State Rep. Melissa Sargent
Press Release

Redistricting Ruling Victory for Wisconsin Democracy

People should get to pick their legislators, not vice versa

By - Jan 27th, 2017 11:22 am

(MADISON) – Representative Melissa Sargent (D-Madison) released the following statement relating to today’s court ruling ordering the Wisconsin Legislature to redraw Assembly and Senate Districts before November 1, 2017:

“The cornerstone of democracy is that the people should get to pick their legislators, not that legislators get to pick their voters. Today’s court ruling is a victory for Wisconsinites and democracy in our state, which has been under near-constant attack for the last six years. Voting should be fair, easy, and accessible, and today’s ruling only reinforces what Democrats have been saying for years.

“I look forward to having a transparent redrawing process and having public input to ensure our districts reflect the values and priorities of the people of our state, not Republican schemes to circumvent the will of voters. The people of our state must continue to be vigilant to ensure Wisconsin Republicans are held accountable in drawing fair, representative districts for our state.”

Mentioned in This Press Release

Recent Press Releases by State Rep. Melissa Sargent

WEDC Audit Reveals Continued Dereliction, Insubordination

Governor Walker agency continues economic discouragement and taxpayer dollar malfeasance

Representative Sargent Introduces Bill to Stop “Stealth” Sexual Assault

New legislation prevents sexual assault via nonconsensual removal of a sexually protective device

Audit of Wisconsin’s Financial Statements Another Hit to GOP’s Budget Fairytale

Financial records show billion-dollar General Fund deficit and bleeding Transportation Fund

5 thoughts on “Redistricting Ruling Victory for Wisconsin Democracy”

  1. happyjack27 says:

    Wait, what?!?

    a) this is the first time i’ve heard of this. i don’t see this news posted anywhere else.

    b) the wisconsin legislature?! Is that who we really want drawing the maps? Because they did such a great job the first time…

    c) by november 2017? Really, they think it’s going to take a YEAR? if past is precedent (and it often is), they’ll submit their revised map, which will be just as bad if not worse as the original, on or about nov 1, 2017, at which point they’ll be a whole ‘nother legal squabble about how badly gerrymandered the maps are. now you’re just used up about half the time you have until the next election, and haven’t gotten ANYWHERE!

  2. happyjack27 says:

    ah, now i can see the news http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/federal-judges-order-wisconsin-legislature-to-create-scott-walker-to/article_730a3dfd-b5b4-53f4-a5a6-80c5362c40d6.html

    “Although state actors in this case certainly intended the partisan effect that they in fact produced, the record does not permit us to ascribe to them an unwillingness to adhere to an order of this Court or to conform the allocation of seats in the state Legislature to constitutional requirements,” the judges wrote.

    The record – the map they drew in 2010 – shows PRECISELY an unwillingness to … conform the allocation of seats in the state Legislature to constitutional requirements”, as does every single court filing defendants have filed in the case. Presumably which the judges have read.

  3. happyjack27 says:

    “The plaintiffs originally asked the court to redraw the state’s maps, offering a variety of deadlines and scenarios. But the court Friday distanced itself from state-based affairs and said the state Legislature has demonstrated no “malice or intransigence” that would justify the court stripping its map-making power.”

    in·tran·si·gence
    inˈtransəjəns,inˈtranzəjəns/
    noun
    refusal to change one’s views or to agree about something.

    “The state Department of Justice said it plans to appeal. It had asked the court to delay an order that would create new maps pending a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    “We are reviewing the court’s order, but we expect to file an appeal with the Supreme Court and seek prompt reversal of this decision,” DOJ spokesman Johnny Koremenos wrote in an email Friday.”

  4. happyjack27 says:

    If I recall correctly, defendants literally said in the very briefs upon which this decision is made – that a deadline should not be set because they are going to appeal the decision to redraw the maps to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    They literally disagreed with judge’s order and refused to comply with it before the judges even issued their order.

  5. happyjack27 says:

    “The plaintiffs originally asked the court to redraw the state’s maps, offering a variety of deadlines and scenarios. But the court Friday distanced itself from state-based affairs and said the state Legislature has demonstrated no “malice or intransigence” that would justify the court stripping its map-making power.”

    malice
    noun
    the intention or desire to do evil; ill will.
    “I bear no malice toward anybody”
    LAW
    wrongful intention, especially as increasing the guilt of certain offenses.

    “…state actors in this case certainly intended the partisan effect that they in fact produced…” the judges wrote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *