Skip to comments.Federal court orders Wisconsin Legislature to redraw maps
Posted on 01/30/2017 9:28:48 AM PST by Olog-hai
A panel of federal judges has ordered the Wisconsin Legislature to redraw legislative boundaries by November, rejecting calls from those challenging the maps to have the judges do the work.
The three-judge panel released its decision in the redistricting case Friday. The state is expected to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.
State attorneys had asked for the Republican-controlled Legislature to be allowed to draw the maps if the Supreme Court orders them redone. Democrats who sued over the boundaries wanted the judges to do that.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox6now.com ...
Liberals trying to get the courts to do for them what they can’t get at the ballot box.
Final outcome should be little difference.
The real problem is that Republicans don't use their majorities to destroy Rats in permanence as they should, so the vermin are always destroying non Rats even when Rats are in minority.
POUND SAND, FEDS !
Jerry Nadler is the representative of the Upper West Side liberals. But he represents the West Side from about Columbia University, just north of Central Park, all the way down to the Battery ... BUT Then his district jumps over into Brooklyn, having a thin strip along part of the waterfront and then a strip that is basically one street wide and THEN expands and grabs all of Borough Park and parts of Bensonhurst.
Why? What's wrong with the rest of Manhattan? What is the connection between the Upper West Side and Borough Park? Answer: Jewish voters. He needs all the Jewish voters in Borough Park, so we don't have compact districts.
I'm sure that this will get redrawn eventually. Too many Asians moving into the Brooklyn parts of his district.
True on all accounts. Good post.
Topical article. Thanks for posting.
Well, the Supreme Court has hacked away pieces of that, such as the coverage formula. It’s not invulnerable, especially insofar as it distorts the amendments that it originally claimed legitimacy on.
Funny, Colorado courts didn’t have a problem when it redistricted Boulder with Loveland, CO.
Loveland is very conservative, Boulder is practically communist.
Higher population in Boulder negated Loveland.
Here is Georgia's gerrymandering map:
If the court won’t themselves redraw the map then the Legilature should send back the same maps.
Without such a map, it could endanger the Republican majority.
So they’ll draw very similar lines.
They never demand this when the left gerrrymanders the maps.
Look at illinois’ maps.
I know; amazing.
The article points out that the Supreme Court is supposed to get this next; probably when the new appointee is in there.
There are problems and opportunities to this case:
The problem concerns the court dismissing all the care put into the following criteria: (1) districts of approximately equal size (less then 1 percent from ideal), (2) minimizing the number of incumbents put into the same district, by the incumbent’s residence (sometimes called incumbent protection), (3) protecting existing majority-minority districts, and (4) minimizing the number of counties and municipalities split. To the court, it seems that these are constraints don’t count. Only partisanship counts and it (partisanship) is predominant. The prevailing Supreme Court decision is that as long as partisanship isn’t predominant, partisanship is o.k.
The opportunity is that if the case establishes a presumption that redistricting that is too effective is presumed unconstitutional, then we get to challenge the screwy districts of the other party.
I would like to comment on something discussed by the court but apparently not with any understanding. Excessive partisanship in gerrymandering is self-defeating. Florida showed us that. In Florida, the Republican got greedy and tried to create an overwhelming edge in Congress. But, 2012 wasn’t such a good year for Republicans as was 2010. As a consequence, we lost seats instead of picked up seats.
BOTTOM LINE: Courts need not worry about excessive partisanship. Swings in voting will undermine excessive partisanship. The court shouldn’t worry too much about partisan gerrymanders. Without saying the courts will never intervene, the courts should say while they reserve the right to intervene, normally they will not. This, by the way, is my reading of the prevailing Supreme Court decisions on partisan redistricting.
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.