WI Supreme Court Rules Against Majority of Wisconsinites

By: Irene Bugge

On November 30, a divided Wisconsin Supreme Court announced that they would use a “least change” approach to drawing new voting district boundaries. While over 70% of Wisconsinites have made it clear that they value nonpartisan fairness in map drawing, the court voted to keep as much as possible of the 2011 heavily gerrymandered maps. 

This decision would cement, for the next decade, the partisan advantage that has existed for the last ten years. The Court hasn’t adopted maps yet, so there still is time to make improvements around the edges, but this decision makes it clear they don’t want to hear arguments about fairness.

Calling out the court’s decision as partisan was swift. Sachin Chheda, director of the Fair Elections Project said, “The majority of the State Supreme Court has once again demonstrated its loyalty is to the Republican Party, not the laws of Wisconsin.”

Was the court’s decision influenced by politics? Consider the following.

First, the State Supreme Court’s decision to take this case was highly unusual. In fact, this was the first time in over 50 years that the Wisconsin Supreme Court was willing to draw new voting district maps. Historically, federal courts, not state courts, with elected judges, have resolved redistricting issues. Federal courts have more experience with redistricting matters, and because federal judges are appointed for life, they are perceived to be more impartial. Why did the court take this case?

Second, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision to use a “least change” approach is also atypical. In fact, the Wisconsin State Constitution says that the legislature is to begin “anew” with maps every ten years, not use the previous map as a template for the new map. The “least change” approach is neither a constitutional requirement nor a traditional redistricting criterion.