Judge orders Gov. Scott Walker to hold special elections for open legislative seats

Judge orders Gov. Scott Walker to hold special elections for open legislative seats

MADISON - Dealing a setback to Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans, a judge ruled Thursday the governor must call special elections to fill two vacant seats in the Legislature.

Walker declined to call those elections after two GOP lawmakers stepped down to join his administration in December.

His plan would have left the seats vacant for more than a year. Voters in those areas took him to court with the help of a group headed by Eric Holder, the first attorney general under Democratic President Barack Obama.

Dane County Circuit Judge Josann Reynolds — whom Walker appointed to the bench in 2014 — determined Walker had a duty under state law to hold special elections so voters could have representation in the Legislature. She said failing to hold special elections infringed on the voting rights of people who lived in the two districts.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Another attempt by a Republican to suppress legislative representation for citizens.



Please note that the judge is most probably not a Democrat.

It would appear that two state districts which had elected GOP representatives in the most recent elections are exhibiting signs of voting against Walker's agenda and therefore he decided they really didn't need to be represented in the state legislature.

Click to expand...

Beaudreaux said:

Three quick questions without the benefit of reading the link: 1) are the open seats in districts normally held by Republicans, 2) are the seats expected to flip to Democrats if a special election is held, and 2) if those seats flipped would it change the dynamics of which party controls the state legislature?

Click to expand...

Anagram said:

1. Yes
2. Maybe. Pretty Republican, but a more Republican seat did flip earlier. Can't expect a uniform shift left across the state though.
3. No

Click to expand...

Argument preview: For the second time this term, justices to take up partisan gerrymandering

In October, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case alleging that Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature had drawn the state’s redistricting plan to put Democrats at a disadvantage – a claim known as “partisan gerrymandering.” The plaintiffs challenging that plan argued that it violated their constitutional right to be treated equally under the law, but Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that the issue might be better framed as a violation of the freedom of speech and association guaranteed by the First Amendment. Next week, the justices will hear oral argument in another redistricting case – this time, a challenge by Republican voters to a single federal congressional district drawn by Democratic officials in Maryland – presenting precisely that question. The Supreme Court’s rulings in the Wisconsin and Maryland cases will almost certainly shape the face of redistricting for years, if not decades, to come.

Click to expand...

Nor does the fact that First Amendment retaliation claims involve only a single district, rather than a challenge to a statewide map, somehow make them preferable to equal protection claims as a cause of action to address partisan gerrymandering, the officials argue. Focusing on only one district in isolation is unrealistic, they contend, because decisions made about other districts will necessarily affect the neighboring districts.

Click to expand...

Skeptic Bob said:

Regardless of what party is expected to win, I agree with the ruling because over a year is too long to leave constituents without a representative.

Click to expand...