BREAKING: Marc Elias drops BOMBSHELL legal news on Trump

This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we have some major breaking news that just broke right now, thanks to you. Can you explain what you and your team just did in court?

Yeah, so my law firm earlier today filed for a preliminary injunction in the state being used in the 2026 election. This is going to be working with the National Redemption Foundation, our partners in this. We are intent on not allowing this illegal.

And what what the preliminary injunction would do in this case?

Yeah. So what the preliminary injunction would do is simply say the new map can't be used in 2026. They'd have to use the existing map, which, by the way, is already a gerrymander. Right. I mean, like like this is not you know, if you're a Republican in Texas, the current map you live in was put in priority voters, but it is much, much preferable to the the new map, which is a grotesque, obscene map, and so the preliminary injunction, if granted, would say that for 2026, the existing map, not the one that was just saw, was just passed by the legislature, would have to be used. In terms of fast, look, we are moving as fast as

humanly possible. The map was passed, as you know, in the middle of the night, about 2 a.m. on Saturday morning. By 8 a.m. Saturday, my team was already on file with a new lawsuit to challenge the map. Now here we are on Sunday, and already we have filed a hopefully very fast schedule to determine whether this plenary injunction gets put in place.

OK, injunction.

Yeah, so it's basically two big buckets. The first are very, very well known to you and to this audience and to just see how Texas goes about defending this, that the map they drew was drawn with the intent of discriminating against minority voters, that it was a racial gerrymander, it was set out to, with the avowed

purpose of dismantling districts to harm minority voters. So that's kind of bucket one. And also in that bucket, that it also violates section two of the Voting Rights Act for that seven seconds very reason it has the effect of of harming minority voters. The second set of claims are to try to frankly correct or court precedent does not allow Texas to mid-cycle redistrict simply for the sake of enacting a racial and partisan gerrymander. That the precedent that the mainstream media and legacy news outlets and the state of Texas keep pointing to that allow for mid-cycle

redistricting really did it in a very unique circumstance where a court had drawn the map and the legislature was getting its first shot to draw its own map for the cycle. Here,

that is not the case. Texas already had its first shot in drawing the map, which is the existing map. Now, is the difference between Texas and California, both of which are engaged in this mid-cycle redraw now, would the difference here be that one has their maps that are expressly looking to violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, because they won't be in compliance with Section 2. They'll have these minority districts that are being dismantled expressly so that they are no longer minority districts

versus what's happening in California, which is that even in the new maps that have been introduced everything still satisfies all the requirements to remain Voting Rights Act compliant.

Yeah, that's exactly right. Look, the Constitution does not allow for the state of Texas to intentionally discriminate against minority voters. It's ironic because it is the Trump administration and Republicans that are running around saying

we need to not use race in all kinds of ways. Well, here we know from the letter that was sent from the Department of Justice and the words that were uttered by the governor himself and members of the legislature, that their red redrawing of this map in their words on the basis of race. I mean, that's why they say they did it. So that's one thing that's very different

than Texas. The second is, as you point out, that the effects of what they have done, regardless of their intent, the effects of what they've done, violate Section 2. And what people need to understand is that one of the reasons why Section 2, the voting rights act, is so important, why it has played such a unique role in protecting minority voting rights, particularly in redistricting, is that it does not require intent. It only requires the effects. Okay.

That was part of the 1982 amendments that Ronald Reagan signed into law. This used to not be a very controversial proposition, that if you are drawing districts that are dismantling minority voting rights, you're taking away, you know, decreasing their ability to elect, where you have histories of discrimination, which undoubtedly are true in all of the states we're talking about, whether it's Alabama, Louisiana, or here in Texas, that if you're having that effect, you violate section two. And that's the reason why you saw, you know, in in the last few years, judges appointed by Donald Trump striking down these maps. And that's

why it's important that that people focus on sectors between what's going on in California

versus what's going on in California versus what's going on in Texas. A quick note for everybody watching right now. I have been especially focused on people who are not just saying the right things, but doing the right things. The people who are presenting themselves as the fighters here. Mark filing this lawsuit, being one small step that we all can take to support his work completely free is to subscribe to his YouTube channel, Democracy Docket, that will not only show some support for him, not only elevate his voice, but also give an incentive structure for other folks to have that.

To his YouTube channel, please subscribe. Again, it's an easy step that we can all take to show some support for what he's doing. Greg Abbott, we know that it's already worked its way through the state legislature, but they haven't been signed yet by Greg Abbott. And so what was the rationale here for opting to do this now as opposed to with the actual signing?

Look, time is of the essence, right? We have we have a crisis going on right now in the state of Texas. I mean, we have a crisis going on around the country about democracy. But there is a five alarm fire going on in the state of Texas, where Texas is trying to do two things. They are trying to enact these unconstitutional illegal maps, and at the same time then to run out the clock and say it's too late to do anything for 2020, for 2026. So we are intent on moving as fast

as humanly possible. And, you know, just speaking for myself personally, not necessarily for the lawyers who are involved in this case, the clients, like, you know, I just don't think we can afford an session to do Trump's bidding. He has been clear this is the case. And the idea that somehow we as Democrats or we as progressives should be giving the benefit of the doubt to ceremony and protocols and all that

to me is a bunch of garbage. It is time that we fight as hard as they do. It is time we use every tool available. And if that means bringing lawsuits as quickly as humanly possible, you know what? I'll make Greg Abbott. Here's the deal. You say you if you agree that you're going to veto this map,

I'll apologize for on behalf of my law firm for signing for for filing this before you signed it. But we all know Greg Abbott. You're a coward. You are a coward. You bowed to Donald Trump. You are a coward when you thought you could intimidate the Democrats in your state. You guys were cowards for shutting down the filibuster in the Senate in violation of your own Senate's rules.

And you're too much of a coward now. You're gonna sign that, this illegal MAC, and then the courts should hopefully do what needs to be done to protect the right of voters in your state, something you don't have the courage to do.

Mark, is there some concern that Greg Abbott will see these maps passed by the legislature and not move immediately, but instead sit on these maps, wait weeks or even months, and he'll do this whole game where he'll cosplay, do some political theater where he says, oh we're just, you know, making sure that this is exactly what we want to do. We're just leaning into this a little bit. We're figuring it out.

We're making, we're conferring with our lawyers. And then it happens, and then he finally just deigns to sign them very close to the election where then legal challenges wouldn't be able to apply because of the same principle that Republicans always rely on, which is the Purcell Doctrine, this idea that you can't make changes too close to an election because it would be too cataclysmic, too chaotic before the election, which is by the way the same doctrine that they've relied on in Alabama, in Louisiana, in North Carolina. And so while he knows to expect these legal challenges, like the one you just filed today,

that would kind of be his maneuver to get around it to undermine those legal challenges before they actually kick in. And so is that what you're trying to trying to evade here by virtue of filing this even before he's gone ahead and signed them, knowing full well that it's his open public blatant intention on signing these maps into law?

Well, there's a status conference for a federal judge or actually three or, you know, three, there's a three judge panel, but before a federal judge this week, and that judge is going to want to know from the state of Texas, what do they do? And so, you know, the I think the I think the court is wise to the gamesmanship that can go on. Yeah. And and and good for good for judges, not just in this case, but around the country who are understanding

what the Trump playbook is, what the Republican playbook is. So, my Greg Abbott tried to do that. We certainly have confronted that elsewhere. And look, I'll be the first to admit, in the past, you know, in some of the laws that were passed after 2021 and all those voter specials, some of the redistricting cases, you're exactly right, where you saw a Republican governor sit on it, sit on it and sit on it and run the clock. You know, we sat by and we're like, well, the governor, you know, they're looking at whatever. It's bullshit. They're not looking at it. They Greg Abbott

has said that this is the Mac he wants. He Greg Abbott is the reason why we're here. So you know, I think that more lawyers, more clients need to be moving aggressively and let put it on them, put it on them to come into a federal court and say they're not sure if this is in fact going to be signed. That would be some news for you.

When you're in the courtroom and you're confronted with these judges. Is it enough to point to his past statements kind of affirming this whole process and pushing the legislature to move forward with these maps? Is that enough to be able to say, OK, even if he hasn't signed them into law yet, that functionally this is what he's going to do and so we can still proceed as if there's harm without even waiting for the official process of him signing this into law, which of course we all know he can sit on for months to actually evade any legal accountability.

Look, I think the judges can do a number of things. Number one, they can say, look, let's schedule everything, let's get discovery, let's do whatever we need to do, and we'll then wait until he signs it to have the final hearing. They could say, we'll have the hearing and we just won't rule. And if he doesn't sign it, then we never need to rule. Like, there are a number of ways that the court could sort this out. The fact that there's a scheduling conference, I think, is a good sign. I think actually Greg Abbott is going to be under enormous pressure here from his own base to not look weak. I mean, the Republicans, they are, you know, these days, very weak across a number

of vectors. But I think he's got to feel a lot of pressure not to look weak. I think he's probably going to be under some pressure, frankly, from his own side, from Ken Paxton, who is, after all, one of his rivals, who is running for Senate, and who is not going to want to stand up in court and say, we don't know what we're doing, right? Like Ken Paxton is going to be pushing this process forward. So I'm kind of optimistic that that's not going to happen. But again, like, you know, our goal is to move the process as fast as we possibly can, understanding that the court will set the parameters for what they feel like they can or cannot do where Greg Abbott

is in this case.

Mark, it's important to note that all of this is being done to counteract this step by Donald Trump, which is to rig the map in Texas, because he felt entitled to five more seats there. And of course, we know that he's in conversation with Republicans in Missouri, in Indiana, and in Florida, all of which are very likely going to redraw their maps in the next couple of weeks or months so that they can get their pets on the head by Donald Trump. And so what would your message be to the few people within the Democratic Party, these few governors, these few state legislatures,

that can actually use the tools at their disposal to fight fire with fire that we haven't yet seen movement from? I mean, we've seen movement from Gavin Newsom and these California Democrats to their great credit. And there would have been a million reasons for them to be able to say this is too hard and instead of getting instead of finding some excuse to say no they figured out a way to say yes but that's the only state thus far that we've seen concrete action from and so in light of that what would you say to the other folks those few democrats out there who have the

power to actually counteract what the republicans are? Well, a couple of things. First, I just want to say to those Republican governors, take a lesson from Texas. If you act and you do anything that violates the law or the constitution, you're going to get sued. That's not a threat. That is a promise and I don't bluff.

Okay. Now as to the Democratic states, look, you and I did a video before it was fashionable, like before, you know, anyone else in which we talked about this. And I said then very clearly, I thought Democrats ought to put 30 seats on the table. Like we ought to, my original hope for California

was not five seats, it was nine seats. You know, I mean, and by the way, I gave the governor credit because he has to balance, you know, the maximalist approach with the ability to get it to get something done. And as you say, he has to get it through a popular vote in November. So I give him all the credit in the world there. But it's not just, in my view, a handful of states. I mean, any state where Democrats control the process. And I would

include there not just New York and Illinois, which are oftentimes talked about. New Jersey is a Democratic legislature. Colorado is a Democratic legislature. Colorado is a Democratic legislature. Oregon is a Democratic legislature. Wascont...I'm sorry. Washington State's a Democratic legislature. Maryland's a Democratic legislature. State I keep talking about, Virginia, which right now has a Republican governor, but after the off-year elections, you know, come November, Democrats are going to take control of the governor's mansion there and control the process. I'd like to see Virginia be on the

table. It's my home state, and I'll be continuing to push that. So to me, if you are a Democratic legislator and you're in a state with a Democratic governor, you know, I don't know the current count right now in Minnesota, whether it's possible there, But if you're a Democratic legislator or the Democratic governor, you need to be finding a way not to list the reasons you can't, but to brainstorm the reasons you can. Yeah. You know, that is the thing.

Now is the time for creative politics and also for political will. Now is the time to do the things that are not easy, but the things that are hard. I am sure that what's happening in California is not politically easy. It is politically hard. But that is what we have to be doing and looking to be doing

in every states where Democrats control the process and here's why. And I want everyone to listen to the why, okay? Don't just pick the what, pick the why. Because if Democrats came forward and said we have a plan in X number of states I think I I had the number at 730 seats in seven states But whatever it is if we come forward and say this is what we're going to do Then those Republicans in those states become the advocates

to the Texas To the Florida's to the Missouri's to the Indianas not to go forward. They still have a chance to climb down, but they're not gonna climb down because we are telling their legislatures to climb down. They're not gonna back away from doing Donald Trump's bidding

because Gavin Newsom is doing five seats to offset Texas' five seats. They're gonna back away because the Mike Lawlers, who's in a marginal seat in New York right now, because the guy, the Republican in the one seat in Maryland, the Republicans in the seats that they have in Illinois, right? The Republicans in the seats in New Jersey, the Republicans in the seats in Virginia, that they are in Illinois, right? The Republicans in the seats in New Jersey,

the Republicans in the seats in Virginia, that they are gonna be the ones who are gonna be the best lobbyists. They're gonna be the ones who go to those legislatures and say, I am a Republican member of Congress, don't do this. It's gonna be bad. And so that's why I feel like this is important because I think if we do that, then actually it may not be necessary for any further gerrymandering to take place on the Democratic side, because the Republicans will see that there is a hammer, not a feather, you know, awaiting to hit them

over the head if they go forward.

Right. I think that's the perfect point. It's not only is it not going to be the Democrats who are going to shame Republicans into doing the right thing, but in fact that might further polarize them in the opposite direction. You have Democrats yelling at them not to gerrymander and you've got partisan Republicans and they hear that, what are they going to do? They're going to further gerrymander because what's bad for Democrats is going to be inherently

good for Republicans. But when we start redrawing those seats out and now it's not the Democrats lobbying Mike Johnson, now it's Kevin Kiley, now it's Andy Harris, now it's the rest of the Republicans in the delegation in Illinois and the rest of the Republicans in the delegation like Mike Lauder and Anthony Esposito in New York, now it's these people who are actually going to lose their jobs that are going to be a hell of a lot more persuasive to Mike Johnson than any Democrat is going to be. So that's an excellent point. And you know what, just one more reason

amid all of this chaos, the Democrats should start fighting with fire and get aggressive here. Second only to the fact that if ever there was a moment to expend your political capital that you have spent weeks, months, years building up, this is it. I mean, this is existential, not just for the Democratic Party, but for democracy more broadly. If Democrats are relegated to the permanent minority, there is no way back from that.

And so if your political issue is climate change, if it's healthcare, if it's reproductive rights, if it's unions, if it's jobs, if it's the minimum wage, whatever it may be, all of that relies on Democrats having the ability to be able to gain power. That's foundational.

And so if we're not able to do that, then all of our agenda stops in its tracks. And so if ever there was a moment to expend that political capital that you've built up, it's right now.

Right, but the other thing is that history teaches us that oftentimes the spending of capital grows capital, whereas the preservation of capital shrinks it. Like the number of politicians who have sat on their political capital only to watch it disappear are legion.

And the number of politicians who we thought were spending all of their political capital, but actually grew it, is also really noticeable. I mean, you have cited some statistics which I think are pretty remarkable about Governor Newsom, who has spent capital, but has actually managed to build capital as a result.

Correct. And I think that what every Democrat needs to understand is that your voters want to see you fight it. Actually, even not your voters, right? Like people who are not that tuned into politics, they want to know whether you are someone who is going to fight for them. And the best way to show that you're willing to fight for them is to show, first of

all, you're willing to fight for yourself. Because if you're not willing to fight for yourself, why would anyone think you're going to be willing to fight for them? So I actually think this

net-neck would probably expand the capital that a lot of Democratic electives have. Correct. And the point that I was making, we were speaking in a different video about about this, but Gavin Newsom has gained, I think, roughly in the last few days, raised about eight million dollars because he has taken a forward leaning posture. His polling has exploded. Even even, you know, how people are perceiving him ahead of twenty twenty eight. The likelihood that he becomes the front runner

is more than doubled in just the last couple of weeks because he's taken this fighter posture. And I think that's what people are looking for, especially in a moment where we're starved for it. And so, look, there's a Democratic base that is pounding you over the head with this idea

that we are looking for leadership, we are looking for fighters. And at this point, it's just up to these Democratic governors and these Democratic state legislatures to listen to what their own base is telling them that they want. With that said, again, there is nobody who is better exemplifying that fighter posture than you and your team.

This lawsuit, again, is a testament to exactly that. So for everybody who's watching right now, to elevate Mark's voice, to help him grow his voice in this ecosystem. Please make sure to subscribe to his YouTube channel, DemocracyDoc, and I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. You can also subscribe to this channel, I'll put that link on the screen as well, and please help elevate these voices and grow this I'll put that link on the screen as well, and please help elevate these voices and grow this progressive media ecosystem. I'm Brian Teller Cohen. I'm Mark Elias. This is Democracy Watch.