action offered state governor and an attorney general in order to undermine the results of that election when it became clear that the economy and scott walker had lost the election for governor legislature in a way into gov bush through laws that moved certain powers away from the governor into committees of legislature arc our claims that this is on call d or indeed it is no different than if the legislature before the election and said that it walker want the powers of the governor would be unchanged but i claim is that this is unconstitutional because it was done it's lame duck and it was a legislature that was tasked with superintending the vote and therefore the legislature interfered with the exercise of  election or something unconstitutional about there's nothing per se unconstitutional about lame duck legislation but when the legislation has the purpose in effect of interfering with the effectiveness of the vote which was the case here argument on the merits is that is violates the constitution of course the district court here dismissed the case on standing ground and did not even address any  merits arguments and so with the court's permission i'd like to start there the stent standing here and the court our position is should read remittance of the district court for consideration of the merits because the democratic party certainly has standing to make these voter suppression claims under crawford and other cases of this court whether the whether we prevail or not below is not really relevant what matters is that the democratic party has alleged that these that these lame duck legislature legislation has interfered with the democratic party there is under about a statement of the chair of the then chair of the democratic party saying that there is these  and i would agree with you your honor that that that would be permissible it's not our case our case is that by transferring powers after the election and from one from the victors to bodies that were to act not through legislation but through executive action the state legislature violated the constitution it's not a city we're not challenging we're not saying that the governor was bound to abide by his campaign promises we're not saying that if this had been done after the inauguration when the new legislature was there subject to the veto of the new governor that would be a violation of the constitution were saying that if it had been done before the election if before the election the legislature had said if mr evil is wins he will have diminished powers but if mr walker wins he will not that is a violation of the constitution and we're seeing that what if the legislature  that's not our claim and it's a different i'm not sure there would be a claim there what we're saying here is that by by mission the powers the office and having appointing them to somebody else that's the vital d so in other words if it had been done before if the legislature had said that the committee that a committee of legislature would be in charge of letters of litigation then the voters in advance with nowhere and they would get to decide who among the candidates will will what if the same legislation had been passed but by a democratic legislature that just figured you know this is good governance don't make an announcement saying that it mattered that there was a governor of one party or another and acting let's assume it's unified government and it's a democrat coming in but the voters voted assuming that the governor would have these powers but then the legislature changed them not for any announced partisan reason just because of its its view on how things ought to be done purpose has nothing to do with undermining the vote or diluting the vote then and then our then i don't think our claim would prevail but again the district court didn't even consider any of these points the district court said that individual the rule would be if a state action unduly burdens the exercise of the vote and there's no well what neutral justification for it it would be strict scrutiny so i think it's a combination of the equal protection clause in the st amendment which the supreme court has nude collect together including in cases like williams versus rhodes the limiting principle and just to be because we cannot articulate a rule of law that at the site every case but that's not how the supreme court has ruled on new issues of law and this is in effect they  are using the novelty of this conduct is to our knowledge been done once before in north carolina and then here to say there's no decision squarely on point and you can't articulate a rule that would that would govern all possible cases about what a what a legislature can do in a lame duck session and therefore you should be out of court and that's not a law well law the law the the boys that have been made and on which the district court ruled below are about standing about the political question doctrine or to not address the merits on the political question doctrine if i can address that briefly because the court addressed in the alternative the supreme court has been very clear that the political question doctor needs to be looked prohibits the federal courts from inquiring into a question that is inextricably intertwined with the case and that is not the situation here we have no issue that has been committed to the to the other branches of the government the district court below s there is no federalism or th amendment claim being made here there is only a political question argument and there is no separation of powers concern there is no actual commitment of anything here to another branch and there is no lack of a standard or lack of material that a court can apply this is not a case where the court is asked whether it should recognize it or in states where there is appropriate to launch a missile that's the sort of issue that is frequently  issue in group show is this the supreme court said that it is ok and in fact the framers and to supported that there would be some level of partisanship in the drawing of congressional district lines and so the question for the claim that was before the supreme court was at what point do we go from a permissible amount of partisanship was it which is constitutional into the area of an unconstitutional  running the world i would run the court is concerned that concerns me about your position is the way the court talked about the claim of a retired university of wisconsin professor i think its name was william when we were there and they talk about that  makes me anxious in law because if never really means never then i think we can come up with hypotheticals it's never actually seems very rare that i would certainly agree with you that the thought of a state passing such a  is committed to the sherry or to congress and the president that is what the political question doctor is all about i would certainly agree that a state or doctor in congress and the president guaranteed question really is about the federal separation of powers and so that all of your arguments about the political question doctrine and that's based here but let's imagine that the guaranteed class did have something to say on the merits about what it was the legislature did lived in a district that continued after the action that was being challenged to favor democrats and he conceded that his ability to vote was not diluted in any way the district that the supreme court set up in light of that and given that that was the only evidence of injury at trial there was no stand no play didn't have standing it didn't reaffirm though that the inquiry is different at different stages of the litigation we are here on a motion to dismiss some factual material that was put in  in support of a career injunction and the allegation is that the vote st statewide office for governor and for attorney general was deluded which means that all voters would have standing and the and there is no nontraditional question presented less the court has any further questions i think i'll stop there all right i says not so thank you