Categories
Uncategorized

Clarke v. WEC Summary of Oral Arguments before Wisconsin Supreme Court

Oral arguments before the Wisconsin Supreme Court lasted about three hours and featured presentations by all parties to the case except the Wisconsin Elections Commission. You can watch a recording of the arguments on Wisconsin Eye. Attorney Mark Gaber bookended the arguments, presenting the Clarke petitioners’ arguments about contiguity and explaining the process by which new maps can be proposed by the parties and approved by the Court. The conservative justices on the Court had some pointed questions for Attorney Gaber, and other attorneys arguing for fair maps, mostly about the timing of this case. But they were ready with answers, and the Court’s more “liberal” members often returned the focus to the core issues of the case. As Attorney Gaber said, there is no time limit on enforcing the requirements of our state Constitution.  

 The arguments for keeping the current maps held no surprises. As expected, the Legislature and Johnson Intervenors, represented by WILL, want the Court to uphold the unfair and plainly unconstitutional maps implemented through the Johnson litigation in 2022. They argued that the Clarke Petitioners lack standing to pursue these claims—a weak argument in light of the Court’s past cases, and the fact that the Court has already accepted the Petition. The Legislature also argued in favor of a nonsensical definition of “contiguous,” which lacks support in history and precedent.  

 At the heart of the arguments by the Legislature and the Johnson intervenors, and some of the questioning from the bench, was the insistence that a minority of Wisconsinites should be able to hold onto power indefinitely. The Clarke petitioners, the Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition, numerous other organizations, and the majority of voters in the state strenuously disagree with this proposition. Based on their responses at oral arguments, it seems a majority of the Court does too.  

 The next significant step in the case will be a decision and order from the Court, answering some or all of the four questions they posed to the parties in October. That includes whether the current legislative maps are unconstitutionally noncontiguous, whether they represent a violation of separation of powers, what remedial criteria the Court should use in crafting or choosing a remedy, and what process the Court should use. The Court has not provided or suggested a specific timeline for when such an order might occur. There is plenty of time for the Court to resolve this case and have constitutional maps in place for the 2024 elections. If and when the Court requests them, Law Forward and their co-counsel will provide constitutionally compliant maps that don’t inappropriately skew in favor of either political party.

Read the entire article: Wisconsin Court Hears Case That Could Upend State Politics

Read the entire article: Wisconsin’s gerrymandering case and the fight for democracy

Wisconsin Redistricting 2020-2022 Report 

Use these MESSAGING GUIDES to help: 

https://bit.ly/FMC_PublicHearingSB488
https://bit.ly/LF_RedistrictingMessage

WHY SHOULD YOU WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR? 
Letters to the editor are among the most widely read features in any newspaper or magazine. They allow you to reach a large audience. The Community Tool Box is a great resources for writing letters to the editor and other forms of advocacy and action.