WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:03.100 be based on the fact that you relied on settled maps 00:03.100 --> 00:06.140 when tomorrow the legislature could change these maps. 00:06.140 --> 00:07.660 But, well, oh, good question. 00:07.660 --> 00:10.620 So there's a real difference between the legislature 00:10.620 --> 00:12.780 like in Tennessee or Texas deciding 00:12.780 --> 00:14.420 we're not just going to change the maps, 00:14.420 --> 00:16.440 we're going to appropriate millions of dollars 00:16.440 --> 00:19.580 for the state to change the maps midstream. 00:19.580 --> 00:22.980 What the cases are discussing is that when courts 00:22.980 --> 00:24.820 require the changing of the maps, 00:24.820 --> 00:26.860 the state has to find those millions of dollars 00:26.860 --> 00:29.660 to change them now and then to change them again 00:29.660 --> 00:32.300 after the census and changing those districts 00:32.300 --> 00:33.860 in such a short amount of time results 00:33.860 --> 00:36.140 to real prejudice outside of this courtroom. 00:36.140 --> 00:37.500 And it also results in- 00:37.500 --> 00:38.940 And what is that exactly? 00:38.940 --> 00:40.140 Can you develop that a bit? 00:40.140 --> 00:43.260 Okay, so a congressional map doesn't just exist on paper, 00:43.260 --> 00:46.580 it exists in computers and you assign voters 00:46.580 --> 00:48.860 to different districts so that when that voter 00:48.860 --> 00:50.820 shows up to the voting booth or when they check 00:50.820 --> 00:52.580 their mailbox, they get the right ballot 00:52.580 --> 00:53.780 for their district. 00:53.780 --> 00:56.460 That can cost millions of dollars to hype up 00:56.460 --> 00:57.620 and, you know, across the case- 00:57.860 --> 01:00.380 So there's a cost associated with changing maps, 01:00.380 --> 01:02.500 is that what you mean by prejudice? 01:02.500 --> 01:03.420 Yes, and that's- 01:03.420 --> 01:06.140 So the correction of a constitutional violation 01:06.140 --> 01:10.340 because it costs money, it should be not remedied? 01:10.340 --> 01:12.140 You're on are no different than Brennan, 01:12.140 --> 01:14.660 the court is in any latches analysis, 01:14.660 --> 01:16.940 even in constitutional cases is highly aware 01:16.940 --> 01:18.980 of the prejudice for late filed claims. 01:18.980 --> 01:23.980 Nothing stopped plaintiffs from filing a lawsuit in 2011 01:24.340 --> 01:29.340 or filing a lawsuit in 2021 or 2022 or 2023 or 2024, 01:29.700 --> 01:31.700 alleging these maps were unconstitutional. 01:31.700 --> 01:33.980 And so yes, just as was the case 01:33.980 --> 01:35.900 with the Alabama congressional districts 01:35.900 --> 01:38.460 and the Florida districts and the Illinois districts, 01:38.460 --> 01:40.700 sometimes the challenge just comes too late. 01:40.700 --> 01:43.020 And that's especially true here 01:43.020 --> 01:45.420 where the legal arguments are very underdeveloped, 01:45.420 --> 01:48.420 they are not different than the arguments presented in Johnson. 01:48.420 --> 01:51.020 And so one way this court can decide this case 01:51.100 --> 01:53.980 is just like the Alabama court decided chestnut, 01:53.980 --> 01:56.940 which is to say, well, consider your arguments later, 01:56.940 --> 02:00.140 Alabama courts absolutely considered those arguments later 02:00.140 --> 02:02.180 after the last census, 02:02.180 --> 02:03.740 but we're not going to consider them now 02:03.740 --> 02:04.700 because of the prejudice. 02:04.700 --> 02:07.380 And it's not just monetary prejudice, just one more point. 02:07.380 --> 02:09.060 Okay, what's the other prejudice 02:09.060 --> 02:12.420 because you're not gonna sell me that costs are enough? 02:12.420 --> 02:14.900 You're on our, I'd urge you to read the decisions we've cited. 02:14.900 --> 02:17.260 It's a real cost to the state and to the taxpayers 02:17.260 --> 02:18.100 to change maps. 02:18.100 --> 02:18.940 But the second point is- 02:19.820 --> 02:23.980 The second point is, I assume everyone here is highly versed 02:23.980 --> 02:27.340 in where the districts are and who their representatives are, 02:27.340 --> 02:28.940 but not everyone in Wisconsin. 02:28.940 --> 02:31.700 Not all six, nearly six million Wisconsinites are that way. 02:31.700 --> 02:33.700 And the cases also discuss a prejudice 02:33.700 --> 02:36.620 to the everyday voter who has been in a district 02:36.620 --> 02:39.820 that looks one way for a while, 02:39.820 --> 02:41.220 and then all of a sudden they're switched 02:41.220 --> 02:43.140 into a new district that I would suspect 02:43.140 --> 02:44.820 is gonna look fairly different. 02:44.820 --> 02:47.100 Which could still happen tomorrow. 02:47.620 --> 02:50.700 It could your honor, but that is the legislature's 02:50.700 --> 02:53.020 prerogative under the elections clause. 02:53.020 --> 02:55.420 I also wanna point out you went back to 2011 02:55.420 --> 02:56.980 for purposes of counting latches, 02:56.980 --> 02:59.860 but you don't wanna go back to 2011 otherwise. 02:59.860 --> 03:00.700 Sorry, what was that? 03:00.700 --> 03:03.820 You went back to 2011 for purposes of counting latches, 03:03.820 --> 03:05.140 I noticed. 03:05.140 --> 03:07.940 Well, your honor, if there are arguments, 03:07.940 --> 03:10.260 I heard, maybe I misheard today, 03:10.260 --> 03:12.300 but I heard today that the intent that matters 03:12.300 --> 03:16.060 was the intent of the lawmakers who enacted Act 44. 03:16.060 --> 03:18.420 And so if that's true from, 03:18.420 --> 03:20.860 here's a fourth kind of prejudice, 03:20.860 --> 03:22.620 there's a real evidentiary prejudice 03:22.620 --> 03:25.380 in waiting to bring a claim until 15 years later, 03:25.380 --> 03:27.380 because I don't know how we conduct discovery 03:27.380 --> 03:29.420 about what happened in 2011. 03:29.420 --> 03:31.020 It happened 15 years ago. 03:32.820 --> 03:34.220 But you don't even, 03:34.220 --> 03:36.340 Justice Dalit, you don't have to take 2011. 03:36.340 --> 03:38.100 Brennan said two years was too late 03:38.100 --> 03:40.260 to challenge the line item veto. 03:40.260 --> 03:43.820 And here, these were well within two years 03:43.820 --> 03:45.860 of counting the time in which they were brought 03:45.860 --> 03:47.740 after our court case. 03:47.740 --> 03:49.300 I think we're a year and a half. 03:49.300 --> 03:50.620 I have to look at my math. 03:50.620 --> 03:52.100 Under a year and a half. 03:52.100 --> 03:57.100 Which we said in Clark was not undue delay. 03:57.700 --> 04:00.820 In Clark, you said it was not undue delay to wait. 04:00.820 --> 04:02.460 I have this here. 04:02.460 --> 04:05.500 So the Johnson decision was in March 2022. 04:05.500 --> 04:07.540 Clark was in August, 2023. 04:07.540 --> 04:09.820 So in Clark, you said it's not undue delay 04:09.820 --> 04:11.820 to wait 15 months to file a petition 04:11.820 --> 04:13.180 for an original action. 04:13.180 --> 04:15.220 And Brennan, you said latches is fact specific. 04:15.220 --> 04:17.220 So let's look at the facts of this case. 04:17.220 --> 04:20.620 Which are, they waited 14 years since Act 44. 04:20.620 --> 04:21.940 Three years and four months 04:21.940 --> 04:24.100 since the final judgment in Johnson II. 04:24.100 --> 04:26.700 Nearly two years longer than the Clark petitioners 04:26.700 --> 04:28.620 waited to challenge Johnson II. 04:28.620 --> 04:31.020 And more than 18 months after the Clark decision. 04:31.020 --> 04:33.300 And to come back to my first point, 04:33.300 --> 04:35.220 if the plaintiffs are so sure 04:35.220 --> 04:38.980 that the circuit court could have undone 04:38.980 --> 04:40.620 this court's injunction, 04:40.660 --> 04:43.220 not just today, but the minute after Clark, 04:43.220 --> 04:46.100 they've offered no explanation 04:46.100 --> 04:48.340 for why they didn't go to the circuit court. 04:48.340 --> 04:51.420 There's no reason they had to act sequentially. 04:51.420 --> 04:54.260 I assume their arguments taken to the logical extent 04:54.260 --> 04:56.420 mean the circuit court has simultaneous jurisdiction. 04:56.420 --> 04:58.780 So they can file their motion for relief from judgment here. 04:58.780 --> 05:01.100 The same day they file their circuit court action. 05:01.100 --> 05:04.700 And they have not explained why they decided to wait 05:04.700 --> 05:09.700 until July of 2025 to challenge a final judgment issue. 05:10.940 --> 05:13.860 In March of 2022. 05:13.860 --> 05:15.860 And to say that that delay is reasonable. 05:15.860 --> 05:17.420 There's a reconsideration motion 05:17.420 --> 05:20.380 you're skipping over that was filed March 1st of 2024. 05:20.380 --> 05:21.980 Right, yes, yes. 05:21.980 --> 05:23.740 So they're not gonna count the time 05:23.740 --> 05:24.900 that they were actually challenging 05:24.900 --> 05:26.460 and even though that was denied. 05:26.460 --> 05:29.020 Sorry, you're on, when I said motion 05:29.020 --> 05:31.940 for to reopen the judgment, that's what I meant. 05:31.940 --> 05:35.780 I don't understand how they couldn't also have filed 05:35.780 --> 05:38.980 their circuit court action then or shortly thereafter. 05:39.980 --> 05:41.060 Good point. 05:42.140 --> 05:42.980 Okay. 05:43.980 --> 05:46.300 We're just passing a note to see if one of your. 05:46.300 --> 05:48.500 One of your colleagues may want to speak. 05:48.500 --> 05:49.340 So. 05:49.340 --> 05:50.180 Wants to speak. 05:50.180 --> 05:51.260 That's okay. 05:51.260 --> 05:52.940 But I'll give you an opportunity. 05:52.940 --> 05:54.500 I don't know if you want to wrap things up 05:54.500 --> 05:58.100 sort of bring your comments to your part to a close. 05:58.100 --> 05:58.940 Sure. 05:58.940 --> 06:00.540 I suppose I just want to get back 06:00.540 --> 06:01.580 to the heart of the questions 06:01.580 --> 06:04.220 which is we do think that in order to hold 06:04.220 --> 06:05.340 that the Johnson two map 06:05.340 --> 06:07.620 complied with all state and federal law. 06:07.620 --> 06:09.900 Of course, this court had to decide 06:09.900 --> 06:12.940 and consider in the more than three dozen paragraphs 06:12.940 --> 06:15.700 that Wisconsin law does not require 06:15.700 --> 06:18.300 politically fair districts. 06:18.300 --> 06:22.140 And just my last point is that I do think 06:22.140 --> 06:24.740 plaintiffs are setting the circuit court up for failure 06:24.740 --> 06:26.380 if this comes, goes back. 06:26.380 --> 06:28.700 They have not offered any standard 06:28.700 --> 06:31.260 for this court to then adopt and hand down. 06:31.260 --> 06:33.900 Justice Taylor, your earlier question about data. 06:33.900 --> 06:35.620 Yes, we have the data, 06:35.620 --> 06:37.980 but how do we count the one third 06:37.980 --> 06:39.700 of Wisconsin's independence? 06:39.700 --> 06:43.580 Where do they shake out in this new constitutional right? 06:43.580 --> 06:46.980 How do we count the voter who votes for Tammy Baldwin 06:46.980 --> 06:49.260 for Senate and her Republican candidate 06:49.260 --> 06:51.060 in Assembly District 99 06:51.060 --> 06:54.100 and the numerous other split ticket voters in this case? 06:54.100 --> 06:57.100 The search for neutrality is for congressional districts 06:57.100 --> 06:59.300 at least is what this court did in Johnson. 06:59.300 --> 07:01.820 It's to defer to the legislative judgments 07:01.820 --> 07:04.020 to remedy malapportionment and no more. 07:04.020 --> 07:06.860 And if you read closely the bomb guard decision 07:06.860 --> 07:09.420 and the prosser decision that was cited today, 07:09.420 --> 07:11.740 that's actually what those courts were doing. 07:11.740 --> 07:14.500 I'd urge the court to read to the end of prosser. 07:14.500 --> 07:17.140 What the court said there is we as a court 07:17.140 --> 07:20.780 will not upset the existing political landscape. 07:20.780 --> 07:22.940 We will not pair incumbents 07:22.940 --> 07:25.940 because that goes beyond our duties as a court. 07:25.940 --> 07:26.940 Thank you. 07:26.940 --> 07:27.780 Thank you. 07:28.780 --> 07:29.780 Mr. Salin. 07:35.780 --> 07:37.780 Thank you, Your Honor. 07:37.780 --> 07:40.780 I'm going to try to do something a little bit different. 07:40.780 --> 07:44.780 I hear there's a lot of sentiment on the bench 07:44.780 --> 07:48.780 for eventually perhaps considering recognizing 07:48.780 --> 07:50.780 and claim for partisan gerrymandering. 07:50.780 --> 07:52.780 I would like to make the case here 07:52.780 --> 07:55.780 that this is absolutely not the case 07:55.780 --> 07:58.780 where this court should go down this path.