All language subtitles for Slay.the.Dragon.2019.1080p.WEB.h264-OPUS

This is the one
great voice we have

in a democracy,
the voice of our vote.

I don't want everybody to vote.

Elections are not won
by a majority of people,

they never have been,
and they are not now.

This idea that
government is beholden

to the people is still
the most unique idea

in all the long history of man.

Make sure that we
get people in office

who are going to be responsive
to the needs of the individuals

that they represent.

They are changing the rules.

That's not right,
that's not fair,

and that is not just.

The National Guard
has been called in

to aid in the water
crisis in Flint, Michigan,

a city with a water supply
contaminated with lead.

Thousands of residents exposed

to toxic levels of rust,

iron, and lead want to
know who is to blame.

Volunteers from across
the state and country

have trucked in
water on U‐Haul trucks

because of the city's
contaminated drinking water.

The entire population,

roughly 100,000 was
potentially exposed to lead.

The Flint water
crisis really starts

with the 2010 elections.

In those elections,
Republicans gained

total control of the
state government

in Michigan.

One of the things that
they did was they passed

what they called an
emergency manager law.

This law allowed
the state government

to effectively override
local government

and install their own executive

to do practically
whatever they wanted

in terms of public policy.

Governor Snyder signed a new law

giving financial
managers broader powers

to fix the finances

of communities
and school districts.

Seven emergency
financial managers

are in place including
in cities like Detroit,

Flint, and Pontiac.

These emergency
managers were described

as virtual dictators
over their communities.

They could impose spending cuts,

they could re‐bargain contracts.

They took control
to keep control.

If that meant taking
democracy away,

they decided that that would
be the route they would take.

We have to send the message

that we will not tolerate
emergency dictators in the land.

There was widespread
grassroots opposition

because it was so extreme.

We fought it, we
fought it in protest,

we fought it using our bodies.

Shame, shame, shame, shame.

We fought it at the ballot box.

In November 2012, by a
pretty significant margin,

voters rejected this extreme,
emergency manager law.

We were excited
because grassroots won,

everyday people won, and said,

"We don't want
emergency management."

And then in the midnight
hour, in a lame duck session,

the legislature
found this loophole,

changed some words,

changed some commas,
and created a new law,

and then after they changed it,

made sure that it could
never be repealed again.

One of the first things
that Republicans did

when they took
over the legislature

was they drew these
aggressive legislative districts

that locked in
Republican majorities.

The legislature never
would have passed

the Emergency Manager Act
in Michigan if it had not been

for gerrymandering.

The people did not want
this, they went to the ballot box

and they made that
clear in a referendum.

But the legislature knew

they were no longer
accountable to the people.

They knew that
these district lines

completely insulated them.

Three, two, one.

Yeah!

Here's to Flint!

‐ Here's to Flint! ‐ Here, here!

My office started
getting phone calls.

"This water is horrible, it
comes out of the tap brown."

I'll never forget, one lady
came up to me in a meeting

and said, "Reverend, my
dog won't drink this water."

This crisis began over
a year ago, silently,

when the city switched
from a Detroit water system,

to the Flint River.

The Flint River has
a high salt content,

so it corroded the pipes
that it flowed through,

and lead from those pipes
leached into the system.

It happened because
elected officials

had the ability to do
whatever they wanted to do.

"If I don't ever have to
worry about being unelected,

I don't care about your water.

Why? Because I don't have
to be accountable to you."

Faith in government began
to wane, faith in democracy,

faith in the whole
process began to wane.

I think Flint woke people up.

Just sitting and watching,
like, these politicians

just so blatantly disregard
the will of the people.

You have these officials
who feel untouchable,

who feel like they
can't get unelected

because they've designed

and rigged a system
to make it that way.

I just reached a point where
it was like, why aren't we‐‐

how can we do something
about this, like, how?

I wanted to have some
way to come together

and start fixing this.

And stop accepting
that things are corrupt.

In this age of the internet,
you're so connected to, like,

these great examples of people
who start off on something,

and it does work sometimes.

And so I think I
thought, you know,

I'm going to throw
it out into the world.

From the moment I posted
it, I saw so many people

who were just upset with
the current way politics

had been happening.

I saw that there was
a pent‐up energy.

I was like, "I'm not alone."

So I just thought
I would, yeah, try.

Where you draw the lines

makes all the difference.

A mapmaker knows
as they draw a line

how it's going to influence
an election precisely.

The reason that you gerrymander

is to make it harder

for your opponents'
vote to count.

And there are a few
different ways you do that.

You can pack your opponent,

so you can put your
opponent's supporters

into as few
districts as possible,

so they'll win some
seats, but you'll win

all the other seats.

Then there is also
cracking, that's the other way

gerrymandering works,

where you spread
your opponents out.

So, fine, you'll give your
opponents 20 percent

of the vote in a
bunch of districts,

but they're never going
to win those districts.

The effects of
packing and cracking

are to create
seats that are safe.

The winner is pre‐decided,

just by the way that
the districts are drawn.

It really represents
legislators picking voters,

rather than voters
picking legislators,

and I think most people
find that offensive.

The system is no longer working,

the political system
no longer works

for the average person,

and in Michigan, it no
longer works for Michiganders.

So for today, we're going
to do a campaign highlight,

kind of give everybody an
update of what's happened

over the last month.

We wanted to do
something about this issue,

but to pretend that we knew
at all what we were doing

would be a complete lie.

I'm John Hanieski,
I'm heading up

the finance committee.

I got pulled out
a few weeks ago,

I know Katie from college,
we sat next to each other

in public policy class.

And then I'm also
the state field director,

so I have that group
also which consists of...

There had been some
news pieces saying

that there was not interest
from our elected officials

in changing this.

The proposal at a
glance is it's going

to be a citizen's commission.

And so it just felt
like an independent

citizen‐driven commission
that would draw the lines

in a fair and transparent
way was the way to go.

You prescribe for fixing
this, this citizens' commission.

Four would be Democrats,
four would be Republicans,

five would be Independents.

Yeah, so right now the
process happens completely

behind closed doors and
is the most partisan thing

that could happen.

You have one party

with lobbyists locking
themselves behind,

you know, that door.

Our process takes all
of that and throws it out

into the open.

Thank you guys so much
for coming out on a Saturday.

Because I don't
do politics for a job,

it's not a huge part of my life.

When we started talking
to other groups, you know,

they were like well, nobody
in your group has, you know,

directly ran a
ballot initiative, so...

I mean are you going out

and talking to
groups, trying to get

some big organizations
who might have some

financial resources behind them?

We're looking
to coalition build.

It... Redistricting is
an issue that affects

so many different things.

So who do you have on board?

No organizations formally yet,

but we're working with plenty.

You're trying to
coalition build,

who is in your coalition?

I think they didn't
know what to do with us.

So this is part of the 14th
Congressional District,

so why was it created this way?

But we started doing
these town halls.

Farmington has

a good number of
Republicans in it,

so you pull Pontiac out

and you put it in
the next district over

because there it
contributes to majorities

for the other side.

And we saw, you know, a
renewed sense of urgency

from the people of Michigan.

We started from a Facebook
post in social media,

and quickly turned into a
thousand different strangers

from across the state
that have come together

to go through the
process, learning as we go.

Seeing that all those
in favor of the motion

‐ signify by saying aye. ‐ Aye.

All those opposed?
The motion carries.

Yes, we have something
very important for you to do.

I'm going to cry.

I am shaking, thank you.

Our whole campaign
has been about the people,

about representing accurately
the voices of the people

and making sure that what
we actually want as change,

doesn't get manipulated
from anybody,

and I feel so confident
that we have done that

and will continue to do that.

So thanks and let's
go gather petitions.

Yeah!

Thanks, Joe.

Gerrymandering takes its name

from a man named Elbridge Gerry,

the Governor of
Massachusetts in 1812

who agrees to maps
that draw up wild districts.

A political cartoonist
takes one look at this

and thinks it looks
like a salamander,

so it becomes known

as gerrymandering.

Quick sidenote, you
are not wrong to notice

that the "gerry" in gerrymander

refers to a guy whose name
was actually pronounced Gary

because literally everything

about gerrymandering
is stupid and wrong.

All the way through
the mid to latter part

of the 20th Century,

gerrymandering,
though it was pervasive...

State legislatures all over
America are at it again.

It was never used to consolidate

and make permanent

the power of any
one political party.

Gerrymandering continues to be

an effective weapon to
maintain the status quo.

It was often about
incumbent protection

and both sides would do it.

Democrats did a terrific
job of gerrymandering

California in the 1980s.

There was a congressman named
Phillip Burton who used to say

that the district lines
that he drew there

were his contribution
to modern art.

The fact is gerrymandering

has become a national scandal.

The Democratic
controlled state legislatures

have so rigged the
electoral process

that the will of the
people cannot be heard.

Ladies and gentlemen,

the next first family of the
United States of America.

November 2008, we
have the historic election

of our first African
American president.

You see a Democratic
super majority

in the U. S. Senate,

and it returns a
Democratic majority

to the U. S. House.

The defeat is total,
Republican leaders

just can't spin it any longer.

Barack Obama promised to change

the red states blue and he did.

It is remarkable.

If you watch the news
coverage of that night,

folks were talking as if the
Republican party was dead

for a generation, not simply
because of this election,

but because of the way
American demographics

are changing.

I think Republicans saw the
writing on the wall which is

there are fewer and fewer
Republicans born every day,

and more and more
Democrats every day.

They're running out of room.

There's no question
now Republicans have got

a lot of work to do.

Something is wrong
with the Republican party.

The damage is very severe.

Our party is eroding by the day.

There is always
that moment, right?

Whenever there is
a big loss for a party,

there's this moment of panic.

I think those of us who
have been around a little bit

kind of can see past the panic,
but still have the fundamental

What are we going to do?

How do we get back?

And I think that,
you know, part of that

turned out to be our
REDMAP project.

Chris Jankowski is one
of the smartest minds

in the Republican party.

He understands that as
important as 2008 was,

2010 had the opportunity
to be a much more

important election.

2010 is a zero year,
elections ending in zero

are more consequential

because it's a census
year and we redistrict

every state legislative
seat and congressional seat

following the census.

The census provides an
estimate of how many people

are in every state,
and every county,

and every block.

As per the constitution,
in order to keep up

with population shifts,
they build new state

and congressional districts.

In 80 percent of all states,

it's the state legislatures
that play the key role

in redistricting.

If you win state
legislatures in 2010,

you get to draw the new maps
that control all the elections

over the next decade,
and they knew that.

Jankowski goes to
Republican donors

and says I can deliver
two things for you.

I can deliver conservative
control of congress,

perhaps for a decade,

but I can also promise
Republican control

the state legislatures

and we can move a
conservative agenda

through the states as well.

It was a very easy sell to those

who were involved
in state elections.

What we did was we took the cost

of swing congressional seats
over 10 years, five elections,

and we pegged that at
over 100 million per election.

We said okay for this
price we can get control

of those state legislatures
and re‐draw the maps.

We projected it would be
quite a cost‐efficient endeavor.

25, 30 million
dollars rather than

almost half a billion.

If you look at the donors
to this project you see

the big money interests that
help fund the Republican party

and conservative
politics in the country.

Walmart.

Altria which is big tobacco.

The Chamber of Commerce.

Establishment
corporate interests,

like the Koch brothers.

2010 already was
setting up to be a big year

for the Republicans, but
what they wanted to do

was win the right seats.

The key seats that would
allow them to have an influence

on the redistricting process.

It was Wisconsin,
Ohio, Pennsylvania,

North Carolina, Colorado.

You know Michigan, I
had looked at their map,

looked at their
research, and their plan,

and I said, "Okay,
we're in for a million,"

and they said, "Really?"

And I said, "Yep, so I
want you to spread this map.

Act like you've got
another million."

They spent tons and
tons of money in races

where people had never
even seen TV ads before.

Senator Reynolds supports

Obama's health care takeover.

A billion‐dollar tax
increase to fund

more government spending.

Unemployment has almost doubled.

We looked and said okay,

looks like crime
is an issue here.

This incumbent
has bad crime votes,

so we're going to
educate them on that.

You know this is
a bad budget vote,

this is a bad school vote.

We went wherever the
data suggested we should go.

We had no idea what
was about to hit us.

Nobody had ever
seen anything like it.

In the last weeks
of that campaign,

mailers from my opponent
were arriving every day.

Incumbent senator
Margaret Dickson,

who does she really care about?

Right at the end there
was a campaign ad

against me that portrayed
me apparently as a prostitute.

What does Margaret Dickson

really care about?

I didn't really sense
it in North Carolina

until the very end,
and I saw it in my race,

and I saw it when I
talked to colleagues,

they were having
the same experience.

We all had kind of
this "ah‐ha" moment.

And it was true, it
wasn't just North Carolina,

it was true across the country.

It's shaping up as a
big Republican night.

It is being called a GOP sweep

and a Tea Party tidal wave.

We knew it was going
to be a good night.

The Friday before that, I went
out on a limb and predicted

we would pick up at least
10 legislative chambers

and possibly higher.

And right after I got off
the phone with that reporter

I thought, "Ooph, that
seems, yeah, I believe it,

I see it in the data, but it
just seems really amazing."

But then as the night
unfolded we took everything

we intended to take.

North Carolina
House and Senate flip

to the Republicans for
the first time since 1870.

The Indiana House has flipped,

the Pennsylvania
House has flipped,

Michigan House has flipped,

the Ohio House has flipped,
the Iowa House has flipped.

A tsunami just
hit the heartland.

This was actually
something that wasn't covered

a whole lot at the time.

A dozen or so states would
turn into Republican hands

and would now have
control over drawing all

of the district boundaries.

They did this for
30 million dollars.

It's the biggest bargain
and perhaps the biggest heist

in modern American
political history.

For us, it was
mission accomplished.

And then the second part of
the plan was what happened

with redrawing the lines.

We sent out a letter
to all of the new leaders

and said, "If you
need resources,

we would be happy to
provide those for you."

They say, "If you
need mapping help,

if you need legal
help, you let us know,

we've got the money for you.

We have the experts, we
have the money, let us help."

Tom Hofeller is
kind of a superstar

in gerrymandering.

It's my job to advise
Republican stakeholders

in the redistricting question
on how they can maneuver

through these thickets.

He goes around and works

for Republican legislators
in multiple states

and will draw their maps.

There is something almost like

an old country
doctor about Hofeller.

He would pack his old kit
bag, you know, with his laptop,

kiss his wife in Alexandria,
Virginia goodbye,

and pet his dog.

And then set off into a country

that was about to
be redrawn by him.

Redistricting used to
be done by legislators

or their legislative staff,

so it was always
a partisan project,

but at least people
lived in the state,

and they knew the people,
and they knew the politics.

These people out of Washington,

all they know is
where the airport is

when they come down
and deliver the plans.

And they also know how to
use sophisticated software

to maximize political results.

Hofeller has got
a piece of software

and he downloads a bunch
of political data into that

and he spits out the
most partisan map

that he thinks the
courts will allow.

Gerrymandering from
1788 through 2000

is in its minor leagues.

In 2010, gerrymandering
jumps straight

into its steroids era.

Big data and big technology
emerge in such a way

that you can carve

more precise
gerrymanders than ever.

They used census
data, educational levels,

income levels.

Voters' partisan history,

their race and their
gender, and their age,

those factors tell you
so much about a voter

that you can predict
how they're going to vote

in a few years with a
strong degree of confidence.

They could go down the
street and, "These people

are Republicans, we're
going to put them in this district,

these people are Democrats,

we're going to put
them over here."

There was no transparency at all

because they were
using private computers,

they were being drawn off site

by hired Republican consultants.

Picture a black box.

Whatever happens inside
that black box, you can't see.

They just come out and
they say here is the map.

It was a flawlessly
functioning map.

Every single district
hit what you might call

the sweet spot, safe
enough for Republicans

to consistently win it,

but it didn't waste
excess votes,

they could have spread
around to other districts.

On the other hand,

the few Democratic
districts they drew

were designed to quarantine
as many Democratic voters

as possible.

So, here is what they do.

They get data on where
all the African Americans live

and then they just
draw lines around it

so the really crazy
looking maps,

the really squiggly
looking ones,

the reason they're squiggly
is because they're picking up

all the African
American communities

all throughout the state.

Take a look at North
Carolina's congressional map.

Look at District 12,
it's so weirdly shaped

they can't even
fit the 12 in it.

Looks like a Rorschach test,
what do you see in this shape?

I don't know, it's either
a dragon or 300 years

of institutional racism.

Republicans have cynically

put more and more
minorities into what's called

the majority minority district.

So the district goes
50 percent minority,

to 60 percent minority,
to 70 percent minority,

and the reason they're
doing this is so that minorities

will have less impact in
all of the other districts.

And that was exactly the
strategy that Tom Hofeller

used in North Carolina.

Funneling as many
black voters as possible

into the 1st and 12th
Congressional Districts,

while bleaching the
surrounding areas.

The truth is

the Republicans targeted
African Americans,

but the motivation wasn't,

"We want to hurt
African‐Americans,"

it was "We want
to hurt Democrats."

One of Hofeller's
crowning achievements

is what he did in
the western part

of North Carolina,

in particular, the district
that was occupied at the time

by a moderate
Democrat, Heath Shuler.

Heath Shuler was a former

University of
Tennessee quarterback.

He was kind of a moderate
to conservative Democrat.

You didn't send me up there

to blindly follow any one party,

you sent me up
there to do what's right

for our mountain families.

Loved guns, is anti‐abortion,

he was the very picture
of a good old boy.

And so you can't really
run against this guy

like he's a San
Francisco Democrat.

So they had to change
the guy's district.

The most Democratic area
of his district was Asheville,

which is this little
Haight‐Ashbury

in the middle of the mountains.

Hofeller just essentially
carved Asheville

out of that map and
moved it to another area,

an area that was so Republican
that it could absorb Asheville.

Suddenly that part
of Buncombe County

where Asheville was a part

was suddenly quite
a conservative district.

Heath Shuler, recognizing
the writing on the wall,

retires from
politics altogether.

Suddenly now it's there
for the taking by Republicans

and the guy who wins it is a
guy named Mark Meadows.

2012 is the time

that we're going to
send Mr. Obama home

to Kenya or wherever
it is, we're going to do it.

Meadows is now

the chairman of
the Freedom Caucus

which is the hardline group in
the House of Representatives

that opposes anything
that is not orthodox,

you know, conservatism.

Replacement of
people like Shuler

with people like Meadows

is actually one of
the reasons why

the country, as a whole, has
become so hyper‐partisan.

Candidates in the middle,
both moderate Republicans

and conservative Democrats,
they've been the key targets.

It moves our political
system towards polarization.

When a member of
congress need only fear

a primary challenge,

when they are so
safe in their seat

that they cannot
actually lose an election,

all they care about
is guarding their base.

So working across
the aisle, compromise,

trying to find common
ground, all of the things

we used to think
of as being central

to the art of politics

actually become the only things
that can cost them their seat.

These are all shrink‐wrapped
in packages of a hundred

and so are the petitions,

so I'm just going to make
sure that you have 19.

‐ These look great.
‐ Yeah, they do.

Then it's only for
people who signed,

people who don't
sign don't get anything.

Yeah, they don't.

So, that's where we're headed.

Are you guys registered
to vote in Michigan?

Excuse me, ma'am,
are you a registered voter

here in Michigan?

Have you had a chance
to sign the petition

to end gerrymandering
in Michigan?

To end what?

Would you be
interested in signing

a petition against
gerrymandering?

Against what's that?

Gerrymandering.

In Michigan it is
almost impossible

for a petition drive to
gather enough signatures

without using paid
professional petition circulators.

You're not paying for names.

‐ Correct. ‐ And
you don't intend to?

Correct, yeah.

Right now, we're at two
weeks in officially today,

we have 50,000 signatures

that have been gathered
a hundred percent

by volunteers from
across the state.

We're working with
Voters Not Politicians

for the
anti‐gerrymandering drive.

Because right now
politicians are manipulating

the system, so then
they don't listen to voters.

Hi, this is Katie,
I'm doing a super,

super late weekly update.

I just wanted to say thank
you to every single person

who decided to start
gathering signatures.

So I would start
with today's date.

The anti‐fracking
movement had a lot of energy

and they failed to get
the signatures needed

to get on the ballot.

‐ Do you know about
the topic? ‐ Oh, yeah.

You're all set, okay, wonderful.

I mean, the only group ever

to manage getting a
petition on the ballot

using only volunteers
was Right to Life.

If anyone else is
interested in signing.

I'm not sure if anyone
has been paying attention

at all to our ticker,

but we are at
196,000 signatures,

which is absolutely amazing.

They're not only on
pace to get the 400,000

that they want, but they,
it looks like they're going

to do it before their deadline
which is really amazing.

I tell you these
folks are everywhere.

I mean I can't go
to a public event

without seeing them.

Oh my gosh, remember
right after we got approval

where they called all
our people old ladies

who aren't going to
get anything done?

They're like, their minds
are blown, it's awesome.

Aww, goodbye, hair.

Ah, I wish I was better at this.

It's pretty bad.

Not as much as I do.

Today we turn in our signatures

to the Secretary of State.

Who would have known
that a little over a year ago

we would be here today
turning them in two months early

with all volunteers?

In under 40 days

we got all 83
counties represented

and that is only possible

because all of you
guys decided to say,

"Heck yeah I'm going
to join onto this thing."

Here is where we're
loading up the petitions.

I'm not sure if
everybody can see this,

but there are literally
rows and rows of boxes.

I remember the first time I
saw this group get together

and talk about it and, you know,

I'm a veteran
political reporter,

I'll have you know.

And I looked at these people
and I was like, "No way."

No way.

I know what a winning
operation looks like

and this isn't it.

They have turned
every political operative's

predictions on their head.

They have really
blown the box up

and there is no more box,
they have reinvented everything.

Our proposal will take
redistricting out of the hands

of politicians and lobbyists

who do their work
behind closed doors

and give it to citizens
who will do it in the public.

What we've seen in other
states who have done

redistricting efforts
similar to ours

is you see higher voter turnout.

There's about
13 different states

that have independent
commissions.

Our U‐Haul.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. There
it is, a really full truck.

Thousands of people
worked on this campaign.

If we can get this
passed in 2018,

there will be thousands
of people who affected law

that will affect every
election in Michigan.

It was for and by the
people and I know that's like

kind of hokey, and
kind of like, you know,

really Founding
Fathers‐y, but like the fact

that we would actually
be able to do that

and prove that
democracy is still out there,

that's amazing.

No matter what you
do for this campaign,

entering the check numbers,
like it all is only possible

because of each of you.

And I know at least on
my end, that's the best part

about this campaign is seeing
that really the political power

is inherent in the
people, so yeah!

The one thing
that we are sure of

is that legislators
will fight like crazy

to retain this power they have.

I think there will be a
vicious fight by the people

who are in power to
preserve that power.

They're going to want
to try to find some way

to litigate us, to keep
us off from the ballot.

We are not going to
outspend our opposition.

We might get lucky and
get outspent four to one.

We're probably going to
get outspent 10 to 20 to one.

The opposition is going to
try to bleed us dry financially.

And then they're
going to go for the PR.

They're going to be
saying that we are complex,

that we are complicated,
and that we're confusing.

We cannot make our
policy sound even a little bit...

complex, confusing at all.

Like, we have to make sure

it's a very simple
and direct approach,

and that the
language that we use

to describe the
policy reflects that.

They're absolutely
worried about us.

They know and we know

that once this
gets on the ballot,

it almost always passes.

The election of 2010 had
been the Tea Party wave

and the redistricting
that followed

the election of 2010

would keep those
legislators in their seats.

In a normal political cycle,
we would expect a wave

to come in and a wave to recede,

and a wave to come in
and a wave to recede.

We see this over and over again.

The election of 2010
was a giant wave

and the Republican Party

put up an enormous
sea wall in order to stop

that wave from receding.

And when that happened,
we have seen extreme policy

as a result.

Wisconsin is basically
an evenly divided state.

Half of the state is Republican

and half the state
is Democratic.

In 2010, Project REDMAP
and the Republicans

invested a large amount

of very strategically
targeted money.

They took the State
Assembly and the State Senate

and they won the governorship.

No matter where you live,

no matter what your background,

no matter who you voted for,

we all live in
Wisconsin together,

and we're going to move
this state forward together.

Scott Walker just swept in

with the rest of
the Republicans.

I mean the slate went
from everything Democratic,

to everything
Republican, everything.

REDMAP, for us,
was only the beginning.

State governments,
like Wisconsin,

were little laboratories
of democracy.

Now that we got control of them,

we wanted to do
something with it.

‐ Good morning. ‐ Good morning.

I see everyone's here
to see my prediction for

the Ohio State/Wisconsin
game on Saturday.

In this bill will be a change
in terms of state employees

not being required to
be a part of their union.

Act 10 would essentially do away

with collective bargaining
for public sector employees.

That was something that
had been a long tradition

in Wisconsin, had been a
cherished part of the state.

That was a total surprise.

This is a significant change,

this is obviously a very
bold and aggressive change.

The Republicans,
they understood,

Scott Walker understood
that public sector unions,

the teachers, the
municipal workers,

the folks that pick
up your garbage,

they tend to vote Democratic
and they use their unions

as a means of promoting
their political views.

Thanks very much for your time.

So he wanted to destroy that.

I knew what this would mean.

It came up in caucus and I
think my exact words were,

"Are you crazy?"

People kill each other's
dogs over this kind of stuff.

When Act 10 was
introduced, the entire state

just rose up in anger.

We are proud to stand with you,

Wisconsin backers.

First there was 10,000,
then there was 20,000,

then there were 30,000,
and this thing just sparked.

Hey, hey, ho, ho, Scott
Walker has got to go.

Tens of thousands of
people in the capitol.

Solidarity forever.

As many as 100,00 on the
capitol ground some days

and this thing is sustained
for days, and days,

and weeks, and weeks.

It's just hard to express
how angry people were.

You know this is a
place like Minnesota,

people are basically
nice, and suddenly we had

this incredible,
polarized atmosphere.

‐ We are the union!
‐ We are the union!

The mighty, mighty union.

We were a state that
had a strong tradition

of trade unions.

People thought, "What in
the world is he trying to do?"

Hi, this is Scott Walker.

Scott, David Koch, how are you?

Hey, David, I'm
good, and yourself?

I'm very well.

Little disheartened
by the situation there,

but what's the latest?

We're actually
hanging pretty tough.

You know amazingly there
is a much smaller group

of protesters,
almost all of whom

are in from other states today.

5,000 to 6,000 state workers

will get at‐risk
notices for layoffs.

We might ratchet that
up a little bit, you know.

Beautiful, beautiful,

got to crush that union.

Just as there were all
these protesters begging

this governor to listen to them,

the person who he
was willing to listen to

and so eager to please

was an out‐of‐state billionaire.

He talked about coordinating
with other governors,

which made it very clear
that this is a national plan.

I talk to Kasich every day,

you know, John has
got to stand firm in Ohio.

I think we can do the same
thing with Rick Scott in Florida.

I think Snyder if he
got a little more support,

probably could
do that in Michigan.

This was a test run
to see if they could

run over public employee
unions nationwide.

There's a lot of us new
governors who got elected

to do something big.

You're the first domino.

Yep, this is our moment.

Republicans had no
fear of losing power

because they
could draw districts

to insulate themselves
from public opinion.

The leadership of
the Republican Party

in both the House and
the Senate in Wisconsin

are able to tell their members,
"It's okay to vote for this.

It might not be
popular, stay strong,

we are drawing you a
seat you cannot lose."

While the streets were
full of people demonstrating,

hundreds of thousands of people,

what we didn't know
was that Scott Walker

and the legislature
took the computers

that they were going
to use to redistrict

out of the capitol building,
and they moved them

across the street to
a Republican law firm

by the name of Michael
Best and Friedrich.

And in the very back of
that law firm they set up

a secret mapping room.

It's an incredibly powerful
and jarring juxtaposition.

You have these two
things playing out,

there's all these
people protesting

the anti‐union legislation.

Right across the street,
key aides to the legislature

are writing, in secret,

the redistricting maps
that will determine

Republicans' power
for the next decade.

Knowing that they
had both houses

of the legislature,

they did everything
they could to hide

their map drawing process
not only from the public,

but even from most Republicans.

Nobody could even
come into the room

unless you signed a
secrecy agreement.

And if you'd signed
that secrecy agreement

and you managed
to get into the room,

which you could only do
if you were a Republican,

you were only allowed
to see your own map.

So you have before
you the various maps

and we have some other
members of the legislation here

and we're open for questions.

When we first see the maps,

it's obvious that there's
some significant bias in them.

Some individual
legislators had been drawn

competing districts

that were going to be much
tougher for them to win in.

There were these
districts that were drawn

to pull Democratic voters
into suburban districts

so there would be fewer
Democratic districts.

And there were clearly
some districts that were going

to be less competitive.

It was very well calculated.

They knew exactly
what they were doing.

We're closing in

on the first results in the
battle for the White House.

When the results were
known on election night

and we had been
killed in the election,

somebody said, "Well,
don't worry, all is not lost,

the Republicans won
60 seats in the Assembly."

I said to myself

and I said audibly to
the people I was with,

"Well, that can't be right,

there's a mistake
here somewhere."

And it was at that
point I began to realize

that things had changed.

You have several states in 2012

where Democratic candidates

actually won more
votes statewide

than Republicans did,
but Republicans would win

lopsided majorities.

You had Pennsylvania where
Democrats won more votes

and Republicans walked away

with a thirteen
to five advantage.

Michigan where
Democrats won more votes

and Republicans had a
nine to five advantage.

North Carolina.

Wisconsin.

All of these states at
either the congressional

or legislative level saw
Democratic candidates

win more votes
statewide but Republicans

win a majority of seats.

Republicans could not be beaten

and they were not beaten.

Even when their side
got many fewer votes.

And what you immediately see

in all of these
gerrymandered states

is the rapid movement of
a very conservative agenda

through state legislatures.

A new bill being
considered in Wisconsin

would allow local
school districts

to make sex education

and teaching
contraception optional.

Republicans here
called a special session

to pass House Bill 2,
more commonly known

as the "Bathroom Bill".

A recent move by the
legislature removes one route

to recourse in wage disputes.

It started the moment
the General Assembly

went into session.

We're on the 10th
order of business,

second reading of
amendments and senate bill.

A legislative
blitzkrieg would be

the way I would describe it.

There was anti‐regulation,

anti‐environment.

The clerk will close the role,

Assembly Amendment 3 is adopted.

Defund public schools.

Destabling and going
after Planned Parenthood.

Concealed carry
was another issue

that they fought
for a long time.

Democratic
governor would veto it,

they were able to
put that through.

Another gun rights bill

is on the table
to protect drivers

who carry their firearms
inside their vehicles

and go to work.

If you wonder,

"Why do we see representatives
that are doing things

that their constituents
don't want?"

"Why are laws being passed
that don't seem to reflect

the wishes of the public?"

Gerrymandering is a big
part of the explanation.

One legislator stood
on the floor and said,

"We are now in power,

and we're going to
exercise that power,

and you all can sit
back and forget about it."

Bring back, bring back,

oh, bring back Wisconsin to me.

People began wondering,

"Where are all of these
laws coming from?"

The fact that Wisconsin,
Michigan, North Carolina,

Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania,
they're all passing

virtually identical
pieces of legislation,

that's not a coincidence,
someone is behind this.

ALEC stands for

the American Legislative
Exchange Council

and the goal of ALEC
is to push out policies

to maximize corporate
profits at the state level.

This has been a goal
of the right for decades.

This is a shadow arm
of the Republican party.

You have corporations
literally writing bills

in conjunction with
state legislators

and then state legislators

introducing those
bills to become law.

How many of our
Christians have what I call

the goo‐goo syndrome?

Good government, they
want everybody to vote.

I don't want everybody to vote.

Elections are not won
by a majority of people,

they never have been

from the beginning
of our country,

and they are not now.

As a matter of fact, our
leverage in the elections

quite candidly goes up

as the voting
populace goes down.

A developing story, a
voter ID bill in Wisconsin

is moving on to
the full assembly.

The measure would
require voters to show

their ID's at the polls.

I first became aware of
ALEC after the 2010 election

when we began to see all
of these new voter ID laws.

And it was clear that
these voter ID laws

had been written by ALEC
after the 2008 election,

because we saw the
model bill, we saw the bill

that had ALEC's name on it.

Republicans say their intent

is to eliminate voter fraud

by requiring a
photo ID from anyone

who votes in Wisconsin.

They have advanced
these model bills

on voter identification

by creating this
lie that somehow

people are impersonating
people at the polls.

Republicans say
this will cut down

on documented
election fraud in the state.

It's only when you
begin to understand

that in fact voter fraud is
an incredibly small problem

in American elections.

Then you begin to realize
that all of these laws

were passed for an
entirely different reason.

It had nothing to
do with voter fraud,

it was all about
trying to prevent

Democratic‐leaning voters

from being able
to cast a ballot.

Instead of trying to reach
out to minority voters,

they said, "No, now that we've
gerrymandered the districts,

we're going to go after

and suppress
those voting rights."

Those bills would
have never been passed

but for the gerrymandering
that took place.

In the '90s, North
Carolina was actually

really progressive when
it came to voting rights.

I'm a North Carolinian
and lots of my family

were the people that
gained the ability to vote.

They liked being able to
register at license offices,

they liked early voting.

They loved what's known
as Souls to the Polls,

which is early voting on Sunday.

I've talked to people
who had that sense of joy,

who've had, for the
first time in their lives,

a sense of belongingness.

The process opened up,
more people were voting,

and percentagewise,

African American
registration levels

became more at
parity with whites.

And we turn to a
strict new voter ID law

in North Carolina,

which is putting a spotlight
on the broader national fight

over when and where
people can cast ballots.

What the new North
Carolina voting law did

was it rolled back
almost every single one

of those new provisions
that had been created

to add more black
people to the electorate.

It didn't just include
strict voter ID,

but it cut early voting,

it eliminated same‐day
voter registration,

it eliminated
out‐of‐precinct voting,

it even eliminated
Citizens Awareness Month

which the state
of North Carolina

ran to encourage
people to register to vote.

It was all about

suppressing African
American vote

in order to give Republicans
an extra one to three percent

which is the margin of victory

in all of our competitive races.

So even though
gerrymandering has reduced

the number of competitive
races to only about 10 percent,

they wanted to
reduce it even more.

Ain't going to let no
extremists turn me around,

turn me around, turn me around.

I've interviewed
people who say now

they have lost their pride,

they've lost that
sense of belonging.

And that's a lot deeper
than just the nuts and bolts

of a partisan advantage.

There was a client
that I represented,

she was born at
home with a midwife,

didn't have a birth
certificate, couldn't get an ID.

She went to vote in person
and she was turned away.

It's humiliating when you
go and say, "I'm a citizen,

I have the right to vote,
I would like to vote,"

and everyone else
around you is voting,

and they turn you away
and say, "No you can't vote."

It is humiliating.

Republicans see
their time running out

when it comes to
the demographics.

They see that the country
is getting less white,

more educated, and
overall just more diverse.

What they have come up with

is a plan to try
and stem that tide.

It starts with gerrymandering,
it starts with drawing lines

that give them the ability
to win all of these districts.

The second part of this process
is voter suppression tactics

designed to make it
harder for Democrats

and minorities to
exercise the right to vote.

It's not a bunch
of disparate parts,

it's not like one voter
suppression law here,

one gerrymandering law
here, this is part of a concerted

this is part of a
concerted national strategy

by the Republican party

that's being undertaken
all across the country

including in so many
important swing states.

We battled to get
voter ID on the ballot

for the November '16 election.

How many of your listeners
really honestly are sure

that President Trump
was going to win Wisconsin

if we didn't have voter ID

to keep Wisconsin's
elections clean and honest?

I absolutely think
you can draw a line

line between he voter
suppression efforts

and the gerrymandering
efforts and election results.

We are seeing efforts

to undermine the
very core values

of American democracy.

Nothing is more
fundamental in America

than having the right to vote,

and having the right
to representation,

and those two core values
have been undermined

by this new assault
on democracy.

‐ Hello. ‐ Hello,
great to see you.

You too, how are you?

It looks good, right?

Hi, Bill.

Good to see you, how are you?

‐ Hello. ‐ Hi!

Congratulations,

I've been watching
your campaign.

‐ Thank you. ‐
That's very exciting.

Hey, Mary Lynne,
good to see you.

I just want to be sure

that everybody gets
to know Don Winter,

who hasn't been to one
of these meetings before.

These are all your
fellow planners, Don.

Emily Bunting, Janet
Mitchell, that's a lawyer.

Well one question I had,
too, about this election,

about the Supreme
Court election‐‐

I've never met an epidemiologist
that didn't get nailed!

Hello.

Hey, how are you?
Good to see you.

That's Ruth, that's
Nick, Annabelle,

you know the names,
I'm sure. Peter Earle.

We did meet through our
involvement in this field.

Our relationship has
sort of fueled the lawsuit,

but then at the same
time, the lawsuit,

it's sort of a mutually
reinforcing circle.

Maybe coming from
abroad, I have less

of a sense of the status quo.

So when I see something,
like the fact that legislators

are allowed to draw
their own district lines,

I'm more easily able
to say, "Well why?"

Like that doesn't
make any sense.

Can we sit out there
so we can look at maps?

I brought all the
maps on the wall.

I thought it might be
useful to hear from all of you

about your districts

to understand what's wrong
with your districts as they are.

So, maybe would all
of you feel comfortable,

we have the map at the moment,
you're welcome to come up

point and tell me what you like,

and what you don't like,
and what you would prefer.

We were taken
out of our district

and attached to a
strongly Republican district.

I really feel that
our vote is a wash.

No matter what I do or
what we do as Democrats,

we can't get a
representative elected.

We're sort of in exile
down in Grant County

and I have these two
secure Republicans

who do not bother with me.

This is the district
now, and you can look,

like it goes up
here a little bit.

You can look at how crazy it
is with all these different lines,

but what's interesting,
you'll notice,

here's the city of Portage,
it goes around the city lines,

the city of Portage.

That's a Democratic‐‐
Excludes it.

It goes right around
the city limits.

Here is the city of Compass,
this is a Democratic city,

it goes right
around the city lines

and keeps it out.

So they took the four
largest municipalities

and went right
around the city lines.

It's a very good example
of gerrymandering.

The Whitford plaintiffs realized

there was no legislative
fix to gerrymandering.

Democrats were never going
to be able to win enough seats

under the gerrymandered
maps to have any sort of impact,

so they had to attack
this in the courts,

and they had to attack
it in an innovative way.

If you are on the
side that you say

gerrymandering
isn't unconstitutional...

But no federal court
had ever outlawed

partisan gerrymandering before.

And to succeed,

the Whitford
plaintiffs had to show

that Republicans
deliberately intended

to deprive Democrats
of representation.

We're trying to figure out,

how are we going to get
a case before the court

that could once and for
all resolve this problem?

And we saw an avenue here.

We immediately
demanded that Republicans

in The Wisconsin
state legislature

give us all of the documents
from the secret mapping room

related to the
redistricting process.

All the emails, all the
iterations of the maps,

and they responded to
us that, "No, you don't get

this information. This
information is privileged."

The court said, "No, you have
to give them these documents.

You're required to
produce this information,

this is not something you
can hide from the public."

We knew that they weren't being

completely forthcoming
in all of the information

they were providing to us.

There were some
spreadsheets that were created

by the mapmakers,

but we noticed that
for some reason,

we didn't have any
spreadsheets in April, or in May,

or I think June, also, of 2011.

And so we hired a
computer forensic expert

to look through the
hard drives to see

if he could come up
with any spreadsheets

from that time frame
where they were missing.

The first thing that struck me

is one of the
external hard drives

had screws on the bottom
that had a number of scratches.

This lead me to believe

that someone had disassembled
this external hard drive.

I also determined that a piece
of commercial wiping software

had been downloaded
and executed.

And in one hard
drive we identified

almost one million
deleted files.

Someone did not want
us to see what had been

on those hard drives.

Mark was able to recover
dozens of spreadsheets.

And these spreadsheets
turned out to be

what we would see as
smoking gun evidence

in the case.

The spreadsheets told a story

about how these
maps were being drawn,

and how these were
different scenarios

that were being played out.

It was as though
they were testing.

You look at each
successive spreadsheet

and you can see the maps
getting more and more biased.

They started at 49
seats at their basic map,

then go up to 52 seats,
and 55 seats, then 57 seats,

and 58 seats, and 59 seats.

What they were doing
was they're reducing

the number of competitive seats.

They got pretty quickly
to 59 seats for themselves.

I think there were
four or five iterations

of the map at 59.

Then they take the 59‐seat
map and they continue

and they continue to tweak it

subjecting it to
this analysis to say,

well what if the
Democrats do really well?

What if our candidates lose
the argument with the voters?

On that final map,

even under the scenario
of the Democrats winning

the vote by the biggest
margin they've ever won

in modern Wisconsin history,

the Republicans would
still get 59 seats minimum

in the state assembly.

That's an astonishing
manipulation of democracy.

I mean think about
it for a second.

I mean, people elect
their representative

and representatives are
accountable to the people

who elect them.

And, um... But if you do this,

if you were able to
gerrymander effectively,

and egregiously, and durably
for an entire 10‐year period,

there's no accountability.

They can do whatever
the hell they want

and that is what they have
been doing in Wisconsin.

Good morning.

I'm Peter Earle and
I'm the lead trial lawyer

in this lawsuit
which we filed today.

When one party gains control

of all the levers of government
and then stacks the deck

in their favor to keep control

regardless of the
will of the people,

the very heart and soul of
our democracy is weakened.

There had never been a
successful opinion of any sort

in this kind of a case.

I'm always a pessimist
when it comes to litigation.

I thought that our
odds of winning a trial

were less than 50 percent.

Federal Court rules today

that Wisconsin
state voting districts

drawn up by Republicans
are unconstitutional.

I remember when it came
out, immediately, I called Nick.

She just yelled out, you
know, "We won, we won."

I was like, "You have
to come right now,

I'm going to buy champagne."

We were absolutely
delighted to actually see

a verdict in your favor,

you know, for the
first time in 30 years.

It was awesome.

This is the single
biggest case for the future

of our democracy
since Citizens United.

This may be the last time
we have an opportunity

to do something about
partisan gerrymandering.

If they lose, it's
no holds barred.

We'd like to thank
you all for joining us

from near and far,
crossing the country,

and crossing partisan
lines to focus on solutions.

We're here at the Unrig
the System Summit

and we are mostly just
building connections.

That guy you were
talking to said he would

introduce us to that funder.

We're all volunteers

and we've never
done this before,

so we have a lot to
learn from people.

‐ Hey, Anna. ‐ Nice to meet you.

What organization are you with?

What's been really fun about it

is that everybody
knows about us already.

We're kind of famous.

I'm trying to be
modest about that.

‐ Congratulations. ‐ Thank you.

Thank you.

‐ On the app or... ‐ I'm a fan.

Oh, great.

I'm the director in Wisconsin.

Oh, awesome. Can we connect?

Can we first take a selfie?

Yes, please, please,
that would be great.

Such amazing stuff
just in being all volunteer,

and engaging people,
it's really been amazing.

He is my lawyer.

I wish.

So, you got my text?

What was your text?

It's before you speak,
Heather and I want to talk

to you about how to find a
way to get a money pitch in.

If you talk about
where we're at.

‐ Just, I mean... ‐ Mm‐hmm.

That's how we're starting
is "Where are you at?"

Where we're at, quite
honestly where we're at

is we're waiting for the
Board of Canvassers,

but frankly we're raising money.

I'm Katie Fahey,

I'm with an organization
called Voters Not Politicians.

One of the things that
they're now having to figure out

is how do we go from being

a citizen signature
gathering effort

to a campaign?

And how do we start to talk to

a much broader
universe of people,

some of whom will be
told by the opposition

that this is a power grab

and you should
never vote for it.

Yeah.

Fight, oh my god, we know.

What about

the Voters Not
Politicians ballot proposal?

If that gets on the ballot, do
you think it's going to pass,

and does that cause a
big problem for Republicans

going forward?

I don't think it will pass,

but also when you
talked in your intro

about, this is some 27‐year‐old
miraculously came up

and organization came
together, I don't believe it.

I believe when
you peel behind it,

you are going to see
that this has all been

constructed by Democrats.

‐ But you think
it will fail? ‐ I do.

The opposition is being
led by Robert LaBrant.

LaBrant gets his
start in politics working

for the Chamber of Commerce

and he is the maestro of
redistricting in Michigan.

As far as ballot
questions are concerned,

I've spent most of my
summer trying to work out

a legal strategy to get one of
the ballot question proposals

off the ballot.

LaBrant understood
before anybody else

just how crucial these
redistricting fights could be.

Every 10 years we do
redistricting in Michigan

and I've kind of made
that a kind of specialization.

Democrats tend to
cluster in urban cities

and Republicans are kind
of more evenly spread out.

In drawing district
lines based upon

traditional
redistricting criteria,

Democrats have a
lot of wasted votes.

I don't think that's
a direct result

of Republican gerrymandering,
it's just a fact of life.

The real intent of LaBrant

and the other
Republicans in Michigan

was revealed in
a series of emails

exchanged between them
during the redistricting process

in 2011.

The emails show that
they gerrymandered

the state intentionally.

So, for everyone
who doesn't know,

we've gotten sued officially.

Um, they have filed a suit
with the court of appeals

saying that our petition
touches too many parts

of the constitution,

and so it's a wholesale
revision and not something

that's appropriate
for a ballot initiative.

Any time you want to
change something in Michigan,

any time you want to
have a citizen‐led effort

to take back control
over what's happening

in state government,

you better come
with a lot of money

because there's going to be a
lot of money on the opposition

funding their lawyers
to challenge everything.

This move is another one
of those fundamental things

that's wrong with our democracy.

It's one of those things
where, like, it's not really right.

Like, we have the right
to petition our government,

and gather signatures,
and get it on the ballot,

and then they're trying to
do, like say that we can't.

Although we knew we
were going to get sued,

it's not right that we are.

Hey, everybody, I
wanted to do an update.

Normally I do this either
on a Facebook Live,

or with an interview group,
or a number of things.

You know, like an hour
ago I was feeling so good.

Point of pride that
I've always had

is that we've done
things the way that, like,

you hope that
they're done. Um...

I think that with
this court case

it's made it feel
really real that...

there's a lot of power
out there that controls a lot

of things that you don't
get to be in control over,

that you can try and
work as hard as you can,

but, you know,

a misplaced comma or a
word can throw things out.

And it feels really
real right now,

the pressure feels
on, um, because...

what if something does happen?

What if it's not possible
for a group of people

to band together and...

try as hard as they can and...

what if it still doesn't matter?

I don't want to
disappoint anybody.

The U. S. Supreme
Court will now decide

whether the maps that
determine who you vote for

are constitutional.

The case on partisan
gerrymandering

has the potential to
reshape American politics

as we know it.

Hey, Peter.

Hello.

‐ Welcome. ‐ Good
to see you guys.

Hey, welcome.

Okay, we'll get
the lawyers in now.

All right, lawyers.

With you, with you.

Stay, stay, stay.

One more, look serious,

like you're trying
to save democracy.

This is what
democracy looks like.

It's a little weird
to have so much

of the world focusing on this.

I got woken up at 6:30
with my dad calling me

saying that he saw Nick,
my co‐counsel and husband,

on Australian TV
talking about the case.

We've had a countdown on
our whiteboard in Chicago.

Somebody rang me and
was like, "Oh, don't you have

a case in the next,
you know, few months?"

I was like, "It's in five
days, now it's four days."

Yeah, we're nearly there.

Um, so how about this?

As this case illustrated,

it's now possible to
draw a district map

that is so extremely
and durably biased

that democracy itself is
gravely compromised?

Paul is the best possible person

in America to do this.

He is one of the country's

best respected
Supreme Court specialists

who also has a
particular expertise

in election law
and redistricting.

You look at the first election,

you do sensitivity testing,

what does the
sensitivity testing

have to show?

For the Plaintiff to win?

‐ Yes. ‐ Uh...

That over a plausible
range of outcomes...

I think everybody gets
nervous before they argue

in the Supreme Court.

The most important thing is
to be extremely well prepared

and know what you're
going to say first.

Because once you start
talking, it's usually okay.

What you want to do is
get to the green light point,

which is basically, "This
court therefore has a choice,

either use the standards
we've given you

to limit this abusive
practice, or give a green light

to the gerrymanderers
to have at it."

‐ I like have at it. ‐ I do too.

We got very close to
winning the Vieth case,

as it became known.

We got four votes to say that
the map was unconstitutional.

There were four votes to say

that the issue is
a political question

that shouldn't be
in the courts at all.

That was the opinion
written by Justice Scalia.

The basic problem

is that some degree

of political motivation
and affect in districting

is not unconstitutional.

And then there was
Justice Kennedy,

who was in the middle.

Kennedy is telling
the legal community

and the social
science community,

you know, "I'm interested.

I'm willing to tackle this
undemocratic practice,

but I need some assurance
that there's a reliable,

workable test."

And so at the moment

fighting partisan
gerrymandering in the courts

means coming up with a standard

that would be persuasive
to Justice Kennedy.

We could not have
done more to answer

that call for a standard.

To say, "This is the
case, if there's any case

in which you have
to draw the line

and say it's
unconstitutional and wrong."

There are few times in your life

when you get to
particularly be my age,

you look back and you say,

you know, "There were
times when I could have made

a difference and did
I step up to the plate

and do what I
really needed to do

and have the courage to do it?"

And the plaintiffs in this case

stood up for what
they believed in.

We are at a real crossroads
and I think the window

is going to close on whether
or not we can really bring about

this reform

if we don't get it
done in this case.

All eyes will be on the
U. S. Supreme Court

as it hears a Wisconsin
case challenging the way

the state's legislative
districts are drawn.

The legal question is,

can we even measure
this? Should we get into it?

Is this a political question
that we should stay out of?

And can we define what's
extreme gerrymandering?

‐ Rise up! ‐ Fight back!

‐ Rise up! ‐ Fight back!

It's a fixed system.

It's a fixed system, that's
what gerrymandering

is all about.

Congress will never,
ever fix this problem

because they have one
interest and one interest only

and this is to stay in power.

Mr. Chief Justice and
may it please the court,

what the state is asking
for here is a free pass

to continue using
an assembly map

that is so extreme

that it effectively
nullifies democracy.

Hi, everyone, I'm Paul Smith,

I argued the case this
morning for the plaintiffs

from Wisconsin.

We hope that the court
will see its way clear to say

this is not only a
constitutional violation,

it's a constitutional
violation for which there is

a meaningful judicial remedy.

One thing I don't do
is come out in front

of a bunch of cameras
and predict Justice's votes,

but I do think he
understood our position

and that he seems
quite concerned

about where the
country is right now.

Thank you, everybody.

There were some great lines,

did you think of them yesterday?

Just real zingers.

Like the festival
of gerrymandering

the likes of which
we have never seen.

Well you heard Justice
Sotomayor's comments,

you know, I mean you did
this, and then you did this,

and then you did
this to really ratchet up

the representation.

That was all based
on the spreadsheets

that you had recovered
for us on the hard drives.

I'm glad it worked out,
fingers crossed, we'll see.

I do want to say that
you get to be a star

of the day one day if
you're a Supreme Court guy.

But the case is
made in the trenches

and this case was really
made with all of you,

the plaintiffs, the lawyers.

If we didn't have
that foundation,

we wouldn't have been
in the Supreme Court.

So hope springs,
we're going to do it.

Thank you, everybody.

We have brought together
some of the best minds

in the legal community...

and we have
studied, so carefully,

the Supreme Court's
jurisprudence on this question

and built an evidentiary record

that is so complete
that I'm confident

we're going to win,

I'm confident
we're going to win.

I'll tell you, the future of our
democracy depends on it.

Here we go, somebody says,

"Is there any chance of
the gerrymandering cases

being decided today?"

Of course there is.

I mean, so I think
we're mentally prepared

for a win, obviously
it's fantastic, right?

But we've talked over
the loss like so many times

that I think we're
prepared if that happens.

9:00 o'clock sharp.

Okay, come on.

Last decision, Washington
v. United Sates?

What's Washington
v. United States?

I don't know, but
that means it's not us.

All right.

We can relax.

Okay, I bet it's next Monday.

I don't know why I'm so
calm now that I think about it,

it's going to be very
stressful if it comes.

I just think it's not.

I just had a very
detailed dream that like,

Roberts announced the
opinion, just like, you know,

went after us on standing.

Like ruled against us on
every single possible issue.

I think it's called
a nightmare, Nick.

Second Minnesota
Voters Alliance.

Oh, Mansky is
reversed and remanded.

Is that it?

Second and final opinion,
oh yeah, we're done.

Woo‐hoo!

‐ Not today. ‐ That's a wrap.

Need more coffee.

I bet this is happening.

Ah! Don't freak me out.

But I'm excited, but I'm
scared, but I'm excited.

Is Annabelle coming here if
there's a decision, just now?

‐ Mm‐hmm. ‐ All right.

Oh my God, it's our
case, oh my God,

it's Gill from the
Chief Justice.

Holy shit, oh my God, look.

Look.

Quiet.

Holy shit, it's ours.

Oh my God, I'm going to be sick.

It is Gill, it is Roberts.

‐ F‐‐‐, why is it Roberts?
‐ What is it? What is it?

Okay, it's here, it's here.

You know the decision
is long and complex,

but a quick read of it
tells me that essentially

what the court has said
is that these plaintiffs

did not prove that
they had standing

and individualized
harm to bring the case.

This morning, the
Supreme Court not ruling

on partisan gerrymandering,
not putting forth a test

as to when to determine

there has been
partisan gerrymandering,

and really sort of punting
this issue for another day.

‐ No! ‐ F‐‐‐ you.

F‐‐‐ you.

"Failed to demonstrate
Article 3 standing."

F‐‐‐, damn them.

Really, like that's your
f‐‐‐ing decision ground?

Now the Supreme Court did say

that the challengers
can try again

to see if they can overcome

the legal obstacle
of getting through

the courthouse door
achieving standing,

showing that they
have a particular injury

and this case does go
back to the lower courts.

Oh, wait, so it is
vacated and remanded.

Oh, it is vacated and remanded?

Yeah, to go back, let's see.

Oh, wait.

We might be still alive,
it might be that like,

"Okay, you have to go
back and technically like get

some more plaintiffs with
some more allegations."

So, did you win or lose?

So, the court says that
in order to pursue a claim

like ours, you need to
identify specific people,

specific voters who live in
cracked or packed districts.

It's not enough to
just assert exclusively

a statewide harm
or a statewide injury.

We have some
plaintiffs ready to go,

we are ready to
amend our complaint,

and move forward.

So it's not, I mean,
it's not a disaster,

it's just frustrating timewise.

I can't tell, are
you disappointed,

are you not disappointed?

This is far from
the worst scenario.

Yes, I mean, it's
frustrating because we want

to just win, right?

Obviously, we want
to just freaking win.

But it's not a loss, right?

I mean we haven't
lost, we're still going,

we still have things to say,
and it suggests we're going

to eventually win,
which is a good sign.

Yeah, I would say,
too, that like, you know,

before today, my
estimate of our odds

of ultimately winning
was below 50 percent.

Now I think it's
above 50 percent

our odds of ultimately winning.

We continue to follow

that bombshell announcement
out of Washington.

Supreme Court Justice
Anthony Kennedy is retiring.

The 81‐year‐old was
nominated by President Reagan

and served on the
country's highest court

for more than 30 years.

There is really no
way to sugar coat it.

The retirement of
Anthony Kennedy

was terrible news
for those people

that wanted to see the
court do something positive

on gerrymandering.

He was the only
conservative justice

that was at least open minded

about finding a
solution on this issue

and now he is gone.

It is now obvious that
the Supreme Court

is not going to be our savior
on partisan gerrymandering.

We may have to
be our own saviors.

People are trying to take
back these district lines

that have been
rigged against them.

They want a fair playing field.

The hope lies now
at the state level.

We are seeing around
the country, Michigan, Utah,

Colorado, Ohio, Missouri,
there are citizen pathways

moving forward.

These are red states,
these are blue states,

these are purple states.

These are states
that went for Trump,

these are states
that went for Clinton.

This is going to be the
battlefield moving forward.

The Michigan Supreme Court

is about to have
a political hot mess

dumped on its lap.

The Michigan Court of Appeals

said the ballot question
meets the legal requirements

and the voters should
decide in November.

But the challengers now plan

to go to the state
Supreme Court.

‐ Hey. ‐ How are you doing?

Good, how are you?

Good, do you mind
if I chat with you

‐ for a few minutes?
‐ No, not at all.

Great, so how do
you feel about today?

We feel good.

You know, it's
exciting to be here

at the Hall of Justice.

We had a really strong
Court of Appeals opinion,

3‐0 decision saying
our opposition's case

is without merit and we
have every confidence

that we'll remain on the
ballot on November 6th.

I remember distinctly when
we were doing our town halls

that one of the top
questions I received was,

isn't it impossible to do this?

Like, isn't it‐‐ Aren't you
going to get challenged

by the Supreme Court anyways?

So, we don't even
have language yet,

we haven't like whatever,

and like the people of Michigan

were already really
worried about that

because we
consistently have seen

opposition wanting to
undermine this process.

Good morning.

This is a special session of
the Michigan Supreme Court

to address an
emergency election matter.

The scary part is that the
Michigan Supreme Court

is a political body.

Our judges get nominated
from political parties.

Five of them were nominated
from the Republicans

and two of them came
from the Democrat side.

We know that the Michigan
GOP is applying a lot of pressure

to let them know how
they would like them to rule.

The constitution is very clear

that the people are the source
of all governmental power

and they have the ability to
define how the government

is going to be set up.

At the expense of the
people having their right

to elect representatives
as they've done

for two generations.

I don't believe
this infringes that

whatsoever, Your Honor.

It substitutes 13 citizens
chosen at random

across this state in place
of a process in which

10 million people have
a direct participation

in the process by electing
their representatives

and senators.

Is that not somewhat
consequential?

I suppose the question
is whether they decide

that they want the
legislature to have this power,

or a commission,

or to do it in some
other fashion?

All power in our
state and in our nation

is derived from
the people, right?

Are there any further questions?

We stand adjourned.

Yeah, sounds great.

How are you doing?

Logged a big day, eh?

Yeah.

Let's go here with the people...

Okay, sounds good.

So this is really
a fight against

status quo and change?

I believe it is.

Actually, I think it's a fight
about whether the people

of Michigan can be trusted

to amend own
constitution or not.

I feel like we
were fairly heard,

and that we left
it on the table,

and I think that what I heard
was that our constitution

is enshrined in letting
the people of our state

decide these issues.

Thanks, guys.

Sit down, sit down.

Oh my God, Jenny, calm down.

We have an election to win.

We know that our opposition
now knows that we are an army

and that we can apply
pressure in ways that they can't.

It is time to make
it so that we get

way over two million
votes for voting yes

and so that people know what

an Independent Citizens
Redistricting Commission

can mean for Michigan.

It is time to knock some doors.

Good morning, I'm a volunteer

from Voters Not Politicians.

Hi, we're volunteers
with Voters Not Politicians.

I want to congratulate
the people of Michigan

for the great choice
and the great vote

of the Supreme Court.

So that the people move
forward with the initiative

and to have redistricting
happening in Michigan

because it's the voters
versus the politicians,

that's what this is all about.

We've got to go and
vote for the voters,

not the politicians.

That's awesome. What?

Proposal 2 is on the ballot,

Katie Fahey is
supporting the proposal

and of course conservative
Republican Jamie Roe

doesn't like it at all.

Democrats lose
races in this state

because they have
bad candidates,

not because we have bad lines.

This is an unnecessary solution
to a problem that doesn't exist.

The people who draw the lines
now are accountable to each

and every one of
us at the ballot box,

the 13‐member star chamber

is going to be
accountable to nobody.

Proposal 2, deal
breaker number one.

Proposal 2 gives 13 new
redistricting commissioners

absolute authority
in your constitution.

Proposal 2 lets 13 new
redistricting commissioners

vote themselves unlimited
pay and unlimited perks.

Convicted felons can be
picked as commissioners.

It's 3,200 words.

Vote no on 2 or
the joke's on you.

Something that is super
bothering me right now

is that robo‐call they did
from "Katie" urging them

to vote no on Prop 2 and 3.

Like there is no way you
just chose Katie out of a hat.

Jerks.

I'm tired.

You are looking live
at democracy in action.

We're seeing huge numbers
of voters showing up today

at the polls.

Are there door hangers
for today, we got asked.

They're here.

Aren't those the
same door hangers

we have been using?

No, it says, "vote today".

Oh, it does? Cute.

So much more

than just candidates
on the ballot today,

we're taking a look
at three proposals

that could drastically change

what it means to
be a Michigan voter.

Proposal 2 would create

an independent commission

to draw new legislative
and congressional districts

after each census.

Got some info on Prop
2 ending gerrymandering

in our state.

Thank you for voting.

Yeah.

It's coming down to the wire.

About an hour left to
go before the polls close

across the state of
Michigan in these crucial

midterm elections.

Thank you.

‐ 8:01. ‐ 8:01.

Okay.

That's it, there's
nothing else we can do.

We've done everything we can do.

It's almost 10:00 p.
m. and you guys are,

it's only 11‐ish percent
reporting but you're up by...

Nine, only nine.

That doesn't make me feel good.

I think, I wish we
were winning by more.

Just so I feel a little
better, but you know what?

That's okay.

I wish they would just be done.

Are you also
preparing the we lost?

Is there a good
gift for that too?

We lost, oh...

Just taking a look now at some

of the election results
still coming in right now.

Proposal 2 would change the way

Michigan draws its state house,

state senate, and
congressional districts.

And right now the yes
votes are well ahead.

Do they call the proposals

later than they call candidates?

Who calls it?

Who are we waiting for?

Now that some of the
results are coming in,

I'm like, "Yeah, okay.

Okay, maybe, maybe,
maybe, maybe."

Who said it?

A bunch of news articles.

No, Elizabeth,
you believed in us

before like almost anybody did.

I just got told we called it.

Way to fucking change
the Michigan constitution.

How am I not crying?

How are you guys, I cry
all the time, you never cry.

Come here. Come here.

Aww. Okay, okay, we
should say something.

I feel like we should
say something.

Hey, guys, we won!

We f‐‐‐ing amended
the state constitution.

Okay, okay, okay,
okay, okay, okay.

I can't breathe, Kelly.

All political power is
inherent in the people!

There were three other
states across our country

who were trying to
end gerrymandering too.

We had Utah,
Missouri, and Colorado.

Missouri has been called,

they have also officially
ended gerrymandering,

heck yes!

Utah is almost called,
57 percent reporting

for changing lines.

In Colorado it was
at 71.4 percent, 71!

This is not a moment,
but a movement.

The people of our
country are sick of this

and if we don't come and
say that enough is enough,

then nothing is going to change.

But we have proven that
you can keep your integrity,

you can make it so that
you can invite anyone

to the table, you can
operate a campaign

in a transparent way

where we actually trust
the people of our state

to make decisions,

and it ends up in
a beautiful result

that unites thousands of
people and is about to unite

millions of people.

It mattered that you showed up,

it mattered that
you knocked doors,

it mattered that you
gathered signatures,

and stood in the rain,
in the cold, in the heat.

All of that mattered for
generations of people.

Your sacrifices have
changed our constitution.

The Michigan state
constitution opens with,

"All political power is
inherent in the people."

We are those people,
this is our power,

let's go have

an Independent Citizens
Redistricting Commission

that restores
faith in democracy.

Cheers.

And I think we're
ready to party.

Respect our vote,

respect our vote,

respect our vote,
respect our vote.

All votes matters.

Voting rights are human rights,

voting rights are human rights.

Show me what
democracy looks like.

This is what
democracy looks like.

Show me what
democracy looks like.

This is what
democracy looks like.

I believe that we will win,
I believe that we will win.

I believe that we will win,
I believe that we will win.

I believe that we will win,
I believe that we will win.

I believe that we will win,
I believe that we will win.