Judges throw out Wisconsin's gerrymandering case and say they will decide whether fees are owed late

[brooklynite]

Source: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

MADISON - A panel of federal judges unanimously threw out Wisconsin's gerrymandering case Tuesday and said it would decide later whether taxpayers should be able to recover some of their legal fees from those who sued the state.

The panel of three judges issued its decision five days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that federal courts can't consider allegations that election maps unfairly favor one political party over another.

The high court's decision came from cases in North Carolina and Maryland but made plain that Wisconsin's long-running case would be tossed.

Read more: http://amp.jsonline.com/amp/1634244001

[chowder66]

1. There's no link. nt

[Tiggeroshii]

2. It is looking morelikely democrats will receive the majority of trifectas after next year.

GOP thinks this will benefit them, but they may be dearly mistaken as the make up of state houses have already shifted heavily towards the democrats.

[AJT]

3. Wisconsin is still very red and the supreme court is extremely far right.

We have the governorship and little else.

[33taw]

4. SOS is important in certifying the vote.

[Tiggeroshii]

5. Wisconsin might not help us.

However a ton of other states might. NC is one example... that has a good chance of being a trifecta next year. As does VA.

[Mr.Bill]

6. Now maybe we can get rid of those pesky red

congressional districts left in California.

[roamer65]

7. Go for it.

Eliminate ALL of them.

[former9thward]

9. CA has an Independent Commission.

Which the voters installed. Are you going to eliminate that?

[Mr.Bill]

11. I don't have the authority to get rid of anyone.

Jut doing a little wishful thinking.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. It's a hot potato issue

I'm no fan of the conservative US Supreme Court, and I certainly recognize Justice Kagan's dissent as a barn burner for the ages,
but I will grant the idea that other Justices may see gerrymandering cases as potentially fraught with endless appeals where they are always half wrong. Allowing states to tinker with panels, commissions, and legislative remedies might be best at this point. Pennsylvania solved their case, and it now cannot be appealed at the federal level. With a state Constitution that pre-dates the US Constitution, some Pennsylvania judges have said they know a thing or two about fair elections and gerrymandering.

It is what it is at this point. Democrats can break this logjam in the intermediate term if they work hard enough.

[not_the_one]

10. so the concept of one person - one vote

is fine for a general election popular vote, which is then promptly tossed out the window by way of the electoral college...

And the punt back to the states' high courts by the supreme court, defines this as a "states' rights" issue, meaning any legislature's majority elected by gerrymandered districts can be just fine with blatant discrimination, for the purpose of voter suppression.

So NO, this country no longer believes in one person - one vote.

Blanket, across the board, applicable to ALL elections, winner of the popular vote wins. Period. I could not give a rat's ass about past pandering to slave states as "compromise", or worrying about the vastly outnumbered populations in the red and/or fly-over states.

Majority rules.

Period.

The Democratic party needs to do exactly what the traitorous republicans did, and start backing and supporting democrats at the local and state level. We outnumber them, and can have the state legislatures accurately reflect their citizens.

It is not rocket science.

This is where depending on the past will not help us in the present or the future. Things have GOT to change.