Connect with us

Wisconsin

Republican lawmakers ask Wisconsin Supreme Court to reconsider redistricting ruling – Wisconsin Examiner

Published

on

Republican lawmakers ask Wisconsin Supreme Court to reconsider redistricting ruling – Wisconsin Examiner


Wisconsin Republicans have asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to overturn the state’s legislative maps, saying lawmakers can’t draw new maps by the Court’s Jan. 12 deadline. 

In a motion filed last week, the attorneys for Senate Republicans argued the lawmakers wouldn’t be able to hit the Jan. 12 deadline to produce new maps that follow the Court’s order that districts be contiguous. 

“And now, announced the Friday before Christmas, the parties have been given 21 days — a third of them falling on weekends and state holidays — to submit proposed remedies, lengthy remedial briefs, and expert reports,” the Republican attorneys state in a filing. “The message is clear: The regular rules apply to Republicans. But here, Democrats get special solicitude.”

The Republicans also argue that the Court didn’t listen to their arguments, pre-decided the case and didn’t give them a chance to respond to the deadline for new maps. 

Advertisement

On Dec. 22, the Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that Wisconsin’s current maps are unconstitutional because they include many districts that aren’t contiguous — a requirement under the state constitution. The Court ordered the Legislature and the other parties involved in the lawsuit to submit new maps by Jan. 12, with supporting arguments due 10 days later. 

In order to be in place in time for the 2024 legislative elections, the maps must be set by mid-March, state election officials have said. 

The maps submitted by the parties will also be assessed by two referees the Court has appointed: University of California, Irvine political science professor Bernard Grofman and Carnegie Mellon University postdoctoral fellow Jonathan Cervas. 

For more than a decade, despite Wisconsin’s near 50-50 political divide, Republicans have enjoyed a disproportionately large majority in both houses of the Legislature because of the severe partisan gerrymander they instituted in 2011. That gerrymander, which experts have often cited as one of the worst in the country, was continued in 2022 when the Supreme Court, then under a conservative majority, imposed maps drawn by the Legislature. 

In addition to their request that the state Supreme Court reconsider its decision, Republicans have also suggested plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Advertisement

That course of action, however, would require Republicans to find a violation of federal law in a case and decision that are almost entirely focused on issues of state law. 

“We will pursue all federal issues arising out of the redistricting litigation at the U.S. Supreme Court,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said in a statement after the state Court’s decision. 

Before the decision, Republicans suggested that they would challenge Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s participation in the case at the U.S. Supreme Court. 

For months, Republicans alleged Protasiewicz had “pre-judged” the case because of comments about the legislative maps she made on the campaign trail and donations her campaign received from the state Democratic Party. Republicans threatened that if she didn’t recuse from the case, they’d move to impeach her. 

Protasiewicz denied the request for recusal, saying that the Democratic Party wasn’t a litigant in the case so its political donations to her didn’t affect the case and that recusing because of donations from one party would set a difficult precedent for the other members of the Court who have received campaign cash from either of the parties. 

Advertisement

The impeachment threat has subsided, but Republicans could argue in federal court that her participation violated their due process rights. 

Such an argument would be made under a federal precedent set in a 2009 Supreme Court case, Caperton v. Massey. In Caperton, a West Virginia judge had refused to recuse himself from the appeal of a $50 million jury verdict after the CEO of the plaintiff in the case had donated $3 million to the judge’s campaign. 

In addition to the facts in the case being different, the Caperton precedent was set by a liberal majority, so the current conservative leaning U.S. Supreme Court — which has regularly ruled in favor of money in politics — might be hesitant to endorse its argument. 

Other federal claims could be made after the maps are chosen. In the legal battle that led to the imposition of the current maps, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to say the Wisconsin Supreme Court couldn’t select legislative maps drawn by Gov. Tony Evers because they violated the Voting Rights Act by attempting to create too many majority-minority districts around Milwaukee. 

Vos said he expects a similar outcome this time. 

Advertisement

“Last time around, the Democrats’ maps racially gerrymandered voters to obtain a political goal,” he said. “I expect they’ll do so again. The Supreme Court wasn’t fooled by the overt racial gerrymandering before, and it’s my hope that the Court will refuse to allow that or any other violation of federal law this time around, too.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Advertisement



Source link

Wisconsin

President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody

Published

on

President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody


A federal judge has ordered the release of the president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque, after finding that immigration officials probably detained him in retaliation against his public advocacy for Palestinian rights, suppressing his first amendment rights in the process.

The US district judge James Patrick Hanlon’s order on Thursday marked a sharp rebuke against Trump officials, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who had tried to paint Salah Sarsour as a national security threat.

“Salah Sarsour, who has lived in this country for more than three decades and served as a core pillar in his community without any issues, should never have been detained in the first place,” his legal team wrote in a statement. “While we continue to fight these baseless claims in court, today is about celebrating a family being reunited. It is also a sober reminder that, if the government can target Mr Sarsour, everyone’s free speech rights are at risk.”

Sarsour describes himself as a stateless Palestinian, according to the order. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that he is a Jordanian citizen. He has lived in the United States for more than three decades, becoming a legal permanent resident in 1998. Immigration officials approved Sarsour’s citizenship application decades ago, though he did not naturalize.

Advertisement

Sarsour has garnered public attention as a champion for Palestinian rights, and serves as a board member of an advocacy group called American Muslims for Palestine.

But Rubio personally signed off on a memo to the DHS last year describing Sarsour as deportable despite his green card, because “his actions undermine US foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world”. The memo, cited in Hanlon’s order, accuses Sarsour’s group of being “found to have been involved in activities providing funds to Hamas”.

A group of plainclothes ICE officers from at least 10 unmarked vehicles swarmed Sarsour on 30 March of this year, arresting him and putting him in deportation proceedings. ICE ultimately detained him in Clay county jail in Indiana.

Sarsour lost 30lb while detained, the order says. His lawyers told the court that he was “at constant risk of developing serious complications from diabetes given that the medical staff only checks his blood-sugar levels once a month”. Tightly controlling diabetes typically requires multiple glucose checks daily.

Hanlon’s order says that homeland security officials and Rubio probably trampled on Sarsour’s first amendment right to free speech and appeared to have arrested him in retaliation for his Palestinian rights advocacy.

Advertisement

The order cited a New York Times story and the website for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative thinktank that dreamed up Project 2025,

The Heritage Foundation presented the White House with the idea to present prominent foreign-born Muslims and Palestinian rights leaders as terrorists in order to sue them, deport them or pressure employers to fire them, the order says, citing reporting from the Times and Heritage’s own website. Sarsour was probably among the targets of that campaign, the order says.

The federal government, through its lawyers, contended that Sarsour should be deported based on two convictions from more than three decades ago in Israel – one for throwing a molotov cocktail and the other for attempting to store weapons and ammunition.

Sarsour denies having committed those crimes.

But Hanlon viewed those crimes as a non-issue for justifying his incarceration, noting that the federal government knew about them since the 1990s and approved his legal permanent residency and his citizenship application anyway.

Advertisement

Sarsour’s speech on Palestinian rights “is core political speech and squarely within the scope of the First Amendment”, the order says. “Mr Sarsour has submitted evidence allowing a reasonable inference that his protected speech was ‘at least a motivating factor’ in Respondents’ decision to detain him.”

A spokesperson for homeland security described Sarsour as a “terrorist”, citing the convictions from his youth in Israel.

Government lawyers had argued that Sarsour did not have the same first amendment rights as US citizens. If he were released, they said, he should have to pay a $25,000 bond, wear an ankle monitor, check in routinely with ICE and remain confined to his house.

Instead, Hanlon ordered his release on personal recognizance, meaning that Sarsour does not have to pay a cash bond to compel him to show up in court again. The order, however, requires him to remain in the state of Wisconsin.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute

Published

on

Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute


(WLUK) – A couple challenging the decision not to award them a 50-50 raffle prize at a Milwaukee Brewers game asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case, calling it one of “statewide importance.”

Matthew and Annette Flynn purchased ten raffle tickets at the July 7, 2023, game, and held the winning number which was originally selected for $13,000. According to court records, the raffle rules in effect at the time required the winning ticket holder to claim the prize at a designated 50-50 table by the end of the top of the seventh inning. Flynn said she did not see the winning number displayed or hear it announced and was directed by stadium personnel to another location before making her way to the claim table. Officials determined she did not arrive before the deadline and selected a new winning ticket.

The Flynns sued, but the circuit and appeals courts ruled the raffle’s rules gave the foundation sole discretion to determine the official winner and that the rules clearly stated a participant who failed to claim the prize within the specified time would be disqualified.

In a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed Wednesday, the Flynn’s asked the high court to take the case, saying the decision “affects not only the parties to this action but potentially every Wisconsin resident who participates in charitable raffles and similar gaming activities.”

Advertisement

“This case presents significant questions concerning contractual discretion, discovery, judicial review of charitable gaming decisions, and the treatment of digital evidence within Wisconsin’s appellate system. For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,” the petition states.

The high court does not have to take the case. At some point, it will vote on if to take it. If it does, a months-long process to review the issues will begin. If it does not, the appeals court ruling would stand.

According to the rules posted on the Milwaukee Brewers’ website, the deadline to claim the prize is no longer during the game the tickets were purchased.

Comment with Bubbles

BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT

Advertisement

“The Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number may claim the Prize at the 50/50 Table located on the Loge (2nd) level concourse behind Sections 216/217 until such time as the Ballpark officially closes to fans after the end of the game. If the Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number does not claim the Prize by the time the Ballpark closes to fans after the end of the game, that Participant may still claim the Prize within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period for the respective baseball game by contacting the Raffle hotline (414-902-4334). A Prize that is not claimed within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period will be awarded in compliance with applicable regulations,” the site states.



Source link

Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Wisconsin DOJ probes fatal shooting by Oneida County officer

Published

on

Wisconsin DOJ probes fatal shooting by Oneida County officer


ONEIDA COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) — The Wisconsin DOJ is investigating an officer-involved death that occurred on the morning of June 17 in the town of Lake Tomahawk.

According to a press release, around 10:30 a.m., two Oneida officers arrived at Lumen Lake Drive to arrest a subject in a felony investigation.

Upon contact with the officers, the subject brandished and shot a firearm. One officer shot the subject in return.

EMS pronounced the subject dead on the scene. No members of law enforcement or the public were injured.

Advertisement

Both officers will be placed on administrative assignment, per the agency’s policy.

WFRV will update this story as needed.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending