Why Did a State Supreme Court Justice Put a Fake SCOTUS Quote in a Major Dissent?

"The majority appointed a pair of three-judge panels to decide whether the map violates the state constitution and, if so, whether the judiciary must impose a fairer substitute. Its decision prompted dissents from the court's conservative members-including Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler, who suggested that the imposition of a more balanced map would violate the U.S. Constitution. To make that point, Ziegler quoted a recent Supreme Court decision, Moore v. Harper, for the proposition that state courts' role in congressional redistricting is "exceedingly limited.""

"To the contrary, Moore held the opposite, concluding that state courts can play a legitimate, meaningful role in congressional redistricting. It is not clear how Ziegler's misquotation wound up in the published opinion of a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice. By Wednesday morning, the court had withdrawn the opinion from its website and replaced it with a partial correction-without publicly acknowledging the mistake."

The Wisconsin Supreme Court moved toward striking down an extreme Republican congressional gerrymander that discriminates against Democratic voters. The court appointed two three-judge panels to determine whether the map violates the state constitution and whether a fairer substitute is required. Conservative justices dissented; Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler claimed imposing a more balanced map would violate the U.S. Constitution and quoted Moore v. Harper as limiting state court authority. Moore did not support that claim and instead affirmed a meaningful role for state courts. The court withdrew and partially corrected Ziegler's opinion but retained an inaccurate summary of Moore.

Read at Slate Magazine