On the other side:
Justice Jill J. Karofsky, writing for the majority, said that Wisconsin’s current maps violate a requirement in the State Constitution “that Wisconsin’s state legislative districts must be composed of physically adjoining territory.”
“Given the language in the Constitution, the question before us is straightforward,” she wrote. “When legislative districts are composed of separate, detached parts, do they consist of ‘contiguous territory’? We conclude that they do not.”
I see that Democrats are exulting, but why would more compact, contiguous districts help Democrats? Their problem has been that Democratic voters are concentrated in urban areas. If the court's decision means what that Karofsky quote says, won't more Democrats end up packed into districts that already had a safe Democratic majority?
Our former governor, Scott Walker, said "This is not the win the left thinks it is."
Posts
49 comments:
‘Robewearers’ is a ‘denouncement’? Do they not wear robes?
Everyone is worried about who will be president.
That flip in Wisconsin could help finish off the Republic.
Next: Permanent mail in voting
Our former governor, Scott Walker, said "This is not the win the left thinks it is.
I’m going to wager the win that Walker believes is not the win the left thinks it is either the win the left thinks it is or it will eventually be the win the left thinks it is. Ergo it is the win the left thinks it is…
I think the Dems are just happy the gerrymander that yielded the GOP 2/3 majorities in the Legislature is defeated and having a close to 50/50 split breaks Robin Vos' control.
The win the Left thinks is a win is never a win. See: any big Democrat city.
A Pyrrhic win.
Well, Scott, the robewearers will make certain that it is, one way or another.
The first of two articles at The Liberal Patriot (Ruy Teixeira's SubStack) on Wisconsin politics.
Compact districts might disadvantage the Democrats if you assume what they need to do is extend the reach of urban Democrats out of city cores. However, Milwaukee has been bleeding residents for years and now the Democrats are getting more of their support from suburban and exurban voters in the Milwaukee area and Dane county. If the map gets redrawn to use those suburbs to overwhelm the lightly populated and more Republican areas farther outside those cities it could work in the Democrats favor.
Now do NY and Maryland's recent spaghetti-district redistricting lawsuits (and D losses).
NY rejected map -- scroll down to the panel "Current, Rejected, New" with zig-zag districts:
https://www.insideelections.com/news/article/new-york-redistricting-redux-maloney-jones-bowman-malliotakis-stefanik
Maryland rejected map (see 03, 04, and 05 in yellow, red, and purple!):
https://www.mymcmedia.org/maryland-state-redistricting-map-thrown-out/
As if dem districts are not challenges to geography
The newest members of the Supreme Legislature campaigned on a platform of giving Democrats political control, and they will achieve it. The redistricting will continue until the right answer is gained.
Walker and, perhaps, Althouse are being naïve: yes, compact districts wouldn't much alter the legislative balance, but those kinds of districts aren't what the court is planning to draw when the legislature fails in giving Democrats enough seats to control the legislature. The court will parcel out the Democrats in Madison and Milwaukee out into the suburbs like giant spokes in a wheel to create lots of 53-47 type districts. I promise you- nothing the legislature draws will ever be accepted by that court.
I'll never understand why Republicans don't seem to care about illegal gerrymandering (the state I'm most familiar with is AK, where the courts clearly stated that the most recent maps were unconstitutionally rigged), or why the public isn't more concerned that political parties are doing things that are against the law to gain/maintain control. If anyone is aware of modern examples of the Democrat party supporting illegal maps, I'd be interested to see those, this seems to be a largely one sided thing these days though (and that seems to be on the side that also aligns with the belief that unconstitutional anyone to keep their favorite political wrestler in power would have been ok).
Ok, I just looked at the maps for the state senate, state assembly, and the US House districts and I couldn't, by eying the maps, find a single example of a district that is actually discontiguous. Every square meter of a district was bordered somewhere on that square meter by another square meter of the same district. I suppose the opponents of the present map are playing word games here- when they write "discontiguous", they mean the district crosses some city/county/river border where that border serves to cut the district into two parts?
Anyone on the ground understand what the court means by discontiguous? Additionally, most of the districts are fairly compact already- the only way you will get many more Dem seats is by making them less compact- like I wrote in the previous comment- by creating spoke-like districts centered on the larger cities- it is the only way to make use of the much denser presence of reliable Dem voters in those cities- almost all of those city districts are already very compact.
Ok- I finally found a map I can blow up enough to see that the Senate map for Dane is discontiguous. But it is the only county with this problem that I can find. Fixing that isn't going to be a big change- it will effect exactly 4 Senate districts.
https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms
That's a good article if anyone is concerned about gerrymandering.
This is at the heart of democracy. It is the most impactful single issue in America. Who gets elected by whom...
Not to worry, in the future, when the Democrats Gerrymander (and they will) it will be for all the right reasons.
Same for the assembly- the problematic districts are in Dane County and maybe Rock County (hard to tell with my eyes). Again, an easy fix that probably won't change the balance in the legislature all that much- 2 to 3 seats switch max looking at who holds them right this moment.
Looking at the maps and the state constitution language, I would have to agree that some of the assembly and state senate districts are unconstitutional- the language is quite clear in the state constitution and some of the districts do violate them, but fixing only those won't much change the legislative balance- Republicans will still have a built in advantage unless the court makes the urban districts much less compact, which I think is the actual goal here.
This is nothing more than a corrupt attempt to centralize additional power around Dane County which really doesn't care much about the rest of the state and despised the rural areas. I'm sure they will create additional districts around Dance, and put WI GOP Reps up against each other.
Hope there will be another US Supreme Court Challenge.
The WI Constitution gives the power of map drawing to the legislature, not the courts. The Supreme Court spanked down the last attempt at implementing Evers' liberal map. RINO Brian "Beta" Hegedorn voted for that map, and then the GOP map after the US Supreme Court stopped it.
There is some bullshit about "municipal islands". Areas like golf courses, cemeteries, and industrial parks where nobody lives.
Liberal women are destroying our once fun, friendly state. They are going to turn us into Illinois and Minnesota.
I'm sure Act 10 will be deemed unconstitutional next. Centralized power in Dane County needs to be broken up.
WI is mostly rural. Culturally, way outside of the crazy shit pushed by Madison and Milwaukee.
The maps liberals want are going to have to look like a Salvador Dali painting to strip the little people in rural WI of their rights.
And trust me. From the Dane County Ivory Tower, rural WI only consists of 'little people'.
Maybe " non- contiguous" is the excuse. Let's wait to see what they come up with.
“When legislative districts are composed of separate, detached parts, do they consist of ‘contiguous territory’? We conclude that they do not.”
Last time around the three liberal justices DEFENDED municipal islands which were part of the Tony Evers proposed map. Beta Cuck Evers defended them. They completely reversed course.
The courts maps will be drawn my some bullshit firm out of state, when the WI Constitution gives that power solely to the legislature. Same with the US 14th Amendment, but arrogant liberal judges don't care.
Hope the US Supreme Court Steps in again. Vos should be suing right now.
There was a famous congressional district in North Carolina; that went from High Point, down the center lane medium of I-85, down 75 miles to Charlotte.. So that it could include two completely different geographical areas (both of which were majority black).
They'll do a similar thing in Wisconsin.. Long snaky lines reaching out from Mad town and Milwaukee, and stretching hundreds of miles. So you'll live in Wausau, but you'll be represented by someone in Kenosha.. NAH! just kidding!
You'll live in Wausau and be represented by Professor Althouse's neighbor
"...denounced the liberal majority as 'robewearers'...."
That's telling 'em!
But, after all..
Your State is SO GERRYMANDERED, that your democrat governor struggles to get 50% of the vote.
They're going to fix That, aren't they?
Get out while you can, is my advice.
as short a time ago as 2014.. EVERY state office holder was a republican..
Now, THAT is gerrymandering
Ok, I just did a deeper dive into actually who holds the seats in the state assembly where the districts are discontiguous and into who holds the seats of the districts all around those districts that are discontiguous. As far as I can tell from the last election, 2022, nothing will change by making all of those discontiguous districts contiguous. All of the discontiguous districts are already held by Democrats, and all of the surrounding contiguous districts are also held by Democrats. In other words, simply changing the bounderies in trading between the adjoining districts make them all contiguous simply trades voters between districts that are already represented by Democrats.
I suspect that every single one of these discontiguous districts were created not to gerrymander more Republican districts, but to cater to Democrats already holding the urban and suburban districts to make them safer from primary challenges. No other explanation makes any sense at all given the lop-sided control the GOP holds overall and the fact that the districts under discussion are all Democrat held already.
So, my original hypothesis is likely correct- the court intends to make the urban/suburban districts less compact to spread out Democrat voters into more districts. The tool for doing this was the obviously unconstitutional noncontinuities in the urban cores.
Here is what is going to happen- the legislature will fix the discontiguous districts by simply swapping out between the contiguous Dem districts that surround the noncontiguous Dem districts- that is the easiest and only logical fix for for the discontinuities. This would result in no net change ceteris paribus, and the Democrats surely already know this- they can only look at the exact same maps I just now looked at. The real goal has to be to make the urban districts less compact, which will actually also violate the clear language of the Wisconsin constitution- there is no other way to spread out Democrats that are densely packed into the urban and near-suburban areas.
On looking at the state senate map, there might be one net change as there does appear to be one GOP held district that has a discontiguous piece next to a Democrat district with a discontiguous piece/s.
I will point out something that isn't generally understood- much gerrymandering isn't to advantage one party over the other- it is to favor incumbents against primary challengers, and, in particular the very worst gerrymanders are specifically designed to elect blacks and hispanics to various legislatures by creating majority minority districts, but in a state like Wisconsin, such state legislature districts are almost always surrounded by other Democrat held majority white districts- fixing such gerrymanders only changes the skin color of the Democrat office holder.
Look at the 6th district in South Carolina: the only reason Clyburn is a representative is to claim as many black/democrat residents as possible. GOP gerrymandering indeed.
'WI is mostly rural'
The population isn't, esp if you consider the WOW counties as part of Milwaukee, which they are.
Sadly for the GOP, deer cannot vote.
Scott Walker assumes (incorrectly) that the left "thinks".
Peglegged Picador said...
If anyone is aware of modern examples of the Democrat party supporting illegal maps, I'd be interested to see
so? you've NEVER HEARD of New York state?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/court-rules-ny-democrats-gerrymandered-congressional-map-rcna25549
Court rules N.Y. Democrats gerrymandered congressional map
The judges ruled that the 2022 map “was drawn to discourage competition and favor Democrats.”
Gerrymandering works. When one's own party does it, it is just politics. When the opposition does it, it ranks up there with eating live babies on a public stage. When the rules limiting gerrymandering say contiguous, make the damn map districts contiguous and get on with actually convincing people to vote for your party and its policies, or GTFO.
That is the amazing thing about politics now. It isn't about making a convincing argument for or against policy, it is about the rules for accumulating money & votes & power, and how far those rules can bend. To hell with that, and to hell with them who do that. The Republicans had better start making convincing arguments for themselves.
At large districts, compact districts, oddly shaped districts, districts following existing political OR physical boundaries such as rivers and roads, have all been declared at some point in the past by one court or another to be unconstitutional. And have also been mandated by one court or another... So all methods of determining whether district boundaries are constitutional, unconstitutional, racist or not racist, and so on and so forth, are totally dependent on judges, some of whom are elected, some appointed.
Compact districts following existing first: existing political boundaries and second: existing physical boundaries likely make the most sense. And will result, in every state, Democrats lumped together.
Any win is only temporary. Populations change. New districts will need to be drawn. Another political and legal battle will be fought. With no actual rules governing the outcome. Isn't politics great?
“Justice Annette Ziegler, one of three conservatives on the panel, denounced the liberal majority as 'robewearers'...."
Not only that, I hear that they masticate - sometimes even in public!
"Justice Annette Ziegler, one of three conservatives on the panel, denounced the liberal majority as 'robewearers'....”
Man, down to the level of every cell in their body, those liberals are just bastids.
From the Wisconsin constitution:
"districts to be bounded by county, precinct, town or ward
lines, to consist of contiguous territory and be in as compact
form as practicable."
This case should have been unanimous. The WI Constitution requires contiguous districts and the Republican map includes discontinuous districts.
Note however, that for the past 50 years, Wisconsin legislative districts have consistently contained detached territory. Courts have ruled them "legally contiguous even if the area around the island is part of a different district."
Also, this suit is a continuation of a case that has been running for a few years and resulted in the current maps. Every party involved in the case previously agreed the maps complied with the contiguity requirement.
Those were key arguments in the dissent.
Zeigler’s argument seems to be that since Republicans got their unconstitutional gerrymander through before the 2022 election, they should be entitled to keep it until the next census in 10 years.
After they redraw the maps - and the Republicans still have their majority - who will the left blame then?
Per Rich above:
Confirms my suspicion that the discontiguous districts were designed to protect certain Democrat incumbents in the urban areas. Looking at them more closely, it appears to me that the small islands are minority neighborhoods that are roped into larger non-boundary districts in order to form districts with majority minority voting populations. If I looked specifically, I bet I would find that every single small island is represented by either a black Democrat or a hispanic Democrat. It's why the Democrats have until the last decade or so agreed to these gerrymanders- they probably didn't have a choice due to federal civil rights legislation.
" Areas like golf courses, cemeteries, and industrial parks where nobody lives."
The last two are the source of mail in votes in some Democratic areas. So there's that.
" Areas like golf courses, cemeteries, and industrial parks where nobody lives."
Hell, in Philly the cemeteries routinely get 100% turnout.
Christopher B said...
The first of two articles at The Liberal Patriot (Ruy Teixeira's SubStack) on Wisconsin politics.
Compact districts might disadvantage the Democrats if you assume what they need to do is extend the reach of urban Democrats out of city cores. However, Milwaukee has been bleeding residents for years and now the Democrats are getting more of their support from suburban and exurban voters in the Milwaukee area and Dane county. If the map gets redrawn to use those suburbs to overwhelm the lightly populated and more Republican areas farther outside those cities it could work in the Democrats favor.
I presume the State Legislature is going to get to re-draw those maps
Which means they're going to get to use the latest voting data, and they will have every reason to
1: Take their time
2: Make the gerrymanders even more pro-GOP
Because the time limit is ticking on being able to use new maps this year, and if WISC gets too froggy the State Legislature can appeal to SCOTUS, which hasn't been too friendly to State Supreme Courts on redistricting
Yancey Ward said...
I promise you- nothing the legislature draws will ever be accepted by that court.
That court isn't the last word, SCOTUS is
Jersey Fled said...
"Hell, in Philly the cemeteries routinely get 100% turnout.”
Talk about your niche appeal.
Post a Comment