 Welcome everyone, and thanks for joining us. Link Tech Hawaii, and time for responsible change. We kind of range all over the place in topics, and so if you folks who are viewers have interest, feel free to send in. We're open to suggestion. We are fortunate to have back today for the first time in a number of weeks. One of our leading criminal defense and civil rights attorneys that we have also all the way from St. Paul, Minnesota, David Larson, the incoming chair of the American Bar Association's section of dispute resolution and professor at the law school for years and one of the leaders in court related online dispute resolution, which is one of the great vehicles for access to justice that are happening with the advent of technology these days. Sandra Sims, retired Hawaii State Court judge, and noted author as well, and Louise Ng, one of our leading dental partners and women's rights attorneys, and just an all around highly admired, respected group of people here. Folks, lots of things going on out there today. And this week, the Supreme Court has okayed voting rights restrictions in Arizona by exactly the conservative 6-3, and conservative is not the right word, but right leaning 6-3 majority that everyone has expected that may have some consequences for the future. Other things are going on as well. The cheerleader who was on social media with prolific use of the famous F word got favorable result with them. So we're seeing things kind of crop up in different areas here, but any sense of where we're headed? Louise, dental senior partner. Oh my gosh, that's a $60,000 question. Well, you know, I was looking for the bright spot, and I did send as a bright spot to Chuck and everyone, the fact that at least we have the New York Attorney General, who after a careful criminal review did obtain an indictment against the Trump Organization and its CFO. So I guess that's the bright spot in terms of where our country is headed. I think we need a lot of voter education. I think we need to study that voting rights decision very carefully. I'm hoping that it could be seen in a narrow way for these particular restrictions, but I need to hear more about it. Maybe David has some insights. Well, it's kind of a disturbing decision. You know, under the Voting Rights Act, you can have kind of intent cases and effects cases, and there's two ways to go at this. I don't think the decision really narrows the intent kind of case, but having said that, intent cases are very hard to win. It's really hard to prove someone's subjective intent. So the fact that they didn't really modify that approach, it's a little bit inconsequential because that's such a hard approach to win on. So the one about effects is really the one that's a little more accessible, and that's the one that's been narrowed. The Supreme Court has made it more difficult to prove that there is an unlawful effect as a result of some of these restrictive statutes, and I think that's right in a democracy where the goal should be embracing as many people as you can and expanding Voting Rights as opposed to narrowing them. Yeah. Yeah, I'm with Louise. I kind of look for the bright side. And while I understand, I haven't had a chance to really totally digest that opinion as well. But I think to the extent that we talk about there being more restrictions, we're seeing other places that are making it easier. I mean here in Hawaii, we've actually expanded the access to voting here so that you can register on the day of election. You can go into the polls at that same time and register to vote. There's also a move to make it so that you can do registration along with, you know, getting your car registered. You can do all these at the same. So that, and I don't know that I don't think we're the only state that's expanding, you know, that kind of access or making it, I don't want to say well easier. Part of our issue has always been we had a little voter turnout and what we've been wanting to do is increase that turnout. And that's one of the ways that's done to address that. The other side of looking at those restrictive voter voting provisions in other states. And I see I kind of have a different take on it because, you know, having, you know, once the Shelby decision was made and kind of, you know, gutted out provisions, you know, in the Voting Rights Act, what we've actually seen since then is actually a resurgence of voting registration in many minority communities, egg done by, you know, folks like Stacy Adams and others who are really, really doing more in the voter education as, you know, as Chuck alluded to. And also, we are seeing this generation, this new generation of voters, younger generation, young generation of voters that, you know, kids born in 2000, they're just coming into this. And they are certainly a more informed, active, involved generation, perhaps, than we have seen in other times. And that is hopeful to me. So let me ask you, Senator, that's a really great point. Do you think that generation is as susceptible to the conspiracy theory, big lie approaches that Trump and Republicans have been taking and succeeding with up to 40% of voters in many areas? Are they susceptible to that? I don't propose to speak for an entire generation, but to speak for them. But, you know, just my contact with, you know, young people and the things that we've been seeing in our own communities and in communities around the country with this so-called generation, are they generation X? Is that what it is? Or something like that? I've been told by some contemporaries that, you know, generation X doesn't take that. They don't take that. They're not going to put up with a lot of things that we think, oh, I did not know that. And we may be a generation Z by now. Or Z, I think it's whatever it was. It's like, you know, they don't take that. David, you probably see more of that generation in your line. And are they that generation that's just not going to take it? Well, it certainly is a generation that's much more concerned about work-life balance. You know, back in the day, the expectation was you'd go to a law firm and you're going to put in crazy hours and that was expected and you were ready to do that. Or you thought you were until you got there and then maybe you decided to work. But I think people now are, they're much more open to the idea that I don't even want to take that on. It's really important to me to have a space for myself and my life and my family and work-life balance I think is much more important to that generation. Chuck, I want to get back to one thing. You know, you mentioned about the big lie, kind of threw that out there. One thing about this decision that really bothers me is that, so I did mention that it's going to be harder to prove kind of effects cases than the Voting Rights Act. But then the court says basically that even if you can demonstrate a disparate burden, the state's compelling interest in preserving integrity of the election procedure will overcome any demonstrated disparate burden. And then they say that this is part that really bothers me that the state can take action, prevent election fraud without waiting for it to happen. It's like that to me is giving credence to the whole big lie idea that this has just, this has been something that's rampant. You have to be really concerned about it, that their state is perfectly justified in saying they have a compelling interest in providing voter fraud when there's no evidence of being voter fraud. So basically they're elevating this suspicion to a compelling interest, this unsubstantiated suspension. Suspicion is now a compelling interest sufficient to overcome a disparate burden on voting rights. And of everything I've read, you know, I guess I, you know, it's kind of a first read for me too. But of everything I read, that's really disturbing to me. That idea that you can, it can be a compelling, if you say you're trying to protect your voter integrity in your state, even though there's never been any evidence of voter fraud, that's a compelling interest sufficient to overcome a disparate burden. Like what, how can that be? And they're doing it in Arizona, where we know the context is a bunch of people that even many Republicans are calling crazies who got ahold of the electoral materials are looking for bamboo, all kinds of strange things in there. So you're exactly right. They've completely taken this thing out of context and liberated it from any connection to reality at all. I mean, there's literally no limits on it. And it's scary because there are over 389 bills out there in 48 states that to restrict election laws, 28 have already been passed in 17 states. And is there anything in this decision that limits the progression of those voter restrictive law movements? I think we'll see because they're being challenged. They are being challenged. Yeah. Well, Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice are challenging in Georgia and there's a challenge also in one other state. But there's another balanced question here that I'd like to raise with you folks. On the one side, President Biden and a number of more midstream Democratic leaders have pushed for a more bipartisan approach as a way to get packages together for funding of COVID relief, pandemic relief, infrastructure, families, things like that. But over on the voting rights end of things, there is no indication that there's going to be any room for anything bipartisan at all. How do they deal with that? How do they balance that? Get rid of the filibuster. That's one strategy that's out there. Well, it's different. You've got Joe Manchin who has become incredibly powerful in the Senate because of that narrow margin. A lot of things are turning on this guy suddenly. He doesn't support the or the people act. He says it's too prescriptive. Yeah. It's the legislation that would prevent the state from doing some of the things it's doing because it says there's some minimum things you have to do. So it's prescriptive in that sense. And the John Lewis Act is not. It's forward-looking and saying in the future, if you want to do something like this, you're going to have to get approval from Washington from the Department of Justice. But we're not going backwards. We're not taking away anything you've done already. Under that act, we're just saying that if you want to make changes, and you are one of the jurisdictions that we're watching carefully, that you're going to have to go through justice. And for me, I guess that's better than nothing, but it's a very eluded act compared to the other one. Right. And that's exactly what shall be cut out was the federal pre-clearance. And that the John Lewis Act hopes to reinstate with some additional broader protections, but it's relatively moderate compared to the for the people act. Bill, what's your take on all this? Well, to be honest with you, I've not read this opinion. I've seen the blurbs in the news reports and the like, but I really haven't had time to go through the opinion in detail. However, the Supreme Court's issued a number of opinions recently on various issues. And what I'm looking for is a trend as to what and how they're going to approach opinions. And it seems like they're just getting their feet wet, so to speak, in terms of how they're approaching these decisions. And when we expect them to have fairly broad decisions, they've curtailed them to just address a limited aspect of the issue that's on appeal. And on some of these cases, they have issued some fairly broad decisions that you thought that they would be circumspect in terms of what the opinion would say and how broad it would be. And so for me, I'm trying to figure out really how far they're going to go and really what they're going to be looking at to really address and to really do wholesale changes too. And then I get one of the things, one of the opinions that came out recently that I read actually had time to read. I'm prepping for trial was the Catholic Charities, the foster care decision that came down. And now that decision, I thought that it was at least it was a real concern that they were going to be really, really broad in their decision making in that case. But they were very narrow in the way they approached it. And so I'm kind of more in the voting rights case as example, in other cases that we're thinking is going to come down fairly shortly. I'm looking for what this court really is going to be and what they're going to do. And so that's really interesting me because I'm in the area of civil rights and criminal defense. That's really where most of my clients are concerned about the decision making out of the court. So that's really where I'm looking to see what's going to happen with this court. And I know they're, we all know they're conservative in terms of their opinions. I'm trying to find out really how far they're going to go with that and with that movement. Well, and another thing about the recent voting rights case, the Arizona case, is that we know John Roberts has achieved justice that he may try to exercise leadership and bring consensus votes together to the extent possible. But one of the other things that he does is he also assigns who's going to write the majority opinion. And in that case, he gave it to Justice Alito. Now, out of all the people that you might pick on the court, in addition to Justice Thomas, Alito would probably be the least likely if you wanted a consensus driven, consensus directed kind of opinion. So there may be things that are happening right now, reading the tea leaves that are telling us reasons for concern. For exactly some of the reasons David just brought up is that they're not only giving voting dominance, but opinion writing roles and priority to a sector of the court that could move things in a direction away from precedent and away from some of the things that we've come to count on as established law. I think Bill has a good point about just trying to gauge what this court is doing. Sometimes I kind of think that it also at play is the court's sense of its own integrity and its own way of assuring and preserving judicial independence. I mean, as a judge, I think you're not terribly comfortable with the notion that people can predict and decide what you're going to, how you're going to rule on a given situation when they don't have all of the situations, all the facts and circumstances in front of them themselves. They're just basing it on what they think of you personally. I think that's kind of a challenge too for the court to not let it allow itself to be so very pigeonholed based upon people's personal opinions. I would think that, I know Justice Roberts has alluded to that before really looking at what the court's legacy, its integrity, its independence is important to preserve. And I think they're also like Bill just kind of gauging themselves, see how they can walk this fine line with some of these views, but at the same time make certain that we're not destroying the integrity of the judiciary. Let's throw in another question here, related but different. Any thoughts on whether Justice Stephen Breyer should hang up his robe during the period when President Biden may be able to nominate the successor? And what happens if he does? Does Mitch McConnell going to block it for another? You always hope that when we get a president that you and every one of us have different ideas as to our persuasion, so to speak. You hope that if that president comes in in a sprogative to appoint someone to a position such as that, that one of the sitting justices who believe in or are in that group that believes as the president believes, I hope the president will be able to put someone in there who is young such as a former president did to be there for a while and to sit and impact the decisions of the court for many years to come. So I would hope that Justice Breyer would think about that issue and not let the ability of Biden to get away from this very important position. And the way the court is constructed at this point, you have to be real careful as to what happens from this point on, since they've got the majority in terms of the votes for one belief of our society. So you really want to be able to have a little more longevity with reference to your belief. So I'm hopeful that both Breyer and Biden will get the opportunity to sit down or discuss the matter of whether I should retire or not and let you pick someone to replace me. I'm worried about the midterms. Like, yeah, I got personally, I hope you've had a long run, you've had a great time on this court. Can you be gracious and step aside and let somebody else come in before? The majority, we lose the majority, there's a narrow majority in the Senate. Any sense of where that's headed? Because clearly the voting rights actions by Republican state legislatures that the court has now sanctioned, U.S. Supreme Court has sanctioned and that the Republican constituency in Congress is doing their best to make sure they get free rein to proceed toward whatever restrictions they want to put in place to move control over electoral results into political hands rather than the voters' hands. Anything out there to restrain that at this point? Don't go to the Supreme Court. I mean, we had some really good lower court decisions and judges that said that these challenges were ridiculous. And my concern is that it seems to me that to have effects social change these days, it may not be within the court system. It's going to be about education and educating on civic duty and civic rights and working with each state's framework of voting rights to make sure that minority communities and unrepresented communities are represented and get out the vote. And so is what we're hearing that really in the end is seeing the way that the Congress is behaving, seeing things that are still in the formative process in the U.S. Supreme Court, that ultimately it's going to come back to the voters and voter education may turn out to be more important than even the political battles in Congress and on the court? I agree with Louise. The thing is that with the way the court's going now, there's a fear that you don't want to take the issue to the court. You want to do it outside the confines of the decision because the nature of our court system now is becoming more conservative. And clearly, you don't want those important decisions before them. And that's a total reversal from in the past where we always thought our ultimate justice in the court system. And so it's a scary thought, really, I think. I like that idea about people kind of coming together and using kind of the critical mass to make social change. I think we saw that in sexual orientation. And I think the reason why that changed relatively quickly is because suddenly you had this overwhelming sense that society had moved. And by whether a court was kind of resistant to that or not, they had to recognize it. That's America now. I'm really intrigued by that idea. Maybe that's the best path for progress in social change. And with a more engaged populace, particularly a populace that's more multiracial, multiethnic, and more actively involved in coming around on common issues and moving forward, you're seeing that more. And that may be... That is the hopeful thing, to be honest to me. It really is a hopeful thing. Yeah, I'm kind of getting back to one of Bill's points, and then what you said a minute ago, Chuck. You know, one good thing is that this court's court did not gut the Voting Rights Act. It didn't throw out Section 2, which is the basic right that protects the right to vote. You know, they didn't talk a lot about purposeful discrimination. So it's still there. It's made me narrowed, but it's not gone. But the disparate impact leverage is substantially reduced, John? Yeah, I think so. I think that challenge is going to be more difficult now. They set out these series of, here's what it's going to look at. You're going to look at how is what the state's doing today compared to the 1982 when the act was amended. Pretty much everything is doing, everybody's doing something different than in 1982. So they then say, well, based upon the fact that they are now different and more open than they were in 1982, I guess it's not a disparate impact problem. That's a tough comparison to overcome. So as we go into our last minute, any last thoughts on who needs to be really energized, targeted? Where are the voting blocks that really might make the best differences? I am not stuck in the young folks. I really think it's going to be that generation. I don't know what they call them, the X's or the Y's, but thinking back to the things that they have come through as growing up in the times that we've been, particularly in the area of school safety, those kinds of things. This is a group that's just on the cusp of really bringing about change that are going to affect themselves. I really have faith in that. You know, I see what's going on now as a resurgence of the 60s in which people were going to the streets and people were in the communities coming together to speak out on issues and to move in a direction. And I'm hopeful this young group will continue to stir that up. As we say, well, make good trouble. That's what we're looking for out of this new group of individuals who really seem to have their sights on the issues and are moving in a unified manner to make some changes in our communities. And I too agree with Louise that that's where we need to go. It started in the 60s and all the change came about because of that. I think we're going to, I think we're seeing that it's a cyclical thing and I think we're back in that cycle again. There's a group that has a tool they didn't have in the 60s and that's technology and social media. Yes, absolutely, absolutely. They can mobilize in ways that are much more difficult in the past. Absolutely, absolutely. Fantastic. So as we wrap up today's session, let's maybe think about coming back in a couple of weeks and then taking a look at might we also need to see changes in who's running for and who's winning those officers so that they look more like those voting blocks that are really capable of taking us in good change directions. That will give us something to think about for a couple of weeks. Thanks, everyone. David, Louise, Sandra, Bill, thank all of you for joining us today. Come back and see us in two weeks, July 15th, and thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.