Wisconsin Supreme Court Requests Briefs On Whether Redistricting Lawsuits Should Continue
Liberal firms argue state law requires justices to appoint judicial panel to hear redistricting cases.
The interior of the Wisconsin State Capitol on Monday, July 14, 2025, in Madison, Wis. Angela Major/WPR
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has asked parties to file briefs on whether two redistricting lawsuits filed in Dane County Circuit Court should be allowed to proceed.
The court issued its order in response to two requests asking justices to appoint a judicial panel to consider the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s congressional voting map ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The lawsuits were filed in circuit court in July by two liberal law firms. They asked the Supreme Court to appoint three-judge panels to decide whether Wisconsin’s congressional districts are unconstitutional. Until Thursday, the court hadn’t responded.
The three-judge panel concept was created by Republican state lawmakers in 2011 as a means to expedite redistricting challenges. Under that law, if parties in a circuit court case request the panel, the Supreme Court is required to appoint circuit court judges to sit on it. It also requires any appeal of the panel’s ruling to go directly to the Supreme Court.
This week, an attorney representing plaintiffs in one of those cases sent a letter to the Supreme Court stating a Dane County judge denied their request to set a briefing schedule in the case because doing so would violate the law passed by the Legislature more than a decade before.
On Thursday, the majority responded. Instead of appointing the judicial panel requested by the liberal firms, they ordered legal briefs arguing whether or not the lawsuits filed in Dane County constitute a valid “action to challenge the apportionment of a congressional or state legislative district.”
Conservative Justice Annette Ziegler “reluctantly” concurred with the court’s order, but warned fellow justices “that this court should not redraw partisan maps, especially since the issue has already been settled.”
Ziegler was referring to a redistricting challenge filed in 2021 in which the court ordered any new maps make the least changes possible. While Wisconsin’s current eight-district congressional map was drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, it largely resembles the map drawn by Republicans a decade earlier when they controlled all of state government.
Zeigler said the legal challenges to the state’s congressional map have been “repeatedly mounted and consistently denied.” She said she reluctantly agreed with the majority’s call for briefs to discuss the validity of the challenges in Dane County Circuit Court, but noted “briefing should not be confused with a decision to grant relief sought.”
“Constitutionally, it is the responsibility of the legislature and the governor — not the judiciary — to redistrict,” Zeigler said. “This case has been filed long after the completion of the most recent decennial census. Unlike the past, this filing does not come to the court because of an impasse between the political branches requiring this court to act so that partisan elections can occur.”
Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley was the only justice to dissent to the majority’s call for legal briefs. She appeared to question the constitutionality of the law requiring the court to appoint judicial redistricting panels.
“The legislature cannot empower a circuit court to review a final judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, nor can the legislature require this court to appoint a circuit court panel to do so,” Bradley said. “The majority entertains an impermissible collateral attack — in a lower court — on a decision of this court, but the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits such a maneuver. Both cases should be dismissed.”
Bradley said lower courts don’t have authority to review Supreme Court judgements and the Dane County judge “should have dismissed” both redistricting lawsuits filed in July.
“The circuit court must yield to the superior authority of the supreme court. Wisconsin’s current congressional districting map is a final judgment of this court,” Bradley said. “The Wisconsin Constitution forbids it.”
She also criticized “political forces” using the Supreme Court “to obtain what the democratic process denies them.”
“The Wisconsin Constitution plainly prohibits a circuit court — empaneled by this court or not — from adjudicating a challenge to a final judgment of the supreme court,” said Bradley. “The majority nevertheless entertains yet another kick at the redistricting cat. Unlike Schrödinger’s cat, this one most assuredly has been dead for years. I dissent.”
The court’s majority ordered parties to respond with briefs within 14 days.
Both of the redistricting lawsuits in Dane County come as Republicans and Democrats in several states have either begun the process of redrawing their congressional maps or have threatened to do so in hopes of boosting their respective parties’ chances in next year’s U.S. House elections.
In late August, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a new congressional map designed to give Republicans five more House seats, at the request of President Donald Trump. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Democrats in his state would respond in kind by asking voters to work around the state’s independent redistricting commission and approve a new congressional map aimed at boosting their party’s chances of flipping the narrow GOP House majority in 2026.
Redistricting reform advocates in Wisconsin have said they’re alarmed by the gerrymandering competition in other states, with Wisconsin League of Women Voters Executive Director Debra Cronmiller telling WPR it’s “so anti-democratic” and an indication the U.S. is facing a “constitutional crisis.”
Wisconsin Supreme Court orders legal briefs in 2 congressional map challenges 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.
