On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is currently controlled by liberal justices, made a decision to overturn legislative maps that were drawn by Republicans. As a result of this decision, the court has ordered the creation of new district boundary lines, aligning with the request made by Democrats in a redistricting case. The Democrats hope that this redrawing of boundaries will have the effect of weakening the Republican majorities in the state.
The ruling has been issued with less than a year remaining before the 2024 election. This election is particularly significant as it will take place in a battleground state where four out of the six previous presidential elections have been determined by a margin of fewer than 23,000 votes. Additionally, it is worth noting that Republicans have established substantial majorities in the Legislature due to the district maps they created over ten years ago.
In a recent court ruling, the Democrats emerged victorious with a 4-3 majority, supporting their argument that the legislative maps in question are unconstitutional due to the lack of contiguity in the drawn districts.
In a recent ruling, Justice Jill Karofsky stated that the current state legislative districts in Wisconsin are in violation of the constitution's contiguity requirements. These districts have separate and detached territories, which is not in line with the necessary criteria. As a result, the Wisconsin Elections Commission has been ordered to refrain from using these legislative maps in future elections.
The ruling in favor of Law Forward, represented by attorney Dan Lenz, is being hailed as a triumph for the representative democracy in Wisconsin.
In a statement, he expressed his belief that rightwing interests have been manipulating the rules without facing any repercussions for an extended period of time. Gerrymandering, a practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries, has had a significant impact on the political landscape by distorting the representation of voters and limiting their ability to have their voices heard. The statement suggests that the issue at hand poses a significant challenge to the fundamental concept of fair representation and has the potential to undermine public trust in our political system.
Messages were not returned by attorneys representing the Legislature and Republican leaders.
The court has announced its intention to move forward with the adoption of remedial maps for the upcoming 2024 election. However, this will only occur if the Republican-controlled Legislature manages to pass maps that are acceptable to Democratic Governor Tony Evers. The current maps were vetoed by Evers.
In the legal proceedings, each party involved in the lawsuit will have the opportunity to present their own maps to the court. Additionally, they will be permitted to provide expert evidence and offer supporting arguments to bolster their respective cases. The court has announced its decision to appoint one or more consultants who will be responsible for evaluating the maps. These consultants will then issue reports detailing their findings.
The lawsuit was initiated the day after the court's majority shifted to a 4-3 liberal control in August. Justice Janet Protasiewicz joined the court subsequent to her successful election victory in April.
During her campaign, Protasiewicz criticized the GOP-drawn maps, characterizing them as "unfair" and "rigged." As a result of her remarks, Republicans responded by issuing threats to impeach her even before she had the opportunity to preside over a case. In the case at hand, she aligned herself with the other justices who hold liberal viewpoints, collectively reaching a decision to invalidate the existing maps.
Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, known for his strong stance on impeachment, recently changed his position. On Wednesday, he expressed doubt about the possibility of impeachment, even if a ruling favored the removal of the maps.
In the majority were Karofsky, as well as Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet. The dissenting opinion was expressed by conservative justices Annette Ziegler, Rebecca Bradley, and Brian Hagedorn.
In her dissent, Ziegler stated that the deal was finalized on election night. The remapping of Wisconsin by four justices is a departure from the constitutional process, which mandates that this responsibility should be carried out every ten years, following a census, by the other two branches of government. The public understands this.”
She accused the majority of “judicial activism on steroids.”
“The court of four takes a wrecking ball to the law, making no room, nor having any need, for longstanding practices, procedures, traditions, the law, or even their co-equal fellow branches of government,” Ziegler wrote.
Wisconsin’s redistricting ruling comes one day after a federal judicial panel also struck down some of Michigan’s state House and Senate districts and ordered them to be redrawn. The Michigan court said the districts were illegally drawn based on race.
The ruling comes one month after the court heard oral arguments in the case in November. The state elections commission has said maps must be in place by March 15 if the new districts are to be in play for the 2024 election.
Democrats argued for having all 132 lawmakers stand for election under the new maps, including half of the members of the state Senate who are midway through their four-year terms. The Legislature argued that no new maps should be enacted any sooner than the 2026 election.
Democrats argued in Wisconsin that the majority of current legislative districts - 54 out of 99 in the Assembly and 21 out of 33 in the Senate - violate the state constitution’s contiguity requirement.
Wisconsin’s redistricting laws, backed up by state and federal court rulings over the past 50 years, have permitted districts under certain circumstances to be noncontiguous, attorneys for the Legislature argued. Even if the court decided to address the issue, it could only affect alleged areas where districts aren’t contiguous and not upend existing district lines, Republicans argued.
The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 64-35 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate.
Since taking the majority in 2011, Republicans have enacted a wide range of conservative priorities. They have all but eliminated collective bargaining for public workers, and since 2019 they’ve been a block on Evers’ agenda, firing Evers appointees and threatening impeachment of Protasiewicz and the state’s elections leader.
Republicans are also just two seats short of a supermajority that would allow them to overturn Evers’ vetoes. Litigation is ongoing in more than dozen states over U.S. House and state legislative districts enacted after the 2020 census.
The ruling has been issued with less than a year remaining before the 2024 election. This election is particularly significant as it will take place in a battleground state where four out of the six previous presidential elections have been determined by a margin of fewer than 23,000 votes. Additionally, it is worth noting that Republicans have established substantial majorities in the Legislature due to the district maps they created over ten years ago.
In a recent court ruling, the Democrats emerged victorious with a 4-3 majority, supporting their argument that the legislative maps in question are unconstitutional due to the lack of contiguity in the drawn districts.
In a recent ruling, Justice Jill Karofsky stated that the current state legislative districts in Wisconsin are in violation of the constitution's contiguity requirements. These districts have separate and detached territories, which is not in line with the necessary criteria. As a result, the Wisconsin Elections Commission has been ordered to refrain from using these legislative maps in future elections.
The ruling in favor of Law Forward, represented by attorney Dan Lenz, is being hailed as a triumph for the representative democracy in Wisconsin.
In a statement, he expressed his belief that rightwing interests have been manipulating the rules without facing any repercussions for an extended period of time. Gerrymandering, a practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries, has had a significant impact on the political landscape by distorting the representation of voters and limiting their ability to have their voices heard. The statement suggests that the issue at hand poses a significant challenge to the fundamental concept of fair representation and has the potential to undermine public trust in our political system.
Messages were not returned by attorneys representing the Legislature and Republican leaders.
The court has announced its intention to move forward with the adoption of remedial maps for the upcoming 2024 election. However, this will only occur if the Republican-controlled Legislature manages to pass maps that are acceptable to Democratic Governor Tony Evers. The current maps were vetoed by Evers.
In the legal proceedings, each party involved in the lawsuit will have the opportunity to present their own maps to the court. Additionally, they will be permitted to provide expert evidence and offer supporting arguments to bolster their respective cases. The court has announced its decision to appoint one or more consultants who will be responsible for evaluating the maps. These consultants will then issue reports detailing their findings.
The lawsuit was initiated the day after the court's majority shifted to a 4-3 liberal control in August. Justice Janet Protasiewicz joined the court subsequent to her successful election victory in April.
During her campaign, Protasiewicz criticized the GOP-drawn maps, characterizing them as "unfair" and "rigged." As a result of her remarks, Republicans responded by issuing threats to impeach her even before she had the opportunity to preside over a case. In the case at hand, she aligned herself with the other justices who hold liberal viewpoints, collectively reaching a decision to invalidate the existing maps.
Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, known for his strong stance on impeachment, recently changed his position. On Wednesday, he expressed doubt about the possibility of impeachment, even if a ruling favored the removal of the maps.
In the majority were Karofsky, as well as Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet. The dissenting opinion was expressed by conservative justices Annette Ziegler, Rebecca Bradley, and Brian Hagedorn.
In her dissent, Ziegler stated that the deal was finalized on election night. The remapping of Wisconsin by four justices is a departure from the constitutional process, which mandates that this responsibility should be carried out every ten years, following a census, by the other two branches of government. The public understands this.”
She accused the majority of “judicial activism on steroids.”
“The court of four takes a wrecking ball to the law, making no room, nor having any need, for longstanding practices, procedures, traditions, the law, or even their co-equal fellow branches of government,” Ziegler wrote.
Wisconsin’s redistricting ruling comes one day after a federal judicial panel also struck down some of Michigan’s state House and Senate districts and ordered them to be redrawn. The Michigan court said the districts were illegally drawn based on race.
The ruling comes one month after the court heard oral arguments in the case in November. The state elections commission has said maps must be in place by March 15 if the new districts are to be in play for the 2024 election.
Democrats argued for having all 132 lawmakers stand for election under the new maps, including half of the members of the state Senate who are midway through their four-year terms. The Legislature argued that no new maps should be enacted any sooner than the 2026 election.
Democrats argued in Wisconsin that the majority of current legislative districts - 54 out of 99 in the Assembly and 21 out of 33 in the Senate - violate the state constitution’s contiguity requirement.
Wisconsin’s redistricting laws, backed up by state and federal court rulings over the past 50 years, have permitted districts under certain circumstances to be noncontiguous, attorneys for the Legislature argued. Even if the court decided to address the issue, it could only affect alleged areas where districts aren’t contiguous and not upend existing district lines, Republicans argued.
The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 64-35 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate.
Since taking the majority in 2011, Republicans have enacted a wide range of conservative priorities. They have all but eliminated collective bargaining for public workers, and since 2019 they’ve been a block on Evers’ agenda, firing Evers appointees and threatening impeachment of Protasiewicz and the state’s elections leader.
Republicans are also just two seats short of a supermajority that would allow them to overturn Evers’ vetoes. Litigation is ongoing in more than dozen states over U.S. House and state legislative districts enacted after the 2020 census.
