Skip to comments.Judicial panel says GOP should consider new election maps (Wisconsin)
Posted on 02/21/2012 1:14:24 PM PST by Jean S
In a surprise move Tuesday, a federal three-judge panel told Republican legislative leaders they should consider drawing new election maps taking into account challenges from Democrats and Latinos.
The court gave the Legislature until 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to decide whether it wants to revisit the maps it approved last summer. If it does not, the trial challenging the maps will resume Wednesday. If lawmakers agree to take up the maps anew, the court would give them until mid-March to approve them.
The order, coming just after the trial began Tuesday, sent the 16 attorneys in the courtroom scrambling to consult with their clients and make overtures to lawmakers and GOP Gov. Scott Walker.
"We're going to have to get together with a lot of people," said Assistant Attorney General Maria Lazar.
The idea of redrawing the maps comes in the waning days of the legislative session, as Republican leaders try to pass a major overhaul of mining laws before heading into likely recall elections this summer of Walker, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and four GOP senators. It was unclear if Republican leaders were open to the idea of changing the maps, and the topic was expected to dominate Tuesday's caucus meetings behind closed doors.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
And ordering them to draw out guaranteed Rat districts.
Democrats in my state change the maps all of the time to get rid of Republicans, not once have they been taken to court over it.
Republicans are sponges if they allow a Judge to mandate to them what they can do.
This is no more than Judicial side of Government taking a Democrat biased position.
Maybe the legislators ought to consider appealing any ruling usurping their power to create congressional districts instead.
If the maps only considered LEGAL latinos, the combined area would be around 1 square meter.....
Outrageous, yes, but it could be worse. Wisconsin isn’t a covered jurisdiction where redistricting has to be approved by Holder’s justice department - like the fight Texas is in right now.
Well, did they say they "should consider" or they "must". Because if, as they article states, they said "should consider", if I was the Republicans, I would respond with a terse "no thanks, were fine with the current maps".
the top few key people in each individual County Recorders office have full and unfettered access behind closed doors to manipulate final vote counts at the end of the election, but they need a system, like adding dead voters and/or subtracting “lost” ballots
Civil Rights Act trumps the 10th Amendment in that particular court’s eyes I guess. Interesting times...
The legislature should tell the court no, and then ask them what they are going to do about it.
Federal judges. If it's not the courts, it's Holder suing the state of Texas. When was the last time any federal entity told Dems their maps were illegal?
Imagine Obama getting to replace Scalia on the SCOTUS in the next 4 years. He would have lots of commies-in-robes to choose from.
They should go pound sand. You know they’ll challenge the maps if the GOP redraws them anyway, so stick with the original plan and get it over with.
In my experience, when the court says that, they are telling you that you are going to lose.
Even so, you are right, the GOP should tell them to stick it. They need to get this case through the system as fast as they can. If their circuit is liberal, they have got to get it to the Supremes. It is amazing to see how far libs will go now to usurp authority.
I’m always amazed that when Democrats draw maps in the redistricting process (e.g., Illinois) they’re just peachy-keen but when the Republicans do the redistricting (e.g., Texas) they must be revised to accommodate the Democrats.
Fact is the maps always benefit both sides.
What makes republican districts more republican, generally makes the remaining districts more democrat. And if you really want to see spaghetti districting it’s the democrats that are masters of it.
Besides, the real deal going on here is the continuing full-court press against the republicans on all fronts in Wisconsin. Just say no, they’ll keep fighting it anyway.
Let them keep fighting and wasting resources.
translation: You guys cave, or we’re going to cave for you
The GOP needs to tell the Court to pound sand. Wisconsin ain’t Texas. Y’all aren’t subject to review and approval by the DoJ.
Provided it eliminates democrats from congress, I agree. As for the Latinos, there are many who would LOVE to see the socialist rats burn.
It was a good system while it lasted.
Welcome to the regime the South has lived under since 1965.
The GOP needs to tell the Court to pound sand. Wisconsin aint Texas. Yall arent subject to review and approval by the DoJ.
True WI doesn’t have the Preclearance requirement, Section 5 of the VRA. I think this challenge is coming under Section 2, which can be filed for voting discrimination and enforced via the Federal District Court.
Just my take and I’ve not looked at any of the court case, etc.
Wisconsin Outrageous Court Ruling on Legislative Maps ping
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
THis is just unbelievable. I’ve worked all morning at the polls, and the new maps are already in effect. This will cost millions $$ and hours and hours of everybody’s time to change them again.
It’s likely going to be the same panel that hears the case regarding Act 10.
I haven’t read any of it either. Now I’m curious.
Oh, it’s just fine when the DemoRats redistrict to their advantage. Who are the judges on this “panel”?
“Imagine Obama getting to replace Scalia on the SCOTUS in the next 4 years. He would have lots of commies-in-robes to choose from.”
I’m not certain that we could survive a second Obama term.
“Im not certain that we could survive a second Obama term.”
Not certain? No question “we” (what constitutes that is another discussion) WILL not survive.
Which state is that?
If democrats and their enabling judiciary couldn’t cheat, they’d accomplish very little.
Yays, we is still under the jurisprudence of the carpetbagger. I don’t know if he ever left us. We wuz bad.
Whats amazing is that there seems to be nothing to stop them getting away with it.
Which is why it is important for the political branches to assert control over the judicial branches, as they were intended to do. The legislature determines the power and authority of the lower courts, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction over a very small list of types of cases that are mentioned in the constitution, what is known as “original jurisdiction”. All other jurisdiction is given to it, and the lower courts, by the Congress. The Congress needs to create new courts of appeal and remove jurisdiction from those judges that have lifetime tenure. It should remove by impeachment those who have been the most blatantly extra-constitutional. The others will fall in line fast enough. Like self-deportation, only it will be self-correction. Most of them will decide they like their lifetime jobs, and will start following the law.
That would be the reason why some jurisdictions have to have their maps approved: Southern Democrats were notorious for many years for gerrymandering districts: and still are. There are many districts carved out for Democrats where you cant walk from one end of a district to another: the connecting path is too narrow.
Of course after that there is the voter fraud. Old “Landslide Lyndon” was famous for getting over 200% turnout in some counties.
Ah yes, Maryland. One of the most historically and thoroughly rat-dominated states. Redistricting never goes well there because Republicans haven’t controlled either House of the leg since the 1910’s I think. I hope we will be able to keep Rep. Bartlett’s seat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.