Wisconsin Supreme Court goes left
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Gondwanaland
Verified User
Yes, Democrats only give fuck about gerrymandering when it's their opponents in power doing it, and are more than happy to engage in it whilst in power themselves.
evince
Truthmatters
Want to compare cases that have become involved in the courts idiot?
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/nine-redistricting-cases-that-shaped-history/
Nine famous cases ass crack dweller
Let’s go loser
Nine famous cases ass crack dweller
Let’s go loser
evince
Truthmatters
Partisan Gerrymandering Cases
4. Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
“To hold that legislators cannot take partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers’ decision to entrust districting to political entities.”
The case: North Carolina voters challenged the state’s 2016 congressional map as being a partisan gerrymander in favor of Republicans. The district court struck down the map, finding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue and that the map was a partisan gerrymander. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the case was consolidated with similar cases challenging state maps for partisan gerrymandering. The Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable (suitable for courts to decide on) because they present a political question that is beyond the reach of federal courts.
The significance: After decades of punting the issue, the Supreme Court’s ruling put an end to partisan gerrymandering cases in federal courts. This means that, during future rounds of redistricting, partisan gerrymandering will be fair game unless a state’s constitution prohibits it or Congress passes a law that bans the practice, like the For the People Act.
Racial Gerrymandering and Vote Dilution Cases
In case you missed it, Shelby County v. Holder (2013) is another important case we wrote about here.
5. Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)
“The critical question in a § 2 claim is whether the use of a contested electoral practice or structure results in members of a protected group having less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”
The case: Black voters in North Carolina challenged the state legislative maps, arguing that they were purposefully drawn to dilute the voting power of Black individuals. During the course of the case, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was amended to make clear that an election law that has a discriminatory effect, as opposed to only a discriminatory intent, could also violate Section 2. The Supreme Court unanimously held that North Carolina’s state legislative districts violated Section 2 because they were drawn to prevent a minority group from electing its preferred candidates.
The significance: The Supreme Court established three criteria for proving a pattern of racial vote dilution: 1) the minority group in question must be “sufficiently large and geographically compact” to elect a candidate of its choice; 2) the minority group must be politically cohesive (meaning they typically vote in a similar manner) and 3) the majority group must be politically cohesive enough to defeat the minority group’s preferred candidate(s). The Court also held that voters do not need to show discriminatory causation or intent to prove vote dilution claims.
6. Shaw v. Reno (1993)
“Redistricting legislation that is so bizarre on its face that it is ‘unexplainable on grounds other than race,’…demands the same close scrutiny that we give other state laws that classify citizens by race.”
The case: North Carolina voters challenged the state’s congressional map, arguing that they constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by purposefully concentrating Black voters to create two majority-Black districts. Focusing on the “bizarre” shape of the districts, the Supreme Court held that race cannot be a predominant factor in drawing districts and courts must closely review whether, if race is determined to be the leading factor, its use is narrowly tailored and serves a compelling governmental interest.
The significance: Shaw established the legal principle that racial considerations in redistricting are subject to strict scrutiny by courts.
7. Miller v. Johnson (1995)
“The…burden is to show, either through circumstantial evidence of a district’s shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a district.”
The case: White voters challenged the constitutionality of Georgia’s congressional redistricting plan, specifically a majority-Black district drawn to satisfy preclearance requirements under Section 5 of the VRA. The Supreme Court, applying Shaw’s strict scrutiny standard, struck down the district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that was not tailored to any compelling state interest.
The significance: This ruling affirmed Shaw, but went one step further by analyzing legislative intent to determine whether racial motivations were the predominant factors in drawing districts. In other words, the shape of a district is not the only criteria to consider when analyzing racial gerrymandering claims.
8. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (2015)
“It is not about whether a legislature believes that the need for equal population takes ultimate priority. Rather, it is…whether the legislature ‘placed’ race ‘above traditional districting considerations.”
The case: The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and Alabama Democratic Conference challenged the state’s 2012 legislative maps, arguing that they were racial gerrymanders that violated the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court held that courts must review racial gerrymandering claims on a district-by-district basis. It also reversed the district court’s decision, finding that it had erred in holding that the need to create districts equal in population meant that maps were not racially discriminatory.
The significance: In holding that the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote is not a key factor in determining whether states impermissibly used race to draw districts, the Supreme Court protected minority voters in future litigation by establishing strict legal principles by which lower courts must review districts. This case set the stage for future racial gerrymander challenges, such as Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections (2019).
9. Cooper v. Harris (2017)
“A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason.”
The case: North Carolina voters challenged the state’s 1st and 12th Congressional Districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. The Supreme Court held that the General Assembly had unlawfully used race to draw congressional districts in violation of the 14th Amendment. The Court rejected the state’s arguments that race had been used as a predominant factor to satisfy Section 5 of the VRA, finding that this reasoning did not withstand strict scrutiny.
The significance: This ruling was a win for racial gerrymandering claims, as North Carolina was ordered to redraw its congressional maps. However, the state relied on partisan considerations when redrawing, which then
4. Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
“To hold that legislators cannot take partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers’ decision to entrust districting to political entities.”
The case: North Carolina voters challenged the state’s 2016 congressional map as being a partisan gerrymander in favor of Republicans. The district court struck down the map, finding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue and that the map was a partisan gerrymander. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the case was consolidated with similar cases challenging state maps for partisan gerrymandering. The Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable (suitable for courts to decide on) because they present a political question that is beyond the reach of federal courts.
The significance: After decades of punting the issue, the Supreme Court’s ruling put an end to partisan gerrymandering cases in federal courts. This means that, during future rounds of redistricting, partisan gerrymandering will be fair game unless a state’s constitution prohibits it or Congress passes a law that bans the practice, like the For the People Act.
Racial Gerrymandering and Vote Dilution Cases
In case you missed it, Shelby County v. Holder (2013) is another important case we wrote about here.
5. Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)
“The critical question in a § 2 claim is whether the use of a contested electoral practice or structure results in members of a protected group having less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”
The case: Black voters in North Carolina challenged the state legislative maps, arguing that they were purposefully drawn to dilute the voting power of Black individuals. During the course of the case, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was amended to make clear that an election law that has a discriminatory effect, as opposed to only a discriminatory intent, could also violate Section 2. The Supreme Court unanimously held that North Carolina’s state legislative districts violated Section 2 because they were drawn to prevent a minority group from electing its preferred candidates.
The significance: The Supreme Court established three criteria for proving a pattern of racial vote dilution: 1) the minority group in question must be “sufficiently large and geographically compact” to elect a candidate of its choice; 2) the minority group must be politically cohesive (meaning they typically vote in a similar manner) and 3) the majority group must be politically cohesive enough to defeat the minority group’s preferred candidate(s). The Court also held that voters do not need to show discriminatory causation or intent to prove vote dilution claims.
6. Shaw v. Reno (1993)
“Redistricting legislation that is so bizarre on its face that it is ‘unexplainable on grounds other than race,’…demands the same close scrutiny that we give other state laws that classify citizens by race.”
The case: North Carolina voters challenged the state’s congressional map, arguing that they constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by purposefully concentrating Black voters to create two majority-Black districts. Focusing on the “bizarre” shape of the districts, the Supreme Court held that race cannot be a predominant factor in drawing districts and courts must closely review whether, if race is determined to be the leading factor, its use is narrowly tailored and serves a compelling governmental interest.
The significance: Shaw established the legal principle that racial considerations in redistricting are subject to strict scrutiny by courts.
7. Miller v. Johnson (1995)
“The…burden is to show, either through circumstantial evidence of a district’s shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a district.”
The case: White voters challenged the constitutionality of Georgia’s congressional redistricting plan, specifically a majority-Black district drawn to satisfy preclearance requirements under Section 5 of the VRA. The Supreme Court, applying Shaw’s strict scrutiny standard, struck down the district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that was not tailored to any compelling state interest.
The significance: This ruling affirmed Shaw, but went one step further by analyzing legislative intent to determine whether racial motivations were the predominant factors in drawing districts. In other words, the shape of a district is not the only criteria to consider when analyzing racial gerrymandering claims.
8. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (2015)
“It is not about whether a legislature believes that the need for equal population takes ultimate priority. Rather, it is…whether the legislature ‘placed’ race ‘above traditional districting considerations.”
The case: The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and Alabama Democratic Conference challenged the state’s 2012 legislative maps, arguing that they were racial gerrymanders that violated the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court held that courts must review racial gerrymandering claims on a district-by-district basis. It also reversed the district court’s decision, finding that it had erred in holding that the need to create districts equal in population meant that maps were not racially discriminatory.
The significance: In holding that the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote is not a key factor in determining whether states impermissibly used race to draw districts, the Supreme Court protected minority voters in future litigation by establishing strict legal principles by which lower courts must review districts. This case set the stage for future racial gerrymander challenges, such as Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections (2019).
9. Cooper v. Harris (2017)
“A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason.”
The case: North Carolina voters challenged the state’s 1st and 12th Congressional Districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. The Supreme Court held that the General Assembly had unlawfully used race to draw congressional districts in violation of the 14th Amendment. The Court rejected the state’s arguments that race had been used as a predominant factor to satisfy Section 5 of the VRA, finding that this reasoning did not withstand strict scrutiny.
The significance: This ruling was a win for racial gerrymandering claims, as North Carolina was ordered to redraw its congressional maps. However, the state relied on partisan considerations when redrawing, which then
evince
Truthmatters
What you say here is a fucking lie
If you kept up with the subject, you would note that Dems fight to have a neutral redraw the districts. They are not fighting for the power. You are wrong.
Gondwanaland
Verified User
You mean like when Democrats in New York gerrymandered every single State senate district and every single congressional district and then got their asses handed to them by the State Supreme Court, you dumb cunt?
Gondwanaland
Verified User
You're lying straight out of your leaky puss-filled cunt. Just a year ago in New York every single district they created was slapped down by their own state Supreme Court for gerrymandering with clear intent to give Democrat advantage and harm extant Republican candidates. Quit lying, fuck face
Gondwanaland
Verified User
Except it's not, you lying cum bucket
And violent thugs are thrilled.
evince
Truthmatters
Gondwanaland
Verified User
Can't address Democrats getting spanked in New York for their flagrant gerrymandering, eh cunt?
Cat got your tongue, little bitch?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wi...liberal-state-supreme-court-justice-rcna78318
A liberal just won the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Republicans are already talking about impeaching her.
A GOP win in the state Senate's 8th District gave the party a super-majority — with the power to pursue impeachment of newly elected liberal Janet Protasiewicz.
A liberal just won the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Republicans are already talking about impeaching her.
A GOP win in the state Senate's 8th District gave the party a super-majority — with the power to pursue impeachment of newly elected liberal Janet Protasiewicz.
Last edited:
Violent criminals rejoice the Badger State....