The Republican Party's plan to rule the state of Wisconsin forever, explained

[Jilly_in_VA]

Republicans have effectively had unbreakable control of the Wisconsin state legislature for more than a decade. And now they have a plan that could entrench their rule forever.

The state’s legislature is so aggressively gerrymandered that it is likely impossible for Republicans to lose control of it in an election. In 2018, for example, Democratic state assembly candidates received 54 percent of the popular vote in Wisconsin, but Republicans still won 63 of the assembly’s 99 seats.

There is, however, a light at the end of this tunnel both for small-d democrats and for large-D Democrats in the notoriously contentious swing state. Last April, Justice Janet Protasiewicz won a landslide election victory over a former, very conservative state justice. She took her seat at the beginning of August, giving Democrats a 4-3 majority on the state supreme court. (Technically, supreme court races in Wisconsin are nonpartisan, but every recent race has pitted a liberal supported by Democrats against a conservative supported by Republicans.)

Litigants challenging the gerrymandered state legislature filed a lawsuit, known as Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, the very next day.

A quirk in the state constitution, however, may allow Wisconsin’s gerrymandered legislature to strip Protasiewicz of her ability to decide cases, and to do so indefinitely. That would leave the state supreme court evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, and thus unable (or, at least, unwilling) to strike down the state’s gerrymander.

https://www.vox.com/scotus/23861973/wisconsin-gerrymander-republican-impeachment-justice-protasiewicz-supreme-court

Sickening

[ColinC]

1. Um

Couldn’t she just resign and get either herself or a replacement reappointed?

[JohnSJ]

2. Wouldn't the republicans do the same thing with any replacement?

[raging moderate]

3. Maybe not, if that replacement had been rather uncommunicative.

Could there be somebody who is a closet Liberal, or a recent convert?

[ColinC]

4. Honestly only need to keep replacing until the ruling is finished

Also the time it takes to impeach is likely enough for the rulings to be made with no lore than two replacement judges.Then it wouldn’t matter what they do. She would only resign after she is impeached and can no longer rule on anything.

[JohnSJ]

5. If they impeach the justice is suspended, and the repukes would prevent it from going to

the trail in Wisconsin

[ColinC]

6. If they impeach she is suspended from hearing cases but she can still resign

If she resigns then a new Justice can be appointed. It is an obvious loophole to being unable to replace her while she is suspended. This can be done repeatedly until the redistricting ruling is complete.

[JohnSJ]

7. Wouldn't that only apply if she resigns before the impeachment? Regardless, if the justice resigns

and the governor appoints a replacement, the replacement will be up for election in 2024 I believe.

[ColinC]

8. No, there is nothing keeping her from resigning after the impeachment

And regardless of whether the justice is up for re-election, the ultimate goal of eliminating gerrymandering would likely have been achieved beforehand.

[Jamke]

9. As a Wisconsinite let free the dogs of war

If the thugs did this, the response would set off a firestorm that will engulf the state.
I think it will be bigger and more intense than act 10, I also think Republicans who support and vote for it are going to take a serious financial hit.

I'm willing to raise hell if they do!