Deep Dive 233 - Litigation Update: CFER v. Alameda & Raak Law v. Gast

In the name of equality, some state and local governments seem to have implemented race-and-gender-based legal quotas in practice if not in name. Wen Fa, an attorney who represents plaintiffs challenging the legality of these laws and policies provides a litigation update on two of his latest cases: CFER v. Alameda County, and Raak Law v. Gast.<br /><br />In CFER v. Alameda County, plaintiffs are Oakland-area taxpayers who allege that county set-asides for Minority Business Enterprises violate federal and California constitutional prohibitions on racial discrimination.<br /><br />Meanwhile, in Raak Law v. Gast, the plaintiffs are prospective candidates for the Iowa Judicial Nominating Commission. They contend Iowa law establishes a gender quota by staggering the two commissioners' elections and requiring that of the two commissioners from each district, one be female and the other be male.<br /><br />Listen for a Litigation Update on these two fascinating cases, as Wen Fa reviews the facts and law of these cases, as well as the status of each case.<br /><br />Featuring:<br />Wen Fa, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation<br />[Moderator] Dan Morenhoff, Executive Director, Equal Voting Rights Institute<br /><br />Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.<br />*******<br /><br />As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.<br /><br />