Judges want Wis. lawmakers to reassess voting maps
MILWAUKEE (AP) — Federal judges on Tuesday postponed a trial over the state's latest election maps, telling lawyers for both sides to spend the day determining whether lawmakers would consider drawing new maps.
Presiding Judge J.P. Stadtmueller cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which the justices concluded that redistricting is best handled by lawmakers as much as possible, not by judges.
Stadtmueller gave the lawyers until 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to "advise the court whether there is opposition to addressing this matter in the forum where it should be addressed — the Wisconsin Legislature."
Redistricting is the process in which lawmakers draw new maps for voting districts every 10 years to account for population changes.
The most recent maps, drawn in secrecy and approved last year by Republicans who control the state Legislature, are GOP-friendly. In some cases they cluster Republicans and disperse Democrats in ways that Democrats say could make it harder for them to win future elections.
Democrats and an immigrant-rights group have sued the state Government Accountability Board to prevent the board from conducting elections based on the new maps.
Daniel Kelly, an attorney representing the Government Accountability Board, told reporters the next step would be for attorneys to see whether the majority and minority leaders in the state Senate and Assembly had any interest in taking up the issue again.
"I would hate to speculate" on what they'll do, he said.
In the Assembly, Republican Majority Leader Jeff Fitzgerald and Democratic Minority Leader Peter Barca both declined to comment.
The state Senate leaders, Republican Scott Fitzgerald and Democrat Mark Miller, did not immediately return messages.
If lawmakers agree to revisit the issue, the trial will be postponed three or four weeks. If lawmakers decline, the trial will begin Wednesday morning.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to invalidate the 2012 maps and to order that the previous maps be used for elections this year until the court establishes a fairer redistricting plan.
Gov. Scott Walker, his lieutenant governor and four state senators — all Republicans — are being targeted for recall. The outcome of the redistricting case would only affect contests for Senate seats because the governor and lieutenant governor are statewide races. State elections officials are currently trying to determine whether enough valid signatures have been submitted for the elections to proceed this year.
The new maps could give Republicans an edge toward maintaining their 17-16 majority in the Senate.
Democrats had called on Walker to veto the maps. Doing so, they said, would go a long way toward showing he was serious about being more bipartisan following rancorous debates during his first six months in office, most notably over his collective-bargaining proposal that spurred the recalls.
But Walker signed off on the maps in August, saying he believes they meet the legal standards of fairness in their treatment of communities of interest, minority representation, and compact, contiguous districts.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to intervene in the drawing of new maps, a request with some precedent.
The last three times redistricting was taken up in Wisconsin, due to split political control, the Legislature and governor were unable to agree upon a plan. Each of those times, in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, a federal court had to intervene and approve a map for state legislative districts.
The trial this week marks the latest step following a series of preliminary rulings that have gone against Republicans. Last week the federal court issued a scathing order forcing Republican lawmakers to make public emails and other documents they wanted to keep secret related to the redrawing of political boundaries.
The judges said Republican lawmakers made a "poorly disguised" attempt to "cloak the private machinations of Wisconsin's Republican legislators in the shroud of attorney-client privilege."
The judges called it a "shameful attempt to hide the redistricting process from public scrutiny."
Previous disclosures in the lawsuit revealed that nearly all of the state's Republican lawmakers signed a legal agreement in which they promised to not comment publicly about redistricting discussions while the maps were being drafted.
Another document of talking points prepared by legislative staff for state Rep. Robin Vos, the powerful co-chairman of the budget-writing committee, warned him to ignore public comments about the maps and focus instead on what was being said in private strategy meetings.


Feb 23, 2012 at 8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
To support your "side" is one thing, but to support your "side" knowing what we know, it is most disappointing that not one of the supporters of this administration and legislature who have created this scenario in private has enough integrity to call them on it. You can pick partisanship and other words to hide behind, but to ignore what has happened, or to support it, should scare you. Blind allegiance is a very bad thing.
Feb 22, 2012 at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Partisan or not moving large sections of voters around and bot allowing them to vote for 6 years is wrong. While I do understand what this is from a partisan angle, I dont understand the secrecy. They have a super majority therefore they can push through whatever they want in public and there is really nothing anyone could do about it , so why the secrecy? Makes me wonder what they are afraid of, or what they are trying to pull.
Feb 22, 2012 at 6:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
No2, the only thing that changed is your understanding of words.
Feb 22, 2012 at 3:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Look at that! RhetoricAndFalderal has come full circle back to defending Republicans with his, "We're no better than anyone else" cry from earlier yesterday.
Feb 22, 2012 at 1:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh the fairness issue. There is nothing "fair" in anything evolving politics, it is all partisan, and mostly driven one way or the other based on party affiliation. There was no doubt this issue would have been subject to a legal fight since all redistricting going back over 60 years has fell to the same party games. No matter who draws the lines someone is going to dislike it, nothing new, so in one persons view there will never be fairness...guess a subjective term is new to the media and partisans that don't agree.
Feb 21, 2012 at 11:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
fedup, vatalco, che, USAFR? hello?
Feb 21, 2012 at 10:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
So much for the lie told by conservatives that all redistricting is done in secret, somehow trying to justify the hiring of lawyers and claiming attorney-client privilege.
Feb 21, 2012 at 4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
osborn4, many big differences. In 2001, there were two maps, because both parties were able to make proposals. Last year, though, the GOP denied the Democrats any access to legal assistance, and controlled all access to their own attorneys, creating a veil of secrecy they tried to maintain even before the federal court. It's not just that this is an unfair redistricting, it's that the GOP has circumvented any public input and oversight of the entire process.
Feb 21, 2012 at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Republicans do NOT negotiate. They take hostages but never negotiate. Negotiating is a sign of weakness. They just say the other side needs to be more bi-partisan which in their mind is total groveling and capitulation. Where is ToTellTheLie on this one? I am betting that they are on a conference call getting their talking points. Hope they are taking good notes and get their stories straight – should be along shortly.
Feb 21, 2012 at 4 p.m.
Suggest removal
Since the last 3 times redistricting maps were decided by the courts, since neither Repub or Dems can actually come together and get something meaningful done, I'm going to go out on a limb as say the same things is going to happen. Hey, just because maps are drawn in secret doesn't mean they have something to hide, right Repubs?
Feb 21, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
I really enjoy your posts Koch_Bros !
Feb 21, 2012 at 3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
no wondering here, Panama... Scooter's idea of legal and fair seems a bit askew.....
Feb 21, 2012 at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
“The judges called it a "shameful attempt to hide the redistricting process from public scrutiny."” Have any of your Representatives responded to you on this one with a meaningful answer? I want to know the spin.....
Feb 21, 2012 at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Walker signed off on the maps in August, saying he believes they meet the legal standards of fairness in their treatment of communities of interest, minority representation, and compact, contiguous districts."
-
Even a Republican appointed Judge found the Republican led redistricting effort to be disingenuous and overtly biased. Just goes to show the perverted sense of values held by Walker and the Republicans. Any wonder why he is being re-called?
Feb 21, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
And the last set of maps was drawn up in Chuck Chvala's office.
Po-ta-to. Po-tah-to.
Feb 21, 2012 at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Koch_Bros... You here all week?
;~)
Feb 21, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Another slap in the face for the union controlled democrats. This time the Republicans should run for the border so that no changes can be made to the newly redistricted boundries.
Feb 21, 2012 at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Looks like the ball is in the repub's court. They've been given one last chance to act reasonably before trial begins, and given all the prelim. decisions against their maps, they could well lose this one.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.