Full Text of Letter from Melanie Ramey to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson
November 5, 2007
Honorable Shirley S. Abrahamson
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Wisconsin
16 East State Capitol
PO Box 1688
Madison, WI 53701-1688
Re: Comments on the Proposed Rules Governing State Legislative Redistricting Litigation in Wisconsin
Dear Justice Abrahamson:
The League of Women Voters appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules
governing litigation when the state legislature fails to enact a redistricting plan in a timely way.
The League has studied the problems involved in legislative redistricting for many years and has
developed a position on how the legislature should approach the problem. We have also been
active in following the action of the legislature in the redistricting process, advocating for better
procedures for reaching agreement on the issue, and over the years have been involved in
litigation on redistricting issues.
While our preference is for the establishment by the legislature of an independent commission to
draw the map for approval by the legislature, we question whether the legislature will enact such a
plan before the 2010 census. We applaud the Supreme Court for planning to deal with probable
litigation that will follow.
The procedures presented are well thought out and keep the Court in its primary role of review.
A Special Court to draw the maps takes the burden of “legislating” off the Court itself. Authorizing
the Special Court to use the existing map as a baseline and making changes to guarantee equality,
with consideration of contiguity, compactness, communities of interest and adherence to the Voting
Rights Act requirements, sets the stage for a map that will be as neutral in the making as possible.
We also believe it is important to increase the competitiveness of districts. This is one of the
advantages of having an independent panel. We appreciate idea of a commission constituted of
Appeals Court judges, who will provide geographical balance and will more likely be neutral in
political disputes. If the legislature only had the sense to appoint such a body to draw a map for it,
the Court would probably not have to be involved regularly every ten years.
The plan also sets a reasonable timeline for the Special Court to act and for the legislature to reach
agreement before an impasse is declared. However, we would prefer that the Supreme Court review
the map after an impasse has been reached without waiting for challenges. To do so will give the map
the Supreme Court’s approval, while a wait until the map is challenged will only drag out the process.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Melanie G. Ramey
President
Letter reformatted to fit HTML page.
|