Van Hollen challenges Federal Court Redistricting Decision to Supreme Court.

You don’t cross the new Republican State Authority (RSA).

After a federal court found that only two districts were found to be redrawn for a Republican political advantage, the judge accepted the plaintiff’s maps and settle the case…not quite, again.

AG J.B. Van Hollen appears to be offended by the idea that a federal judge would think to interfere with the legislative branch. These kinds of challenges and resolutions have a long history, and are nothing new. What is fairly new is the "all or nothing" approach to maintain power. Heck, maybe Democrats should be just as dogged over the most insignificant issues. Despite the fact that redistricting was cloaked in signed secrecy, our government leaders continue to try and track down and kill any possible avenues of dissent. WKOW:

A funny aside; radio hosts Vicki McKenna and Brian Schimming both bashed the federal court as “Dane County” judges, when they’re…you know, federal. The courts building is in Dane County though…

Fox6: In a statement issued Thursday, Van Hollen said: “The redistricting laws were upheld in virtually all respects.  However, we have appealed the one portion of the district court’s decision where the State did not prevail.  While some view the adverse portion of the district court decision as being inconsequential, I disagree.  Any time a federal court rejects a state redistricting statute, and decides to redraw or adjust a legislative district, it is a serious matter and appropriate for appellate review.”

The latest maps were drawn in secrecy by Republicans and signed into law last year by Gov. Scott Walker, in a process that the judges frequently criticized in harsh language for its lack of transparency.

The plaintiffs argued in part that the new maps split up one strong Hispanic voting bloc in Milwaukee into two weaker groups, limiting those residents’ power to elect Latino candidates. The federal panel agreed. The judges ordered both parties to adjust the boundary between the two districts, either by collaborating on one map or by submitting their own individual maps for the court’s approval. The two sides were unable to come to agreement, so the plaintiffs submitted one proposal of their own and the defendants submitted two. The plaintiffs maps were accepted by the panel.