Thread by @GMikeParsons

Oof. Recently heard @RedistrictingMI hired BakerHostetler anyway. If MICRC is serious abt being truly independent they *really* need to hire at least one non-GOP-aligned attorney to be on the litigation team to provide them a second opinion.

Here's why... /1

https://twitter.com/GMikeParsons/status/1425254003181502468

The comments from the commissioners (D, R, & I alike) defending their choice reveal a troubling lack of awareness about the contestability + indeterminacy of redistricting doctrine and legal risks. /2

For example: "They are not telling us what to draw ... BakerHostetler becomes involved if we get sued. And if we get sued, then they are representing us as the map drawers ... they are not taking any position as to what the maps should look like.” /3

mlive.com/public-interes…

First of all, the RFP says counsel will represent MICRC in litigation *and* "advise [MICRC] of litigation risks associated with its activities and approaches to limit such risks." So counsel *will* be influencing the process leading to the maps. /4

michigan.gov/documents/micr…

More importantly, the quote assumes (1) absolute clarity in the legal Do's and Don'ts of map-drawing on the front end, and (2) obvious answers about what arguments *should* be used to defend MICRC's maps on the back end.

Both these assumptions are wrong. /5

Re #1: There are many trade-offs btwn legal risks when drawing a map + they all implicate contested values. Even just how the lawyer *describes* those trade-offs can influence a client's decision. So "just following legal advice" isn't neutral bc legal advice isn't neutral. /6

This isn't to say counsel will manipulate the client or intentionally slant advice—that would violate ethical rules.

It *is* to say you need a variety of views/experiences in the room if you want to get a broad picture, reduce implicit bias, & make a fully informed decision. /7

Re #2, there are a lot of arguments one might raise to defend a map depending on the nature of the claim. Which arguments you make (and how you make them) can have drastic consequences for the direction of redistricting doctrine more generally. /8

Again, this isn't about if counsel will provide zealous representation. There may be multiple courses of action they could take (+ many arguments they could make) all of which offer a forceful defense... but which will they choose? And what values/interests will they advance? /9

In short, it seems like the commissioners don't know what they don't know... & that's a problem.

Simply put, it's naive to pick a firm w strong partisan priors (R *or* D) + think there's no risk of bias bc the firm is "just giving legal advice" or "just defending the maps." /10

So what now? Even if (*especially if*) MICRC keeps BakerHostetler as lead counsel, they should get a non-GOP-aligned attorney on the team, in the room, & on all calls/emails. MICRC would benefit from hearing additional perspectives/dissenting views—and so would the voters. /11