Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Supreme Court: AZ Election Laws Don't Violate Voting Rights Act; A Big Announcement from Speaker Pelosi Triggers a Giant Republican Power Play; GOP Leader Denies Threatening to Strip Committee Assignments from Republicans if They Serve on Jan 6 Select Committee. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired July 01, 2021 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00]

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Hello everybody and welcome to Inside Politics. I'm John King in Washington. It is a busy and consequential breaking news day.

We just heard from President Biden, he's in Surfside, Florida thanking first responders. This hour he huddles with families waiting on news from the rubble as rescuers stop the search for now.

Plus the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes her picks for a committee to investigate the Capitol insurrection. One is Republican Liz Cheney who may now face more punishment from her own party.

And a big voting rights ruling from the Supreme Court. High court's conservative majority upholds Arizona voting restrictions just as Republicans push new limits coast to coast. And we begin there with a huge final day message from the Supreme Court.

Two decisions as the court wraps its term and in both decisions the conservative majority tilted the landscape on voting rights and on campaign finance. The voting rights case is out of Arizona and it is enormous because of coast to coast Republican efforts right now to restrict voting rights.

Democrats challenge two Arizona rules. One, that tosses out ballots when voters show up at the wrong precinct. And one that restricts who collect and then deliver absentee or mail-in ballots. The ruling was 6-3. That a reflection of the court's powerful conservative majority and it sends a clear signal this court believes states get wide latitude in setting their voting rules.

CNN's Jessica Schneider joins us now with this very big final day decisions.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, very big, indeed, John. And really the take away from this is that this is going to make it a lot harder for challengers of these voting laws to actually prevail here. Because in this 6-3 decision written by the conservative Justice Samuel Alito, this didn't just uphold these Arizona laws that have been in effect for many years. But this actually restricted the ability of challengers to really

challenge Section 2. And the reason why this is so important is that really Section 2 is the only way now for these people to challenge these voting laws.

That's because in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down essentially Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That was a section that mandated that jurisdictions with the history of racial discrimination, they needed preclearance from the federal government before they even enacted any of the laws.

But now it's flipped on the head. Now that the laws are enacted, Section 2 gives the ability for the challengers to challenge the laws. And what they wanted from this was they wanted to court to say if there's a disparate impact for minorities in any -- any of these laws, they can be challenged.

But instead, what the court said is that if there's an equal openness to vote, most of these laws could be okay. It's going to be a lot more difficult.

So the conservative Justice Samuel Alito in writing this opinion, he wrote this; he said no one suggests that discrimination in voting has been extra pated or the threat has been eliminated, but section two does not deprive the states authority to establish nondiscriminatory voting rules. And that is precisely what the dissent's radical interpretation would mean in practice.

Then you have another Justice Lena Kagen, she wrote the dissent for the three liberal justices. And she was really, seemed to be frustrated and furious. She wrote maybe some think that vote suppression is a relic of history and the need for a potent Section 2 has come and gone, but Congress gets to make that call.

Because it has not done so, this court's duty is to apply the law as it is written. That law of all laws should not be diminished by this court. So really, the Supreme Court here may be pushing Congress to act.

And really, John, this decision as well as another one we saw today concerning dark money when it comes to charities out in California this is really indicative of where we're seeing the conservative 6-3 court now.

This is a solidly conservative court with three justices that were named by President Trump when he was in office. And we're seeing these decisions as they pertain to voting rights, as well as maybe campaign contributions, dark money. This is where the court is headed. This is the hallmark of this conservative court. John?

KING: Certainly is. Jessica. And I appreciate the hustle on this big final day for the court. With me in studio to share their insights and expertise, two of our best legal minds, Laura Coates, a former federal prosecutor and Elliot Williams, the former deputy assistant attorney general. And I want to get, in a moment, to the bigger message about the 6-3,

the conservative majority essentially making clear we are a majority and we can do a lot of business here.

[12:05:00]

But let's focus on this case, the Arizona case first in the implications. You look at any case and what it means for the case itself, but the timing of this one is what makes it so stunning in its impact in the sense that we can show you the map.

There are 17 states, according to the Brennan Center, that have already adopted some new restrictions this year. Some are more dramatic than others. Many are now going to be challenged in the federal courts.

Does this decision, Laura Coates, tell anyone challenging the laws good luck, because this 6-3 Supreme Court has said states get very wide latitude?

LAURA COATES, CNN CORRESPONDNET: It does. Because, of course, the Arizona laws at issue include ballot harvesting when other people besides the individual voter can collect ballots and then turn them in.

And the idea of voting in a wrong precinct, these are pretty basic laws and tenets of how you're supposed to vote appropriately. The other laws we're talking about from states go even beyond that.

And so the idea if the court says those are not going to be violative of the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, then it does beg the question whether others that are more in tune with or have proof actually of fraud will be difficult to prosecute or pursue. But overall, this is a case that tells you.

I mean the writing has been on the wall since they gutted Section 5. They're telling me the only last measure to really be able to attack voting inequities is after the fact litigation? Section 5 being the one you can do in advance. Section 2 being one to react? Now that's weakened too? Very problematic.

KING: And to follow up on that, I mean, the current attorney general is already suing about Georgia's law. But again, you look at that map, 17 states. And again, they're different restrictions in different states but essentially Republicans have decided we don't like what happened in 2020 when we expanded voting rights because of COVID.

We made it easier to vote by mail, we made it easier to vote early, and we made it easier in a number of ways to try to encourage people to vote, and guess what, they did. And so what -- what is this court saying now as you inject itself into the terrain?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, and you can't look at what this court's saying without looking, as Laura had said, at what the court said in 2013. Prior to that -- so we're clear, and Jessica talked about this.

Section 5 required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to go to the federal government and get preclearance. That got knocked down.

Right. So thereafter that, it just became easier for jurisdictions to start putting in these restrictive laws. Arizona is the best example of this because they had one of these two that was at issue here, they tried to put it in place in 2011. The justice department asked them for more information about it. They withdrew it.

Shelby County gets decided in 2013 and then they put it in place now. And now it get -- and now it's -- and now it's going to be the law. And so yes, because of this big lie, and this notion that we must or states must crack down on this specter of fraud, many states, generally republican, are beginning to put in place very, very restrictive voting laws.

COATES: And remember what's interesting, Arizona. I mean you talked about, to your greater point too, John, it's not as if the Supreme Court was going to be aware of the so-called audit in Arizona at the time, they even took the case.

But now we have that overlap of the idea that this was somehow a fraudulent election. That there are ways to think their -- the integrity has been undermined. Combine that now with the court saying look, this case Section 2 is about has -- if there is any impact on voters of color.

Is it going to be enough for Section 2 to be implicated? This court essentially is saying look, every restriction is going to have some impact and may refuse to give a bright line rule to say here are the ways in which a state can violate Section 2.

If prosecutors do not have that bright line rule and you have the gutting other measures, going forward, they don't have a guide post to be able to figure out how to prosecute the cases, which as you saw last week, Merrick Garland, attorney general, said we're not going to focus on the result.

What the impact might be on the communities of color because he probably was seeing the writing on the wall that this was probably uncertain.

KING: And so you have the Arizona Republican attorney general essentially saying as Washington debates this issue; no, no, no; states decide. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK BRNOVICH, (R-AZ) ATTORNEY GENERAL: The states are allowed to enact common sense election integrity measures. It's as simple as that. And what we've seen from the left, even with HR-1 and S-1 is an attempt to nationalize elections and concentrate power in Washington D.C. and that is to favor the far left. The states created the federal government and it's not up to, you know

Chuck or Nancy or anyone else Washington D.C. to tell Arizona or anyone else how they should conduct an election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: You guys can to the degree you can, set the politics of that aside and come to the legal question. If you are a Democrat, or a voting rights advocate who is an independent or maybe a Republican who thinks that people should -- we should do everything we can to make it easier for people to vote, in the wake of the decision is Congress the only refuge at the moment in the sense that if you are challenging the Georgia law, or challenging the Texas law, or challenging any of these state laws, you have to think today, I'm going to lose? I am most likely going to lose at the Supreme Court, is the Congress the only refuge.

WILLIAMS: Not just the Supreme Court. Lower courts as well, which are also overwhelmingly conservative right now. Look, Justice Alito lays out -- he doesn't -- his lawyer (ph) set out clear rules but what he calls guide posts and one of them is if a state has an interest in putting in place a particular voting restriction, and he calls the prevention of the fraud an interest.

[12:10:00]

Now, it doesn't have to be fraud. They just have to say that what they're doing is putting something in place to crack down on fraud. That's exactly what the attorney general of Arizona was saying right there. That's sort of this red herring that a number of republican elected officials have been talking about since the 2020 election.

KING: So it doesn't change the math in congress, but it should change the urgency.

COATES: It doesn't change the math. You still have to change the law if you want it. And again, we're still waiting on that formula from Section 5 to try to figure out how you can get the previous clearance back again.

But remember, you still have the intent test. And remember, go back to what Attorney General Garland said. He looked at Georgia and said they said they were acting in a way that was intentional. That is still at issue here. The Supreme Court has not talked about that. The Arizona case was about the result of the behavior. Intent is still available.

KING: I think we're going to talk again about a different subject later in the program. Looking forward to that. When we come back next, Speaker Pelosi names a prominent Republican to a committee investigating the January 6 insurrection.

Just as we learned, the House Republican leader warned his members they would be punished if they accepted such an offer.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

COATES: A big announcement from the Speaker Nancy Pelosi today that triggers a giant Republican power play. The Speaker filled her slots on a new committee created to investigate the January 6 insurrection. And she is giving one of them to Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney.

Speaker Pelosi making clear what the committee should accomplish.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): And the next step for us has always been to seek and to find the truth. We want to do so in the most patriotic and nonpartisan way so the American people have confidence in the result.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Not naming Cheney to one of the Democratic spots is a big deal in any event. But even more so because of a new threat from the House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy.

CNN has confirmed that at a meeting yesterday McCarthy warned Republican members he would strip them of their committee assignments if they accepted such an offer from the Democratic speaker of the house.

McCarthy today denying that. CNN's Jamie Gangel and Melanie Zanona join us at the table. First, welcome to the CNN family.

UNKNOWN: Thank you very much.

KING: You're familiar with this table. First day -- first time as the member of the CNN family. Take -- I want to get to the committee and its work in a minute. But this drama now over Liz Cheney and Kevin McCarthy saying, no, no, no, I didn't threat anybody. He make clear he would view this as a betrayal of the Republican Party, the Republican conference if any republican said yes to an offer from the speaker. Right?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Number one, I have from multiple Republican sources that he absolutely did say this to freshman Republicans yesterday. That they would be stripped. So that's number one.

Number two, Kevin McCarthy doesn't want this committee. Let's not forget that. He didn't want it when it was bipartisan. He doesn't want it when it's partisan. He doesn't want it because Donald Trump doesn't want it. He doesn't want it because he may have a conflict of interest. He could be called as a witness.

So he's going to do anything and everything to try to taint Liz Cheney, including saying that he's shocked that she's taken this spot on the committee.

KING: Yes, shocked. And to that point, we can show on the screen the picks that the speaker made. Leader McCarthy has his own picks that he can make and then the committee will go about its work. One of the questions is will leader McCarthy fill it? Will he name the Republicans or will he say we are boycotting and the committee would go on with just these eight members?

MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Well, McCarthy is keeping his cards close to the vest right now. He could appoint members, he could opt not to. Either way his strategy here is to try to make it as partisan as possible. And that's why he was so opposed to the idea of Liz Cheney, who has a huge megaphone, signing off on whatever those Democratic investigators do.

I mean that complicates their strategy, that complicates their messaging. I suspect that he will want some Republicans to push back on Democrats to try to play defense for Trump. The question is who is he going to appoint? Because the people who are openly lobbying for that job are some of the fire brands like Marjorie Taylor Green.

I mean a lot of the more reasonable moderate members have actually told me and some of my colleagues at CNN that they have no interest in serving even on McCarthy's selections.

GANGEL: There's -- there's one name, someone who really wants to be on that committee, Jim Jordan wants to be on that committee. And my reporting is that if Kevin McCarthy picks people, Jim Jordan will be one of the next.

KING: Pick Trump out. If you're going to pick people, pick Trump allies and leadership allys?

GANGEL: Right, correct.

KING: People who are both. You mentioned they want to protect Trump. Leader McCarthy, I think, also very clearly wants to protect himself. He wants to be Speaker. He's hoping the Republicans pick up the majority in the midterms. He wants to be speaker.

Damaging testimony in something like this could cost him not only the speakership but other political tape. And this gets to it, the Cheney statement, Liz Cheney is not a Democrat. Liz Cheney is a long-time loyal Republican from a brand name Republican family, but she accepted this job she says because of this, "the Select Committee will fulfill that responsibility in a professional, expeditious and nonpartisan manner. Our oath to the Constitution, our commitment to the rule of law and the preservation to the peaceful transfer of power must always be above partisan politics."

So she's signing on. And again, she has her critics and that's fair in this town. She's signing on saying I want the truth. I want to know what happened. Let's turn over every rock. Every rock in a fair and thorough investigation would include Leader McCarthy, would you please tell us about your phone call with President Trump when the Capitol was under siege and we needed help and we thought the reaction was too slow. Correct?

GANGEL: A hundred percent. And not just the phone call that day. But let's take a look at what happened between Election Day and January 6th. In the weeks, in the months, the big lie was being put out there. Kevin McCarthy was likely, according to our reporting, speaking to

Donald Trump, to chief of staff Mark Meadows every day. What did he know in the weeks and months leading up to the insurrection?

KING: And Cheney was stripped from her leadership position in part because Republicans, even some Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, even some Republicans who are no fans of Trump just thought this drama has to go away. We're heading into the midterm elections; we want to put this drama away.

[12:20:00]

Does this not, a Pelosi deciding I'm going to take -- it's a risk to put a high profile Republican --

ZANONA: Absolutely right.

KING: -- a high profile Republican as one of your --

ZANONA: Can't control as much.

KING: Can't control as much. Does this essentially guarantee that this Republican internal family feud over Cheney, over the truth, and over Trump, continues?

ZANONA: Yes. And it already was continuing regardless of what Pelosi did. But I think what this threat from McCarthy makes clear is what is tolerated in today's Republican Party.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, floated conspiracy theories, she's also made racist remarks and McCarthy did not strip her of her committee assignments. Meanwhile, you look at Liz Cheney, she was booted from leadership for repeatedly criticizing Trump and now she very likely may lose her committee assignments for agreeing to serve on the Select panel at Pelosi's request.

KING: Let's listen to a little bit of McCarthy last hour. Not so much of the substance but just sort of welcome to today's Washington. We know, Jamie's great reporting, her first report, I think, by Punchbowl, we have additional details of this threat he made.

Take a job from Pelosi, take this slot and you're in trouble with me and with the Republican Conference. Listen to him say no, never.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): I did not -- let me be very clear. I'm not threatening anybody with committee assignments. What I'm saying is it was shocking to me that if a person is a Republican; they get their committee assignments from the Republican Conference. For somebody to accept committee assignments from Speaker Pelosi, that's unprecedented.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Maybe. However, Kevin McCarthy was not going to give Liz Cheney a spot on this committee because he knows she wants to get to the truth. Kevin McCarthy was not going to give Adam Kenzinger a spot on this committee because he knows he wants to get to the truth.

GANGEL: When hell freezes over. I -- I actually asked someone to do a little research. It may be unprecedented, but this from a senior Democrat, quote, no one can recall an example, but when was the last time the Capitol was sacked and one of the parties is trying to whitewash it?

Obviously that's a partisan response. But let's be clear. From day one, Liz Cheney has said democracy above politics. And that's what this is about. This is not helping her in Wyoming get reelected. Trump not more votes than Liz Cheney did in her home state. She's doing this for one reason and one reason only.

KING: Well, we'll continue to follow the political drama. And then importantly we'll continue, now the burden is on this committee whether it gets additional Republican members or not -- additional Republican member or not to go about its work and to prove that it's going after the truth. And we'll watch that as it plays out as well.

Jamie and Melanie, grateful for you coming on to share that reporting. Up next for us, President Biden on the ground in Surfside. It's a solemn visit for an update on the condo collapse. And meetings with families still waiting for word on missing loved ones.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

KING: Rescue crews in Surfside, Florida have stopped their work for now over fears what's left standing of the Champlain Tower South condominium could collapse. Just a short time ago, President Biden on hand thanking first responders on the ground there in Surfside.

He meets with grieving families this hour after promising this morning the federal government will pick up the tab for the steep rescue and recovery costs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, (D) U.S. PRESIDENT: -- in Delaware, you all know it because a lot of you have been through it as well. There's going to be a lot of pain and -- and anxiety and suffering. And so we're not going anywhere.

UNKNOWN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

BIDEN: No, for real.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Going to our chief White House correspondent, Kaitlan Collins who was in Surfside. Kaitlan, walk us through the president's agenda.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, I think this meeting that is going to get underway in just a few minutes from now with the families of the victims and the families of those who have not yet been recovered from this accident are still -- it just got a lot harder essentially with the news this morning that those rescue and -- those search and rescue operations have been paused as they can establishing essentially what's happening on the ground, whether or not it's safe for those first responders and teams to actually be on the ground sifting through that rubble.

And so the president is going to be behind closed doors with these families. And the White House has slated over three hours for him to be in the room. And they are expecting this, of course, to be the toughest part of this trip. He got her earlier today. He met with the mayor of Miami Dade County.

You saw Governor Ron DeSantis sitting next to his right as they were talking about the logistical aspect of this and how it's going to get paid for with the president making that news that he thinks the federal government is going to be able to pick up 100 percent of the costs.

That, of course, is going to be welcome news for the officials here who are not just worried about finding these people and being there with the grieving families but also the logistical aspect of this. And so that is what he did there. Then he went onto thank the first responders and the search and rescue teams talking about his experience with them and also talking about the dynamic that we've seen at play here.

Where some of these families have been really upset about what they don't know yet. At the fact that they don't know what has happened to their loved ones. And President Biden was saying no one knows fully what these first responders and these search and rescue teams do, but they do appreciate their work.

Of course, now this meeting that's going to get underway is going to be a really tough one. And we will hear from the president after it, John. He is expected to make public remarks in a few hours from now when he does wrap that meeting with those families. But certainly, we were talking to officials last night; they were

saying this is likely going to be one of the toughest parts of his presidency. Because yes, he is known as the consoler and chief, but of course this is something that is highly, highly unusual.

KING: That'll be difficult. Kaitlan Collins, appreciate the live reporting on the ground. Let's get some perspective now from the former FEMA administrator and the former director of Florida's emergency management division.

[12:30:00]