Woo! Let's get less gerrymandered!
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
251 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19233 readers
3173 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hopefully the Supreme Court of Corruption doesn't fuck this up.
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.
GOP is appealing to the US SC the article says.
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...?
Last time this happened they said they don’t interfere in state election law.
Because I'm curious, what case was that? I'd really like to read it over and see how the concepts could apply to the Section Three ruling that came out of Colorado and will most certainly be appealed to SCOTUS.
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!