MADISON, Wis. – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday decided to review a case ruled on last November that said the 2011 Republican re-drawing of State Assembly boundaries was an unconstitutional gerrymander, because of excessive partisanship.

Republicans maintain their methods were within the bounds of the Constitution.

There have been cases heard in the past regarding the method in which political boundaries are drawn, but Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin says this time it's different.

"In the past it's been thrown out because it's been in violation of voting rights or civil rights laws, but gerrymandering has always been considered somewhat of a partisan exercise,” he explains. “But in this case the U.S. Supreme Court may decide that this was too excessive."

Wisconsin Democrats argue that the 2011 Republican maps were drawn with the express purpose of disenfranchising Democratic voters.

Republicans disagree, and Republican legislative leaders have already hired two high profile law firms to represent them before the Supreme Court.

In May, the Supreme Court struck down two North Carolina congressional districts that the court said were drawn based too heavily on race.

Twelve Republican-dominated states have already lined up to support Wisconsin's Republicans in defending the 2011 maps. But Heck says both parties gerrymander to gain advantage, and the Wisconsin decision will have national implications.

"Democrats did the same thing in states like Rhode Island and Maryland, so this is not a Republican-Democratic issue,” he points out. “Of course, our neighbors to the south, Illinois, the Democrats have been doing this for years to the Republicans, so this could actually change the standard nationwide."

After the 2011 redistricting in Wisconsin, Republican candidates won 60 of the 99 seats in the State Assembly. However, Democratic candidates won a majority of the votes cast statewide for Assembly.

Heck says the U.S. Supreme Court could rule that this kind of partisan map drawing is constitutional.

"We tend to think that they're probably not going to do that, that they're probably going to opt for saying that excessive partisanship in drawing state legislative boundaries is unconstitutional, thereby upholding the Federal court decision last November," he states.

The Supreme Court will take up the Wisconsin case this fall.





get more stories like this via email

California good governance experts are warning the expansion of presidential power under a second Trump administration could cast aside expertise and the public good to further purely political aims.

Over the past week, President-elect Donald Trump has nominated multiple candidates known more for their personal support for him than for relevant expertise.

Bill Resh, associate professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, said Trump appears to be following the blueprint set by Project 2025.

"Project 2025 puts into place principles such as loyalty, first and foremost, to the President as a criterion for placement into these agencies, and often with the intention of undermining those missions."

Supporters of President-elect Trump say voters have given him a mandate to govern as he sees fit. So far, he has nominated people strongly aligned with the oil industry to run the U.S. Interior Department and be Energy Secretary. He has nominated a climate change skeptic to run the Environmental Protection Agency, a television host with no executive experience as Defense Secretary, an election denier for Attorney General and a vaccine skeptic to run the Department of Health and Human Services.

Resh noted Trump has already suggested using recess appointments to avoid what could be bruising confirmation hearings for some of his nominees.

"His stars are aligned to consolidate executive power and bring what used to be either quasi- or fully independent agencies, that were not subject to political whims, to bring those agencies to heel toward his policy preferences," Resh contended.

This year, the U.S. Supreme Court found presidents cannot be prosecuted for most actions in office. And come January, both houses of Congress will be controlled by allies of President-elect Trump.

New York City residents approved three of Mayor Eric Adams' four charter reforms in last week's election. But how many realized what they were voting for?

Critics of the reform proposals say the language on the ballots may seem harmless, but each proposition expands the power of the mayor or a city agency. For instance, Proposition 3 requires more public notice on public safety legislation - but it also lets agencies hold hearings, bypassing the City Council.

Based on voters' feedback, Perla Silva, senior civic engagement coordinator for Make the Road New York, said the wording of each initiative made them hard to interpret.

"[Proposition] 3 to 6 was very confusing," she said. "They just did not really understand what that meant. The wording around it, the language was just not clear to them. It just sounded like it was supporting and it was going to be helping City Council."

She said voters were equally confused by Proposition 2, which many assumed would lead to cleaner parks and offer more parks for kids. Instead, it increases the policing of homeless people and street vendors.

A Data for Progress survey before the election also showed 65-percent of likely voters hadn't heard about these charter reforms.

Given the scandals surrounding the Adams administration, not all New Yorkers are convinced the mayor should have more power. The Data for Progress survey found 47% of voters worry Adams would put his own needs before theirs.

Adams is staying in the 2025 mayor's race, but faces many challengers for the Democratic nomination. Silva said she isn't surprised.

"Eric Adams increasing his power and his policing technique to 'securing' New York City," she said, "but we know that it's really harming the working class."

She said the propositions could further empower the New York City Police Department.

The New York Civil Liberties Union found that police stops have risen since Adams became mayor - although almost 70% of people stopped have been innocent, and research has shown that violent crimes fell when police stops did.

Some New York House lawmakers supported a bill harmful to nonprofits. H.R. 9495 faced staunch opposition since it would have given the Treasury Secretary unilateral power to revoke tax exemptions for nonprofits considered "terrorist supporting organizations." The bill stems from a disinformation campaign saying Democrats support terrorists and would have jeopardized nonprofits providing aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

Beth Miller, political director with Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said this foreshadows Donald Trump's second term.

"It's very clear that the far-right MAGA Republicans are planning to take every step they can to dismantle our fundamental freedoms including our right to free speech, our right to protest, and attacking the nonprofit civil-society sector and social justice movements and progressive movements," she said.

This isn't the first time a bill like this was voted on in the House. H.R. 6408 passed the chamber earlier this year with staunch bipartisan support. But, it failed in the Senate. With H.R. 9495, 52 Democrats joined all Republicans in the chamber to vote in favor of it. Miller said with a GOP trifecta in Washington next year, lawmakers must watch out for double-edged legislation that could have harmless language and destructive consequences.

One reason so many Democrats support the bill is the other provision of it which gives tax breaks to Americans wrongfully imprisoned abroad or held hostage by terror groups. Miller noted that it's a perfectly sensible thing to pass on its own.

"However, if Republicans actually wanted to push that through, they could have pushed that through separately as a standalone bill and gotten total bipartisan support for it," she continued. "However, they tried to attach it to this other bill because what they really wanted to get through was the piece of this legislation that was all about giving the Trump executive branch more authority."

She added bills like this will be common and noted that Democrats are often too willing to sell out the Palestinian rights movement for the sake of bipartisanship.