
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn.
But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers.
Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
3.9
153153 ratings
Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn.
But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers.
Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
9,175 Listeners
1,113 Listeners
362 Listeners
6,259 Listeners
3,479 Listeners
466 Listeners
501 Listeners
647 Listeners
25,815 Listeners
32 Listeners
3,562 Listeners
113 Listeners
173 Listeners
5,678 Listeners
3,807 Listeners
370 Listeners
665 Listeners