This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wisconsin Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Full disclosure, I'm struggling with how to frame Hagedorn's 2023 Clarke dissent. It has important points about the many reasons why the Wisconsin Supreme Court shouldn't be involved in redistricting without major changes to the law or the way the court functions in such cases. The problem is that Hagedorn's current position is highly hypocritical after he sided with the conservative majority in 2022 in the Johnson case, where he agreed to take the case away from the federal court panel (where it should have been heard), and then agreed with all the broken half-baked process the majority came up with that led to that judicial embarrassment. But he's right that now every Wisconsin Supreme Court election could result in new maps. He's right, and it's also mostly his fault. -- Asdasdasdff ( talk) 18:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Asdasdasdff Something I have been wondering for a little while is whether we could include some of the other proposed maps on this page in the section for Clarke v. WEC. I believe that the files exist to be able to make them into svg maps, but I have no idea how that'd be done. (one link I've found is here https://github.com/jdjohn215/wi-legis-map-proposals-2024/tree/main/plan-polygons which has geojson files for the proposed/submitted maps, and additionally the maps were uploaded to DRA a while back) what are your thoughts on that? (This might also be better suited for inclusion on the page for Clarke v. WEC) Talthiel ( talk) 17:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I only remember seeing 2 or 3 of the map proposals on dave's. If we can get it all to work, my personal opinion is that I'd rather include those alternate proposals in the remedial section on the Clarke article, since that was all part of the Clarke remedial process (and maybe add more detail to the Clarke remedial paragraph on this article). That said, I've worked with the geojson files from dave's before, but I'd need to study the process to translate one of those into SVG format. -- Asdasdasdff ( talk) 17:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply