1
00:00:01,768 --> 00:00:04,671
>> In other news, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court

2
00:00:04,738 --> 00:00:08,575
heard arguments this week
on two high profile cases

3
00:00:08,642 --> 00:00:12,379
seeking new congressional
voting maps in Wisconsin

4
00:00:12,446 --> 00:00:15,749
before the 2028 elections.
The court is considering

5
00:00:15,816 --> 00:00:19,419
whether to allow the cases
to proceed after lower

6
00:00:19,486 --> 00:00:23,390
court panels dismissed them
this summer on procedural

7
00:00:23,457 --> 00:00:26,727
grounds. Both lawsuits
claim gerrymandering of the

8
00:00:26,793 --> 00:00:29,229
districts opposing
attorneys represent

9
00:00:29,296 --> 00:00:31,632
Republican congressional
members and the legislature,

10
00:00:31,698 --> 00:00:34,501
which passed the maps in
2011.

11
00:00:35,702 --> 00:00:40,207
>> The legislature that PAP
that passed those original

12
00:00:40,274 --> 00:00:44,411
maps wasn't any old
legislature, right. The

13
00:00:45,746 --> 00:00:48,882
legislature that passed
that maps. They came from

14
00:00:48,949 --> 00:00:53,954
districts that many people
claimed are the were the

15
00:00:54,021 --> 00:00:58,525
most gerrymandered in the
entire country. They were,

16
00:00:58,592 --> 00:01:01,828
as some say, a prime
example of representatives

17
00:01:01,895 --> 00:01:04,565
choosing their voters
rather than the other way

18
00:01:04,631 --> 00:01:07,467
around, rather than voters
choosing their

19
00:01:07,534 --> 00:01:10,704
representatives. And if I'm
understanding your argument

20
00:01:10,771 --> 00:01:13,440
that under these change,
which you're ardently

21
00:01:13,507 --> 00:01:18,345
defending, those maps, the
baked in ones from the 2011

22
00:01:18,412 --> 00:01:22,749
legislature would go
forward into perpetuity

23
00:01:23,283 --> 00:01:26,987
indefinitely. And I don't
understand how that is not

24
00:01:27,054 --> 00:01:28,622
unconstitutional.
>> Whether we agree with it

25
00:01:28,689 --> 00:01:32,326
or not, the US Constitution
assigns redistricting

26
00:01:32,392 --> 00:01:35,762
authority to the
legislature because 250

27
00:01:35,829 --> 00:01:39,733
years ago, when we declared
revolution, we said the

28
00:01:39,800 --> 00:01:42,269
people decide through their
elected representatives.

29
00:01:42,336 --> 00:01:45,405
And there are two solutions
for that, either of which

30
00:01:45,472 --> 00:01:48,509
plaintiffs could pursue.
First, they could lobby

31
00:01:48,575 --> 00:01:51,612
Congress because, of course,
Congress likewise has power

32
00:01:51,678 --> 00:01:55,148
under the elections clause
to stop what some have said

33
00:01:55,215 --> 00:01:59,620
should not have happened in
2011, or, like Florida,

34
00:01:59,686 --> 00:02:02,956
like New York, like Ohio.
Plaintiffs could do the

35
00:02:03,023 --> 00:02:06,026
hard work of, of, of
creating a constitutional

36
00:02:06,093 --> 00:02:08,529
amendment and saying any
politics and redistricting

37
00:02:08,595 --> 00:02:11,899
is forbidden.
>> For more on this and

38
00:02:11,965 --> 00:02:15,869
other issues facing
Wisconsin, visit our