Two cases before the Supreme Court. This coming week have the potential
to reshape anti discrimination laws and federal elections nationwide.
One case on Monday poses the question of whether a website designer
in Colorado can refuse to create a wedding website for a same sex
couple despite state law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
The other case being heard on Wednesday asks whether the U. S constitution
gives absolute power beyond the reach of state courts and other laws
to a state Legislature to regulate federal elections. John Yang is
here and joins us now for a closer look. It's good to see you great
to be here, Jeff. So let's start with this Colorado case, which centers
on a dispute involving this website business.
The owner, Laurie Smith, she wants she wanted to expand her business
to include wedding websites. But she says she opposes same sex marriage
on religious grounds doesn't want to create websites for same sex
couples. Colorado law says she can't do it You spoke with Laurie
Smith and the Colorado A G. What did they tell you? The key to Lawrie
Smith's argument is that she sees herself as an artist. She says
that these websites that she designs are unique, each one different.
This is not a template that she creates just sort of plug and play.
And so she says that as an artist, the government cannot compel her
to convey a message. She doesn't want to convey never about the person
requesting it. There's some messages I can't create no matter who
request them, and the government does not have the right to compel
and force an artist to create custom artwork that goes against their
deeply held beliefs. Whether those beliefs are the same as mine.
Or different. It does not have the right to do so. But on the other
hand, the Colorado attorney General Phil Weiser, says that they aren't
regulating what she produces. They aren't regulating the message
of what she produces. They're regulating. Who can buy it? Anyone?
Website creator a book writer Baker can make whatever
Service products They want to
They then have to sell it to anyone.
Who comes and asks for access to the practice service if they're
open to the public, So that's the two conflicting views of this case.
The justices are going to have to sort out the Colorado A GS mentioned
a baker. There was a case back in 2018 of a Colorado Baker, who didn't
want to design wedding cakes for same sex couples. One would think
that that case was settled back then how is this different? That
was a very narrow decision. It was a 7 to 2 decisions, but on very
narrow grounds on the grounds
that the
Colorado Civil Rights Commission seemed hostile to the Bakers, religious
beliefs in their proceedings in their dealings with him, So it was
a very narrow, very narrow decision.
They're hoping the proponents or the the the website designer and
her backers are hoping for a broader decision that this will talk
about all cases
in which people are forced or compelled to deliver her cell products
to same sex couples. Well, let's talk about this other case, more
V. Harper, the Supreme Court will decide whether the North Carolina
Supreme Court
Has the power to strike down the Legislature's illegally gerrymandered
congressional map for violating North Carolina's constitution. Tell
us about that. It sounds really complicated. It's really complicated,
but it could be really significant. This is a long standing fight
that's been going on for a while between the North Carolina Legislature
and the North Carolina state courts over the redistricting maps.
The courts threw them out. They said they violated the state Constitution,
ban against gerrymandering
and the and actually drew a map on their own. Now the key to this
is the interpretation of a part of the Constitution, called the Elections
clause that says that the times, places and manner of holding elections
for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state
by the Legislature thereof.
The Legislature. To the more of this case is Timothy Moore, the speaker
of the House of the North Carolina House, he says. That means that
the Legislature alone can make these decisions that they can't be
second guessed. They can't be second guessed by the courts. They
can't be held up against the state Constitution. The opponents on
the other side are saying that that is to find a reading that Legislature
doesn't just refer.
To the House and the Senate. It refers to the all of the state machinations
and state government. So bottom line then if the court sides in favor
with the North Carolina Republicans what effect What's the implication
for federal elections? Lawyers on both sides use the words revolutionary
to talk about this
state. Constitutional bans on gerrymandering and in states like Florida,
Ohio and North Carolina would likely be struck down independent redistricting,
redistricting commissions and places like
Arizona, California and Michigan would be struck down and it's important
to remember.
That this is the theory that a lot of the legal advisers to Donald
Trump were using right that the legislatures can appoint electors.
However, they want, regardless of the popular vote, so that illegal
experts say would be the next logical step in this argument. John
Yang, you have quite a busy week ahead. Thanks for starting it here