🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
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.
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.
half of the members of the state Senate who are midway through their four-year terms.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that just one person? Wording it as half of the state’s senators seems a bit dramatic. (This wording was also in the article from what I could see)
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Undermine democracy?! Gtfo with that bullshit.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
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.
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.
Saved 79% of original text.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that just one person? Wording it as half of the state’s senators seems a bit dramatic. (This wording was also in the article from what I could see)