WI Supreme Court orders new legislative maps

This information is provided by Government Policy Solutions, Madison, WI.

In a 4-3 ruling released today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered that new legislative district maps be drawn for the 2024 elections.

The court found that the current state legislative district maps violate the state constitution requirement that legislative districts be contiguous.

"In Wisconsin the number of state legislative districts containing territory completely disconnected from the rest of the district is striking," the majority opinion says. "At least 50 of 99 assembly districts and at least 20 of 33 senate districts include separate, detached territory. A particularly stark example is the Madison-area 47th Assembly District. This district contains more than a dozen separate, detached parts that are home to thousands of people who must cross one or more other districts before reaching another part of the 47th."

"We hold that the contiguity requirements in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 mean what they say: Wisconsin's state legislative districts must be composed of physically adjoining territory. Because the current state legislative districts contain separate, detached territory and therefore violate the constitution's contiguity requirements, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in future elections."

The court is requiring that new maps be drawn and adopted in time for the fall primary in August 2024. If new legislative maps cannot successfully make it through the legislative process without the governor's veto in time for the August 2024 primary elections, the court plans to adopt remedial maps for 2024.

The court says it will use the following principles when adopting remedial legislative maps for 2024:

1. The districts must comply with population equality requirements, with the state's population to be distributed equally among legislative districts;
2. Districts must meet the basic requirements in the state constitution relating to contiguous territory;
3. The maps must comply with all applicable federal laws, including the population equality requirement discussed above, the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965;
4. The court will consider other traditional districting criteria not specifically outlined in the Wisconsin or United States Constitution, but still commonly considered by courts tasked with formulating maps, such as reducing municipal splits and preserving communities of interest; and
5. The court will consider partisan impact when evaluating remedial maps but "will take care to avoid selecting remedial maps designed to advantage one political party over another."

The court will use the following process for considering remedial maps:

"In broad strokes, all parties will be given the opportunity to submit remedial legislative district maps to the court, along with expert evidence and an explanation of how their maps comport with the principles laid out in this opinion. The court will appoint one or more consultants who will aid in evaluating the remedial maps. Parties will have the opportunity to respond to each other, and to the consultant's report."

The court decision also noted that, although it will move forward with remedial maps for 2024, the Legislature should also move forward with its own legislation, as both avenues can proceed concurrently.

The majority opinion was filed by Justices Jill Karofsky, Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet and Janet Protasiewicz.

Justices Annette Ziegler, Rebecca Grassl Bradley and Brian Hagedorn filed dissenting opinions.

Their dissenting opinions read in part:

•  Chief Justice Annette Ziegler - This is an "extreme remedy" but "this deal was sealed on election night," when liberal-leaning Janet Protasiewicz was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this year, flipping the court from a conservative- to a liberal-leaning majority.
• Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley - "Riding a Trojan horse named Contiguity, the majority breaches the lines of demarcation separating the judiciary from the political branches in order to transfer power from one political party to another.”
• Justice Brian Hagedorn - "This is a sad turn for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Today, the court dives headlong into politics, choosing to wield the power it has while it has it. Wisconsinites searching for an institution unpolluted by partisan warfare will not find it here."

Click here to read the court decision. 

Click here to see the response of Gov. Tony Evers.