State Supreme Court Picks Evers’ Legislative Maps

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Thursday it would use the “least changes” redistricting plans submitted by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers as Wisconsin’s political maps for the next decade.

In the 4-3 decision, conservative swing Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that of all the plans submitted, Evers’ plan best complied with criteria laid out by the court and met all the requirements of the Wisconsin and United States constitutions.

The court ruled in November that any new redistricting plan should make as few changes as possible to the maps the Republican Legislature passed, and former Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed, in 2011. That meant that any new map approved by the court would lean Republican.

But choosing Evers’ maps over competing plans submitted by Republican members of Congress and the Legislature was, under the circumstances, a win for Democrats. In the Legislature, it could mean the difference between simple Republican majorities and super majorities that could override any governor’s vetoes.

Evers celebrated the ruling in a statement.

“The maps I submitted to the Court that were selected today are a vast improvement from the gerrymandered maps Wisconsin has had for the last decade and the even more gerrymandered Republicans maps that I vetoed last year,” he said.

Hagedorn, who ruled with conservative justices in November, was joined by the court’s three liberal justices in his decision siding with Evers. He said the best way to measure “least change” is to choose the map that moves the fewest number of people into new districts.

“In this regard, the Governor’s proposed map is superior to every other proposal. It is the map with the least change,” Hagedorn wrote.

Among the proposed state legislative maps, Hagedorn said Evers’ map had “vastly superior core retention” for state Assembly districts.

“No maps from any other party perform nearly as well as the Governor’s on core retention,” Evers said.

Republicans had urged the court to look at other metrics when deciding on new maps, stressing their proposals contained districts that were more equal in population. Hagedorn dismissed those arguments.

“Proposed maps are either lawful or they are not; no constitutional map is more constitutional than another,” Hagedorn wrote. “For our purposes, so long as a map complies with constitutional requirements, better performance on these metrics becomes commendable, but not constitutionally required.”

Writing for the dissent, conservative Chief Justice Annette Ziegler said Hagedorn’s ruling was “imbued with personal preference” and lacking in legal analysis.

“The majority’s decision to select Governor Tony Evers’ maps is an exercise of judicial activism, untethered to evidence, precedent, the Wisconsin Constitution, and basic principles of equal protection,” Ziegler wrote.

While the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s say is final in the state court system, a federal court could still consider a limited challenge to the maps based on federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

Editor’s note: This story will be updated.