SCOTUS Issues Stay in Redistricting Case

Excellent. Our State AG is pleased.

MADISON, Wis. – By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court of the United States this morning granted Attorney General Brad D. Schimel’s application for a stay in the redistricting case, Gill v. Whitford. Earlier today, the Court agreed to hear the case, which is expected to be scheduled for oral argument during the term starting in October 2017.

The stay prevents implementation of the three-judge panel’s ruling, which would have required the Wisconsin Legislature to redraw district maps in the coming months.

Attorney General Brad Schimel released the following statement in response.

”The stay is particularly important because it preserves the Legislature’s time, effort, and resources while this case is pending. In our stay application, I argued that requiring the Legislature to re-draw district maps this year would have been a waste of resources. I also argued that it was likely that the lower court’s decision would be eventually overturned. I am pleased that the Court granted our request on this important issue.”

10 Responses to SCOTUS Issues Stay in Redistricting Case

  1. billphoto says:

    The elusive solution is to have an impartial group draw the lines.

    I was on the County Board in 2010 when we redistricted.  Parks and Planning did an excellent job drawing lines based on population and geography but when the Redistricting Committee found four Supervisors from Germantown would be in one District, they rejected the plan.  The Supervisors were so indispensable that the loss of even one would be catastrophic.

    In the end, they made jigsaw puzzle Districts and then changed to an odd number of Supervisors because we were going to change the Board from 30 to 15 Supervisors.  Their only interest is in protecting their own butts.  At the State level, it is no different.

  2. Le Roi du Nord says:

    “The elusive solution is to have an impartial group draw the lines”.

    I’m with you 100% on that notion.

  3. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Where will you find impartial approval bodies in a legislature?

    I’d prefer the New Hamshire multi member district model.

  4. billphoto says:

    My experience is limited to the elected clowns on the Washington County Board of Supervisors and their shenanigans and, of course, the redistricting job the ‘Party’ did on conservative Assemblyman Pridemore but I would agree  the ‘Party’s only interest is protecting their own.

    I would like to learn more about the New Hampshire model.

  5. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Iowa’s seems to work well, too.

  6. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    New Hampshire House model.

    https://ballotpedia.org/New_Hampshire_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016

    Remember they are a part time citizen legislature that get only a fraction of the pay.

    It actually allows for 3rd parties, like Libertarians, to get elected regularly.   Sometimes it allows for the occassional Socialist as well, but that would just be a Democrat with an honest label.

  7. Le Roi du Nord says:

    But that link doesn’t describe how NH draws their district boundaries.

  8. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    I was talking about the multi-member district concept, vs. district boundary drawing

    Control of New Hampshire house has flipped nearly every election since 2010.   If that is what you want….this would be the concept.

    They are the “Live free or die” state, so traditional liberal philosophy should be abhorrent to everyone that lives in that state.

  9. Le Roi du Nord says:

    “Control of New Hampshire house has flipped nearly every election since 2010”.

    “traditional liberal philosophy should be abhorrent to everyone that lives in that state”.

    Don’t you see the contradiction in your own statements?

    I like Iowa’s better.

  10. jjf says:

    I think we need a transparent process.

    There may not be any present requirement for the legislature to explain in advance how they create the maps they do, but at least after the fact we should’ve been able to see the records documenting their process and intent.

    Instead, we saw the WisGOP deliberately hire an outside firm to assist, then they destroyed the records of how they did it, including erasing hard drives.

    They damn well knew what they were doing. They used the latest and greatest software to carve up districts to preserve Republican majorities, right down to house-by-house demographics and party databases. It’s shameful.

Leave a Reply