And in another case of liberals suing over Republican legislation.
A Democratic suit filed in federal court to repeal the Republican re-districting of the Wisconsin Assembly is set for trial May 24, with hearings judges say should last no longer than four days.
A three-judge panel this week rejected the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss the suit. The plaintiffs (Democrats) in the case will have to prove that Republicans acted with discriminatory intent when they drew the maps. The judges on the panel are Kenneth Ripple, Barbara Crabb and William Griesbach.
Democrats filed the suit in July, calling the new redistricting map unconstitutional and “one of the worse partisan gerrymanders in modern American history.”
They are asking the court to strike down the maps and draw new ones.
Bear in mind that redistricting has been done for half a decade now. We have had several elections with the new maps already. And they will be redrawn again in five years after the 2020 census. Yet here we are… in court again because the Democrats feel aggrieved. Perhaps they should focus their energies on actually winning elections so that they can be at the helm when the districts are redrawn next time.
Liberal answer to not having legislative control. Use courts to destroy the will of the people.
Elected officials shouldn’t be able to pick their electorate. The electorate are should be able to pick who’s going to be the elected. Voting districts should not be created by those who benefit the most. It should be out of the hands of politicians.
Districts aren’t created by the will of the people. Districts get created by the will of the party in control to maintain control. There’s a big difference.
If the will of the “people” is to totally disenfranchise the other party it probably violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Luckily this case is in federal court so they won’t face the 5 prostitutes of the Republican party in the state Supreme Court. And the US Supreme Court has said that partisan gerrymandering can be unconstitutional. There is hope that this extremely partisan gerrymander will be struck down. We’ll see. Here is the complaint which is quite interesting:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/559c1a7be4b0a2650c6c39b3/t/559d3cece4b055d80315b356/1436368108480/Complaint.pdf
Dave,
So when Democrats draw the lines, that is the “will” of the people?
A single judge is better at determining that?
Why bother with an election and legislators, why don’t we just run to our local lefty judge to draw the lines?
kev:
When was the last time the D’s drew the lines? Think hard.
Or why don’t we do like Iowa and have a computer do it?? Or are all computers liberals?
Baldy,
Avoided my questions I see.
Doesn’t matter last time Democrats drew the lines, they lost because of Doyle’s disastrous leadership.
Ever hear of garbage in, garbage out when it comes to computers? Sky net is better than elected officials?
Now I’ve heard everything.
Kevin said, “Avoided my questions I see.”.
Kevin,
Probably not as deliberate as you avoid mine. Hypocrite!
kev:
Yes, when the D’s redraw the lines it will be the “will” of the people. Satisfied? And yes, I am extremely disappointed that when the D’s had the opportunity they didn’t makes changes to the process to guarantee
an impartial non-partisan process similar to the one in Iowa.
Now, remind us all when was the last time the D’s re-drew the lines? Think hard.
The rest of your comment shows your lack of understanding with how this will all play out. Unless Schimel decides not to appeal. Maybe he senses a lost cause?
Gerrymandering is the art of preserving the power of the incumbent party regardless of whether the people want that party to remain in power or not.
It’s true in Wisconsin (R-Gerrymander) and it’s true in Illinois (D-Gerrymander).
The optimum system is Iowa’s. There really is no argument against it, unless you believe that creating the maximum number of grossly misshapen districts where elections are foregone conclusions is a good thing for democracy.
Pike said,
“The optimum system is Iowa’s. There really is no argument against it, unless you believe that creating the maximum number of grossly misshapen districts where elections are foregone conclusions is a good thing for democracy.”
So districts have to be in eye “pleasing” shapes to be Democratic?
That is fairly dictatotrial.
I support any process that keeps liberals from hurting America, and its citizens.
“I support any process that keeps liberals from hurting America, and its citizens.”
Just don’t say it’s the will of the people. Say it’s the will of the party.
I’d prefer a system where the will of the people actually wasn’t gerrymandered by a party, any party, that is afraid of the will of the people, which clearly the Republican Party had demonstrated by its secretive redistricting program.
kev:
Take a look at the law in Iowa and you may be able to comprehend the comment by Pike. Once again you are being willfully ignorant in a vain attempt to be “right”.
Actually, Kevin is saying that rules, procedures, tradition and a sense of fair play don’t matter. He’s saying, “Just win, baby.”
There is a problem with grossly misshapen districts besides aesthetics. Districts that have long tentacles and needlessly split municipalities leave voters confused as to which district they live and force local clerks to print multiple ballot styles. The more square and compact the districts, the less voter confusion and lower cost to taxpayers.
Unless, of course, that helps liberals, which would make it a bad thing.
If you want a model for good legislative districting, it’s New Hampshire, not Iowa.
And why is that, Oh Great One?
New Hampshire congressional districts are drawn up by the state legislators. Or in other words, gerrymandered.
Pat:
Shhhhh, let kev figure it out for himself.
I thought we were talking state legislative districts.
That is what the post at top is all about.
Try to pay attention.
Now take a look at New Hampshire model again.