Wisconsin Supreme Court: Will Hear Congressional Map Challenges

• The Wisconsin Supreme Court signaled it may allow challenges to the state's congressional maps, which currently yield a 6-2 Republican majority despite close statewide elections.
• Chief Justice Jill Karofsky and other liberal justices questioned the legitimacy of the maps, citing concerns about vote dilution and extreme partisan gerrymandering.
• The court's liberal majority, which took control in 2023, has abandoned the "least change" standard previously used for redistricting.
• Plaintiffs are urging the court to reverse lower court dismissals and either strike down the maps or order fact-finding.
• This Wisconsin redistricting challenge could set new precedents for addressing partisan gerrymandering in the state, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court deemed federal claims non-justiciable.

This signals a critical moment for election law and constitutional law practitioners in Wisconsin, as the court's evolving approach to redistricting demands close monitoring and strategic adaptation.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently indicated a potential willingness to consider challenges to the state's congressional maps, a development that emerged during an extensive session held on Wednesday. This signals a significant shift, especially after two separate lower court panels had previously dismissed both petitions earlier in the year. Despite statewide elections often yielding nearly even results between major parties, the existing Wisconsin congressional districts, which were drawn by Republican lawmakers, consistently produce a delegation of six Republicans and two Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Two distinct groups have brought forward these challenges. One group contends that the current maps are designed to unfairly benefit the Republican party, while the other argues that the districts are anti-competitive, primarily serving to protect incumbent politicians. The foundation for these contested boundaries dates back to 2011, when the initial lines were enacted. These original districts subsequently formed the basis for the 2022 boundaries. This occurred after a legislative deadlock between the Republican-controlled legislature and Democratic Governor Tony Evers compelled the court's then-conservative majority to intervene and apply a "least change" standard, preserving the existing framework with minimal alterations.

During the recent proceedings, the court's liberal majority intensely questioned counsel representing the Wisconsin State Legislature, which is Republican-controlled, regarding the judiciary's role in addressing what they termed "extreme" partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice Jill Karofsky voiced strong criticism concerning the legitimacy of the current district lines, pointing out that the very lawmakers who approved these maps were themselves elected from districts that many considered to be among the most gerrymandered in the nation. She highlighted concerns that many citizens felt their votes were diluted and that the maps were not truly representative, with some even describing them as "rigged."

Abha Khanna, representing the voters challenging the maps, argued that applying a "least change" standard to fundamentally skewed maps makes true neutrality impossible. She asserted that citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law and should not face arbitrary disadvantages based on their viewpoint or residence, emphasizing that politicians should not be able to choose their voters. Conversely, Justice Brian Hagedorn, one of the court's two conservative justices, expressed skepticism, suggesting that Khanna's argument effectively asked the court to "invent a new right." He questioned where the line should be drawn on unfairness, noting that partisanship has long been a feature of redistricting processes. Taylor Meehan, representing the Wisconsin State Legislature, maintained that the court lacks the authority to intervene in congressional map disputes unless there is a deadlock, as was the case previously. However, Justice Chris Taylor countered this, stating that allowing Wisconsin Supreme Court vote dilution to render ballots meaningless runs contrary to Wisconsin's own constitution. Meehan responded by arguing that the constitution does not empower courts to declare a map unconstitutional simply because one party is disfavored, underscoring the role of elected representatives.

The current legal battle follows the Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority, which took control in 2023, abandoning the "least change" standard that had previously guided redistricting decisions. This shift prompted voting rights groups to push for the striking down of existing boundaries. Plaintiffs are now urging the justices to reverse the earlier dismissals by special judicial panels, which had ruled that lower courts lacked the authority to overturn state Supreme Court precedent. They seek either an outright invalidation of the maps or an order for the panels to commence fact-finding.

This development is particularly noteworthy given the broader legal context. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that claims of partisan gerrymandering at the federal level constitute "non-justiciable" political questions, effectively leaving such challenges to state courts. Consequently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's potential decision to allow challenges to congressional maps could establish new precedents for addressing partisan gerrymandering within the state, significantly altering electoral districts and impacting future political representation. This signals a critical moment for election law and constitutional law practitioners in Wisconsin, as the court's evolving approach to redistricting demands close monitoring and strategic adaptation.

Lawyers practicing election law or constitutional law in Wisconsin should closely monitor this case, as the Supreme Court's potential decision to allow challenges to congressional maps could lead to significant changes in electoral districts and establish new precedents for addressing partisan gerrymandering. This development signals a shift in the court's approach to redistricting, requiring legal professionals to advise clients on potential impacts to political representation and future election strategies.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News