Latest news with #EliasLawGroup
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Wisconsin Supreme Court declines to hear cases challenging congressional maps
Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner) The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued two orders Wednesday, declining to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the state's congressional maps. Democrats had hoped that the liberal wing of the court retaining majority control of the body in this spring's election would give them an opportunity to change the congressional lines. Republicans currently hold six of the state's eight congressional seats, and Democrats hoped they could flip the 1st and 3rd CDs under friendlier maps. Before Republicans drew new congressional lines in 2010, Democrats controlled five of the state's seats. The current maps were drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and approved by the state Supreme Court when it was controlled by conservatives. That Court had required that any proposed maps adhere to a 'least change' standard that changed as little as possible from the 2010 maps. While Evers' maps made the two competitive districts slightly closer contests, they're still controlled by Republican U.S. Reps. Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden. The two lawsuits were brought by the Elias Law Group representing Democratic candidates and voters and the Campaign Legal Center on behalf of a group of voters. The cases argued the maps violated the state's constitutional requirement that all voters be treated equally. The challenges against the maps drew national attention as Democrats hope to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives in next year's midterm elections. This is the second time in as many years that the Supreme Court, under a liberal majority, has declined to hear challenges to the congressional maps. In both cases, the Court issued unanimous decisions without any explanation as to why they weren't accepting the cases. Aside from declining to hear the cases, Justice Janet Protasiewicz issued an order denying requests that she recuse herself from the case. Republicans have called for her recusal from redistricting cases because of comments she made during her 2023 campaign about Wisconsin's need for fairer maps. Previously, after Protasiewicz joined the Court, as part of a new liberal majority, it declared the state's legislative maps, which locked in disproportionate Republican majorities in the Legislature, unconstitutional. 'I am confident that I can, in fact and appearance, act in an impartial manner in this case,' she wrote. 'And the Due Process Clause does not require my recusal because neither my campaign statements nor contributions to my campaign create a 'serious risk of actual bias.'' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Al Arabiya
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Wisconsin Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Challenges to the State's Congressional District Boundaries
The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear challenges brought by Democrats seeking to throw out the battleground state's current congressional district boundaries before the 2026 midterms. The decision, made without explanation from the court, is a setback for Democrats who had hoped for new, friendlier district boundary lines in Wisconsin as they attempt to win back control of the House next year. Democrats asked the court to redraw the maps, which would have put two of the state's six congressional seats currently held by Republicans into play. It was the second time in as many years that the court had refused to hear the challenges. Democrats hoped the court would revisit the congressional lines after it ordered state legislative boundaries redrawn. Democrats then picked up seats in the November election. 'It's good that Wisconsin has fair maps at the state level, but we deserve them at the federal level as well,' Democratic US Rep. Mark Pocan said. 'Unfortunately, gerrymandered maps for members of Congress will remain in Wisconsin.' Attorneys who brought the lawsuits did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment. Republicans hold six of the state's eight US House seats, but only two of those districts are considered competitive. Two requests to reconsider the congressional boundaries were filed with the court, which is controlled 4–3 by liberal justices. One came from the Elias Law Group, which represents Democratic groups and candidates, and the other came on behalf of voters by Campaign Legal Center. Democrats argued that the court's decision to redraw maps for state legislative districts a couple years ago opened the door to revisiting maps for US House districts. They also argued that the current map violates the state constitution's requirement that all Wisconsin residents be treated equally. In 2010, the year before Republicans redrew the congressional maps, Democrats held five seats compared with three for Republicans. The current congressional maps drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers were approved by the state Supreme Court when it was controlled by conservative judges. The US Supreme Court in March 2022 declined to block them from taking effect. And last year, the state Supreme Court rejected a request to reconsider the maps without giving a reason as to why. One of the seats that Democrats hope to flip is in western Wisconsin. Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden won an open seat in 2022 after longtime Democratic Rep. Ron Kind retired. Von Orden won reelection in the 3rd District in 2024. The other seat they are eyeing is southeastern Wisconsin's 1st District. Republican Rep. Bryan Steil has held it since 2019. The latest maps made that district more competitive but still favor Republicans.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Revising direct democracy ballot measure to meet Arkansas law balancing act, drafter says
Northwest Arkansas lawyer Jennifer Waymack Standerfer and Arkansas Appleseed Executive Director Bobby Howard discuss a proposed constitutional amendment from the Protect AR Rights coalition to preserve direct democracy in Arkansas during a press conference at the state Capitol on May 19, 2025. (Sonny Albarado/Arkansas Advocate) The authors of a proposed constitutional amendment to protect Arkansas' direct democracy process are still revising their measure following the attorney general's rejection of their original draft last week. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said he could not certify The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment because it failed to meet the eighth-grade reading level standard set in a new law. Act 602, which became law in April, prohibits the certification of a proposed ballot title with a reading level above eighth grade as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula. The test uses word complexity and sentence lengths to calculate what grade of education is needed to comprehend written material. During a virtual press conference Tuesday, Jennifer Waymack Standerfer, a Northwest Arkansas lawyer and drafter of the measure, said it's difficult to meet both the reading level provision and a requirement to not be misleading because the formula used to calculate the reading level assigns a higher grade to more complex words that she said are needed to properly convey the intent of the measure, such as 'fundamental right.' 'If I say right instead of fundamental right, there's a lot less syllables there and that drops my readability score, but I'm not being as transparent and open and honest with the public about what we're actually doing,' Standerfer said. 'The courts bounce around about rights and fundamental rights.' Sponsored by the Protect AR Rights coalition, the proposed measure would amend Article 5 Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, the section that governs the state's initiative and referendum process. It would designate as a 'fundamental right' the right of voters to propose laws and constitutional amendments that can be put to a statewide vote. Second Arkansas ballot measure rejected for failing to meet reading-level standard Asked if breaking the proposal's several sections into separate ballot measures would make it easier to meet the reading level standard, Emma Olson Sharkey, a partner at the Elias Law Group who specializes in voting rights and citizen-led ballot initiatives, said it's not necessarily the amount of policies or changes that are involved. 'It is the way that they're described, and even just that simple change (right vs. fundamental right), which would mean a lot to the people of Arkansas, wouldn't meet the standard that the Legislature has set, which is, in my view, ridiculous,' Sharkey said. Among its various provisions, the measure would require petition signatures be gathered from at least 15 counties instead of 50 and would explicitly prohibit the Arkansas General Assembly from amending or repealing a constitutional amendment approved by voters. Coalition members may consider removing some provisions and editing other language to meet the reading level requirement, Standerfer said. The drafting process has become a balancing act of meeting statutory requirements while also staying true to the intent of the measure, she said. 'All of the policies that we have in here are really, really crucial and really, really important, and if the Legislature is putting requirements on us that make us sacrifice content, then that is impeding upon the people's rights to legislate,' Standerfer said. 'They don't get to tell the people what content they get to legislate in law.' Various court interpretations of the Arkansas Constitution have said state lawmakers can amend an initiated act by a two-thirds majority vote, but not an amendment, Standerfer said. 'That being said, the case that says that essentially says 'well, we know what the Constitution says, but they couldn't have possibly meant that, that's crazy,'' Standerfer said. 'There are some lawyers who are concerned the current Supreme Court would reverse itself, and because of that and the concerns that have been raised, additional clarity to restate the law as it exists now is warranted and appropriate.' In an attorney general opinion issued in November, Griffin said the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1951 reasoned that the plain language of Amendment 7 gives the General Assembly the power to amend citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. But the court departed from the text because it didn't believe it was voters' intention to give lawmakers that power, he said. 'In my opinion, that decision employed an erroneous form of reasoning and was wrongly decided,' Griffin wrote. 'If this issue were raised today, I believe the Supreme Court would overturn that case and hold that the plain language controls.' During this year's legislative session, lawmakers proposed a bill that would have granted this authority to the General Assembly, but it died in the House. Legislators were successful, however, in passing several laws changing the state's initiative and referendum process, which prompted direct democracy-related ballot proposals from Protect AR Rights and the League of Women Voters of Arkansas. Direct democracy is the process through which Arkansans can propose new laws or constitutional amendments and put them to a statewide vote. Arkansas is one of 24 states that allows citizen-led initiatives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The League's measure was rejected three times, including once for failing to meet the eighth-grade reading level requirement. Griffin substituted and certified the popular name and ballot title so it met the reading level requirement on May 21. That means the League can begin gathering signatures to try to place their measure on the 2026 ballot. The nonpartisan group will officially launch its statewide signature collection campaign Friday in Fayetteville. Court filings reveal opposition to intervening motion in Arkansas direct democracy lawsuit The organization also filed a lawsuit in April that challenges several of the new direct democracy laws. Protect AR Rights filed a motion to intervene so the coalition can challenge additional laws not included in the original lawsuit, including the reading-level law. Both the League and the state argued in their responses to the motion that Protect AR Rights lacks standing and is not entitled to intervene in the case. In the meantime, drafters of Protect AR Rights' ballot measure are continuing to solicit public input and hope to resubmit their revised proposal in the next week or so, Standerfer said. The attorney general's office declined the coalition's request for a meeting for feedback because of the pending litigation, she said. While the proposed ballot measures from Protect AR Rights and the League of Women Voters of Arkansas have the same general goal of preserving Arkansans' rights to propose laws and constitutional amendments, they do conflict in some areas, Standerfer said. Because of that, if both qualify for the ballot and are approved by the voters, the one with the most votes would become law, according to the state Constitution, she said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Liberal law firm again asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to reconsider congressional maps
A Democratic law firm has again asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reconsider the state's congressional boundaries ahead of the 2026 midterms, a request the court has previously rejected. Elias Law Group, chaired by Marc Elias, who has led previous voting access lawsuits in Wisconsin and across the country, filed a petition with the high court May 8 on behalf of Wisconsin voters. "Wisconsin's current congressional map has unfairly rewarded Republicans with a significant electoral advantage and will continue to do so for the remainder of the decade," Elias Law Group partner Abha Khanna said in a release. The firm argues the congressional map was drawn based on a "least change" principle the court abandoned when it struck down the state's legislative maps in December 2023. That concept refers to favoring maps that minimize changes to existing boundary lines. New maps for the state Assembly and Senate greatly reduced the GOP advantage in the Capitol and allowed Democrats to pick up several seats in November, though they fell short of flipping the state Legislature. Elias Law Group filed a similar petition last year, asking the court to reconsider the U.S. House boundaries, but the court rejected the last-minute push. More: Why does Wisconsin have new legislative maps, but not new congressional ones? Wisconsin has only two competitive districts, held by U.S. Reps. Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden, both Republicans. There are six Republicans and two Democrats in Wisconsin's House delegation. The state's current congressional lines were drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. The state Supreme Court approved his set of maps in 2022 because it made the least changes compared to ones submitted by Republicans and others. In a statement, Republican Party of Wisconsin chairman Brain Schimming called the new lawsuit a "desperate attempt by far-left Democrats who have shown time and time again that they can't win without rigged maps." The latest petition now goes before the Supreme Court's liberal majority, following the election of liberal Judge Susan Crawford April 1. She takes office on Aug. 1. Crawford's win allowed the liberal faction to maintain the majority it gained in 2023, with the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz. During the campaign, Republicans heavily criticized Crawford after she attended a virtual meeting with donors, billed as a "Chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026.' Crawford's campaign said she only appeared on the call to introduce herself and she has not publicly or privately commented on the state's congressional maps. More: Supreme Court race puts spotlight on congressional maps as GOP files complaint against Crawford "Told you," Van Orden responded in a short tweet on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. U.S. Rep. Tony Wied, a newly elected Republican representing northeastern Wisconsin in Congress, suggested Wisconsinites would vote for Republicans' "common sense agenda" in 2026 regardless of whether the state has new maps. "The 'party of democracy' can't win on their own policies so they need to change the playing field," Wied posted on X. In a statement, National Democratic Redistricting Committee executive director Marina Jenkins said Wisconsin voters "want and deserve a fair map." "Wisconsinites are rightly fed up with being forced to vote on an egregiously gerrymandered congressional map that has not accurately reflected the competitive nature of their purple state for over a decade," Jenkins said. (This story was updated to add new information.) This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Law firm asks Supreme Court to reconsider Wisconsin congressional maps
Wall Street Journal
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Wisconsin's Plan for a Judicial Coup
Democrats went all-in to retain control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court this year and here comes the payoff. Progressive law firms recently filed two suits asking the Justices to overturn the state's Congressional maps. If they succeed, Democrats will get a chance at redrawing districts to favor their candidates. According to the lawsuit brought by the Elias Law Group, the current map 'impermissibly disadvantages voters based on their political views and partisan affiliation, systematically disfavoring Democrats because they are Democrats.' The Wisconsin Congressional delegation is currently balanced 6-2, a tilt the left claims is outrageous for a swing state and therefore evidence of a Republican gerrymander. The lawsuit says the current maps are guilty of 'packing the substantial share of Wisconsin's Democrats into just two congressional districts.' But Wisconsin's Democratic voters are concentrated in two areas in real life: progressive Madison and Milwaukee. That makes it difficult for the maps to be otherwise without drawing an Illinois-style map that looks like a game of Chutes and Ladders. Democrats want to distribute urban liberal voters through other districts to trump Republican-leaning rural and exurban voters. That scheme is at odds with Wisconsin's traditional redistricting requirements to maintain counties, municipalities and ward lines. The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the current Congressional districts (a map submitted by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers) in 2022 as consistent with the state constitution on these legal grounds. The court said at the time that the map 'complies with the federal Constitution and all other applicable laws.' The second lawsuit, brought by the Campaign Legal Center, nonetheless argues that the current maps violate the Wisconsin Constitution's Equal Protection Guarantee. The malapportionment they allege is a matter of one or two voters. According to the brief, it's possible to create a Congressional map 'with six districts containing 736,715 people and two districts containing 736,714 people.' Drum roll. The allegedly unconstitutional map contains districts that 'have either 736,714 people, 736,715 people, or 736,716 people.' The arguments are so thin because the Democratic plaintiffs figure the result is in the bag. Wisconsin's newest Supreme Court Justice, Susan Crawford, joined a donor call during her campaign this year that touted her election as a 'chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026.' Justice Janet Protasiewicz called state Assembly and Senate election maps 'rigged' during her election campaign, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the state's legislative maps not long after her victory created a 4-3 progressive court majority. Judicial elections in Wisconsin these days count for more than those for Governor or the Legislature.
