That is not what Pettaway stands for. And he said, how can you disagree with me when you didn't read the case? I said, because I understand the holding in the case. And The holding in the [Pettaway] case meant that they were not required to make new coalition districts. But it did not say that coalition districts themselves were illegal and that they could destroy them. In the state's most recent filing, they said that they got Pett away wrong. (16:05–16:14)
CLAIM
Asserts that Pettaway did not require new coalition districts.
This is an excerpt from a raw transcript. The assertions have not been audited or verified. Tap the video to view the source footage and understand the context.
