User:AstroAnarchist/sandbox

Mario Party
Written by	Scott Wozniak
Directed by	Scott Wozniak
Starring	Scott Wozniak Eric Turney Sam Essig
Country of origin	United States
Original language	English
Production
Producers	Scott Wozniak Eric Turney Sam Essig
Cinematography	Scott Wozniak
Running time	28 minutes
Production companies	Wozniak Productions E3 2018 Productions Give a Fuck Productions Netflix Studios
Original release
Release	October 15, 2020 (2020-10-15)

Twitch

Current logo
Type of business	Subsidiary
Type of site	Live streaming, streaming video
Predecessor(s)	Justin.tv
Area served	Worldwide
Founder(s)	Justin Kan Emmett Shear Michael Seibel Kyle Vogt Kevin Lin
Key people	Emmett Shear (Chairman) Sara Clemens (CEO & COO)
Parent	YouTube (Google LLC) (2014-present)
URL	twitch.tv
Commercial	Yes
Registration	Optional
Launched	June 6, 2011 (2011-06-06)
Current status	Active

Snap Inc.

Current logo, unveiled on September 24, 2016
Formerly	Snapchat Inc. (2011–2016)
Company type	Subsidiary
Industry	Hardware Social media
Founded	September 16, 2011 (2011-09-16) (as Snapchat Inc.)
Founders	Evan Spiegel Bobby Murphy Reggie Brown
Headquarters	Santa Monica, California , U.S.
Area served	Worldwide
Key people	Michael Lynton (Chairman) Evan Spiegel (CEO & President) Bobby Murphy (CTO & Director Jeremi Gorman (COO)
Products	Bitmoji Snapchat Spectacles Looksery Zenly
Revenue	US$4.12 billion (2021)
Owner	Google LLC (Alphabet Inc.) (2016-present)
Number of employees	5,661 (2021)
Subsidiaries	Snap Limited
Website	snap.com

Yahoo! Inc.

Yahoo! headquarters in Sunnyvale, California
Company type	Public company
Traded as	Nasdaq: YHOO
Industry	Conglomerate
Founded	January 1994 (1994-01) (as Jerry and David's Guide to the World Wide Web) March 2, 1995 (1995-03-02) (as Yahoo!)
Founders	Jerry Yang David Filo
Headquarters	Sunnyvale, California , U.S.
Area served	Worldwide
Key people	Jerry Yang (Co-Chairman) David Filo (Co-Chairman) Jim Lanzone (CEO) Tim Armstrong (President) Alan Horn (Head of WarnerFox) Eduardo Saverin (CTO) Sean Fanning (Head of Music Streaming)
Products	See Yahoo products
Brands	Yahoo AOL Google Facebook eBay YouTube Netflix Tumblr Flickr Whatsapp Twitch Instagram Napster WarnerFox
Revenue	US$300 billion (2021)
Operating income	US$106.4 (2021)
Net income	US$100 billion (2021)
Total assets	US$525.287 billion (2021)
Total equity	US$300 billion (2021)
Number of employees	200,000 (2021)
Subsidiaries	Yahoo subsidiaries
Website	yahoo.com

WarnerFox LLC

30 Hudson Yards, WarnerFox's headquarters in New York City
Trade name	WarnerFox
Company type	Subsidiary
Industry	Mass media Entertainment
Predecessors	News Corporation Warner Entertainment
Founded	January 22, 2016 (2016-01-22)
Headquarters	30 Hudson Yards, New York City , United States
Area served	Worldwide
Key people	Alan Horn (CEO) Jason Kilar (President) Andy Forssell (Head of operations, Direct) Ann Sarnoff (Chairwoman and CEO, Studios and Networks; Chairwoman and CEO, Warner Bros.) Michael Bass, Amy Entelis and Ken Jautz (CNN interim co-heads) Gerhard Zeiler (CRO; Chairman, International) Tony Goncalves (President, Commercial; CEO, Otter Media)
Brands	20th Century Fox DC Comics Fox Fox News FX HLN Hulu Lionsgate New Line Cinema TBS The CW TNT TruTV Turner Classic Movies Warner Bros. WarnerMax WarnerFox TV
Revenue	$80 Billion
Operating income	$15 Billion
Net income	$12 Billion
Total assets	$200 Billion
Total equity	$25 Billion
Owner	Yahoo
Number of employees	48,000 (2022)
Divisions	WarnerFox Networks Group WarnerFox Entertainment Group WarnerFox Music Group WarnerFox Studios & Networks WarnerFox News & Sports WarnerFox Sales & Distribution WarnerFox Direct WarnerFox International
Subsidiaries	DC Entertainment Star India Turner Broadcasting System HarperCollins Starz Inc. Entertainment One Legendary Pictures

Columbia Entertainment

Columbia Entertainment headquarters at One Astor Plaza in New York City
Trade name	Columbia Entertainment
Formerly	Paramount Communications Columbia Paramount
Company type	Public
Traded as	Nasdaq: CLMBA (Class A) Nasdaq: CLMB (Class B) S&P 500 component (CLMB)
ISIN	US92556H2067
Industry	Mass media Entertainment
Predecessors	Liberty Media Columbia Global
Founded	June 8th, 2012 (June 8th, 2012)
Founders	Barry Diller Michael Eisner Jeffrey Katzenberg
Headquarters	One Astor Plaza, Manhattan, New York City , U.S.
Area served	Worldwide
Key people	Peter Rice (Chairman) and (CEO) Thomas Staggs (President) Kevin Mayer (COO) Alan Bergman (CCO) Gail Harrison and Graham Retzik (Co-CBOs) Reggie Fils Aime (CGO)
Products	Amusement parks Comic Books Films Music Television program Video games Web portals
Services	Broadcasting Licensing Publishing Streaming Television
Revenue	US$125 billion (2021)
Operating income	US$15 billion (2021)
Net income	US$10 billion (2021)
Total assets	US$350 billion (2021)
Total equity	US$125 billion (2021)
Owner	Apple Inc. (Acquisition pending)
Number of employees	125,900 (December 31, 2021)
Divisions	Columbia Studios Columbia Streaming Columbia Media Networks Columbia Global Distribution Group Columbia Consumer Products Columbia Music Group Columbia Broadcasting Company (CBC) Columbia Interactive Studios Columbia Parks and Resorts Columbia Publishing Group
Subsidiaries	Paramount Studios Simon & Schuster Random House Marvel Studios Marvel Entertainment Walt Disney Productions Skydance Home Box Office, Inc. DreamWorks Miramax AMC Networks Studio Ghibli Crunchyroll LucasFilm GKIDS Amblin Partners Cartoon Network Inc ZeniMax Media CD Projekt Embracer Group Konami IO Interactive Overkill Software Obsidian Entertainment Red Candle Games Moon Studios Bluepoint Games EA Square Enix Blizzard Entertainment Riot Games Epic Games Parlophone Records EMI Records Def Jam Records Interscope Records Republic Records Atlantic Records Pacific Records Visionary Music Group Geffen DreamWorks Records Roc Nation Aftermath Entertainment Shady Records NewsBeast Time Inc Sirius XM Pandora ITV Group All3Media Sony Interactive Entertainment
Website	www.paramount.com

Liberty Media Corporation

Company type	Public
Traded as	Nasdaq: BATRA (Series A) Nasdaq: BATRK (Series C) Nasdaq: FWONA (Series A) Nasdaq: FWONK (Series C) Nasdaq: LSXMA (Series A) Nasdaq: LSXMB (Series B) Nasdaq: LSXMK (Series C) OTCQB: BATRB OTCQB: FWONB Russell 1000 Component (FWONA, FWONK, LSXMA, LSXMK) Russell 2000 Component (BATRA, BATRK)
ISIN	US53071M1045
Industry	Mass media Entertainment Telecommunications
Predecessor	Tele-Communications Inc.
Founded	1991 (1991)
Founder	John C. Malone
Defunct	June 8, 2012 (2012-06-08)
Fate	Restructured
Successor	Columbia Entertainment
Headquarters	Douglas County, Colorado , United States
Area served	Global
Key people	John C. Malone (Chairman) Greg Maffei (President & CEO)
Products	Movie production TV production Broadcasting Cable television Sport management Telecommunications
Revenue	US$150 billion
Operating income	US$20 billion
Net income	US$12 billion
Total assets	US$450 billion
Total equity	US$150 billion
Owner	John C. Malone
Number of employees	182,000
Divisions	Liberty Global Liberty Telecommunications Liberty SiriusXM Group
Subsidiaries	Formula One Group Qurate Retail Group Columbia Global Braves Group
Website	libertymedia.com

Vivendi SE

Vivendi's headquarters in Paris
Formerly	Compagnie Générale des Eaux (1853–1997) Vivendi SARL (1997–2001) Vivendi Universal SA (2001–2006) Vivendi SA (2006–2021)
Company type	Societas Europaea
Industry	Media
Founded	14 December 1853 (1853-12-14)
Founder	Napoleon III
Headquarters	Paris , France
Area served	Worldwide
Key people	Jean-Marie Messier (Chairman) and (CEO) Jean-Bernard Lévy (President) and (COO) Jeff Shell (CCO) Bruce Hack (CFO) and (Co-CGO) Wade J. Rosen (Co-CGO) Sam Bergen (CMO)
Revenue	€70 billion (2021)
Operating income	€100 billion (2021)
Net income	€40 billion (2021)
Total assets	€150 billion (2021)
Total equity	€35 billion (2021)
Number of employees	47,000 (2021)
Subsidiaries	Groupe Canal+ Vivendi Village Editis Hachette Prisma Media Universal Pictures Universal Music Group NBC Entertainment Activision Ubisoft Atari Gameloft King Image Comics Quantic Dream Focus Entertainment Dontnod Entertainment Fortiche Showtime Networks
Website	www.vivendi.com

Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA

Bertelsmann headquarters in Gütersloh
Company type	Private
Industry	Mass media
Founded	1 July 1835 (1835-07-01)
Founder	Carl Bertelsmann
Headquarters	Gütersloh , Germany
Area served	Worldwide
Key people	Christoph Mohn (Chairman and Chief Executive Officer) Elisabeth Mohn (Vice-chair of the board)
Products	Publishing, record label, broadcasting, cable television, television production, film production, video games
Revenue	€40 billion (2021)
Net income	€3 billion (2021)
Total assets	€75 billion (2021)
Total equity	€14 billion (2021)
Owner	Bertelsmann Stiftung
Number of employees	145,027 (2021)
Subsidiaries	RTL Group Penguin Random House Arvato Bertelsmann Printing Group Bertelsmann Education Group Bertelsmann Investments Bertelsmann Entertainment IDW Publishing
Website	www.bertelsmann.com
Footnotes / references Annual Report 2021

2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election

June 5–6, 2012
Turnout	57.8% ( 8.1%)
Nominee Scott Walker Tom Barrett Party Republican Democratic Popular vote 1,220,462 1,279,603 Percentage 48.5% 50.8%
County results Walker:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80% Barrett:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%
Governor before election Scott Walker Republican Elected Governor Tom Barrett Democratic

2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin

November 8, 2022

Nominee Ron Johnson Mandela Barnes Party Republican Democratic Popular vote 1,337,185 1,340,467 Percentage 49.9% 50.0%

Johnson:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      >90% Barnes:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      >90% Tie:      40–50%      50%      No data

U.S. senator before election Ron Johnson Republican Elected U.S. Senator Mandela Barnes Democratic

List of presidents of the United States from 1789 – till date.

No.	Portrait	Name (Birth–Death)	Term	Party		Election	Vice President
1		George Washington (1732–1799)	April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797		Unaffiliated	1788–1789 1792	John Adams
2		John Adams (1735–1826)	March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801		Federalist	1796	Thomas Jefferson
3		Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)	March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809		Democratic- Republican	1800 1804	Aaron Burr George Clinton
4		James Madison (1751–1836)	March 4, 1809 – March 4, 1817		Democratic- Republican	1808 1812	George Clinton Vacant after April 20, 1812 Elbridge Gerry Vacant after November 23, 1814
5		James Monroe (1758–1831)	March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1825		Democratic- Republican	1816 1820	Daniel D. Tompkins
6		John Quincy Adams (1767–1848)	March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829		Democratic- Republican National Republican	1824	John C. Calhoun
7		Andrew Jackson (1767–1845)	March 4, 1829 – March 4, 1837		Democratic	1828 1832	John C. Calhoun Vacant after December 28, 1832 Martin Van Buren
8		Martin Van Buren (1782–1862)	March 4, 1837 – March 4, 1841		Democratic	1836	Richard Mentor Johnson
9		William Henry Harrison (1773–1841)	March 4, 1841 – April 4, 1841		Whig	1840	John Tyler
10		John Tyler (1790–1862)	April 4, 1841 – March 4, 1845		Whig Unaffiliated	–	Vacant throughout presidency
11		James K. Polk (1795–1849)	March 4, 1845 – March 4, 1849		Democratic	1844	George M. Dallas
12		Zachary Taylor (1784–1850)	March 4, 1849 – July 9, 1850		Whig	1848	Millard Fillmore
13		Millard Fillmore (1800–1874)	July 9, 1850 – March 4, 1853		Whig	–	Vacant throughout presidency
14		Franklin Pierce (1804–1869)	March 4, 1853 – March 4, 1857		Democratic	1852	William R. King Vacant after April 18, 1853
15		James Buchanan (1791–1868)	March 4, 1857 – March 4, 1861		Democratic	1856	John C. Breckinridge
16		Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865)	March 4, 1861 – April 15, 1865		Republican National Union	1860 1864	Hannibal Hamlin Andrew Johnson
17		Andrew Johnson (1808–1875)	April 15, 1865 – March 4, 1869		National Union Democratic	–	Vacant throughout presidency
18		Ulysses S. Grant (1822–1885)	March 4, 1869 – March 4, 1877		Republican	1868 1872	Schuyler Colfax Henry Wilson Vacant after November 22, 1875
19		Rutherford B. Hayes (1822–1893)	March 4, 1877 – March 4, 1881		Republican	1876	William A. Wheeler
20		James A. Garfield (1831–1881)	March 4, 1881 – September 19, 1881		Republican	1880	Chester A. Arthur
21		Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886)	September 19, 1881 – March 4, 1885		Republican	–	Vacant throughout presidency
22		Grover Cleveland (1837–1908)	March 4, 1885 – March 4, 1889		Democratic	1884	Thomas A. Hendricks Vacant after November 25, 1885
23		Benjamin Harrison (1833–1901)	March 4, 1889 – March 4, 1893		Republican	1888	Levi P. Morton
24		Grover Cleveland (1837–1908)	March 4, 1893 – March 4, 1897		Democratic	1892	Adlai Stevenson I
25		William McKinley (1843–1901)	March 4, 1897 – September 14, 1901		Republican	1896 1900	Garret Hobart Vacant after November 21, 1899 Theodore Roosevelt
26		Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919)	September 14, 1901 – March 4, 1909		Republican	– 1904	Vacant through March 4, 1905 Charles W. Fairbanks
27		William Howard Taft (1857–1930)	March 4, 1909 – March 4, 1913		Republican	1908	James S. Sherman Vacant after October 30, 1912
28		Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924)	March 4, 1913 – March 4, 1921		Democratic	1912 1916	Thomas R. Marshall
29		Warren G. Harding (1865–1923)	March 4, 1921 – August 2, 1923		Republican	1920	Calvin Coolidge
30		Calvin Coolidge (1872–1933)	August 2, 1923 – March 4, 1929		Republican	– 1924	Vacant through March 4, 1925 Charles G. Dawes
31		Herbert Hoover (1874–1964)	March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1933		Republican	1928	Charles Curtis
32		Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945)	March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945		Democratic	1932 1936 1940 1944	John Nance Garner Henry A. Wallace Harry S. Truman
33		Harry S. Truman (1884–1972)	April 12, 1945 – January 20, 1953		Democratic	– 1948	Vacant through January 20, 1949 Alben W. Barkley
34		Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890–1969)	January 20, 1953 – January 20, 1961		Republican	1952 1956	Richard Nixon
35		John F. Kennedy (1917–1963)	January 20, 1961 – November 22, 1963		Democratic	1960	Lyndon B. Johnson
36		Lyndon B. Johnson (1908–1973)	November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969		Democratic	– 1964	Vacant through January 20, 1965 Hubert Humphrey
37		Jimmy Carter (b. 1924)	January 20, 1969 – January 20, 1977		Democratic	1968 1972	Walter Mondale
38		Ronald Reagan (1911–2004)	January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989		Republican	1976 1980	George H. W. Bush
39		George H. W. Bush (1924–2018)	January 20, 1985 – January 20, 1993		Republican	1980 1984	Dan Quayle
40		Bill Clinton (b. 1946)	January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001		Democratic	1992 1996	Al Gore
41		Al Gore (b. 1948)	January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009		Democratic	2000 2004	Jeanne Shaheen
42		John McCain (1936-2018)	January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2013		Republican	2008	Charlie Crist
43		Barack Obama (b. 1961)	January 20, 2013 – January 20, 2021		Democratic	2012 2016	Joe Biden
44		Bernie Sanders (b. 1941)	January 20, 2021 – January 20, 2029		Democratic	2020 2024	Elizabeth Warren
45		Gretchen Whitmer (b. 1971)	January 20, 2029 – Incumbent		Democratic	2028	Tim Walz

Mike Castle
Official portrait, 2006
Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee
In office February 3, 2021 – January 3, 2026
Preceded by	James Lankford
Succeeded by	Sarah McBride
Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee
In office January 3, 2023 – January 3, 2026
Preceded by	Chuck Grassley
Succeeded by	Sarah McBride
Vice Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee
In office January 3, 2017 – February 3, 2021
Preceded by	Barbara Boxer
Succeeded by	James Lankford
United States Senator from Delaware
In office November 15, 2010 – January 3, 2026
Preceded by	Ted Kaufman
Succeeded by	Sarah McBride
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Delaware's at-large district
In office January 3, 1993 – November 15, 2010
Preceded by	Tom Carper
Succeeded by	John Carney
69th Governor of Delaware
In office January 15, 1985 – December 31, 1992
Lieutenant	S. B. Woo Dale E. Wolf
Preceded by	Pete du Pont
Succeeded by	Dale E. Wolf
20th Lieutenant Governor of Delaware
In office January 20, 1981 – January 15, 1985
Governor	Pete du Pont
Preceded by	James D. McGinnis
Succeeded by	S. B. Woo
Member of the Delaware Senate from the 1st district
In office January 7, 1969 – January 4, 1977
Preceded by	Russell D. F. Dineen
Succeeded by	Harris McDowell III
Member of the Delaware House of Representatives from the 6th district
In office January 3, 1967 – January 7, 1969
Preceded by	Frank A. Parisi
Succeeded by	George C. Hering III
Personal details
Born	Michael Newbold Castle (1939-07-02) July 2, 1939 Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.
Political party	Independent (2010–present)
Other political affiliations	Republican (1965–2010)
Spouse	Jane DiSabatino
Education	Hamilton College (BS) Georgetown University (LLB)

Results

Results by county:

  O'Donnell—60-70%

  Castle—60–70%

Republican primary results

Party		Candidate	Votes	%
	Republican	Mike Castle	31,023	50.37%
	Republican	Christine O'Donnell	30,561	49.63%
Total votes			57,582	100.0%

2010 United States Senate special election in Delaware

November 2, 2010

Nominee Mike Castle Chris Coons Party Republican Democratic Popular vote 208,356 156,365 Percentage 53.3% 40.0%

County results Castle:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election Ted Kaufman Democratic Elected U.S. Senator Mike Castle Republican

Counties that flipped from Democratic to Republican

• Kent (largest city: Dover)
• Sussex (largest city: Seaford)
• New Castle (largest city: Wilmington)

By state

The PVIs for states are calculated based on the results of the U.S. presidential elections in 2016 and 2020. The table below reflects the current state of Congress and governors, based on the most recent election results.

State	PVI	Party of governor	Party in Senate	House balance
Alabama	R+15	Republican	Republican	6R, 1D
Alaska	R+8	Republican	Republican	1D
Arizona	R+2	Democratic	Democratic*	6R, 3D
Arkansas	R+16	Republican	Republican	4R
California	D+13	Democratic	Democratic	40D, 12R
Colorado	D+4	Democratic	Democratic	5D, 3R
Connecticut	D+7	Democratic	Democratic	5D
Delaware	D+7	Democratic	Democratic	1D
Florida	R+3	Republican	Both	16R, 13D
Georgia	R+3	Republican	Democratic	9R, 5D
Hawaii	D+14	Democratic	Democratic	2D
Idaho	R+50	Republican	Republican	1R
Illinois	D+7	Democratic	Democratic	14D, 3R
Indiana	R+7	Republican	Both	5D, 5R
Iowa	D+5	Democratic	Democratic	4D
Kansas	R+10	Democratic	Republican	3R, 1D
Kentucky	R+16	Democratic	Republican	5R, 1D
Louisiana	R+12	Republican	Republican	5R, 1D
Maine	D+2	Democratic	Democratic*	1D
Maryland	D+14	Democratic	Democratic	7D, 1R
Massachusetts	D+15	Democratic	Democratic	9D
Michigan	R+1	Democratic	Democratic	7D, 6R
Minnesota	D+1	Democratic	Democratic	4D, 4R
Mississippi	R+11	Republican	Republican	3R, 1D
Missouri	R+4	Republican	Both	4D, 4R
Montana	EVEN	Democratic	Both	1D
Nebraska	R+13	Republican	Republican	3R
Nevada	R+1	Republican	Democratic	3D, 1R
New Hampshire	D+1	Republican	Democratic	2D
New Jersey	D+6	Democratic	Democratic	9D, 3R
New Mexico	D+3	Democratic	Democratic	3D
New York	D+10	Democratic	Democratic	15D, 11R
North Carolina	R+3	Democratic	Republican	7D, 7R
North Dakota	R+20	Republican	Republican	1R
Ohio	R+6	Republican	Both	8D, 7R
Oklahoma	R+20	Republican	Republican	5R
Oregon	D+6	Democratic	Democratic	5D, 1R
Pennsylvania	R+2	Democratic	Democratic	9D, 8R
Rhode Island	D+8	Democratic	Democratic	2D
South Carolina	R+8	Republican	Republican	6R, 1D
South Dakota	R+16	Republican	Republican	1R
Tennessee	R+14	Republican	Republican	8R, 1D
Texas	R+5	Republican	Republican	25R, 13D
Utah	R+13	Republican	Republican	3R, 1D
Vermont	D+16	Republican	Democratic*	1D
Virginia	D+3	Republican	Democratic	6D, 5R
Washington	D+8	Democratic	Democratic	8D, 2R
West Virginia	R+22	Republican	Republican	2R
Wisconsin	R+2	Democratic	Both	4D, 4R
Wyoming	R+25	Republican	Republican	1R
* Includes an independent senator who caucuses with the Democrats.

Question 1

3 November 2020
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to establish a redistricting commission, consisting of eight members of the General Assembly and eight citizens of the Commonwealth, that is responsible for drawing the congressional and state legislative districts that will be subsequently voted on, but not changed by, the General Assembly and enacted without the Governor's involvement and to give the responsibility of drawing districts to the Supreme Court of Virginia if the redistricting commission fails to draw districts or the General Assembly fails to enact districts by certain deadlines?
Results
Choice Votes % Yes 2,782,960 65.98% No 1,435,134 34.02% Total votes 4,218,094 100.00% Registered voters/turnout 5,975,752 70.59%
Results by county   Yes—80–90%   Yes—70–80%   Yes—60–70%   Yes—50–60%   No—50–60%
Source: Virginia Department of Elections

Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
Seal of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
Court	Wisconsin Supreme Court
Full case name	Billie Johnson et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al.
Decided	November 30, 2021 (Johnson 1), March 3, 2022 (Johnson 2), April 15, 2022 (Johnson 3)
Questions presented
(1) Under the relevant state and federal laws, what factors should we consider in evaluating or creating new maps? (2) Is the partisan makeup of districts a valid factor for us to consider in evaluating or creating new maps? (3) The petitioners ask us to modify existing maps using a "least-change" approach. Should we do so, and if not, what approach should we use? (4) As we evaluate or create new maps, what litigation process should we use to determine a constitutionally sufficient map?
Court membership
Judges sitting	Annette Ziegler, Chief Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Brian Hagedorn, Jill Karofsky, Patience Roggensack, Justices
Case opinions
The court shall adopt congressional and legislative maps that have the least changes necessary from previous congressional and legislative maps (Johnson 1) Governor Evers' proposed legislative and congressional maps best fulfil the core retention principle, which defines the least changes doctrine, by making the minimal changes from previous maps (Johnson 2) On remand from SCOTUS, the Legislature's maps best fulfil the least changes doctrine, they don't violate Wis Con Art. IV, Sec. 3 and 4 and they comply with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and the principle of "one person, one vote" by being race neutral. The decision to adopt Governor Evers' proposed congressional maps remains the same (Johnson 3)
Decision by	R. Bradley (Johnson 1), Hagedorn (Johnson 2) Ziegler (Johnson 3)
Dissent	Karofsky, R. Dallet, A.Bradley (Johnson 1 and 3) Ziegler, R. Bradley, Roggensack (Johnson 2)
Laws applied
Article 1, Section 2, U.S. Const. amends. XIV, Wis Con Art. IV, Sec. 3, 4, 5, Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Johnson 1 and 2) U.S. Const. amends. XIV, Wis Con Art. IV, Sec. 3, 4, Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Johnson 3)
Overruled by
Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2023) (Johnson 1 and 3) (Johnson 2 in part) Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2022) (Johnson 2 in part)

Johnson v Wisconsin Elections Commission is a series of landmark cases heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court between November 2021 and April 2022, regarding congressional and legislative redistricting in Wisconsin. The cases were notable for being the first redistricting cases the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 60 years, breaking away from a precedent of declining to hear redistricting cases, and instead allowing the Federal Judiciary to litigate them instead, and for introducing a new legal standard to use for redistricting, often referred to as the "least changes" standard. This standard was overturned by the court's landmark decision in Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Background

During the 2010 Midterm Elections, Republicans won control of the Wisconsin state government, with Scott Walker winning the 2010 governor election, and Republicans winning a majority in the Wisconsin Senate and a near supermajority in the Wisconsin Asssembly. After the 2010 Census, Wisconsin Republicans redistricted the legislative districts, and the congressional districts, to give the Republican party an edge in both congress, and especially the Wisconsin Legislature. The final redistricted maps resulted in one of the most successful partisan gerrymanders in the history of the United States. The gerrymander was a result of a Republican project known as REDMAP, which had the goal of entrenching Republican majorities in state legislatures and congressional districts. The results of this gerrymander were best seen in 2018, when in the 2018 Wisconsin State Assembly election, Wisconsin Democrats won 53% of the legislative vote, however Republicans retained their near supermajority in the assembly. The 2011 gerrymander was also the first time in nearly 40 years, in which Wisconsin redistricting was conducted by one-party government, the prior one-party redistricting taking place in 1983, in which Democrats conducted the redistricting. After the 2018 Wisconsin gubernatorial election, in which Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers defeated incumbent governor Scott Walker, Democrats regained control of the governorship, whilst the legislature remained Republican. Once the 2020 census had been conducted, under Wisconsin law, redistricting was to be conducted by the legislature, with gubernatorial approval. However, due to the divide in government, and increased political polarisation, the Wisconsin state government was unable to adopt a map on time, with both parties deferring to the courts. Democrats, represented by progressive law firm, Law Forward sought relief from the federal judiciary, whilst Republicans sought relief with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The federal cases On August 23, 2021, on behalf of the Republican plaintiffs, the conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, for the court to take original jurisdiction on the redistricting case. On September 22, 2021, the court agreed to take the case, assuming jurisdiction from federal courts, and overturning its 60 year precedent of deferring redistricting cases to the federal judiciary.

November 2021 Johnson v. Wisconsin Election Commission case (Johnson 1)

On August 13, 2021, a group of Wisconsin voters, represented by progressive law firm, Law Forward filed a federal lawsuit, known as "Hunter v. Bostelmann", with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging that the 2011 congressional and legislative maps adopted by the Republican Party violated the principle of one person, one vote under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, and also contended that the legislature's inability to enact redistricted maps in time for the 2022 Wisconsin elections violated their freedom of association under the 1st Amendment. A few days later, on August 23, 2021, 2 different lawsuits were filed, one being federal and one being state-level. The federal lawsuit, under the name, "Black Leaders Organising for Communities v. Spindell" was also filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin and also contended that the 2011 legislative maps violated the principle of "one man, one vote" under the 14th Amendment, as well as hindering their right to freedom of assembly under the 1st Amendment by not having a valid redistricting plan in place. Both federal lawsuits, were consolidated together on September 16, 2021. The state-level lawsuit, known as Johnson v Wisconsin, was brought by Wisconsin voters represented by conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty and asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take original jurisdiction against challenges to the 2011 maps. The plaintiffs contended that the "one person, one vote" requirement in redistricting, had been violated by a malapportionment of the legislative and congressional maps due to the 2020 census, and therefore had to be redrawn. The plaintiffs also contended that this malapportionemnt was in violation of Art. IV of the Wisconsin Constitution, and therefore had to be redrawn. The plaintiffs also contended that the Wisconsin Supreme Court take action in the case, due to redistricting being a primarily state task, as opposed to a federal task. Finally, the plaintiffs asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to use "the principle of making the least number of changes to the existing maps as are necessary to meet the requirement of equal population and the remaining traditional redistricting criteria". On September 22, 2021, in a 4-3 decision along ideological lines, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to take the case. This was seen as a major deviation from prior Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, as the court had previously rejected jurisdiction, and deferred redistricting cases to federal courts, often by a unanimous decision. The latest time this happened, was in 2002, with the case, "Jensen v. Wisconsin Elections Board", where the court rejected jurisdiction by citing they lacked the proper procedure to litigate redistricting, and allowed the federal courts to take the case instead. The last time the Wisconsin Supreme Court took a redistricting case, was in 1964 with "State ex rel. Reynolds v Zimmerman". After the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to take the case, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin stayed its lawsuit, extending its stay on November 18, 2021 to January 4, 2022, and giving a second and final extension of the stay on December 17, 2021 to January 28, 2022.

Decision

On November 30, 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its opinion, answering the first 3 questions, and stating that they had answered the 4th question, preliminarily, in an unpublished order. Writing for a plurality for question 1, and for the majority for questions 2 and 3, Justice Rebecca Bradley began her opinion by noting that the 2011 maps are unconstitutional under Wisconsin law, and that the United States Supreme Court declared "there are no legal standards by which judges may decide whether maps are politically "fair", under its landmark decision in Rucho v Common Cause. Justice Grassl Bradley herself agreed with the conclusion of SCOTUS by stating that the Wisconsin constitution requires the legislature to perform the task of redistricting. Justice Grassl Bradley also noted that intervenors in the lawsuit asked the court to consider Article 1, Section 2, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Wisconsin Constitution's Declaration of Rights.

In answering the questions presented by the plaintiffs, Justice Grassl Bradley held that for any judicial remedy to resolve a redistricting dispute, the remedy must resolve the dispute "only to the extent necessary to remedy the violation of a justiciable and cognizable right protected under the United States Constitution, the VRA, or Article IV, Sections 3, 4, or 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution", that partisan composition doesn't constitute a "justiciable or cognizable right", and that any judicial remedy will make "the minimum changes necessary in order to conform the existing congressional and state legislative redistricting plans to constitutional and statutory requirements". Justice Grassl Bradley also stated that any revisions to the maps are only to fix the malapportionment produced by the census.

Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote a separate concurring opinion, starting his off, by agreeing with Justice Grassl Bradley, that, under Wisconsin law, the job of redistricting falls to the legislature, and not the judiciary, that "the job of the judiciary is to decide cases based on the law", "our role is appropriately limited to altering current district boundaries only as needed to comply with legal requirements", and "to the extent feasible, a court's role in redistricting should be modest and restrained". However, Justice Hagedorn's concurrence differed from the majority opinion in that he disagreed with the majority's conclusion that "only legal requirements may be considered in constructing a fitting remedy", instead asserting that "legal standards establish the need for a remedy and constrain the remedies we may impose, but they are not the only permissible judicial considerations when constructing a proper remedy". Justice Hagedorn notes Communities of interest as a consideration in redistricting cases, that is not a legal requirement. Justice Hagedorn also notes the dissent in his opinion, disagreeing with the dissent, stating that "the dissent argues we can take over the responsibility of the legislature entirely, discard policy judgments we don't like, and craft a new law from scratch consistent with our own policy concerns. The reader should look past pleas for fairness and see this for what it is: a claim of dangerously broad judicial power to fashion state policy. According to the dissent, this court should simply ignore the law on the books——one the dissent makes clear it is not fond of——and draft a new one more to its liking."

Dissent

Justice Rebecca Dallet wrote the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, and Jill Karofsky. Justice Dallet started her dissent of by stating, "Redistricting is an "inherently political and legislative——not judicial——task," even when judges do it." Justice Dallet reaffirmed and emphasised her position on redistricting cases, by stating that the prior precedent set by the Wisconsin Supreme Court of deferring to federal courts, was the best approach for handling redistricting, stating, "That is one reason why I said that the federal courts, comprised of judges insulated from partisan politics by lifetime appointments, are best suited to handle redistricting cases." Justice Dallet criticised the majority, for what she believed was "the political thicket of redistricting", and criticising the Court for not remaining neutral and non-partisan in redistricting cases. She also criticised the court for choosing the least changes principle as the criteria for redistricting, and arguing that using least changes for redistricting, was "effectively insulates future maps from being challenged as extreme partisan gerrymanders." Justice Dallet also said, that these two factors, in determining new maps, "The upshot of those two decisions, neither of which is politically neutral, is to elevate outdated partisan choices over neutral redistricting criteria. That outcome has potentially devastating consequences for representative government in Wisconsin."

Justice Dallet also directly criticised the court's decision to use the least changes priniciples, believing that the court's usage of this principle, was political, and non-partisan, stating "In that way, adopting a least-change approach is an inherently political choice. Try as it might, the majority is fooling no one by proclaiming its decision is neutral and apolitical." She also criticised the use of least changes, due to the fact, that the least changes had not been used in federal or state courts before, in redistricting cases, before the Johnson case, stating "The bottom line is that the least-change approach has no "general acceptance among reasonable jurists" when the court's starting point is a legislatively drawn map." However, Justice Dallet also concluded, that the least changes principle can be used in certain circumstances, noting that maps drawn by a court, that were based on a previous court drawn map, can be drawn using the least changes principle.

March 2022 Johnson v. Wisconsin Election Commission case (Johnson 2)

Decision

After the verdict in Johnson 1, the Wisconsin Supreme Court set and heard oral arguments on January 19, 2022, on what maps the court would adopt, after the 2020 census, and issuing its decision on March 3, 2022. Writing for the majority, Justice Brian Hagedorn started his opinion off by acknowledging that the process of redistricting falls towards the Wisconsin Legislature and Wisconsin Governor, and not the Wisconsin Judiciary, but that the lawsuit brought to the court was done to "remedy the malapportionment" of the 2020 census. Justice Hagedorn also mentions that the court intervened in the malapportionment case because that the political branches of Wisconsin failed to "carry out their constitutional responsibilities", and states "both this court and the United States Supreme Court have held that this failure implicates the constitutional rights of voters". As the court had not established a measure to enact the least changes principle in Johnson 1, Justice Hagedorn established his own method to enact the least changes principle, known as "Core Retention". Justice Hagedorn explained it as being "a measure of voters who remain in their prior districts". Justice Hagedorn came to the conclusion that Governor Tony Evers' proposed congressional district map was the map that best satisfied the core retention method, stating that Evers' map "moves 5.5% of the population to new districts, leaving 94.5% in their current districts. In raw numbers, the Governor's proposal to move 324,415 people to new districts is 60,041 fewer people than the next best proposal. In addition, Governor Evers' submission complies with the federal Constitution and all other applicable laws. We therefore adopt Governor Evers' proposed congressional map." For the legislative maps, Justice Hagedorn stated that 6 proposals of maps, from Black Leaders Organising for Communities, Citizens Maps and Scientists, Governor Evers, State Senator Janet Bewley, the Wisconsin Legislature, and the Hunter Intervenor-Petitioners, were given to the court, and that Governor Evers' maps, once again, were the maps which fulfilled the core retention metric, stating "In their senate proposals, both Governor Evers and the Legislature move a nearly identical 7.8% of voters to different districts (92.2% core retention), with a slight edge to the Legislature for moving 1,958 fewer people. However, in their assembly map proposals, Governor Evers moves 14.2% of voters to new districts, while the Legislature moves 15.8% (85.8% vs. 84.2% core retention), a difference that affects 96,178 people. No other proposal comes close. And beyond core retention, no other measure of least change alters the picture. The Governor's proposed senate and assembly maps produce less overall change than other submissions."

Garland v. Range
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case name	BRYAN DAVID RANGE, Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; REGINA LOMBARDO, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Decided	June 6, 2023
Citation	801 F.3d 1126 (2015)
Case history
Prior actions	Cross-motions for summary judgment denied, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9799 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
Subsequent actions	Opinion amended, 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016); cert. denied, Lenz v. 137 S.Ct. 2263 (2017)

2014 United States Senate election in Montana

November 4, 2014

Nominee Brian Schweitzer Marc Racicot Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 200,357 198,389 Percentage 50.25% 49.75%

County results Schweitzer:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80% Racicot:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. senator before election John Walsh Democratic Elected U.S. Senator Brian Schweitzer Democratic

2020 United States Senate election in Montana

November 3, 2020

Nominee Brian Schweitzer Steve Daines Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 248,956 242,809 Percentage 50.62% 49.38%

Schweitzer:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      >90% Daines:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      >90%

U.S. senator before election Brian Schweitzer Democratic Elected U.S. Senator Brian Schweitzer Democratic

2004 United States Senate election in South Dakota

November 2, 2004

Nominee Tom Daschle John Thune Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 195,838 195,350 Percentage 50.06% 49.94%

County results Thune:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80% Daschle:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. senator before election Tom Daschle Democratic Elected U.S. Senator Tom Daschle Democratic

2014 United States Senate election in South Dakota

November 3, 2020

Nominee Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Mike Rounds Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 171,672 171,084 Percentage 50.06% 49.94%

County results Rounds:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80% Herseth Sandlin:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      >90%

U.S. senator before election Tim Johnson Democratic Elected U.S. Senator Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Democratic

2000 North Dakota gubernatorial election

November 7, 2000

Nominee Heidi Heitkamp John Hoeven Party Democratic–NPL Republican Running mate Aaron Krauter Jack Dalrymple Popular vote 159,255 155,244 Percentage 50.64% 49.36%

Heitkamp:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      80–90% Hoeven:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

Governor before election Ed Schafer Republican Elected Governor Heidi Heitkamp Democratic–NPL

2006 United States Senate election in Indiana

November 7, 2006

Nominee Baron Hill Richard Lugar Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 1,281,587 1,278,515 Percentage 50.06% 49.94%

Hill:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70% Lugar:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%

U.S. senator before election Richard Lugar Republican Elected U.S. Senator Baron Hill Democratic

2006 United States Senate election in Montana

November 7, 2006

Nominee Brian Schweitzer Conrad Burns Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 199,845 196,283 Percentage 49.16% 48.29%

County results Schweitzer:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80% Burns:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. senator before election Conrad Burns Republican Elected U.S. Senator Brian Schweitzer Democratic

2010 United States Senate election in Montana

November 2, 2010

Nominee Jon Tester Denny Rehberg Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 205,782 201,708 Percentage 50.05% 49.95%

County results Tester:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70% Rehberg:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election Max Baucus Democratic Elected U.S. Senator Jon Tester Democratic

2000 United States Senate election in New York

November 7, 2000

Nominee George Pataki Hillary Rodham Clinton Party Republican Democratic Alliance Conservative Liberal Popular vote 3,157,863 3,095,331 Percentage 50.50% 49.50%

County results Pataki:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70% Clinton:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democratic Elected U.S. Senator George Pataki Republican

2006 United States Senate election in New York

November 7, 2006

Nominee Joe Crowley George Pataki Party Democratic Republican Alliance Liberal Conservative Popular vote 3,198,483 3,054,661 Percentage 51.15% 48.85%

County results Crowley:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90% Pataki:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election George Pataki Republican Elected U.S. Senator Joe Crowley Democratic

2006 United States Senate election in Montana

November 7, 2006

Nominee Brian Schweitzer Marc Racicot Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 203,456 203,049 Percentage 50.05% 49.95%

County results Schweitzer:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80% Racicot:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. senator before election Marc Racicot Republican Elected U.S. Senator Brian Schweitzer Democratic

2000 United States Senate election in Montana

November 7, 2000

Nominee Marc Racicot John Driscoll Party Republican Democratic Popular vote 321,813 80,453 Percentage 80.00% 20.00%

County results Racicot:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. senator before election Conrad Burns Republican Elected U.S. Senator Marc Racicot Republican

2000 Montana gubernatorial election

November 7, 2000
Turnout	59.90%10.70
Nominee Brian Schweitzer Judy Martz Party Democratic Republican Running mate John Bohlinger Karl Ohs Popular vote 201,374 200,892 Percentage 50.06% 49.94%
County results Schweitzer:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80% Martz:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%
Governor before election Marc Racicot Republican Elected Governor Brian Schweitzer Democratic

2004 Montana gubernatorial election

November 2, 2004
Turnout	71.4%11.5
Nominee Brian Schweitzer Bob Brown Party Democratic Republican Running mate John Bohlinger Dave Lewis Popular vote 348,165 128,773 Percentage 73.00% 27.00%
County results Schweitzer:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%
Governor before election Brian Schweitzer Democratic Elected Governor John Bohlinger Democratic

1998 United States Senate election in Montana

November 3, 1998

Nominee Max Baucus Denny Rehberg Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 201,935 182,111 Percentage 49.56% 44.69%

County results Baucus:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80% Rehberg:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election Max Baucus Democratic Elected U.S. Senator Max Baucus Democratic

2006 United States House of Representatives election in Montana

November 7, 2006

Nominee Jon Tester Denny Rehberg Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 243,675 162,450 Percentage 60.00% 40.00%

County results Tester:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90% Rehberg:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%

U.S. Representative before election Denny Rehberg Republican Elected U.S. Representative Jon Tester Democratic

2008 United States House of Representatives election in Montana

November 4, 2008

Nominee Jon Tester Brad Johnson Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 288,450 192,360 Percentage 60.00% 40.00%

County results Tester:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90% Rehberg:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%

U.S. Representative before election Denny Rehberg Republican Elected U.S. Representative Jon Tester Democratic

2010 United States Senate election in Montana

November 2, 2010

Nominee Jon Tester Steve Daines Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 205,782 201,708 Percentage 50.05% 49.95%

County results Tester:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70% Daines:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election Max Baucus Democratic Elected U.S. Senator Jon Tester Democratic