Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State ex rel. Reynolds v. Zimmerman.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State ex rel. Reynolds v. Zimmerman Anchor | green | “until such time as the legislature and governor have enacted a valid legislative apportionment plan.” | 3 |
| 2 | Hippert v. Ritchie | green | “lack the authority to make the political decisions that the legislature and the governor can make through their enactment of redistricting legislation.” | 3 |
| 3 | Baldus v. Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board | green | “expressed their desire to draw districts that would maximize the chances for republicans to be elected.” | 3 |
| 4 | Baldus v. Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board | green | “every single republican member of the state assembly,” | 3 |
| 5 | Baldus v. Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board | green | “factors like homogeneity of needs and interests, compactness, contiguity, and avoidance of breaking up counties, towns, villages, wards, and neighborhoods,” | 3 |
| 6 | Crumly v. Cobb County Board of Elections & Voter Registration | green | “in preparing the draft map, the court began with the existing map drawn by judge carnes in 2002. the court followed the doctrine of minimum change.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.