this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
191 points (99.5% liked)

News

37794 readers
2855 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tal@lemmy.today 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit challenging the statutes in 2022, arguing they were too old to enforce

I mean, laws don't have a sunset date.

Unless there's a split between the upper and lower state legislatures and governor, why not just either pass a new law making abortion either explicitly illegal or repeal the old law so that it's explicitly legal? Like, what's the point of having court cases over some law from 1849?

What's the makeup of the legislature?

kagis

Ahh.

So the Republicans control the upper and lower legislative houses. The governor is a Democrat. The Republicans have a two-thirds supermajority in the upper house, but only a majority in the lower house. So basically, nobody has enough oomph to push through a change (at least if the division is along party lines, which it may not be in Wisconsin).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Legislature

So based on that, the Republicans need two more seats in the 99-seat lower house to have a supermajority there as well and be able to override a governor's veto, or to get a Republican governor, which avoids the veto issue. They're very close to being able to pass legislation without Democratic support, but not quite there.

The Democrats are nowhere near having a majority in both houses, so they probably can't pass legislation anytime soon without Republican support.

[–] ma11ie@lemmy.one 27 points 2 years ago

The legislature was finally forced to redraw the highly gerrymandered districts and control of the legislature could become competitive again for the first time since 2011. https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-redistricting-republican-democrat-9c2677a09e48152df323fbf5c55611ef

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wisconsin is the most gerrymandered state in the nation at the state government level. Even though democrats got more votes, Republicans ended up with a super majority in one house and large majority in another. This is why you see the statewide elections like governor and attorney general, and the state legislature makeup, differing so much. They can't gerrymander a state wide vote.

[–] BassaForte@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Not anymore.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is an actual legal principle of laws simply going out of date, even if they don't explicitly have a sunset date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude

It's more common in the UK, where you have 1200 year old laws banning wearing of sandles on Thursdays, but it pops up in other Common Law countries, too, including the US.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

I know shits complicated because of politics but it's so much fucking simpler to just officially sunset these laws through the legislature. I don't ever want murder to become temporarily legal because we're all fine with how the law is defined.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

kagis

Nice.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This should be a lesson for every state to enact marriage equality laws. If you think they're not coming for Obergefell, then you aren't paying attention.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It would probably boost Dem voter turnout which would be beneficial this year.

edit:
you probably meant the legislature should do it
I was thinking ballot measure.

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago

Good old GOP looking back over 100 years on how to treat women.

[–] AncientFutureNow@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

The law was passed 71 years before women had the right to vote. I think this is an important fact.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I will never be able to wrap my mind around why the fuck it matters what was and was not legal 200 years ago. It’s maddening that folks that do even exist let alone are ushered into the halls of power with such regularity