2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Wisconsin

[Gass3268]

I have a breakdown series for thew Assembly Map coming soon.

I actually was up to Senate district 4, lol. Will wait now for new maps.

[lfromnj]

Overall this certainly confirms my theory that a federal lawsuit over California's congressional map would be successful under the current court.(Obviously the predominant factor behind the map was partisanship but they can't admit that ) Fortunately for Democrats, Kevin McCarthy would likely stop any lawsuit over there. If the rumors behind what DeSantis is saying is true I still would expect a DeSantis DOJ to sue the CA maps.

[Gass3268]

I mean the way 7 black majority districts are drawn are suspicious (literally every one is 50.1% black) and it took a lot of contrite lines over that. However the predominant factor for the map being picked in the end was not racial. Kavanaugh is certainly being weird after the Alabama vote.

Also Ever's map was just awful IMO in that region atleast for the state senate. He focused on flipping Dale Kooyenga's state senate district but couldn't even flip a seat by pushing it into Dane County further and left it at Trump +5.

My guess is the Wisconsin Supreme Court will allow Evers to make the necessary changes. This will result in SD-05 being more competative, but also SD-08.

[lfromnj]

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is reversed as to the selection of the Governor’s State Assembly
and Senate maps, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. On remand,
the court is free to take additional evidence if it prefers to
reconsider the Governor’s maps rather than choose from
among the other submissions. Any new analysis, however,
must comply with our equal protection jurisprudence.

Honestly sounds like they could just accept the governors map and not mention race. After all it was mainly based on another factor.

[Gass3268]

I'm also thinking the new Michigan legislative districts are not long for this world.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/fedjudges/status/1506668675276976139?cxt=HHwWlsC9ga7L4egpAAA...

[Ferguson97]

There seems to be some confusion. Is this good or not?

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1506686145572315141

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

There seems to be some confusion. Is this good or not?

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1506686145572315141

They blocked the state legislative maps, not congressional

[lfromnj]

There seems to be some confusion. Is this good or not?

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1506686145572315141

The congressional map was always a Hail Mary. Overall should have a small effect legislatively. The court could even pick Ever's map and just not mention race. However this could have other nationwide consequences. I think Republicans could try suing California's congressional map up to SCOTUS and they could succeed. This could also scare the FL legislature into acceding to DeSantis.

It seems the main reason SCOTUS got involved was because the WI supreme court had lackluster knowledge of the VRA and cited in a bad manner.

[Tekken_Guy]

There seems to be some confusion. Is this good or not?

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1506686145572315141

The congressional map was always a Hail Mary. Overall should have a small effect legislatively. The court could even pick Ever's map and just not mention race. However this could have other nationwide consequences. I think Republicans could try suing California's congressional map up to SCOTUS and they could succeed. This could also scare the FL legislature into acceding to DeSantis.

It seems the main reason SCOTUS got involved was because the WI supreme court had lackluster knowledge of the VRA and cited in a bad manner.

I wonder what the ramifications are for Ohio’s maps. It’s not a VRA issue but it seems like SCOTUS is more willing to get involved.

[lfromnj]

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=128343

Overall the more I read into it, the more I believe the maps will stay as is. This ruling has more importance with regards to other cases.

Ever's just claimed that a 7th black majority seat was required by the VRA and SCOTUS wanted to clean that up.  

[lfromnj]

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/as-sotomayor-blasts-court-for-throwing-out-wisconsin-redistricting-maps-legal-experts-say-conservative-majority-may-gut-voting-rights-act/

Here's another article.

[lfromnj]

So is it time to wait another month?

[lfromnj]

Evers screwed up his appeal so badly iirc. He decided to double down on the race point rather than the fact it was true least change.  

Also still not sure why Evers had to gerrymander out the most moderate state senator instead of just going for a 4th Dem seat in Dane.

[Gass3268]

I would say the left now needs to win every Wisconsin Supreme Court race here on out, but with the United States Supreme Court putting its finger on everything now the f**k is the point.

[Nyvin]

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.

[lfromnj]

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.

Miller v Johnson is a big one and the foundation/precedent for this case. It actually happened on ideological lines bit the 2 ideologies went against their "respective party"

Although I agree this case was certainly very bold. The predominant factor behind choosing Ever's map does not seem to have been race .

[walleye26]

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.

Just wait for SCOTUS to uphold the Alabama gerrymander and finally demolish the VRA. It would be really f***ing sad and ironic that the VRA would be passed due to Alabama’s racist history, especially after Selma, and it could die that way too.

[lfromnj]

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::54ff9f70-88b6-4cc7-b57f-4e1b6d73201d

State house 64 Trump, 35 Biden. 65 seats for the GOP should be achievable but the 66th seat is Biden +7 so Ever's veto is somewhat safe given he wins the governorship.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::acf4eeaa-6184-40a5-af34-73e9478e1e4d

State senate( I didn't see any DRA map for the state senate so I just grouped them in order)
 I don't know if all seats are up.
22 Trump seats and R's already hold the most narrow Biden seat which is a Biden +0.5 seat just west of Milwaukee in SD05. A district which crosses the border to take WOW and Tosa, population loss in Milwaukee meant this district got shored up from Biden +8 to Biden +0.5.  R's also shored up a north Milwaukee suburban seat that goes through Ozaukee from Trump +0.1 to Trump +5.

[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.

[lfromnj]

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.

[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.

[lfromnj]

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.

[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.

[Nyvin]

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).