MILWAUKEE, Wis. -- The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision to make few changes when redrawing the state's voting maps is raising new concerns new districts may not adequately represent the growing number of Hispanic and Latinx voters.
The court has said any alterations to the maps will be based on population shifts and certain legal principles, like the Voting Rights Act.
The Latinx community is Wisconsin's largest and fastest-growing minority group, according to the 2020 Census.
Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of the Milwaukee-based group Voces de la Frontera, worried the census undercounted minority residents during the Trump administration.
"Both the pandemic was a serious issue for the census count, as well as, you know, the impact of a very hostile administration," Neumann-Ortiz asserted.
Hispanic and Latinx voters played a major role in delivering Wisconsin to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. A Washington Post exit poll found about 60% of the group in Wisconsin cast ballots for Biden, in a state he won by just over 20,000 votes, or less than 1% of all ballots cast.
In adopting a "least-change" approach to redistricting, the state's high court handed a win to Republican lawmakers. The current maps were drafted in 2011, when Republicans controlled the legislature and governor's office, and have been criticized for favoring GOP candidates.
Neumann-Ortiz pointed out keeping those maps largely intact means Latinx voters may not have as strong a voice, in Madison or on Capitol Hill.
"Reinforcing this gerrymandered map, it means that the issues that Latinos care about deeply, and that are broadly supported, are going to continue to be obstructed," Neumann-Ortiz contended.
Kathay Feng, national redistricting director for Common Cause, said once voting maps hit the courts, it becomes more difficult for citizens to weigh in on the process. Speaking at a redistricting seminar, she noted the best way to influence the process was through a ballot.
"In some states where you have judicial elections, or there's a way to influence the judges that are chosen, it's making sure that there is a tremendous amount of voter education," Feng urged.
Wisconsin's Supreme Court justices are elected to ten-year terms. All other judges in the state run for reelection every six years.
get more stories like this via email
Data show older voters are an influential demographic in Wyoming elections and a new series of videos asks candidates questions specific to the group.
The Secretary of State said more than two-thirds of Wyoming voters in 2022 were over age 50.
Tom Lacock, associate state director for AARP Wyoming, said sometimes issues important to the group get overlooked. The organization is producing a series of short videos with candidates asking straight-to-the-point questions about property taxes, funding ambulance services and how the state can best help older adults age in their homes and communities.
Lacock explained the questions are designed to focus on issues important to older voters.
"We're hoping that doing this helps cut through some of the other stuff that you see online," Lacock emphasized. "And becomes less about maybe a specific party or even a specific traction of a party and more issues-based."
Lacock reported candidate participation is increasing. As of Wednesday, the AARP Wyoming Facebook page and website featured videos from 18 races and 44 candidates across the state. Many Wyoming races will be decided during the primary and Lacock pointed out the group is working to release more videos before the Aug. 20 election.
Lacock noted AARP started the video series before the 2022 election. The number of video views for this year's primary, he added, shows voters aged 50 and up are continuing to pay attention.
"We're approaching 2,300 over the course of the last month," Lacock observed. "People are taking the time to look through these to figure out where candidates sit on issues that are important to them."
Disclosure: AARP Wyoming contributes to our fund for reporting on Civic Engagement, Consumer Issues, Health Issues, and Senior Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A University of Nevada-Las Vegas law professor said the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has issued major decisions dramatically changing the country's legal landscape.
David Orentlicher said the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and its constitutional right to an abortion two years ago was a pivotal moment in history. Former President Donald Trump has taken credit for placing three conservative justices on the court, which helped delegate the issue of abortion to states.
Orentlicher noted it is unknown how many appointments a president may be dealt, which can be unsettling.
"It is unpredictable which is a reason why one common reform proposal is to say, instead of having justices serve for life, have them serve 18 years and every two years," Orentlicher outlined. "One justice's term will expire so we'll know that every president will get two appointments."
He pointed out looking at today's voter's political ideals, the court should ideally reflect a closer 50-50 split. And while some have made the case for Supreme Court reform initiatives to bring more balance, the initiatives have not advanced. Republicans in Congress argued the changes would jeopardize the separation of powers between Congress and the Court.
Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said the winner of the November election could reshape legal precedent in the U.S. for generations. Her group conducted a survey and reported nearly 75% of voters said the selection and confirmation of future justices will be important when deciding who to support in the upcoming races.
"It's important to think about generations after us, because many of the people who could potentially be put on the bench will be on there for 50 to 60 years, potentially," Harris emphasized. "Justices continue to be appointed younger and younger."
Harris added four of the current justices on the bench will be in their 70s in 2025 when the next president takes office. The next president could have the opportunity to potentially put two to three new justices on the bench.
Disclosure: Stand Up America contributes to our fund for reporting on Campaign Finance Reform/Money in Pol, Civic Engagement, and Civil Rights. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Former President Donald Trump has taken credit for placing three conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, the court awarded him a major win by giving him immunity from criminal prosecution for what are known as "official acts" taken while in office.
New data show a majority of voters in Arizona and around the country are paying attention and understand the impact the next president could have on the future of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said the winner of the November election could select and appoint up to four new justices, reshaping the legal precedent in the U.S. for years to come.
"It's important to think about generations after us," said Harris. "Many of the people who could potentially be put on the bench will be on there for 50 to 60 years, potentially as justices continue to be appointed younger and younger."
Harris noted four of the current justices will be in their 70s in 2025 when the next president takes office. Her organization's recent poll finds nearly 75% of voters say the selection and confirmation of future justices will be important when deciding who to support in the upcoming presidential and Senate races.
Some argue the scandal-ridden Supreme Court makes the case for term limits. The Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, led by U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, would create 18-year term limits for current and future justices as well as provide two appointments to the court in each four-year presidential term.
Harris said the justices should not be treated as if they're above the law.
"No one deserves power for life. What we've seen is that the court cannot regulate itself, and so having term limits would be really, really important," she continued.
The TERM Act was initially introduced in 2022, but died in committee. It was reintroduced last year, with no action since. But that proposal, and other Supreme Court reform initiatives, have faced pushback from Republicans who argue it would jeopardize the separation of powers between Congress and the court.
Disclosure: Stand Up America contributes to our fund for reporting on Campaign Finance Reform/Money in Pol, Civic Engagement, Civil Rights. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email