• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the Wisconsin Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court. And it has a liberal majority, which is why they ordered new maps.

        • Jode@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Last time this happened they said they don’t interfere in state election law. Surely they wouldn’t change their minds now that it’s a liberal state SC ruling would they…?

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned Republican-drawn legislative maps on Friday and ordered that new district boundary lines be drawn as Democrats had urged in a redistricting case they hope will weaken GOP majorities.

    Rebecca Bradley, in her dissent, referred to the liberal majority as “handmaidens of the Democratic Party,” saying they “trample the rule of law, dishonor the institution of the judiciary, and undermine democracy.”

    Wisconsin’s redistricting ruling comes one day after a federal judicial panel also struck down some of Michigan’s state House and Senate districts and ordered them to be redrawn.

    Wisconsin Democrats argued for having all 132 lawmakers stand for election under the new maps, including half of the members of the state Senate who are midway through their four-year terms.

    The court agreed with Democrats who argued in Wisconsin that the majority of current legislative districts — 54 out of 99 in the Assembly and 21 out of 33 in the Senate — violate the state constitution’s contiguity requirement.

    Wisconsin’s redistricting laws, backed up by state and federal court rulings over the past 50 years, have permitted districts under certain circumstances to be noncontiguous, attorneys for the Legislature argued.


    The original article contains 965 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!