Wisconsin Supreme Court rules legislative maps unconstitutional, orders new boundaries for 2024 vote

See #24. If I remember correctly, it was done because the Democratic Party in California had gerrymandered some districts. They've had the majority in California's legislature since 1959, aside from 1969-1971.

 

I don't think anyone claimed that, but it is red states that are the most guilty. See the link in #6.

 

See #24. California empanels a multi-party commission following every census.

 

It is EXACTLY what the claimed read the rulings this is racial gerrymandering just as occurred in my district.

So again

Do people with the same skin color have a right to a voting district where they are the majority voters? Do you have a right to have a mayor or governor of member of Congress whose skin color is the same as yours?

I read #6 and note the racial gerrymandering. POLITICAL gerrymandering is CONSTITUIONAL. It's how the system works the SCOTUS has consistently said if you want be the ones who draw all the lines then win elections.

 

We did in Wisconsin.... watch them lines change now...

 

So, to be clear, you think the SCOTUS will steer clear of this issue??

If they were to remain consistent (Ha Ha), they should, but this dummy seems to think otherwise..

SNIP
“We will pursue all federal issues arising out of the redistricting litigation at the U.S. Supreme Court,” Vos said.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wisconsin-republicans-hope-supreme-court-220717686.html

 

So we want to fix gerrymandering by installing more gerrymandering. Makes sense.

 

It isn't gerrymandering if a district has logical boundaries based on location and population size. If the majority of people living in, say, a large urban area, then it's likely that those people will elect someone from among them who actually represents the people of that district. If the voters in that logically drawn district are mostly white or mostly black, so be it.

Gerrymandering like Wisconsin's is where they divide districts so that minority voters are divided among multiple, "twisted beyond all logic" districts that include suburban and/or rural areas, the result being more Republican candidates. AKA, cheating.

 

Actually the BEST thing to do would be to allow a computer to do it. Just feed in the population numbers and how many districts you want. Put in a couple of limitations as to border length vs. area and let the computer sort it out.

 

I think there are other factors. County lines, geographical features etc.

 

All things that could be included in a computer program to create districts. What you DON'T feed into it is political party and racial information. What you want is districts that are as compact as possible while still maintaining population numbers.

 

Agreed.

 

They usually do but it is high time they stopped this Dem gerrymandering based on race which destroys on communities and ignores our commonalities.

 

They haven't even proposed a map yet, and it's gerrymandering.... Too funny...

Why is it Wisc has been listed at or near the top of the most gerrymandered states for a solid decade now??

THINK about that... seriously, give it a rip...

 

It’s odd that you see the only solutions to this is to gerrymander based on race or gerrymander based on how one votes. Fascinating stuff

 

I agree. There should be some way to create districts in a nonpartisan manner.
And we all need to be more purple anyway.
That’s the only way to make a diverse society work.

 

It's not odd that when you can't address what I say you fallaciously make up something. Tell me what YOU think upon what such districts should be drawn.

 

They CLEARLY stated race was the reason to redraw them. Just as it was when they divided my district. Do younsupport racial gerrymandering?

 

Read last weeks ruling it is about minority votung districts and right to have a representative with .your same skin color.

 

Incorrect. It's about the right to elect someone who lives in, and represents, the residents in a logically drawn district, not one that is obviously politically drawn in order to give an unfair advantage to one party or the other.

 

If a state is originally gerrymandered on race, it stands to reason it has to be ungerrymandered using the same criteria...

But feel free to post a clip from the decision that you feel supports your claim... for a change of pace.

 

So racial gerrymandering is OK with you, a person has a RIGHT to be represented ny someone of thier own skin color. That is what you are saying.

Are you claim race was not a part of the decision?

 

Read the ruling it it about minority representation.

 

None of that is a clip from the decision.. was that by design??

BTW, whatever comes from a major Wisconsin redo won't be racial gerrymandering... thought you'd like to know that...

 

The ruling states it is about minority representation

" These include the Equal Protection Clause's one-person-one-vote requirement, the prohibition on multimember congressional districts under 2 U.S.C. § 2c, and the Voting Rights Act's ("VRA's") prohibition of "the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group." "

""Gingles preconditions," which must be established in order to demonstrate a VRA § 2 violation necessitating the creation of an additional minority opportunity district: No. 2023AP1399-OA.akz 39 (1) the racial group must be "sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district"; (2) the group must be "politically cohesive"; and (3) the white majority must "vot[e] sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." "

"("[R]acial bloc voting and minority-group political cohesion [the requirements of a VRA redistricting violation] never can be assumed, but specifically must be proved in each case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes minority voting strength in violation of § 2."). "

And you have been clear you support racial gerrymandering which IS against the Constitution but not political gerrymandering which the SCOTUS has said is politics as designed.

Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering.[1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.[2]

The case was one of three heard in the 2018 term dealing with issues related to partisan gerrymandering used in the districting plans of states. It was combined with Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina, and its decision included the Court's judgment on Lamone v. Benisek, a partisan gerrymandering case from Maryland.[3] The 5–4 decision, divided along ideological lines, left in place North Carolina's congressional districts, which favor the Republican Party, and Maryland's congressional districts, which favor the Democratic Party.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho...urisdiction of these courts.&text=Robert A.,v.