The following is a transcript of an interview with former Attorney General Eric Holder that aired on “Face the Nation” on July 2, 2023.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face The Nation. Today, we have the honor of speaking with former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which was involved in two election-related cases before the Supreme Court. Good morning, Mr. Holder. There are many topics to discuss regarding disagreements with the court, but let’s start with the positive. Congratulations on your two victories. Alabama will now have to redistrict their congressional map to include a second majority Black district due to the court’s ruling that the state discriminated against Black voters. What are the political and legal implications of this ruling?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Thank you, Margaret. First and foremost, this ruling affirms the continued necessity of a robust Voting Rights Act, particularly Section 2. The actions of the Republican legislature in Alabama were clearly inconsistent with existing precedent and interpretations of the Voting Rights Act. Alabama has a significant African American population, but their representation in Congress did not align with their population size. This decision will have repercussions beyond Alabama, potentially affecting states like Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, where similar efforts to dilute African American voting power have occurred. I anticipate that courts will rule accordingly and require redistricting in these states as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In the case of Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court ruled six to three in favor of rejecting the theory that state legislatures can determine the rules for federal elections. This was a concern for Democrats, fearing potential attempts by Republicans to overturn election results, as we saw with the former president in 2020. Does this ruling and the court’s consideration of the case give you more confidence in the integrity of the upcoming 2024 election?
HOLDER: Absolutely, Margaret. This ruling provides me with a great deal of confidence that the 2024 election will be fair. The theory of independent state legislature, which was floated, was nothing more than a fringe idea. It was inconsistent with our system of checks and balances. I only wish the decision had been unanimous. The idea that legislators have the final say without any review from the courts goes against the principles of our democracy. Now, we can go before state courts to challenge redistricting decisions made by sometimes gerrymandered legislatures. Ultimately, the courts will have the final say, as designed by our system.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The Supreme Court did caution that federal courts could still overrule state courts on cases related to federal elections. Does that concern you?
HOLDER: Not at all, Margaret. It’s important to have this backstop in place. If a state court makes a grossly incorrect decision, it’s vital that the Supreme Court has the power to correct that injustice.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let’s turn to the recent affirmative action ruling. The Supreme Court decided that race cannot be used as a factor in college admissions. However, Chief Justice Roberts wrote an opinion stating that applicants can discuss how race has impacted their lives, whether through discrimination or inspiration. This seems a bit confusing. How do you interpret this ruling?
HOLDER: I find this exception or caveat to be somewhat contradictory to the rest of the opinion. Additionally, the footnote stating that military academies are exempt raises further inconsistencies. The reality is that our nation continues to grapple with issues of race, and to deny the negative impact it has on too many people is contrary to the facts. Affirmative action is intended to consider race as one factor among many when evaluating qualified students for college admissions. It is not in conflict with the pursuit of excellence. Affirmative action does not guarantee admission solely based on race, but rather takes it into account as one aspect of a qualified student’s profile.
MARGARET BRENNAN: One complication brought up in the case was the argument that affirmative action at elite institutions, such as Harvard, has negatively affected Asian American applicants. How do you respond to this argument?
HOLDER: It’s important to recognize that the Asian American community is not a monolith. There are various groups within the Asian American population. The proponents of this lawsuit attempted to pit one minority group against another in their pursuit of attacking affirmative action. They have been trying to undermine affirmative action since the Bakke Decision in 1978. If we were to solely admit students based on board scores and GPA, there would be an overwhelming number of applicants for these elite schools. Other factors must be considered in the admissions process, and considering race as one of those factors, alongside qualification, is constitutional and necessary.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before we conclude, as a former Attorney General, would you advise President Biden or the next president to consider pardoning the 45th president of the United States, either before or after a potential conviction?
HOLDER: I would advise the president and the next attorney general to allow the legal system to run its course. Let the cases proceed, and the outcomes will determine the appropriate course of action.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
