@joeminocqua Chris Taylor is winning our shared home - Oneida County - 52-48 (including having won Minocqua) before any results from Rhinelander have been reported!
English
Mark Gaber
743 posts
Mark Gaber
@markpgaber
👨🏼⚖️Sr. Director of Redistricting @campaignlegal. Father of Reba 🐾. Aspiring baker/sitcom actor. 🏳️🌈Views my own.
Washington, D.C. Inscrit le Şubat 2010
498 Abonnements1K Abonnés
No need to stay up late. Here is one town from BOW. Lazar dropped 5% from Schimel.
joe handrick@joeminocqua
I have work obligations tonight, so minimal reporting. But here is a cheat sheet: BOW. Schimel lost Brown, Outagamie & Winnebago 1 year ago. In a close contest Lazar would likely win all 3 (with at least 53-54% in B & O and 51%+ in W). He also lost Racine cty - Lazar cannot.
English
Giant mirrors should be erected in the Utah capitol building.
Robert Gehrke@RobertGehrke
There is a LOT of stuff to unpack in Todd's thread here. So let's break it down, shall we? It is true that about 220k people signed the petition. About 30% were invalid. Another ~9K removed their signatures. That was the tally over about 100 days of signature gathering. The ..
English
@joeminocqua Take it from the three-judge federal court, not me: campaignlegal.org/sites/default/…
English
The "fair maps" signs people are holding are not in agreement with Evers' call to ban gerrymandering.
The problem: The only way to draw maps with partisan balance is to literally engage in gerrymandering (Evers own map demonstrates this clearly).
Why: As has been demonstrated by experts from around the country, The D population in WI is clustered while the R population is distributed.
Their solution: Change the definition of gerrymandering so that any map - no matter how badly gerrymandered - is not called a gerrymander if it creates additional D seats.
Thus, what Evers wants is for his gerrymandering to be called "fair" and any other map to be labeled as a gerrymander.
Scott Bauer@sbauerAP
.@GovEvers is calling a special session of the Legislature for April 14 to ban partisan gerrymandering
English
@joeminocqua @ElectionCenter_ Except that Evers' map (enacted by GOP legislature) splits fewer counties than the 2021 map (33 v. 45), fewer than half as many municipalities (33 v. 71), and scores significantly higher on compactness metrics.
English
Thanks for proving my point. The effort to ban "gerrymandering" is nothing more PR stunt to ban any map that follows the traditional redistricting criteria of compactness and municipal preservation. Meanwhile, gerrymandering is re-defined to no longer include any district that actually is gerrymandered to elect a D. I'm beginning to see why you can't ID the difference between a man and a woman.
English
Yes, that’s not gerrymandering. Trump won 50 districts while Kamala won 49. Literally the most fair maps Wisconsin had in a while.
joe handrick@joeminocqua
@ElectionCenter_ Of course not, it's just a gerrymander that identifies as a non-gerrymander.
English
This went so well the first time.
Lindsay Aerts@LindsayOnAir
AMENDMENT D 2.0? GOP Senate leaders say they will be bringing the amendment to the ballot in 2026 over the power of initiatives, and are hinting at a special session instead of addressing before the end of this legislative session. @abc4utah #utpol abc4.com/news/politics/…
English
@SJonNantucket That's not correct. The Legislature had from Aug 25-Oct 6 and they passed another map, Map C, that was also unlawful. Then the Legislature declined *Plaintiffs'* suggestion that the parties jointly request a ruling prior to Nov. 10.
English
@markpgaber They didn't decline. She ruled the existing map violated the state constitution and imposed the plaintiff's map. She never gave the legislature a chance to redraw
English
BREAKING - Sweeping victory upholding fair congressional map in Utah. The three-judge federal court unanimously rules that Judge Gibson had the power and obligation under federal law to impose Map 1 campaignlegal.org/sites/default/…
English
The months of attacks about the power of the court to impose a map - all wrong. As SCOTUS has held for decades, if a legislature declines to pass a lawful map, state courts must impose one. The Utah Legislature chose to violate Prop 4. Utahns will now finally have a fair map.
English
@joeminocqua @RedistrictNet That's not a district that exists. It was part of a rejected proposal. Also, it's not the "Evers map" - it's Wisconsin law. The map was enacted by the GOP legislature and signed into law by the Governor.
English
Funny how that rationalization was never used to explain the D gerrymander connecting rural Juneau County to the city of Madison.
But more to the point, the Evers map didn't put the Fox Cities into a single district (as one would do if seriously trying to make a "community of interest" argument) -- It took fragments of some of them.
English
✅ @readchaoticera 14,000 milestone unlocked ✅
Grateful for all of you who read & subscribe 🙏🇺🇸
English
Incredible show of bipartisan patriotism and commitment to democracy by the Indiana Senate rejecting an egregious mid-decade gerrymander.
English
DOJ and Abbott demanded that the map eliminate multiracial majority districts. The map did exactly that, and the legislators loudly proclaimed it over and over and over. That's racial gerrymandering.
English
And Texas's primary defense is that the out-of-state mapdrawer is the relevant state actor, not the Governor or Legislator. As we tell SCOTUS, good luck finding mention of Adam Kincaid in the Texas Constitution.
English
As we tell SCOTUS in our brief, this is not a close case. DOJ cannot demand that states dismantle districts on account of race. And states cannot heed that demand. Gov. Abbott proclaimed on TV that the map was drawn on the basis of race. That's illegal.
Brad Johnson@bradj_TX
The Brooks respondents, one segment of the original plaintiffs against the Texas map, have filed their response to SCOTUS: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/2… "The federal government cannot insist that a state dismantle districts on account of race. States cannot dismantle districts on account of race. This Court hears hard cases. This is not a hard case."
English