2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Wisconsin

[BigSkyBob]

Has there been a single redistricting SCOTUS decision that "hasn't" benefited the Republicans?   It seems like it's been a completely one sided partisan court all the way here.

Yes. North Carolina.

[BigSkyBob]

Has there been a single redistricting SCOTUS decision that "hasn't" benefited the Republicans?   It seems like it's been a completely one sided partisan court all the way here.

Yes. North Carolina.

The 2016 SCOTUS decision at NC technically benefitted the NC GOP. The original map would have likely have gone 5D 8 R in 2018 or atleast 4D 9 R.

They struck down a 10R-3D map that packed Democrats into three heavily Black districts as a racial gerrymander.

[BigSkyBob]

Has there been a single redistricting SCOTUS decision that "hasn't" benefited the Republicans?   It seems like it's been a completely one sided partisan court all the way here.

Yes. North Carolina.

The 2016 SCOTUS decision at NC technically benefitted the NC GOP. The original map would have likely have gone 5D 8 R in 2018 or atleast 4D 9 R.

They struck down a 10R-3D map that packed Democrats into three heavily Black districts as a racial gerrymander.

2 of those seats voted for Biden, and 1 of those was like Trump +3 in 2016.  Redrawing it made it easy to hold onto a 10-3 delegation in 2018. This is a technicality as the GOP still lost the case but it helped the GOP to lose the case.

10 + 3 = 13, not 14. Your are in the wrong decade.

As to the "facts" you asserted, you are simply wrong. The three districts were better than 70% Democratic.

[BigSkyBob]

Has there been a single redistricting SCOTUS decision that "hasn't" benefited the Republicans?   It seems like it's been a completely one sided partisan court all the way here.

Yes. North Carolina.

Was speaking more about the current court (Post-Barrett in other words).

I noted a counter-example from the 90's, I think. The decision went against the
GOP's ability to pack as many Democrats as possible, because these political
oacking of voters was deemed "racial gerrymanders."  The decision cuts two
ways, Democrats can't crack Black-majority districts to create White liberal districts,
and, Republicans can't create districts that are "too" Black, whatever that means.

The notion that the Court has invariable favored the GOP is simply false.

[BigSkyBob]

Has there been a single redistricting SCOTUS decision that "hasn't" benefited the Republicans?   It seems like it's been a completely one sided partisan court all the way here.

Actually,  this is what you said. There was restriction to this term.

Even with that restriction, the Court did not side with the GOP on the Wisconsin Congressional map. What you said is simply false.

[BigSkyBob]

Has there been a single redistricting SCOTUS decision that "hasn't" benefited the Republicans?   It seems like it's been a completely one sided partisan court all the way here.

Actually,  this is what you said. There was restriction to this term.

Even with that restriction, the Court did not side with the GOP on the Wisconsin Congressional map. What you said is simply false.

They refused to take the case, they didn't make a decision in that.   I guess I wasn't exact in my original wording but I typed it pretty quickly.

Their decision to not take the case disfavored the GOP, did it not?