The next is a transcript of an interview with former Lawyer Common Eric Holder that aired Sunday, Might 8, 2022, on "Face the Nation."
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we flip now to former Obama administration Lawyer Common Eric Holder. He began a bunch in 2016, the Nationwide Democratic Redistricting Committee, to assist the get together redraw congressional strains. And he has a brand new e-book out known as, quote, Our Unfinished March. Good morning to you.
FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Glad to have you ever right here. You realize, within the e-book you write, each events have embraced gerrymandering once they have been accountable for state governments. However you say Democrats have been caught asleep on the wheel when Republicans began investing 12 years in the past in a few of these native races. You realize, critics name your technique simply sue to blue that it is simply all about partisanship. How do you reply to that?
ERIC HOLDER: No, ours is a struggle for equity. And but we have introduced a whole lot of lawsuits, efficiently introduced a whole lot of lawsuits to be able to guarantee that the method is finished in a good approach and in order that the American folks truly choose their representatives versus politicians selecting their voters and so sue to blue, that is what they are saying if you're successful in courtroom, which is what we've performed at a complete bunch of ranges.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You suppose Democrats have a bonus then going into the midterms versus the place you began out?
ERIC HOLDER: Properly, I believe we actually stopped the Republicans once they mentioned they wished to safe a decade of energy on this subsequent decade primarily based on the redistricting that they have been going to do. We have blunted that effort and we actually have extra truthful maps than we did popping out of the final redistricting cycle. The factor that basically worries me, nonetheless, is that we've 40% fewer aggressive seats than I believe we should always have on account of what each events have performed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You say that is about equity, however you have not challenged any Democratic gerrymandering. Ed O'Keefe laid out a few of these examples there. Each of the maps handed by Democrats have been thrown out by courts in Maryland and in New York. Do you have got an issue with what occurred there?
ERIC HOLDER: I indicated my opposition to what had happened- what the legislature did in Maryland agreed with the decide, which he did there. And in New York, what I've mentioned is that these will not be the maps that I'd have drawn in New York. My guess is that after the courts take a look at what occurred in New York, you will notice maps which are totally different, however not basically totally different. I believe you possibly can't examine, nonetheless, what occurred in New York and Maryland to what's going on in Texas, Georgia, doubtlessly Florida, Wisconsin, the place Republicans have actually gone to city in phrases of- of gerrymandering. Basically totally different from what Democrats have performed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How so?
ERIC HOLDER: They're, in the event you take a look at Texas, which is getting two further seats strictly on account of the rise within the Hispanic inhabitants, they haven't elevated that- the ability of Hispanics in Texas in any respect. In reality, they've created extra minority- extra majority white districts in Texas. The map that you just see in New York displays actually a inhabitants shift, a hollowing out of the agricultural areas in New York, in addition to a rise within the city areas in New York. So there's a census basis- Census Bureau- foundation for what's taking place in New York that doesn't exist in the- in Republican states.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You heard there what is occurring in Florida and what Governor Ron DeSantis describes. He says that what he's doing with redrawing is race impartial. I do know you strongly disagree. Are you saying the gerrymandering there may be rooted in racism?
ERIC HOLDER: It is actually race aware. What he's doing there by taking out a- a historically black seat is actually an element. Race is an element there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: However you suppose it's to deliberately disenfranchise?
ERIC HOLDER: That is actually a part of- I believe they're thinking- they are going after Democrats and the actual fact that- that the Democrats that they are going after occurred to be black I do not suppose is essentially a coincidence. The go well with that we gained in Alabama was the place we mentioned that it is best to have further illustration for black- the black inhabitants of Alabama. These districts have been actually drawn with the thought that they'd disenfranchise African-People in Alabama.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I need to ask you about Alabama, as a result of as- as I perceive it, the Supreme Courtroom has tried to not instantly become involved in what they deem political gerrymandering, however they've signaled a willingness to listen to circumstances that contain problems with race. There are nonetheless elections scheduled in November within the state of Alabama, though the courtroom will hear this case. Do you suppose that the maps being redrawn in Alabama will finally be deemed to be unlawful and due to this fact the election ought to be invalid?
ERIC HOLDER: Properly, you understand, it is interesting--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --Is what you are saying?
ERIC HOLDER: Although, it is an fascinating factor. They'll have an election in November primarily based on maps that judges, together with two Trump judges, mentioned have been inappropriately, unconstitutionally drawn. Supreme Courtroom mentioned too near the election. And so we will enable the election to go forward on these maps that have been discovered to be faulty. Now, what the Supreme Courtroom will finally do with part two of the Voting Rights Act, which was the premise for the lawsuit in Alabama, will stay to be seen. This is without doubt one of the issues I speak about in my e-book, this notion of us attending to some structural adjustments. We have to look- we have to ban partisan gerrymandering. We have to take a look at the constructions of our democracy if we will strive to- if we will strive to reserve it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Properly, you have got a whole lot of totally different suggestions within the e-book, however I imply, it is a lengthy to-do checklist. And the issue that you just sketch out right here, you say your entire democratic system basically is damaged, as I perceive it, unrepresentative Senate, pointless anti-democratic Electoral School, gerrymandered Home of Representatives, panoply of state legislatures, and a stolen Supreme Courtroom. A stolen Supreme Courtroom. You say each individual having an equal say in our democracy, one individual run- one vote is way from a actuality.
ERIC HOLDER: Yeah, I believe that is true--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --You are saying your entire system is damaged. So if Republicans win management of Congress in November, is that election- does it not have integrity? Don't settle for the end result of it?
ERIC HOLDER: No. I believe your premise goes somewhat far. I would not say that all the pieces is damaged, however there is--
MARGARET BRENNAN: I used to be studying out of your e-book there.
ERIC HOLDER: No, what I am saying is I'd say there is a substantial quantity of our construction that must be repaired, that must be examined. And I believe we should- what I've tried to place out- level out within the e-book is that we've confronted these points earlier than, and we have had heroes and heroines in our historical past which have confronted related sorts of points. And thru sacrifice, dedication, they've made a distinction. And we've the capability, I believe, to make these sorts of adjustments. Banning partisan gerrymandering. If you happen to take a look at the Supreme Courtroom, we've two seats, one stolen from the Democrats that Merrick Garland ought to have now, that- that seat was not crammed, in fact, was too near an election. After which Amy Coney Barrett was positioned right into a seat whereas folks have been truly voting. I imply, these are the sorts of issues that I believe should be addressed. And what I speak about within the e-book is to say, look, we should always time period restrict the justices, 18 years, and that each president ought to have a chance to appoint two justices per time period and to attempt to take a few of the stress out of this, put the partisanship and the within the affirmation course of.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Republicans would clearly disagree together with your characterization of how that performed out. However Merrick Garland, you talked about he is now in your previous job as lawyer basic. There have been critics of him who say that he is not being aggressive sufficient across the prosecutions concerning January the sixth. Do you suppose that is proper?
ERIC HOLDER: Nobody is aware of. I imply, you understand, I've nice religion in Merrick and within the folks on the Justice Division. We cannot actually understand how aggressive they've been till they're earlier than a digicam in asserting a call both to indict sure folks or not indict sure folks. However this is my prediction. Sooner or later, folks on the Justice Division, maybe that prosecutor in Atlanta, are going to need to make a willpower about whether or not or not they need to indict Donald Trump. There may be going to be a-
MARGARET BRENNAN: --Would you do it?
ERIC HOLDER: Properly, I believe there's going to be adequate factual data. And I believe that there is going to be adequate proof of intent. After which the query turns into, what is the affect of- of such an indictment? I am an institutionalist. My preliminary thought was to not indict the previous president out of concern of what- how divisive it could be. However given what we've realized, I believe that he in all probability must be held accountable.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We'll go away it on that unbelievable be aware. Mr- Mr. Holder, thanks in your time and for sharing your e-book. We'll be proper again.