Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

De-politicizing maps gains support in some red stretches of Wisconsin

Wisconsin

More than 80 percent of the counties in Wisconsin went for Donald Trump in 2016. Now, two-thirds of the counties are backing an effort to end partisan gerrymandering.

mapchart.net

Two-thirds of the counties in Wisconsin — home to more than 70 percent of its population — have gone on record in favor of de-politicizing the state's legislative mapmaking.

A coalition of good-government groups has been leading the effort to gain support among county governments to end partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin. They are advocating for legislation that has some bipartisan support in Madison but is still seen as a long shot. It would take redistricting responsibility out of the hands of the Legislature in 2021 and give it to state bureaucrats, who would be barred from considering partisan voting patterns in drawing boundaries.

Wisconsin is the first state to consider such legislation since the Supreme Court this summer said federal courts had no role in settling partisan gerrymandering claims.


The ruling effectively killed a federal lawsuit in which Wisconsin Democrats said their free speech and equal protection rights were being infringed by maps drawn by Republicans at the start of the decade. While Democrats won a majority of votes sitewide in last year's midterm, five of the eight congressional seats were won by Republicans and they also secured a lopsided majority in the state House and a five-vote edge in the state Senate.

"The fact that two thirds of Wisconsin's 72 counties, many of them 'red,' are now on record in support of ending partisan gerrymandering, demonstrates the deep grassroots support across the state for fair voting maps and against rigged elections," Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, told the Milwaukee Independent.

A recent Marquette University Law School poll found 72 percent support for taking redistricting responsibilities away from elected Republicans and Democrats. The bill would emulate the system of neighboring Iowa, which in 1980 became the first state to end partisan gerrymandering.

The Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition, which has more than a dozen participating groups, is planning a meeting Nov. 9 where organizers can develop strategies for lobbing the Legislature.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less