Could an administrative action by the AG fix the map, and the process so harshly condemned in the decision?
...the drafting of Act 43 was needlessly secret, regrettably excluding input from the overwhelming majority of Wisconsin citizens, and although the final product needlessly moved more than a million Wisconsinites and disrupted their long-standing political relationships...Fitzgerald should be recalled for his continuing contempt for democratic procedure.
[Thursday p.m. update: Fitzgerald tells the Journal Sentinel he will not call the Senate into session to deal with the necessary redistricting.]
Senate Republican Leader Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau said there was "not a chance" senators would return to the floor to take up the maps.A day's worth of posts, archived here - - and a bonus post by Dom Noth.
Republicans lost their majority in the Senate on Saturday, when. Sen. Pam Galloway (R-Wausau) resigned. Galloway, who was to face a recall election this summer, said she left because of illnesses in her family. Her departure leaves the Senate evenly divided, and both parties would need to agree to come back in session.
The court did not set a timeline for lawmakers to make changes, but observers said maps must be put in place by April 15, when candidates can start circulating nomination papers. Democrats said they want the Legislature to take up the issue, and were distressed that Fitzgerald would not agree to return to the floor.
"It is ridiculous that Republicans would ignore a court order to fix an unlawful map. Maybe they should sleep on it," said Senate Democratic Leader Mark Miller of Monona in a statement.
"We need to immediately begin to redraw the maps in a manner that is fully open and transparent and does not, in the words of the court, 'needlessly move' more than a million citizens of Wisconsin," Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) said in a statement.
The Van Hollen re-write of the Judge's ruling was disgusting!
ReplyDeleteand I'm really really starting to hate the JS. Opinion is one thing but misrepresenting facts is another. A damn geologist says the Clintonville Booms MAY have been caused by an earthquake. MAY. But the JS morphs that to WAS (like definite) caused by an earthquake. And if there's a slimy sludge "invading" the Montello waste water (which the JS does not mention) after that town experiences "booms" as well, mightn't people want to look into that? Check the water supply too? What if there's some one injecting frac waste brine illegally? Or managing to get it into the Montello sewage treatment system? Cabot in Penn. illegally ran their frac waste crap thru a local sewage treatment plant and then said "oh we didn't know we weren't supposed to" (as if), others just dump the brine into rivers or run in onto the roads. Now people are having moratoriums on that out east, they got to get rid of it somehow right? Since the mining bill fell thru and they can't dump stuff without telling people now, maybe they're doing it in secret? (what I mean is, in a situation of non-disclosure the GTac miners could easily allow OTHER mining companies to dump waste here too, mixed in with the GTac stuff. Who would know. Well until all the kids grew three heads.)
The JS is irresponsible to make it a definite when it was a POSSIBLE, just like the comment by the guy who said low water table 'well, yeah I suppose maybe" could cause major shifts in the granite, that gets reported as a definite too.
Why do journalists even bother anymore. They may as well just stay home and write fiction, it's what they do anyways. Check that sludge people! Is it really super-salty? Earthquake schmearthquake. In Fitzwalkerstan you can NOT be too paranoid. Gawd, I really hope someone has that Montello sludge analyzed.
I'd also like to add that if the water table is that low (and it IS low the aquifer is stressed and has a depression in the damn Milw. area) then should we be allowing all the damn frac sand mines AND PROCESSING PLANTS that use up huge amounts of drinkable water from the Mt Simon Aquifer to WASH SAND and then taint it with chemicals at locations where water is nearer the surface than other parts of the state??
ReplyDelete(answer: No, we should not) This is all bullshit.