE OHIO I.D.
LAWS AND OTHER CHANGES -- GWEN: AND IN PLACES LIKE OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA WHERE THERE GWEN: AND IN PLACES LIKE OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA WHERE THERE HASN'T BEEN PRECLEARANCE, AND PENNSYLVANIA WHERE THERE HASN'T BEEN PRECLEARANCE, RIGHT?
HASN'T BEEN PRECLEARANCE, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT RIGHT.
RIGHT?
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT RIGHT.
HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THOSE AND >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT RIGHT.
HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THOSE AND THE IDEA OF CAN YOU COME UP HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THOSE AND THE IDEA OF CAN YOU COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF NATIONWIDE THE IDEA OF CAN YOU COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF NATIONWIDE APPROACH TO IT?
WITH SOME KIND OF NATIONWIDE APPROACH TO IT?
I DON'T KNOW.
APPROACH TO IT?
I DON'T KNOW.
>> AND AS A STARTING POINT FOR I DON'T KNOW.
>> AND AS A STARTING POINT FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND THE >> AND AS A STARTING POINT FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND THE ADMINISTRATION, SOME KIND OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND THE ADMINISTRATION, SOME KIND OF FORMULA FOR SECTION FOUR THAT ADMINISTRATION, SOME KIND OF FORMULA FOR SECTION FOUR THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ENTIRE STATES FORMULA FOR SECTION FOUR THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ENTIRE STATES TO START WITH.
DOESN'T INCLUDE ENTIRE STATES TO START WITH.
GWEN: SO A STATE LIKE -- THIS TO START WITH.
GWEN: SO A STATE LIKE -- THIS WAS JUST SHELBY COUNTY GWEN: SO A STATE LIKE -- THIS WAS JUST SHELBY COUNTY CHALLENGING THIS.
WAS JUST SHELBY COUNTY CHALLENGING THIS.
>> IT WAS.
CHALLENGING THIS.
>> IT WAS.
BUT ALL OF ALABAMA IS COVERED >> IT WAS.
BUT ALL OF ALABAMA IS COVERED WHICH WAS SO IRONIC BECAUSE IT BUT ALL OF ALABAMA IS COVERED WHICH WAS SO IRONIC BECAUSE IT WAS THE BRIDGE IN SELMA THAT WHICH WAS SO IRONIC BECAUSE IT WAS THE BRIDGE IN SELMA THAT WAS -- AND THE VIOLENCE THERE WAS THE BRIDGE IN SELMA THAT WAS -- AND THE VIOLENCE THERE IN 1965 THAT GOT L.B.J.
-- GOT WAS -- AND THE VIOLENCE THERE IN 1965 THAT GOT L.B.J.
-- GOT CONGRESS TO SIGN THE VOTING IN 1965 THAT GOT L.B.J.
-- GOT CONGRESS TO SIGN THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THEN -- CONGRESS TO SIGN THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THEN -- GWEN: SO THIS LANDS BACK IN RIGHTS ACT AND THEN -- GWEN: SO THIS LANDS BACK IN CONGRESS AGAIN?
GWEN: SO THIS LANDS BACK IN CONGRESS AGAIN?
RE CONGRESS COULD CONGRESS AGAIN?
RE CONGRESS COULD FIX THIS AND IN FACT IF THERE'S RE CONGRESS COULD FIX THIS AND IN FACT IF THERE'S ONE THEME THAT SEEMS TO RUN FIX THIS AND IN FACT IF THERE'S ONE THEME THAT SEEMS TO RUN THROUGH THESE DECISIONS IS THIS ONE THEME THAT SEEMS TO RUN THROUGH THESE DECISIONS IS THIS SHOULD BE THE STATES' PROBLEM, THROUGH THESE DECISIONS IS THIS SHOULD BE THE STATES' PROBLEM, RIGHT?
SHOULD BE THE STATES' PROBLEM, RIGHT?
>> WELL, THECE RIGHT?
>> WELL, THECE AS MUCH OF THE VOTING -- THE >> WELL, THECE AS MUCH OF THE VOTING -- THE KEY PART OF THE VOTING RIGHTS AS MUCH OF THE VOTING -- THE KEY PART OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT BACK.
KEY PART OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT BACK.
WE SHOULD NOTE THAT PARTS OF ACT BACK.
WE SHOULD NOTE THAT PARTS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
- News and Public Affairs
Top journalists deliver compelling original analysis of the hour's headlines.
- News and Public Affairs
FRONTLINE is investigative journalism that questions, explains and changes our world.
Support for PBS provided by:
Major funding for “Washington Week with The Atlantic” is provided by Consumer Cellular, Otsuka, Kaiser Permanente, the Yuen Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.