२६ जून, २०२२
"In many states, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Georgia and Florida, abortion’s new battleground is decidedly unlevel, tilted by years of Republican efforts to gerrymander state legislatures..."
"... while Democrats largely focused on federal politics. As abortion becomes illegal in half of the country, democratic self-governance may be nearly out of reach for some voters.... Democrats may have won the popular presidential vote in five out of the last six elections, but Republicans control 23 state legislatures while Democrats lead 14 — with 12 bicameral state legislatures divided between the parties. (Nebraska’s legislature is elected on a nonpartisan basis.)... Unshackled by the Supreme Court and often largely unopposed by Democrats, conservative organizations backed by billionaires like Charles Koch — including the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Republican State Leadership Committee — set out more than a decade ago to dominate policymaking at the state level.... In Wisconsin, Democrats hold virtually every statewide office, including governor. Yet, waves of gerrymandering have left Republicans with close to a supermajority in the State Senate and Assembly. That means an abortion ban that was passed in 1849, when only white men could vote, is set to go back into force now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. 'Because the structure of Wisconsin’s ultragerrymandered maps are so rigged against small-d democracy, we are going to have a law on the books that the overwhelming majority of Wisconsinites oppose,' said Ben Wikler, the chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.'"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९० टिप्पण्या:
No one gerrymanders like Democrats, so I find this whining hilarious.
Nebraska is at ground zero. One female and Dem state Senator has threatened “direct action” at the special session.
I have to laugh on trying to blame conservative billionaires on the so-called gerrymandering and struggling to name more than one. You can't even pluralize Koch anymore, with the death of one and they (now he) are more corporatist-globalist and generally avoid culture issues.
I am remain hopeful the pro-abort crowd flees red states in droves. The sooner the better. They then can gerrymander to heart's content. And so can we. Maybe we could call it separation of church and state(s).
Is it true that only white men could vote in Wisconsin in 1850? I'd be interested in seeing the wording of that law.
I'd be even more interested in seeing what this has to do with abortion rights.
And even more interested in hearing why the demmies never abolished the law in 180 years.
John LGBTQ Henry
Your Governor? Schoolmarm Evers? How MUCH did he win by? 30,000 votes? Less than 30,000 votes?
Sure SOUNDS like a TOTALLY BLUE state to me!
Oh, and of the votes he received? How many were from Milwaukee? Madison?
Did he receive ANY votes from the rest of the state?
What stopped Democrats from competing at the state level? They voluntarily focused on national politics. Oops.
and in those other states?
(Ohio? Georgia? Florida?) How large were the democrat governors' victories THERE?
A lot of spaghetti thrown against the wall in that piece. Every gripe whether justified or not that the perpetually aggrieved Wisconsin Democrats have dreamed up gets an airing. And Charlie Koch makes an appearance! Why not Kyle Rittenhouse while that were at it?
Having said all that, the GOP is on dangerous turf now that Roe and Casey were thrown out, stuck with either antiquated laws or outright bans in many states. Let the backpedaling begin!
I guess 'ultra' must have focus-grouped well. 'Ultra-MAGA.' 'Ultragerrymandered.' 'Ultra right-wing.'
In Wisconsin, Democrats hold virtually every statewide office, including governor. Yet, waves of gerrymandering have left Republicans with close to a supermajority in the State Senate and Assembly.
So, does that NYT definition of "gerrymandering" encompass the the creation by Democrats of safe and "majority minority" districts for Democrats?
Is the Voting Rights Act facilitating gerrymandering?
BY SHELDON H. JACOBSON, PH.D., OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
Of note is that this strong Democratic bias in forming majority-minority districts actually favors Republicans.
Ensuring a majority-minority district requires minority voters to be packed, effectively ensuring their representation. This however dilutes their influence in other districts. The net effect of this are less competitive districts and given that the majority of minority voters are Democratic-leaning, more representatives that are Republican get elected.
This effect is most apparent in states with large minority populations, like Texas. In the newly enacted 2021 map, all but one of the Democrat-leaning districts are majority-minority districts.
Democrats also use the Voting Rights Act as an apparent smoke screen for gerrymandering shenanigans. A textbook example of this is the recently enacted 2021 Illinois congressional map.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/590031-is-the-voting-rights-act-facilitating-gerrymandering/
Let's see if Drago and the rest call you incorrect and stupid for stating that Wisconsin would ban abortions, given that's how they responded the other day.
I give the NYT less credit for objectivity in their news articles than I give WSJ in their editorial content.
They prefer totally non-democratic rule (SCOTUS) to imperfectly democratic rule (state legislatures).
Democracy dies in selective news reporting.
What a whiner! As if Democrats don't gerrymander given the opportunity.
Republicans don't oppose abortion. Only some of them.
Dumber Than Usual (which is saying something!) Lefty Mark: "Let's see if Drago and the rest call you incorrect and stupid for stating that Wisconsin would ban abortions, given that's how they responded the other day."
I said not a word on that particular subject.
I see you are having some difficulty with reality.
Perhaps we could "clump" you together with lefty gadfly and get a group therapy rate.
I mean, that's gotta be a more cost effective way to proceed here, isn't it?
SCOTUS has ejaculated democracy all over you Ben; you really should be so thrilled as a DEMOCRAT. You can gerrymander too, if only you would try.
"In Wisconsin, Democrats hold virtually every statewide office, including governor. Yet, waves of gerrymandering have left Republicans with close to a supermajority in the State Senate and Assembly."
Actually that sounds like the major population centers are Democratic strong holds with enough votes to swing state wide elections, while the rest of the state is more moderate in nature. That happens in a lot of states.
"Democracy means I always win".
Whiny scion of a blue blood law partner marriage, daughter's middle school.
Purplish states like Wisconsin will likely impose a ban on abortion after 15 weeks or so.
Arizona's Doug Ducey recently signed such a bill and Glenn Youngkin is proposing the same in Virginia. They are following France and Sweden in that regard.
Some of the claims about states completely banning abortion are only slightly less hysterical than claims that the SCOTUS will outlaw gay and interracial marriage.
"How dare my political opposition wield political power!"
Ih my! It’s so unfair that big d democrats have only had fifty years to pass a law. Somehow although she’s leading a big d democrat majority Pelosi is powerless to do anything for the right to choose. Yes all that is so unfair. Boo freaking hoo. Maybe this will spark some enterprising young big p progressive to investigate what being a big r republic really means. This hyperventilating writer had no interest in recognizing or appreciating the wisdom of republicanism.
Wisconsin is not gerrymandered. It’s population centers are not that big, and most of the state is rural.
Ever seen the whale penis congressional district in southern Illinois? Stretches west to east from St. Louis to Champaign along the Interstate. And it just to give Dems a seat down State.
Oh, the NEW YORK Times.
Have they ever looked at the voting districts in their own state?
I wonder if it ever occurs to the pro-choice advocates that perhaps the way forward in many states is a moderate, balanced right to abortion in the first trimester that gives way to the right of the unborn entering the third trimester. I think that is where 80% of the populace is, and you can't gerrymander 80% out of existence. If the pro-choice goal is "abortion on demand regardless of trimester" then they will lose every purple state in America.
Lefty Mark is mind reading again. Democrats do a lot of that but get it wrong so often.
Oh, cry me a river.
Well Mark, I was surprised about trigger laws and really surprised that Democrats knew about the state laws and knew the SCOTUS tendency was towards saying Roe was poorly reasoned and likely to be revisited and still the only solution Democrats attempted was a crazy on-demand up-until-birth law that House Democrats couldn’t even get behind much less send to the senate. So what have you been doing to save Roe, Mark, since you knew what those dastardly ‘publicans were up to?
This is the worst kind of sophomoric, teenage writing that has become a regular feature of the NYT. WaPo. And on and on. Gerrymandering is worked on by both parties. If the people of a given state tend to like the ideas of one party more than the other, they show that by the representatives they put in office. From there, those same people work on the voting districts. Crying about it when you don't win, or get the decision you want is what a child does when they don't get their way. But in addition to stamping their feet and screaming, our Democrats of today also use their ownership of 95% of media positions to play with the facts in order to drum up more attacks, more venom, and to encourage the tearing apart of our systems.
Koch Brothers? Still? My word, that's so 80s of them.
When you look at those in the streets this weekend, you see a particular age group and look- for the most part. These are the future leaders of the Western World. Enjoy that thought. Years of miseducation has consequences.
Move to New York, California, New Jersey and all the other states that you can kill your kid up to the day of birth then. So much hatred about protecting LIFE?? Scary times.
Somehow the game is always rigged when Progressives lose, but never when they win. As Yule Brenner said as the King of Siam, "It's a puzzlement."
Cry me a river.
Unshackled by the Supreme Court and often largely unopposed by Democrats, conservative organizations backed by billionaires like Charles Koch —
The Koch foundation is Libertarian, pro Marijuana, pro gay marriage and pro choice, but sling crap in an article and whistle up on the boogymen.
I'm surprised the evil twin wasn't seen rising from his grave
The obvious comment is that if the Republicans gerrymandered some states that meant that they were in the majority at the state level. Note that the recent NY effort (Dem) to gerrymander was so unbalanced that it got thrown out by a NY court! The debate belongs at the lowest political level which is the states. If the Dems want a say they had better get their asses in gear and figure out what the majority in any given state will agree on.
"What stopped Democrats from competing at the state level? They voluntarily focused on national politics. Oops."
Word on the street is that elections have consequences.
"Purplish states like Wisconsin will likely impose a ban on abortion after 15 weeks or so."
Nope. Wisconsin has a law from 1849 that has sprung back to life. It is now a felony to do any abortion that's not necessary to save a woman's life. The clinics have canceled all their appointments. You've got to leave the state now to get an abortion.
That law should be replace by a law that represents what people here want now, but it's hard to see that getting passed.
How many states would have legalized abortion by now if Roe had never been decided? Reagan signed such a bill as Governor of California, but his position “evolved” after Roe made it a hot button issue that galvanized opposition in evangelicals.
(And how many states would have legalized same sex marriage but for Obergefell?)
David Begley said...
"Nebraska is at ground zero. One female and Dem state Senator has threatened “direct action” at the special session."
Since NE has a unicameral Legislature, how will that work? Who has the majority?
As other commenters note, Dems had 50 years to consolidate the “right” to abortion on the template of Roe (or whatever else they could push through the legislative branch. And by ”legislative branch” I mean both Congress and the state-level legislatures, replacing or abolishing or amending pre-Roe laws to conform with that decision).
Fifty years. They did nothing. They left their flanks completely exposed. They rested their entire moral and intellectual estate on a decision by nine old people in black robes. Ooops.
Gee, not one word about Soros prosecutors. Just millionaire/billionaire Republicans donating to elections.
The Wisconsin maps don't look that terribly gerrymandered at all https://legis.wisconsin.gov/ltsb/gis/maps/
I'm not worried about the Progressive Left Democrats. All of their protesting, for what? They think the Supreme Court is going to change their mind and take it back? That COS-play crap only works on impressionable politicians and the Fake News Legacy Corporate Media.
Nobody is moving anywhere because of abortion laws, on the whole IMO. It's much cheaper and easier for an individual to imagine jumping in the car and driving to a sympathetic state, assuming the need ever arises at all. Don't forget, 60% of all abortions are via Morning-After pills.
My concern is what the Republicans are going to do. Will they decide to govern for a change? Or are they going to squander this one away too? The purple-state Republicans need to decide they want to lead conservatives and independents, and that means being pragmatic about this issue. They have to decide they want to be the ones in charge, governing - at the expense of what they wish they could have. Otherwise, we'll all still be in the cheap seats.
"unlevel" LOL The newer than "equity" which is newer than "equality" way of saying progressive socialist views are not the majority opinion. They have to use focus group tested code words because they actually stand against democracy.
There were 6 facilities providing abortion in Wisconsin. There are 40 facilities providing abortion in Illinois. It's 75 miles from Madison to Rockford Illinois, about an hour and 30-minute drive. What was the average driving distance to an abortion provider in Wisconsin?
Ann Althouse said, "That law should be replace by a law that represents what people here want now, but it's hard to see that getting passed."
And according to this document, Wisconsin voters may not introduce statewide initiatives / referenda. So no chance for a statewide vote on the old law for the time being. Abortion supporters will have to wait until the state legislature is aligned more to their liking.
Wisconsin Dems will whine about gerrymandering until they eventually get their own chance.
So when the D's control the legislature, its DEMOCRACY IN ACTION. When the R's control it, that's unfair Gerrymandering.
LOL!
"abortion’s new battleground is decidedly unlevel, ..."
An interesting turn of phrase. The current term of art is "unequal", or perhaps "inequitable". It would seem the writer went out of their way to avoid it.
Perhaps "unequal" in the context of abortion is not a visual the writer wants to create?
Charles Koch? Didn't they get the memo? Elon Musk is the "official" Emperor of the Evil Empire these days. I guess the Left can't get quality Rebel Alliance members any more.
Ann Althouse said...
That law should be replace by a law that represents what people here want now, but it's hard to see that getting passed.
The People, here right now, don't want any particular anything when it comes to abortion. Given a multiple choice, no abortions at all, only the morning after pill, ok but only during the first 12 weeks, ok but only in cases of rape or incest, etc, etc, etc, choose 1, none would receive 50% + 1 of the vote. And therein lies the problem. Abortion is a literal case of life or death. There really is no compromise position. Make it a either or proposition. Put it to a popular vote. Which position would then gather 50% +1 yes? Possibly several of them. In case of rape or incest for certain. Up to the moment before birth almost certainly not. The thing is, thanks to the original Roe decision- there's been no need for people to come to agreement. It was decreed from on high abortion was a good an holy thing, and in states like Wisconsin, full of liberals and socialists, they considered it a final victory, never changing their old archaic law.
Now the debate finally begins, the one where all the sides need to hash out their differences and come to a compromise with which 50% +1 will never be satisfied with, but will have to come to a grudging agreement to live with.
That law should be replace by a law that represents what people here want now, but it's hard to see that getting passed.
Are you really that cynical Althouse?
Or are you engaging in scare tactics to influence the moderates (like me) on abortion law?
For fifty years, Democrats did nothing to codify Roe, in federal law or in most states. Should have been easy when they held power. But the issue was just too lucrative for fundraising.
But then, of course, how long have Democrats really been supporters of unfettered abortions? Certainly Clinton took a different tact. Obama found no political benefit in sorting out the legal basis. Ooops.
Ann said: 'That law should be replace by a law that represents what people here want now, but it's hard to see that getting passed.'
I know it's not going to happen immediately, but why wouldn't the state legislature enact a new law that would satisfy most of the voters (presumably the 12-14 week standard)? Is there really a large enough voting bloc in both houses that is SO personally conservative that they'll reject a moderate/compromise solution?
Is it true that only white men could vote in Wisconsin in 1850? I'd be interested in seeing the wording of that law.
I would too. But the Wisconsin law in those antebellum days might not so much have designated only “white” men as eligible to vote as forbad (free or slave) blacks from entering the state altogether. I don't know if that's true in the case of Wisconsin — but as Alexis de Tocqueville points out (in a footnote in his great Democracy in America of the 1830's) concerning the state of Ohio at the time:
“Ohio not only refuses to allow slaves but also prohibits the entry of free Negroes into its territory and forbids them from owning anything there. See the statutes of Ohio.”
That law should be replace by a law that represents what people here want now, but it's hard to see that getting passed.
Certainly not until the Dems have had a chance to wring votes out of the midterms.
Better yet to keep the issue alive through at least 2024.
If the voters of Wisconsin want a more permissive abortion law, then they will eventually get one. It won’t happen right away because there’s a lot of stickiness in the system. But sooner or later, they’ll elect a governor and legislators who will follow their wishes.
Aggie said...
Don't forget, 60% of all abortions are via Morning-After pills.
Don't know if that's a true statistic or not. I am generally against abortion. But the morning after pill- is it an abortion? Or isn't it?
Is the cat dead or alive before the box is opened? Quantum reality expressed by Schrödinger. Is the women pregnant or not? It hasn't yet been observed. All kinds of things could happen to have prevented conception or implantation of the fetus. Did the morning after pill stop or prevent a pregnancy? Or did it never happen at all and the pill was unnecessary?
I have no moral qualms about women using the morning after pill because of the uncertainty. And I think it should be offered to all rape victims.
Democrat gerrymandering.
Yes, but Charles Koch is quietly pro-choice, and the legislators funded by ALEC tends to be an equally slippery, well-disguised type: libertarian up front but NOT conservative at all, more leftist on everything but fiscal issues, deeply supporting legalizing drugs, opening borders, hating on cops, and emptying prisons. They are responsible for rolling back nearly all the gains we had in the 90s to keep recidivist, violent, and of course recidivist violent offenders locked up. That one they brag openly about -- the other two are enacted through sleight of hand.
Look at their "official" platform. They cover scores of issues without once mentioning immigration, drugs, or abortion.(A few years ago it was even funnier -- some 70 issues with no mention of the big three). Their rising members are cashing in right now, in Georgia, on legalizing drugs. They don't give a damn about abortion and do not work with any life organizations. Sure, a few of them are personally pro-life. But ALEC isn't. To your face, their big lie is that they don't do social issues. What a laugh. What isn't a social issue? Legalizing drugs? Jesus, rehab is expensive. So is crime. So are lost lives. It could be symbiotic for ALEC to flip states red, viz abortion, but then they'll throw their weight behind their paid-for officials to keep them from addressing the issue. I've seen it in Florida and Georgia, up close.
Bottom line, if being pro-choice is good for a state's bottom line (and it always is), ALEC will help the Democrats behind closed doors to keep the state pro-choice while snowing their alleged constituents with the "no social issues" line (they have no real grassroots, just employees, many ambitious little Ken Doll types).
Always look behind the closed doors. If the Koch brothers' father could come back from the dead, he'd have beat his own sons to death. They do make some important medical grants, and good on them for that.
As democracy returns, Democrats hope... strive for a stillbirth. That said, demos-cracy is aborted and diverse acts of mischief occur at The Twilight Fringe.
Fifty years. They did nothing. They left their flanks completely exposed. They rested their entire moral and intellectual estate on a decision by nine old people in black robes. Ooops.
They did NOT do nothing. For nearly fifty years the Democrats used the threat of the reimposition of abortion as a fundraising cause and a scary issue they raised every election. (Changing the law would take this scare away from them.)
Our Professor confusingly said...
That law should be replace by a law that represents what people here want now, but it's hard to see that getting passed.
What the? if it is "what people here want now", WHY don't you think it would get passed?
Don't You Believe in Democracy?? WHAT Are You? Some sort of Fascist ??
I mean.. IF it IS "what people here want now"... Or, maybe you mean what SOME people SOME place?
slightly less hysterical than claims that the SCOTUS will outlaw gay and interracial marriage
Thomas criticized the oblique normalization of both trans/homosexual marriage and interracial marriage through a politically congruent ("=") construct and substantive process, respectively. Probably with the appreciation that both approaches either force progressive corruption (e.g. Pro-Choice/ethical religious or selective/relativistic exclusion) and as em-pathetic fads, respectively.
Three of those four states flip constantly. Wisconsin is becoming more Republican among the electorate itself. Those stats may look different soon.
Executive office flips traditionally lag behind lower offices by one to three cycles. it's not a conspiracy, exceptIng that everything in politics is a conspiracy.
And if anyone is going to talk about gerrymandering only by Republicans, they need to buy another horse. Heck, in Georgia, the GOP couldn't even pass the map before this last one without substantial help from black Democratic politicians. It's especially hilarious to read some Princeton professor whine about Republican jerrymandering. He lives in New Jersey. New Jersey. And which state was caught with their paw stuck deepest in the gerrymandering jar this year? New York. Don't Republicans in New York have a right to representation of their opinions too?
As I read more about abortion in WI I get the impression that under the protection of Roe the legislature decided that abortions after 20 weeks should be banned. As I said yesterday I believe that a lot of the "absolutely no abortion" pols are posturing because there is no price to pay and when they actually have to answer to the voters we will see a lot of the pols move to the center. If I were Evers I would call a special session and force the legislators to deal with this issue in the broad light of day prior to November's election.
I am not backing away from the European scheme. I just think it is time to s**t or get off the pot!
Why in the world would it be considered a reasonable middle ground to permit abortions in the first trimester? Pregnancy can be determined with a home test after the first missed period and, in some cases, sooner. If the deed is to be done, why wait for three months? 2 months should be the outside date, and, even then, a fetal heartbeat of some sort is arguably detectable.
Given the necessity to reach a compromise on the subject, I would reluctantly support 8 weeks. Later than that, it’s unambiguously evil.
The tricky part is to decide if, and under what conditions, the consent of the male is required.
- Krumhorn
MTG.
Conservatives need 33 votes to stop a liberal filibuster. Right now, only 31 votes.
They rested their entire moral and intellectual estate on a decision by nine old people in black robes. Ooops.
Point of information. Roe v. Wade was decided 7-2, so seven old people (vice nine old people).
Yet, waves of gerrymandering have left Republicans with close to a supermajority in the State Senate and Assembly.
Democrats gerrymander — just politics as usual.
Republicans gerrymander — END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!
I have a good-faith question for those who understand the Wisconsin laws. What was the law in Wisconsin regarding abortion just prior to Roe being decided, and why wouldn't the law revert to that situation post-Dobbs rather than a law from 1849? I know that some states passed laws post-Roe that impose other conditions or set up trigger laws that would apply if Roe was overruled, but that does not appear to apply here.
Right this second Democrats in Congress could pass a federal legalizing abortion before 15 weeks. It might not even need the filibuster to be suspended. They won’t do it. They want the wedge issue.
“... Democrats may have won the popular presidential vote in five out of the last six elections, but Republicans control 23 state legislatures while Democrats lead 14 …”
IOW Californians can only vote in California.
Ann Althouse said...
"Purplish states like Wisconsin will likely impose a ban on abortion after 15 weeks or so."
Nope. Wisconsin has a law from 1849 that has sprung back to life. It is now a felony to do any abortion that's not necessary to save a woman's life. The clinics have canceled all their appointments. You've got to leave the state now to get an abortion.
That law should be replace by a law that represents what people here want now, but it's hard to see that getting passed.
***********
That's remarkably defeatist of you, Ann.
If the legislature doesn't replace the draconian 1849 law with one that represents what "people here" want, and those people represent a majority, then their wishes can be expressed at the next state/local elections.
Wisconsin has a referendum system, does it not? So...collect the necessary signatures and get the issue on the ballot.
You would have to involve yourself in icky politics, though.
"abortion’s new battleground is decidedly unlevel, tilted by years of Republican efforts to gerrymander state legislatures while Democrats largely focused on federal politics.
It always makes me feel better to see the Left having to resort to complete dishonesty to push their position.
It lets me know that even thy know their side is crap
It was the BO Admin & the Dems passing ObamaCare that created a 2010 GOP wave that let the GOP take over State Houses and Governorships, and thus FINALLY get to wrest control of redistricting away from the gerrymandering Democrats, and return the favor.
Dems "focused on the Federal level" because they salted the ground at the State level, all by themselves
As abortion becomes illegal in half of the country, democratic self-governance may be nearly out of reach for some voters
Thanks to Roe & Casey, "democratic self-governance" was out of reach for ALL Americans until Friday. It's just shocking how that didn't bother the NYT at all.
Democrats may have won the popular presidential vote in five out of the last six electio
2000: Democrats in the "election predictions" rooms of every single network, including Fox, spent the entire night up until polls in CA closed pushing the narrative that 2000 was a Dem sweep, by reporting (or in the case of FL, making up) Dem projected wins quacking, and GOP ones slowly
This suppressed the GOP vote in the West. Mission accomplished
As for 2016: One candidate campaigned to win the election, the other campaigned to win the meaningless "popular vote".
Being a moron is a negative, not a positive
Republicans control 23 state legislatures while Democrats lead 14 — with 12 bicameral state legislatures divided between the parties. (Nebraska’s legislature is elected on a nonpartisan basis.)
So it's 24 - 14 - 12, because while Neb is officially "nonpartisan", it's controlled by Republicans
This would be because most of the country, on a geographic basis, hates the modern Democrat Party.
That happens when you becomes an almost strictly urban Party
Unshackled by the Supreme Court and often largely unopposed by Democrats, conservative organizations backed by billionaires like Charles Koch — including the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Republican State Leadership Committee — set out more than a decade ago to dominate policymaking at the state level
Wank, wank, wank.
The "unshackling" came in the 1980s, in a SCOTUS case where the DNC won, and the RNC lost, and it was found that there was no Constitutional protection from gerrymandering
In Wisconsin, Democrats hold virtually every statewide office, including governor.
Yes, WI Dems had a good night in 2018. That's nice
Yet, waves of gerrymandering have left Republicans with close to a supermajority in the State Senate and Assembly.
No, Dems cramming the vast majority of their voters into tight places means that they win with 70+% of the vote in some districts, and lose most of the rest by far smaller margins
As they should
That means an abortion ban that was passed in 1849, when only white men could vote, is set to go back into force now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned
Roe v Wade only canceled laws that were active in 1973. Women had the vote in WI in 1973, and for decades before that, but apparently the majority of voters were very happy with that 1849 law, which is why it remained untouched for 124 years
The stupidity, it is amazing
That law should be replace by a law that represents what people here want now, but it's hard to see that getting passed.
Esp since the "abortion to crowning" Democrats have absolutely NO desire to pass a law the people of WI today want.
gsgodfrey said...
I have a good-faith question for those who understand the Wisconsin laws. What was the law in Wisconsin regarding abortion just prior to Roe being decided, and why wouldn't the law revert to that situation post-Dobbs rather than a law from 1849?
Because the law passed in 1849 was still the law 124 years later.
Apparently that was the law that the 1973 people of WI liked, because 7 old white men destroyed democracy and took it away from them
So Republican led states had trigger laws ready to go and Democrats had what? Bullying the courts as a plan? Again not looking good for Guardians of Democracy there.
From my little work in politics I know that any political party that can gerrymanders like all get out. I think the argument that "the Democrat's neglected state districting" is to cover for the possibility that voters aren't as fond of abortion as the activists and politicians promote.
The first comment, addressing the NYT's unintentionally humorous whining at the evil GOP's redistricting projects while lamenting whatever obstructs the Democrats', probably, I'll guess, is what 90% of 'em will say. That was certainly my reaction at reading the NYT article. Of course it is because the GOP is the party of oppression and evil and the Demos, at least certain subspecies of them, are the party of liberty and enlightenment. Eh. I haven't even done the puzzles today, the front page of the NYT on the Internet has been so tiresome for three days now.
"If I were Evers I would call a special session and force the legislators to deal with this issue in the broad light of day prior to November's election."
He did, earlier this week, with the stated purpose of addressing this ahead of a ruling.
The Republicans voted to end the session immediately and that was the end of it.
It's funny how liberals constantly complain about Republican gerrymandering but never complain about Democratic gerrymandering. (Like we have in California.)
Mark said...
He did, earlier this week, with the stated purpose of addressing this ahead of a ruling.
The Republicans voted to end the session immediately and that was the end of it.
Of course they did.
Agreeing to a change in the law when there was no need to, because it was still being blocked by Roe, would have been politically stupid.
Now they can negotiate from a position of strength, because the Democrats are stuck with "no agreement" == "no abortions".
The thing that any sane Republican always keeps in mind is that Democrats ALWAYS negotiate in bad faith. So there was no benefit to negotiate before Roe was struck down
David Koch told CNN in 2019 that he was pro-choice and supports gay rights, not an unusual stand for a libertarian. https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics/david-koch-gay-rights-abortion-democrats/index.html
I agree that now that state abortion laws are real, there will be pressure to reflect what most voters want. Most of us are in the mushy middle.
I also envision conservative states banning surgical abortions (except for medical emergencies), but allowing women to fill out-of-state prescriptions for drugs that induce early abortion.
I'd like to see polls on how many people want to ban contraception: Nobody would be my best guess.
David Koch told CNN in 2019 that he was pro-choice and supports gay rights, not an unusual stand for a libertarian. https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics/david-koch-gay-rights-abortion-democrats/index.html
I agree that now that state abortion laws are real, there will be pressure to reflect what most voters want. Most of us are in the mushy middle.
I also envision conservative states banning surgical abortions (except for medical emergencies), but allowing women to fill out-of-state prescriptions for drugs that induce early abortion.
I'd like to see polls on how many people want to ban contraception: Nobody would be my best guess.
Florida passed a 15 week law when the Dobbs decision was pending during regular legislative sesssion. What was Wisconsin doing?
Ohio and Florida are also becoming more Republican. Georgia more Democrat. As Democrats focused on "national issues" alienate voters, they can expect to lose votes in states that aren't solidly Democrat.
Everybody gerrymanders. It's the American way.
And yes, the concentration of minority voters in districts, something demanded by liberals and Democrats means fewer Democrat voters in other district, and therefore, more Republican legislators.
"Now they can negotiate from a position of strength, because the Democrats are stuck with "no agreement" == "no abortions"."
The WI Republican party is perfectly fine with no abortions. You keep pretending like they are not scared of upsetting the religious right who feel like they got a big win.
The Dems could call another session and it would be the same results. Pretending like timing matters here is naive, it doesn't.
Ultragerrymandered!
Coming soon: Megagerrymandered
Mark said...
The WI Republican party is perfectly fine with no abortions. You keep pretending like they are not scared of upsetting the religious right who feel like they got a big win.
The Dems could call another session and it would be the same results. Pretending like timing matters here is naive, it doesn't.
Mark: Let us know when the WI Democrats have provided, and gotten a majority of their members in the WI State Legislature, behind a proposed law to legalize some / all abortions.
The current offer on the table from the GOP is "all abortions are illegal." It's not just the offer, it's the current law
Do Dems want that changed? If so, what's their counter-offer?
They have none? They just want to scream and shout?
Then the proper GOP response is to ignore them.
Does Evers want a Legislative Special Session to change WI abortion laws? Then he needs to provide the new law he wants. One that > 1/2 the Dems in the State Legislature have said they'll support.
Until you can get your side together, you don't get to bitch about the other side
Geez, Greg. It's like you know something about politics.
Why thank you Tina, I do try :-)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा