>> JOINING US NOW, NEAL KATYAL,
FORMER U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL
AND MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR.
NEAL, THERE YOU HAVE IT.
YOU COULD LISTEN TO SUPREME
COURT ARGUMENTS FOR A VERY, VERY
LONG TIME AND NOT HAVE SOMEONE
ADMIT GUILT SO CLEARLY.
>> YEAH, LAWRENCE.
I MEAN THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION
THAT HAS TO BE ASKED ABOUT THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY WHICH THIS
LAWYER REPRESENTS, WHY IS THIS
PARTY SO AFRAID OF VOTERS.
EVEN 15 YEARS AGO REPUBLICANS
WEREN’T THIS SCARED.
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT PASSED
THIS 2006 UNANIMOUSLY IN THE
SENATE.
NOW YOU HAVE A PARTY WHEN
THEY’RE NOT PUSHING
GERRYMANDERING AND THE BIG LIE
THEY’RE PUSHING BILL AFTER BILL
TO TRY AND RESTRICT PEOPLE FROM
VOTING.
MORE THAN 100 BILLS, LAWRENCE,
HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED JUST SINCE
NOVEMBER.
I JUST REALLY WISH REPUBLICANS
BROUGHT THE SAME ENERGY TO
FIGHTING THE CORONAVIRUS AS THEY
DO DEPRIVING PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO
VOTE.
>> LET’S LISTEN TO WHAT JUSTIN
SONIA SOTOMAYOR SAID TODAY ABOUT
DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
>> IF YOU JUST CAN’T VOTE FOR
THOSE REASONS AND YOUR VOTE IS
NOT BEING COUNTED, YOU’VE BEEN
DENIED THE RIGHT TO VOTE,
HAVEN’T YOU?
>> I DON’T THINK ANYONE WOULD
SAY YOU’VE BEEN DENIED A DUE
PROCESS RIGHT TO A HEARING.
>> THIS IS NOT A DUE PROCESS --
THIS IS NOT A DUE PROCESS CLAIM.
>> I’M TRYING TO GET A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN DENIAL --
>> WELL, NO, YOU’RE DENIED
SOMETHING IF YOU’RE NOT GIVEN
THE RIGHT TO VOTE BECAUSE
RESULTS IN YOUR DENIAL FROM
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE STATE
COULD REMEDY EASILY.
>> NEAL, DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO
VOTE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LEGALLY
REGISTERED TO VOTE IS WHAT THESE
LAWS ARE ALL ABOUT.
>> 100%, LAWRENCE.
AND CONGRESS IN 1965 PASSED THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT TO DEAL WITH
THIS IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
ONE WAS TO SAY ANY BILL THAT
PASSES INTO LAW IN ONE OF THE
STATES THAT DISCRIMINATED IN THE
PAST COULDN’T GET THROUGH,
COULDN’T TAKE EFFECT, UNLESS THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OR A COURT
SAID IT DIDN’T DISCRIMINATE.
THAT PIECE OF THE LAW WAS STRUCK
DOWN IN 2013 BY THE SUPREME
COURT IN A 5-4 DECISION.
THAT WAS A THING THAT REALLY
PERFECTED US.
THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER PART,
SECTION 2, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO
SUE AFTER THE ELECTION,
BASICALLY, FOR DEPRIVATION OF
RIGHT TO VOTE.
THAT’S WHAT THE ISSUE WAS IN
TODAY’S HEARING.
I THINK YOU’VE JUST HEARD THE
LAWYER FOR THE REPUBLICANS
BASICALLY SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS
LAW SHOULD BASICALLY HAVE NO
TEETH TO IT.
AND THAT RAN INTO HOT WATER FROM
EVEN THE CONSERVATIVES ON THE
COURT.
I THINK EVERYONE ACKNOWLEDGED
THAT WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WERE
SAYING WAS CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN
TEXT OF THE LAW.
HE HAD A BETTER ARGUMENT WHEN IT
COMES TO THESE SPECIFIC ARIZONA
LAWS.
SO, YOU KNOW, HE MAY WIN THE
INDIVIDUAL CASE AT HAND, BUT
WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS REALLY
GOING FOR BROKE AND TRYING TO
NULLIFY THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT,
AND THAT DOESN’T GO OVER SO WELL
WITH THE COURT.
>> WE SEE IN OUR TIMES STACEY
ABRAMS TODAY CARRYING ON THE
WORK OF VERNON JORDAN, OF MEDGAR
EVERS.
AND WE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE
BACK WHEN THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
WAS FIRST PASSED THAT SO MUCH OF
THE WORK HAD -- THIS WAS AN
ACHIEVEMENT.
THIS WAS DONE.
THE CONCEPT OF REVERSAL FROM
THAT WAS INCONCEIVABLE AT THE
TIME.
>> AND YOU KNOW, LAWRENCE,
THERE’S ONE NAME YOU DIDN’T
MENTION AND I’M SURE IT WAS IN
THE FRONT OF YOUR MIND AS WELL.
THAT’S JOHN LEWIS.
RIGHT NOW PENDING IN CONGRESS IS
THE JOHN LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT
WHICH WOULD CREATE A NEW
PRE-CLEARANCE REGIME, THE REGIME
I WAS TELLING YOU ABOUT THAT THE
SUPREME COURT GOT RID OF IN
2013.
AND DARN IT, WE NEED IT.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS UNITED
HAND IN HAND -- I MEAN JAMES,
VERY REPUBLICAN MEMBER FROM
WISCONSIN WAS THE LEADER OF
THIS.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO GET
BACK TO THAT AND TO UNDERSTAND
THAT THERE’S NOTHING MORE
IMPORTANT TO AN AMERICAN THAN
THE RIGHT TO VOTE.