State Supreme Court Rules For ‘Least Changes’ to Redistricting
A win for Republicans. Dissent charges court fails to prevent gerrymandering.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservative majority handed Republicans a major victory in the legal fight over redistricting Tuesday, ruling that the court would take a “least changes” approach to redrawing the maps Republicans passed in 2011.
The court’s majority also ruled that it would not consider the partisan makeup of districts in an effort to make them more fair, another win for Republicans who’ve held big majorities in the Legislature for the past decade under the current map, even in years when Democrats have performed well statewide.
“Just as the laws enacted by the legislature reflect policy choices, so will the maps drawn by that political body,” wrote Bradley. “Nothing in the constitution empowers this court to second-guess those policy choices, and nothing in the constitution vests this court with the power of the legislature to enact new maps.”
Bradley’s opinion echoed many of the arguments made by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) whose lawsuit called for a “least changes” approach to redistricting.
States redraw their legislative and congressional boundaries at least once every decade following the release of U.S. Census data, a process designed to keep districts roughly equal in population.
While that process moved swiftly when Republicans controlled both the Legislature and the governor’s office in 2011, courts drew the state’s maps in previous decades when state government was under split-party control.
That was clearly where things were headed this time around with Republicans running the Legislature and Democrat Tony Evers in the governor’s office. WILL filed its lawsuit in August arguing that given the likely impasse in state government, the fairest way for a court to resolve redistricting was by mostly preserving the 2011 maps, adjusting only where necessary to address population changes.
Not only did the court’s conservatives agree, but the majority’s opinion closed the door to considering the partisan makeup of districts when changing a map. In other words, the court would not change the current map just because it skews more Republican than the state as a whole.
Hagedorn’s position was the most in doubt, having broken with conservatives on some high-profile cases, including a handful that sought to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory in Wisconsin.
While he wrote a separate concurring opinion, Hagedorn sided with conservatives on the big issues, arguing the judiciary’s role was limited in redistricting.
“As the majority opinion explains, the Wisconsin Constitution does not preclude the legislature from drawing districts with partisan interests in mind,” Hagedorn wrote. “The petition here — that we should use our equitable authority to reallocate political power in Wisconsin — is not a neutral undertaking. It stretches far beyond a proper, focused, and impartial exercise of our limited judicial power.”
In a dissent written by Justice Rebecca Dallet, the court’s three liberals argued that using the 2011 map as the starting point for resolving any redistricting dispute was inherently biased and would perpetuate a partisan gerrymander.
It is one thing for the current legislature to entrench a past legislature’s partisan choices for another decade,” Dallet wrote. “It is another thing entirely for this court to do the same.”
“It doesn’t matter which political party benefits from the 2011 maps, only that we cannot start with them and maintain judicial neutrality,” Dallet wrote. “Moreover, a least-change approach risks entrenching 2011’s partisan agenda in future redistricting cycles.”
Wisconsin’s 2011 map has seen more than its share of lawsuits over the past decade, including one case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. That lawsuit argued that Wisconsin’s map was one of the most extreme partisan gerrymanders in modern U.S. history — so extreme that it violated the constitutional rights of Democratic voters.
While the U.S. Supreme Court never issued a final decision in Wisconsin’s lawsuit, it ruled in a later case that partisan gerrymanders were not justiciable in federal court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservative majority wrote Tuesday that the same was true in state court.
“The Wisconsin Constitution Says Nothing About Partisan Gerrymandering,” read one of the headings in the majority’s decision.
Dallet took issue with the majority’s finding, saying it would give future governors and legislatures a “green light” to gerrymander.
Tuesday’s ruling was hardly the final say in Wisconsin’s redistricting lawsuits, but statements from groups with an interest in the case underscored its significance.
“We are pleased that the Court agreed with our arguments that political partisanship is not an appropriate factor to consider when redrawing district maps and that it should follow a least-changes approach in accomplishing its task,” read a statement from WILL attorney Anthony LoCoco.
“The majority of the State Supreme Court has once again demonstrated its loyalty is to the Republican Party, not the laws of Wisconsin,” said Sachin Chheda, director of the Fair Elections Project, a group that advocates for nonpartisan redistricting. “Whatever comes from this corrupt nonsense, if it’s not fair to our state, it shouldn’t be accepted by federal courts, and most importantly, it won’t be accepted by the people of Wisconsin.”
Democrats filed their first federal lawsuit in August on the day after the U.S. Census released its redistricting data. While a federal court may be hesitant to overrule the Wisconsin Supreme Court on matters of state law, it could still address issues related to federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
In win for Republicans, Wisconsin Supreme Court promises ‘least changes’ approach to redistricting was originally published by Wisconsin Public Radio.
If you think stories like this are important, become a member of Urban Milwaukee and help support real, independent journalism. Plus you get some cool added benefits.
- Data Wonk: Examining Wisconsin Gerrymandering By Analyzing 2022 Election Results - Bruce Thompson - Jan 13th, 2023
- DOJ Joins Coalition Urging Supreme Court Not to Weaken Voting Rights Act Protections in Alabama Redistricting Case - Wisconsin Department of Justice - Jul 25th, 2022
- The State of Politics: How Republicans Won Redistricting Fight - Steven Walters - Apr 25th, 2022
- Redistricting Update - Wisconsin Elections Commission - Apr 18th, 2022
- Gov. Evers Releases Statement Reacting to Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision Regarding Redistricting - Gov. Tony Evers - Apr 15th, 2022
- Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District Might Be Competitive Again - Shawn Johnson - Apr 15th, 2022
- Data Wonk: State’s Gerrymander Could Last Forever - Bruce Thompson - Mar 30th, 2022
- Op Ed: US Supreme Court Throws State Election Into Chaos - Ruth Conniff - Mar 27th, 2022
- Redistricting Case Returns to State Supreme Court - Shawn Johnson - Mar 25th, 2022
- Gov. Evers Releases Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Decision Regarding Redistricting - Gov. Tony Evers - Mar 23rd, 2022
Read more about Gerrymandering of Legislative Districts here