♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ > > This week on the go to space last the Voting Rights Act and what that means for midterm elections and Connecticut's congressional map.

♪ > > for > > Connecticut Public on Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

We show that connects politics.

The people we've got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

The Supreme Court recently issued a major ruling on Louisiana's congressional map in a 6 to 3 decision.

The justices said the state relied too heavily on race when drawing it to rational districts.

The ruling undermines a key portion of the 1965 voting Rights Act.

A landmark piece of civil rights legislation.

It could potentially reduce the number of majority black districts in the state from 2 to one.

But the decision is expected to have implications far beyond Louisiana.

Already other states are rushing to redraw their congressional maps, raising the specter of a new era partisan gerrymandering.

The critics say undermines decades of racial progress.

This hour, we'll look at what this ruling could mean for the upcoming midterm elections.

And joining me now is Alex Hernandez, National Politics reporter at Politico.

Alec, thank you so much for being > > Frank, it's great to be here.

here.

Thanks much for having me.

So great to have you want to have folks give us a call today.

If they'd like to talk about this and > > and help us understand what they might see as the implications for civil rights under the SCOTUS decision.

88 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, just a couple of weeks ago.

Alec, the Supreme Court issued a major ruling in Louisiana verse Colletti at a high level.

What did the court decide?

> > Yeah, that's right.

So as you're laying out there in your intro, the 6 the court ruled in a 6 to 3 ruling basically along partisan lines here with the conservative majority ruling against Louisiana's maps.

But as you pointed out with the case was about was the second congressional district in or one of 2 congressional districts in Louisiana that have been drawn to be majority-minority seats.

So what you had in this particular case was a group of litigants challenge the makeup of that seat that describe themselves as as non African American voters in the district, the court, the case, but it all the way up to Supreme Court and what they were asking for was, but the court essentially to rule that the creation of that seat was unconstitutional.

Under the 14th, Amendment's Equal Protection Act.

And that's essentially what the court and ruling that that decision that ruling was authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito and essentially what he ended up saying was that, yes, that was a unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.

So in the immediate it, of course, entirely changed.

Louisiana's congressional districts.

But at the same time, but it really ends up being a question about that is section 2 of the voting Rights Amendment, which is sort of the last standing pillars of the landmark civil rights era legislation and what that means essentially is for the long for a long time, the federal courts interpret it section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to essentially mean that racial data, racial characteristics can be taken into account when trying congressional district right.

But what Alito has done here is essentially say that he's changed the standard.

Now, not only is the bar change for what constitutes the racial did it you can use, but it really severely limited.

The case is that states can use to use race and drawing their congressional districts.

So now, you know, based on this new legal precedent, what state will need to prove in order to draw these majority minority districts is that, you know, prior to that, the maps, you know, prior to creating that majority Minority district would have to be if they have to prove a significant amount of of racial discrimination that has to be untethered from partisanship.

But the issue that you run into and says it's particularly in the south is a lot of these majority minority districts are voting mostly for Democrats and a lot of cases.

So it's really difficult to extricate those 2 things which essentially and does section 2 of the voting rights.

It really raised the bar is the bar so high that it's it's almost impossible to sell.

> > The case centers on the Voting Rights Act as you just mentioned, can you remind us when the law was passed and what problem it was originally designed to solve?

> > Yes, so it was passed back in 1965.

At the height of the civil rights movement.

I will sign into law by President Lyndon B Johnson.

And essentially, you know, at the height of the civil rights movement, you had, you know, the the projects that the Edmund Pettus Bridge, these major sort of moments with civil rights movement that spurred Congress and President Johnson to act to, you know, basically create new equity for minority voters, too.

Cast a ballot, right?

You had things in the south like literacy tests or poll taxes, which disproportionately affected voters of color from from voting.

So essentially the Voting Rights Act was doing at the time was leveling the playing field.

It was helping black voters, brown voters access the ballot and that's been in place for decades.

And now it's it's been significantly changed.

You know, Section 5, which was another sort of key pillar to the to the act that was dismantled under the Obama administration section 2.

That basically is a dead letter.

So the Voting Rights Act and all but name no longer exists.

Well, that's that's quite something for 61 years of existence here and what it was designed to do.

But some dissenting justices on this.

> > Ruling, what were their concerns about the decision?

I know, you know, is a big proponent of turning this down.

> > Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for minority here for and she delivered for dissent from the bench, which is a single among yeah, sort of like Supreme Court watchers of Supreme dissatisfaction with the ruling of the majority.

And that's when her concerns were that by limiting Section 2 here making it basically and impossible statute approved and does the Voting Rights Act.

So her concerns are essentially that what you're doing here is not only making a ruling that specific Lousiana, but if it makes the Voting Rights Act, basically what they call a dead letter, it's it.

But the law no longer has teeth to it.

And it's the original intent.

And > > if you said more than just that's Louisiana.

So in her decision, her dissenting opinion, Elena Kagan are really, spelling it out for all of us saying that this goes beyond Louisiana.

So can you help us understand a little bit more of national perspective on what we should all be paying attention to > > Yes, so what you're seeing here.

already is is starting to play out.

So I think first we have to do here is back up a little bit 2 before this.

This case really came before President Trump was already moving to push Republican led states to redistrict ahead of the midterms and sort of help bolster Republican numbers in Congress.

He saw that is the sort of the first domino to fall.

I was in Texas and they kept falling from their right to head.

North Carolina also moved their mountain and Ryan Moore, the Republican majority.

So there was already a push from the White House and from President Trump personally to have these Republican states redistrict.

But because the Voting Rights Act was in place, a lot of the southern states, a lot of the Republican led southern states were unable to reach other map.

But what you see now is essentially an opening of the floodgates that allowing a lot of the southern states that previously couldn't touch their mouths to redistrict in favor of Republicans.

And you have to remember that a lot of the states like South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, have Republican super majority of the Republican governors.

So it's very easy for them to sort of move these these not a lot.

But the concern that, you know, Democrats are seeing and that Justice Kagan pointed to in her dissent is is already playing out immediately after the ruling.

You had Tennessee eliminate their sole Democratic district that was sort of based in Memphis.

You see in the state legislature basically already cut that seat up divide Shelby County, which is home to Memphis into 3 different congressional districts, which is the You know, critics are saying is, is the looting, you know, black political power in Tennessee and the movement sort of those dominoes keep falling in the South, Louisiana, just last night.

They're in the process of passing their new map.

They're striking down one of their or their race in essentially one of their Democratic districts that are going to keep just one instead, South Carolina measure fell through yesterday to redistrict, but it still, you know, they're still on a path to dry out.

You know, the powerful Representative James Clyburn, who's been at sea for for decades and Alabama.

All these all these states in the southeast essentially are now able to look at these maps, redrawn them and give you know, Republicans quite quite an advantage heading into November.

Let's talk about what this looks like in practice.

Louisiana's Governor Jeff Landry announced that he was going > > redraw the congressional to maps and therefore spend the House primaries which were set for May 16th as a result of this Louisiana verse Calais ruling 6 district currently led by Democratic Congressman Cleo Fields.

He spoke with ABC News about the suspension of the congressional primary.

He says the Supreme Court decision and the reaction that followed from Louisiana officials was out of line.

Here's a clip.

> > Not to mention a flag over 100,000 people have received early voting ballot.

Many of military people overseas, elderly people who live in Louisiana, they have already cast their ballots.

And for the governor and the secretary of state to have the hope the election in the middle of voting, this in print thousands of voters in Louisiana.

> > So you could look at it as him saying that something more nefarious is happening here or at least that at a surface level say that they were already trying to get the franchise process here going.

And it's being interrupted at this point.

> > Well, really, Louisiana obviously at the center of this case, you're seeing, you know, because they're they're mandated here.

But the court to redraw their maps are seeing essentially the out of chaos for lack of a better word in the state.

You know, as as the representative mentioned, there, but their primaries are scheduled for this Saturday.

But the governor had to declare what he called a state of emergency to postpone the congressional debt or congressional primaries in the state and others are happening at a later time.

Meanwhile, you know, primaries for local office for all important Senate race are happening.

You know, they're going ahead on Saturday to begin with.

But Louisiana has even agreed on a map yet.

And, you know, we're deep into primary season here and that's, you know, of course, leaving voters confused as to what they're voting for.

And when.

But also, you know, an important election year.

It begs the question of whether there's going to be enough time to even, you know, get, you know, make sure that folks have the opportunity to vote here.

And, you know, Louisiana officials say they will.

They're hammering out those details now.

But really the case, you know, you know, Louisiana versus Callie here is really ended the primary season in Louisiana.

And you're seeing some of that chaos to like I mentioned in these other southern Republican states.

> > Is that chaos?

The big concern?

What are what are officials and voters they're most concerned about right now.

You heard him talking about the impact on voters.

> > Yeah.

Yeah.

So you have you know, a lot, of course, folks in the black community who are as the representative mentioned, they're afraid of disenfranchisement rate of losing their voice, their longtime voices and and Congress.

And that's, of course, concern.

But the the logistical chaos, there is definitely a notable, you know, Louisiana still trying to push through the details of of how they're going to vote in.

They're, you know, primary supposed to be in 3 days.

So to be sort of building the plan is they're flying in here, really present a particular challenge to Louisiana.

But these other states we're trying to move forward with knobs prior to the 2026 election.

> > Aren't these maps Julie redrawn every 10 years in accordance with the Census.

So like wire states retrying them now.

> > Yeah.

Well, that's that's exactly right.

Usually it's done.

We know what color the reapportionment process where the census is taken to.

The states are able to reach raw.

They are congressional maps based off of you know, updated population data.

But you know this, this goes back a little bit to what we're talking about earlier with President Trump's pressure campaign.

It's sort of been president of that.

The president would, you know, ask Republican led states.

There are states, you know, of led by, you know, governor their own party to to redraw these just the congressional maps in sort of an off year like amid district or amid decade cycle.

It's it's truly unprecedented.

But it's also, you know, at this point, particularly for states that don't have independent redistricting, commissions Republican super majorities, there's nothing stopping them.

And that's exactly what you're seeing here.

> > Are other states seeing similar disruptions to their elections and has there been any notable pushback?

I would say either from voters, candidates for office, state officials and more remarkable.

And I know you've talked a lot about it here, but we've looked at a Louisiana.

What would you say?

What Alex Hernandez say is the number 2 place to look at here.

> > Well, right now, South Carolina, I would say is the next sort of interesting domino here.

It's, of course, another Republican led state.

But yesterday, you know, without getting too deep into the parliamentary rules of how the state House works there essentially, Republicans unify Republicans joined Democrats to tanker redistricting effort there in the short term.

So now, you know, going to see that White House pressure campaign really turn on South Carolina to push Republican Governor Henry McMaster to move this does not belong and eliminate their one congressional district.

There.

But to your question about, you know, the pushback that we've been seeing, I think, you know, if you look to at a state like Tennessee won last week, they were working through their congressional map.

You saw just a really strong amount of protests from locals.

You know, a lot of folks in Memphis went to the state house in Nashville to make their voices heard and say, hey, you are this entry and, you know, disenfranchising Duluth, City of Memphis.

But black voters in particular Steve Cohen, the local representative there stopped those protesters.

Well, even yesterday in South Carolina, which is a predominantly Republican state.

You had protesters interrupt the Senate proceedings yesterday as they were getting ready to vote on this redistricting measure.

But South Carolina, a domino that could potentially see him fall in this redistricting saga.

Alabama is set to move forward as well as a federal court there clear the way for them to be able to redraw and Louisiana, as we've been talking plenty about here moving up all along.

> > Are there any additional legal challenges expected?

Of course, but it's unclear sort of where, you know, I'm not an attorney, but it's clear to me that, you know what the Supreme Court?

Well, Don, something it's very difficult to find recovery course after the fact to be able to sort of change a thing, whether we'll see, you know, litigation and you know us to on a state-by-state cases when it comes, you know, when these Republican legislatures put the map and pastor individual maps, it's almost a guarantee that you're going to see legal challenges to those redraws how far those challenges will go are are to be determined.

But to this point out can also head of yet the 28.6 elections litigation is only going to prolong this.

This process here.

And, you know, the clock is going to stop and elections are gonna have to happen in November.

So it it really is going Monday.

The waters here, you know, the closer we get to Italy's primary dates, but also to November.

So as we finish up here with the primaries > > kick in right around the corner in these things.

Now going into into practice here.

You talked about watching some of the things that were happening.

You talked about Tennessee.

You talked about South Carolina.

Will you be paying in particular attention to the pressure from the Trump administration on the states or the reaction from voters and potentially protesters.

What what what should we be looking forward to?

I guess > > Yeah, I would say it's most?

important to close the tension too.

Who President Trump specifically or, you know, officials from the White House who they are calling to sort of push the ball along here, you know, to go back to South Carolina for a second.

The Senate majority leader there.

Senator Shane Massey.

He's one of these 5 senators that voted against the redistricting measure yesterday.

He's been personally called.

He told reporters he's been personally called by President Trump twice to sort of move the ball along here.

So we're going to continue to see which started even prior to this ruling.

As we're talking about a couple minutes ago, is just a continued sustained pressure from the Trump administration and what's expected to be a pretty difficult midterm year for Republicans in the first place.

You're going to keep seeing White House, you know, trying to push these Republican states along to help cushion the, you know, with the expected to be a pretty difficult year for them.

And, you know, Democrats seem very keen on retaking the house.

They've got the sort of political waives, the political wind behind them.

So this is a, you know, an effort the Republicans can use to sort of help stave off what are expected to be some pretty significant losses for them.

> > A lot to watch for and we should be paying attention in particular to Alex Hernandez reporting national politics reporter at political Alec, terrific job here at 09:00AM doing the hard work for us.

I appreciate you.

Thanks so much for having me.

Was a pleasure.

That's the national picture.

And as we've heard this ruling could reshape how voting maps are redrawn across the country and drawn up.

But what does that actually mean here in Connecticut when we come back, a closer look at how this decision could affect redistricting and voting rights in our state.

Should Connecticut's congressional map change give us a call.

8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

The Supreme Court of the United States recently issued a major ruling that undercuts a key provision of the voting Rights Act.

It's a decision that could reshape how congressional maps are drawn across the country.

So what does that mean for Connecticut and the state's congressional map?

Joining me now the last associate professor of politics and government at the University of Hartford blog.

Great to have you on here and go hoax and go ball also with us, Kyle Evans, an assistant professor of mathematics.

At Assumption University.

Kyle, thank you so much for being here.

Thank you for having me.

So happy to have you on.

Folks.

Make sure you give us a call.

If you'd like to talk about redistricting, what you'd like to see here in Connecticut, if at all or what you're paying attention to nationally as well.

8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 88, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, Let's kick it off with you, blah all.

What are your for the first thoughts on how the SCOTUS decision may impact us here on a state level?

Maybe even a regional level.

You know, fortunately, Connecticut, over the years he's really done a lot to protect elections, to protect voting here in the state.

> > The state passed a voting rights bill.

They have worked over more than a decade to significantly expand, you know, voting rights.

I think the the interesting question, of course, is around what impact this decision may have on how redistricting is done here in the state of Connecticut.

I've always made the case that what Connecticut engage is the protection of incumbent.

So it's the kind of incumbent protection racket that occurs here in the state.

So I'm not sure that this will have a huge impact here in Connecticut is a blue state and you you're not likely to see that change in at least in the short run.

You said every state protections.

Are you saying that they codify the Voting Rights Act here in Connecticut, right?

Yes, So there was actually a state level Voting Rights Act that was passed here in the state that was pushed that like in anticipation of something like this.

And I think in many ways it was a respond to this sort of thing.

Probably a trilogy of cases that have come out of the U.S.

Supreme Court.

Certainly the Shelby County case that also dealt with the Voting Rights Act of and also this current case dealt with the vote and these are different sections of the act.

The Shelby County case, of course, dealt with this question of preclearance and the sort of rules around when states could change their voting laws.

And so for a lot of advocates and local elected officials and citizens in Connecticut was really important for the state of Connecticut to really take a stand in terms of its embrace and support of voting rights and trying to make the franchise accessible to as many Connecticut residents as possible.

You talked about Shelby County.

I spoke with.

> > Alec Hernandez there, as you heard we we've talked about South Carolina and Jim Cliburn.

> > Serving 17 terms and now to see potentially being targeted.

Memphis.

When we talk about Shelby County, I think about Doctor Martin Luther King and where he was killed.

And so this is a a big place in terms of our American history.

And you also have Alabama potentially being divvied up here.

So the symbolism that takes place here, what he what are you thinking about when you hear about these places?

You know what I think about the Voting Rights Act along with the Civil Rights Act during that period, we can probably throw in heart seller as well as the.

> > You know, Housing Act that occurred in 1968.

These this was a moment of real transformation of American society.

I would make the case that, you know, to claim that America was truly a democracy before the passage of the Voting Rights Act is just simply not wrong when so many people were being disenfranchise legally in this country.

And the Voting Rights Act should not be looked at is solely as a tool for expanding voting rights for black people.

It made America democracy and protected the right to vote for all Americans.

And so I think we need to view it.

You know, in that sense and I think what we're looking at now is an effort to really erase that presence of black lawmakers.

You know, in Congress out of the south that has many parallels to what we saw during the period of reconstruct reconstruction.

And so I think we are in a very bad moment in our nation's history.

I think in many ways this election is not just the referendum.

The midterms would not just be a referendum on the president.

But I think in many ways it's a white America will white said the news really go along with something that is so blatantly racially motivated as what Republican lawmakers are doing in redrawn these districts and essentially do moving and trying to disenfranchise black voters, which I think harms the nation as a whole.

Powerful words from belong.

Appreciate your perspective.

There.

I'm gonna bring Kyle Evans into the conversation.

Let us talk about Connecticut now.

> > Can you walk us through redistricting and how it actually works here in the state?

We talked about the census.

I would imagine that has some part of it in normal times.

Absolutely.

So it all starts with the census.

Every 10 years and, you know, it's worth reminding people that, you know, even though the congressional districts get the most attention, we are really redrawing 3 different maps.

Every 10 years of the state level.

Right?

So we're talking about the congressional maps which we know in Connecticut.

We have 5 congressional districts, but we're also talking about our state government, right?

So we're talking about our state Senate, which Connecticut has 36 districts and we're talking about our state House of Representatives, which Connecticut has 151 districts and so we do have a bipartisan committee formed by represented right representatives.

So it starts with what's called the Reapportionment Committee.

And I think it's even worth mentioning, by the way, calling it a reapportionment committee is is even a misnomer.

I mean, reapportionment, is that the national process where, you know, we used a mathematical formula to allocate number congressional seats in each of the states right that's not that's different than redistricting.

Redistricting is the drawing process.

Reapportionment is just certainly as just how many how many seats there are.

But and any case.

So we start to the reapportionment committee, which there were 8 members, 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans and they have a deadline of September 15 through the year after the census to complete, you know, or submit their maps and hopefully get past 2021 2031 you correct 2021 and they would need to this to get past by two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate.

Now in this last year in 2021, this never happened because there was such delays and the Census data due to COVID.

So we never even got to to be able to engage in step one of the process.

Step 2.

The process is we've just moving college a different name and it's called a reapportionment commission.

And that has 9 members it has 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, 2, each from the state House and the state Senate and members collectively select a 9th member.

And at this stage that maps don't need to pass the state House or the state Senate.

They simply just need to be passed by a majority of the 9 people in the commission and this is in 2021.

Late 2021.

They have a November 30 at that time, by the way.

And this is where the state maps did pass in 2021. and, you know, I it's actually worth saying that, you know, even though we have this committee or commission that are that are doing this, you know, they're not the ones physically drawing the maps, right?

We have legislative staffers associated with the party in power, Democratic Party in Connecticut.

Where do actually physically dry?

These maps and you know, in Connecticut, as Bob mentioned, we do have a lot incumbent protections built in in the sort of behind the scenes closed door negotiations.

You know, we're different representatives are trying to determine you know where their lines can be drawn hopefully maybe maximize their chances of being re-elected regardless of party affiliation.

And then the 3rd step of that Like I said, Step 2 is where that the state level maps did pass in 2021, the 3rd step of the process is if the commission is not able to reach a conclusion, the Connecticut Supreme Court can decide to elect a special master and and this is what happened for Connecticut's congressional maps back in 2021.

2022. we had selected Nate Persily who is a professor at Stanford Law School and he also actually be drew them.

Connecticut maps in 2012 in the same process and he also read you a bunch of other recently to New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina.

But he definitely been a person in Connecticut.

The last 2 that was the scuttlebutt there that made people disagree are sort of it had to go to the special master in 21.

Yeah, I think it's just to get its political right, especially on the congressional level.

I think the Republicans are just trying to make 2 of the 5 districts as competitive as possible and particularly district 5. and so, you know, I think the Democrats just kind of played it out in a stalemate sort of the way and that the congressional map that ended up being past was the literal minimal change map where it was moving.

The minimum number of people just to satisfy the population across the 5 districts and not none of the towns that were split change at all.

It was literally just moving people around to satisfy equality.

Milan, Connecticut tends to elect Democrats in Congress.

As we said, this is a blue state.

But to what extent is the map itself player on that?

Well, as cut as you just described, they barely changed the maps, right?

And so.

> > You know, and he can go into much more detail about so to the sort of operation behind the scene in terms the drawn in the district input.

Taking a look at demographic and population movement.

Another sort of things.

But, you know, clearly, you know, incumbents are in office have say in this decision.

You know, they're influencing this process even though they like to keep as quiet as possible.

And they're trying to protect, you know, their districts and as he suggested the in the past, I mean, they were a couple districts that were more mean.

The district in Heinz is then used to be more competitive as we move from 65.

But it also be on the time I lived in Vernon.

I've had Joe Courtney of hit Republicans as well as Democrats who have represented the district in.

It has now shifted now to where Democrats are the ones who are winning on a consistent basis in the state.

But there's no guarantee that that will last forever, obviously, because he's used to be Republican These things do, in fact, change or you could live on my street in Glastonbury > > half of it is represented where Joe.

Courtney in the other half is represented by John Larson given the Supreme Court ruling.

I'm not necessarily asking you to delve into politics, but is there anything that we're seeing based on the Voting Rights Act that districts in Connecticut were drawn up in that fashion that might have to change or might get some kind of challenge in the future based on this ruling.

So so we could talk about this on the congressional level or the state I'm going to say, let's start with the congressional level.

> > That difference really between Connecticut and a lot of the southern states that we're seeing being contested right now is, you know, the majority minority population, are largely voting Democrat and that that is the winning coalition in terms of the Connecticut districts, which is not the case in a lot of the southern states, you know.

And so so like, like Alec had mentioned earlier, we do so often have challenge of untangling this idea of partisan gerrymandering versus racial gerrymandering.

But it's really a non-issue in terms of, you know, having the minority populations being able to elect candidates the best support represent them because they are part of the winning the candidates that are winning the districts in Connecticut and so I don't I'm issue on that on the congressional level.

Yeah, And you know, I think also language really > > for years I've used the matters the majority minority district, but I think what they really are opportunity districts, they are an opportunity for people of color, for example, to elect representatives to descriptive Lee.

They're sort of background shared their experiences you know, the thing about the south is that, you know, and again, I think you're right, disentangle Ing the sort of partisan and the ratio.

So the dimensions of this, this issue, but certainly what we do know is that most whites in the South are voting Republican and to the extent that you see partisan gerrymandering occurring on a massive scale, it is parallel Lee, those sort of ratio Padden s**** of voting and so I think what's astonishing about this case in terms of the outcome of it is being able make the argument as long as you know, overtly describe this in racial terms in the past.

They've been mistakes.

North Carolina was an example where they talked about disenfranchising black and eluding black voters.

Now people are very savvy.

My understanding is in the debate that occurred in Tennessee.

They were like we had no thoughts about race.

We weren't thinking anything about race and what we refer to it.

And so now be smart enough to know that as long as they stay away from certain kind of language they can essentially dilute.

The black vote in those states, divide up the districts and say, look, we're just doing this for partisan reasons.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about at the state level.

Dry state level districts because the way the demographics of the state have sort of changed over the years.

The growth of the Latino population.

Certainly you're likely to see more demands by, for example, that he knows for greater representation because of the growing portion of the population which may collide with some of the incumbent protection work that goes on with the redistricting.

I mean, how does that sort of play out at the state level with some of these districts and how their drone?

Yeah, no, you're right in that the incumbents really drive the process and, you know, all say in terms of the 151 districts in the state house, at least of the time of the senses, I believe we had.

> > In the 30's in terms of how many of those districts where majority minority and I think another 8 to 10 that were right on the border.

You know, 45 to 50% and that is actually pretty reflective of our state population in Connecticut.

I mean, we've got about 3.6 million people and, you of that population or at least of the voting age population about one-third of them are of minority populations.

And so that is actually almost exactly reflected in the breakdown of our of you know, the demographics within the 151 state House districts but that's not necessarily reflected in the people who are representing right?

And yes, certainly the incumbents were driving the process in last time of the 151, not a single district was drawn that paired to incumbents against each other.

Not one right.

And one of my favorite examples, maybe favorite, not the right word here, but one of the best examples I think is in Manchester where in district 12 13, the 2 incumbents literally live a street across from each other.

Right?

And you can guess where the line is drawn right?

of course, Hassan Rock minor Curry.

And I'm trying to think now that Rojas and Curry, no easy East Hartford.

Yeah.

Losing my mind.

Sorry.

That's it's okay.

Yeah.

> > So you know, it's and it keep in mind, you know, in terms of the scale rate, when you take our 3.6 million people in divided by 151, you know, each of these districts is only really 23.

24,000 people, right?

So you have a significant impact that and, you know, regardless of the demographics, right?

So it's going to be interesting to see, you know, will this change?

Is there more pressure?

I mean, we definitely champion our bipartisan approach, but I certainly would would the question, you know, just because it's a bipartisan approach, doesn't necessarily mean it's fair and best for voters in representing them by by protecting incumbents.

You've actually taught a course on redistricting.

So what do you ask students to do in that class?

Yes, so I would last as mentioned, I working Assumption University in Massachusetts now, but prior to working at Assumption, I works right here down the street at Trinity College in Hartford for 5 years.

And yet I created a class that was a math and the district in class where, you know, we talked about some of the math behind this.

You know, Matt certainly has a role in this process, whether it's, you know, trying to quantify the geometry of the shape of the districts or, you know, the partisan advantage of of of districts or certainly just about like this idea of outliers and, you know, we certainly also learn about the politics and the court cases and, you know, things that continue to happen.

But yeah, for a few different years, I taught, of course, that was really just about authentic learning and try to make the math meaningful interdisciplinary.

And so my students wear and actually I taught this course in fall 2021.

When when this process was happening in Connecticut and, you know, if you were to go look at our at Connecticut's at the Web page that's dedicated 4, last redistricting process.

You'll see a lot of the public testimony submissions were for my students because I wanted them to be involved and actively like a part of the process and not just learning about it, but actually participating in the civic process.

And so, yeah, my students learned about, you know, all the different mathematical approach.

As you know, the differing opinions from both sides and, you know, had them construct their own maps using these online tools, right?

To have all the Census data built and different ways to check in and you know, you come up with your own definition of what is fair.

Why should it be this way?

And so really, I think just incredibly rewarding for myself, but especially for the students too, you know, learn this from all the different angles for mathematical lands from a legal lens for a political lens and really try to put all those different ideas together and create their own maps and participate in the process.

Really cool descent into democracy, sort of because in researching.

> > The topic for the show, you could see that testimony on line from it in the redistricting part in 2021.

As I understand it, what are your students said that they used to think that if a district looks weird, it's got to be gerrymandered, right?

And if it doesn't, it's fair.

What did your class reveal about why it's actually more complicated than that or some kind of assumptions that were tested?

Yes, certainly so I think it's it's always fun to kind of just look at the eye test, right?

And people do this all the time.

And, you know, you could post these funny things and look at the shape.

This looks like whatever character image but certainly just because it might fail the eye test, so to speak doesn't mean it's it's unfair or are gerrymandered in some sort of way that there's a lot more the meat that meets the eye.

The reverse is also true, by the way, just because it's a nice looking shape doesn't mean it's it's it's it wasn't a victim of gerrymandering.

Right?

But there's certainly so many more were considerations.

You know, I mean, you could have a nice square looking shape, but maybe there's a mountain range between them.

I mean, we don't have that problem in Connecticut, but, you know, with some of the Western states, you you certainly would have questions of geography that would impact this.

But more importantly where wherever you are, you're going to have questions of communities, right?

And so in redistricting, AJ Minter, we talk a lot about the idea of communities of interest.

you know, one of those examples certainly is is racial and ethnic minority groups.

But it doesn't have to be right.

You know, I think one of the examples I think of in Connecticut you know, the marine industry and maybe somewhere down in new London in Groton and there could be about a very valid reason for those people to be districted together because they want to representative that.

That's that best serves their needs.

and so, you know, maybe it would create semi funny looking shape, but it could be done for for for a legitimate reasons.

Great conversation.

And thus far talking about national politics.

> > And what's happened with Supreme Court ruling.

And now we've been able to give you in a sense of what's happening in Connecticut in terms of redistricting here in our history and how it's done.

We'd like you to participate in the conversation.

Give us a call.

8, 8, 8, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, after the break.

We dig deeper into how the redistricting frenzy rippling across the nation could impact midterm elections ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

A recent Supreme Court ruling under cutting a key part of the Voting Rights Act could have major implications for how political maps are drawn across the country.

Now attention is turning to states, including Connecticut.

Still with us is bloss the coup.

The associate professor of politics and government at the University of Hartford and Kyle Evans, assistant professor of mathematics.

At Assumption University.

And before we dive in a lot for our listeners next week will be talking with the states.

New child advocate Christine Kristina about some of the legislation that passed in 2026.

To protect children.

Make sure you stay tuned in to that.

Now it's side back into redistricting.

If you want to give us a call, 8, 8, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, be quick.

If you're going to cause because we're almost done.

We only got about 6 or 7 minutes left.

So we've been talking