Legal Experts Discuss Gerrymandering at Cap Times Idea Fest

Kate Shaw, Jeff Mandell, and others spoke at Memorial Union

Legal scholar and podcast host Kate Shaw and local lawyer Jeff Mandell joined Capital Times associate editor John Nichols for a discussion entitled “Trump, Gerrymandering, and the Rule of Law,” as part of the first evening session of the Cap Times Idea Fest on September 8th in Memorial Union’s Shannon Hall.

The discussion was especially timely given the Supreme Court “shadow docket” decisions released earlier in the day. The “shadow docket” refers to cases heard regarding urgent matters and are not typically afforded the lengthy explanations given to ordinary Court decisions.

Shaw criticized the Court’s decision in Noem v. Perdomo, which will allow immigration enforcement in Southern California to continue using observations about apparent race or ethnicity, accent, or occupation to inform possible locations for raids.

In turn, Mandell expressed his dismay with the Court’s decision allowing Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, an unelected official appointed by the Biden administration and fired earlier this year. Mandell and his Madison-based non-profit Law Forward’s stated goal is “furthering democracy.”

Mandell’s organization prosecuted the ten Wisconsin “fraudulent electors” involved in the 2020 election. In 2023, the case was settled, with the electors being required to affirm the election of Joe Biden and never serve as an elector in a future election.

Hours after the event in Shannon Hall, a similar case against fifteen electors in Michigan was dismissed. The judge found that the electors had no intent to commit fraud and “seriously believed” that election irregularities were present.

All three speakers raised doubts regarding the efficacy of the Supreme Court to further democracy, given legal challenges in the past to Wisconsin’s congressional map, as well as current concerns about redistricting in Texas. Whether the slate of Wisconsin electors seriously believed that undemocratic activity took place in the 2020 election wasn’t covered. “In truth, the Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t have that great a track record on democracy,” said Nichols. Mandell agreed, qualifying that “it always depends on how broadly we want to define democracy.”

“The last couple of years have provided a lot more support for the thesis that the Court is an enemy of rights and democracy than a real facilitator of those things,” Shaw explained.

Faced with what seems like a problem of mass proportions, Nichols asked why anyone would go into law when faced with “an institution that you’re probably going to have a lot of problems with.” Shaw emphasized that only focusing on federal courts can be unproductive, instead encouraging the audience to involve themselves in their city and community.

Shaw and Mandell both expressed respect for certain conservative legal scholars and judges, and acknowledged that meaningful and principled conversations are possible. To applause, Mandell criticized the recent attitude “on all sides of the ideological spectrum, are beginning to see our courts as purely politicized...that is not consistent with the rule of law and that is not consistent with having a real democracy.”

Mandell says his organization’s guiding principle is “furthering democracy,” going on to say, “If you win every case, then you’re not pushing far enough…We are trying to change the law, we are trying to advance democracy…Courts, by definition, are biased towards power.”

The full event can be viewed for free on YouTube.