Wisconsin Supreme Court to weigh challenges to congressional maps
MADISON, Wis. (CBS 58) — Are Wisconsin’s U.S. congressional maps too gerrymandered, and does that make them unconstitutional?
Two cases in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are claiming that they are, and it’s up to the court to decide.
Those challenging the maps say they are a violation of the Constitution, while those defending the maps believe that isn’t the case.
The cases are arguing two different things.
The first case, Bothfeld v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, argues the maps are unconstitutional and favor Republicans too much.
“In our complaint, we allege that that map from 2011, and then re-cemented into place in this court’s Johnson II order, is one of the most partisan-skewed maps under a variety of objective metrics,” Abha Khanna, a partner at Elias Law Group who argued the maps were unconstitutional, said.
The maps that are currently in place are similar to those drawn in 2011 under a Republican trifecta. They were adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2022 after the governor and Legislature were in a standoff over redistricting. The court used a “least change” approach, which called for making as few changes as necessary to existing maps while accounting for population changes from the 2020 census.
Those arguing against the plaintiffs say drawing maps is up to the Legislature, not the courts.
“Nothing in text, nothing in history, nothing in precedent that suggests that the framers ever intended this right or to give the court free license to make up a new claim, to come up with a standard to pick one out of thin air,” Luke Berg, who argued against the plaintiffs, said.
Those who brought the suit forward claim fair maps are constitutionally protected.
But those arguing that fair maps aren’t constitutionally protected say other states have changed their constitutions to ensure them. They say it is ultimately up to the Legislature to determine the maps after every census.
Experts say if the court rules the maps are unconstitutional, it could help Democrats, but only in the short term.
“I think we get distracted by short-term results in these. Like, over the short term, yes, is it likely to benefit Democrats? Sure, because the maps so heavily favored Republicans in the past. Is that very same mechanism guaranteed to benefit Democrats in perpetuity going forward? Absolutely not. The shoe always ends up on the other foot,” Chad Oldfather, a professor of law at Marquette University Law School, said.
The other case, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, argues the maps are unconstitutional because they suppress electoral competition and protect incumbents. The plaintiffs are challenging whether the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits congressional districts that intentionally suppress competition and protect incumbents.
The Supreme Court likely won’t make a decision on either of the cases until later this year.
If the court determines the maps are unconstitutional, they would be redrawn and likely be in effect for the 2028 election.
The State Democracy Research Initiative out of the University of Wisconsin Law School filed an amicus brief on behalf of eight legal scholars, breaking down why they believe fair maps are constitutionally protected.
You can read that by clicking here.