The three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit filed by Russia collusion hoaxer Marc Elias’ firm, saying it lacked authority to rule.
A leftist-led lawsuit aimed at undoing Wisconsin’s congressional maps in advance of November’s midterm elections has gone down in flames.
It’s another loss for Russia collusion hoax peddler Marc Elias and his lawfare operation.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel denied the Washington, D.C.-based Elias Law Group’s motion asking the court to invalidate the Badger State’s current maps, opening the door to the redrawing of new congressional district boundaries more to Democrats’ liking. Democratic Party power players were banking on the change to help the left grab additional seats in November in pursuit of taking back the House of Representatives. It’s among several nakedly partisan attempts by Democrats to gerrymander their way back into power.
The attorneys, representing Wisconsin voter Elizabeth Bothfeld and 10 other plaintiffs, thought they had a slam-dunk case in filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The confident legal maneuver seeking a court remedy ahead of a finding of facts hit a brick wall, however, when the panel of liberal state circuit court judges ruled that they had no authority to rule and dismissed the case.
“Because Plaintiffs’ have not shown that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, their motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied,” the panel’s order states. “Moreover, because only the Wisconsin Supreme Court can determine whether it violated the separation-of-powers doctrine when it applied the least-change methodology, this claim must be dismissed.”
Republicans hold six of Wisconsin’s eight congressional seats under the current maps, which, interestingly, were assembled by far-left Gov. Tony Evers’ communist-sounding People’s Maps Commission. Democrats are itching for a mid-decade partisan gerrymander that goes well beyond Evers’ compromise maps, as they attack the existing boundaries as the product of “unlawful partisan gerrymandering.”
Yes, the hypocrisy should be lost on no one.
‘Is the Panel Authorized to Rule?
With divided government in 2022, Democrats in control of the executive branch and Republicans holding the majority in the legislature, the Wisconsin Supreme Court was forced to weigh in on the disputed state and federal political maps. The conservative majority on the court at the time ruled that the maps must comply with all constitutional requirements and that they follow a “least change” method. In other words, the court-approved redistricting plan would have to remain as consistent with the previous maps crafted after the 2010 census as possible. Evers’ proposed maps most precisely fit the requirements, the court ruled.
The plaintiffs argue that those maps violated the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine because the court relied on “least change” methodology, “improperly” substituting “the partisan judgment that prevailed in the 2011 political process for its own.” That’s a rich argument. Democrats loathed the “political process” behind the 2011 maps, which was controlled by the winners of the 2010 elections — Republicans. Democrats sued then, too.
But a subsequent Supreme Court led by liberals didn’t take issue with the “least change” methodology. The court didn’t rule on that issue.
“Without a clear holding from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, that the abandonment of the least change methodology applies to more than the crafting of remedial maps, this panel has no basis to find the current congressional map invalid,” the panel’s order states. The order quotes a previous case affirming that lower courts cannot “overrule a holding by our Supreme Court.”
More so, the panel is suffering from a bit of an identity crisis, thanks to the liberal-led Supreme Court that balked at weighing in on the lawsuit and instead laid it on the shoulders of the three circuit court judges. After denying multiple petitions to take the case, the Supreme Court created the panel “without mention of appointing a referee to conduct necessary fact-finding under statute.”
“Neither the statute nor the order appointing this panel provides guidance on the panel’s authority or scope,” the order states.
“Is this panel a circuit court, an arm of the state supreme court, a referee or something else?” the judges ask as if they have found themselves on the judicial Island of Misfit Toys. “Is the mission purely fact-finding, or is the panel authorized to rule on legal issues too?”