>> In other news, the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments this week on two high profile cases seeking new congressional voting maps in Wisconsin before the 2028 elections.

The court is considering whether to allow the cases to proceed after lower court panels dismissed them this summer on procedural grounds.

Both lawsuits claim gerrymandering of the districts opposing attorneys represent Republican congressional members and the legislature, which passed the maps in 2011.

>> The legislature that PAP that passed those original maps wasn't any old legislature, right.

The legislature that passed that maps.

They came from districts that many people claimed are the were the most gerrymandered in the entire country.

They were, as some say, a prime example of representatives choosing their voters rather than the other way around, rather than voters choosing their representatives.

And if I'm understanding your argument that under these change, which you're ardently defending, those maps, the baked in ones from the 2011 legislature would go forward into perpetuity indefinitely.

And I don't understand how that is not unconstitutional.

>> Whether we agree with it or not, the US Constitution assigns redistricting authority to the legislature because 250 years ago, when we declared revolution, we said the people decide through their elected representatives.

And there are two solutions for that, either of which plaintiffs could pursue.

First, they could lobby Congress because, of course, Congress likewise has power under the elections clause to stop what some have said should not have happened in 2011, or, like Florida, like New York, like Ohio.

Plaintiffs could do the hard work of, of, of creating a constitutional amendment and saying any politics and redistricting is forbidden.

>> For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our