City of Milwaukee - File #: 161757

• File #: 161757
• Version: 1
• Type: Resolution
• Status: Passed
• File created: 3/28/2017
• In control: COMMON COUNCIL
• Final action: 4/18/2017
• Title: Substitute resolution expressing the City of Milwaukee’s support for bi-partisan redistricting of state legislative boundaries as sought by the plaintiffs in William Whitford, et al. v. Beverly R. Gill, et al.
• Sponsors: ALD. KOVAC, ALD. MURPHY, ALD. BAUMAN, ALD. JOHNSON, ALD. PEREZ
• Indexes: REDISTRICTING

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result	Tally
4/27/2017	1	MAYOR	SIGNED
4/18/2017	1	COMMON COUNCIL	ADOPTED	Pass	14:0
4/10/2017	1	CITY CLERK	Sponsor added
4/10/2017	0	JUDICIARY & LEGISLATION COMMITTEE	RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION; Minutes note: Appearing: Amanda Cervantes - Legislative Assistant for Ald. kovac Ald. Murphy Bauman Johnson Perez to be added as co sponsors	Pass	5:0
4/7/2017	1	CITY CLERK	DRAFT SUBMITTED
3/31/2017	0	JUDICIARY & LEGISLATION COMMITTEE	HEARING NOTICES SENT
3/28/2017	0	COMMON COUNCIL	ASSIGNED TO

Number
161757-1
Version
SUBSTITUTE
Reference

Sponsor
ALD. KOVAC, MURPHY, BAUMAN, JOHNSON AND PEREZ
Title
Substitute resolution expressing the City of Milwaukee’s support for bi-partisan redistricting of state legislative boundaries as sought by the plaintiffs in William Whitford, et al. v. Beverly R. Gill, et al.
Analysis
This resolution directs the Department of Administration - Intergovernmental Relations Division to seek introduction and passage of State legislation requiring the Wisconsin State Legislature to employ bi-partisan redistricting of State legislative boundaries as sought by the plaintiffs in William Whitford, et. al. v. Beverly R. Gill, et. al.
Body
Whereas, On November 21, 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued its opinion and order in William Whitford, et. al. v. Beverly R. Gill, et. al., 3:15-cv-421-bbc, Trial Op. Dkt. #166, holding that Act 43, the redistricting plan enacted by the Wisconsin Legislature in 2011, constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander; and

Whereas, The court held that “Act 43 was intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters throughout the decennial period by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats;” and

Whereas, The court concluded that the results of the 2012 and 2014 elections showed that Act 43 had its intended effect; and

Whereas, The court found that the “discriminatory effect is not explained by the political geography of Wisconsin nor is it justified by a legitimate state interest;” and

Whereas, The parties to the case agree that the appropriate remedy is to enter an injunction prohibiting the use of Act 43’s districting plan in future elections; and

Whereas, The plaintiffs petitioned the court to provide further guidance in the form of detailed instructions to the State Legislature in its redistricting, given that the current Legislature created the unconstitutional districting reflected...