In a pivotal session, the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices deliberated on whether to reassess the state’s congressional district map, which has been accused of gerrymandering. The liberal majority on the court is poised to decide if the lawsuits challenging the current map, dismissed earlier by circuit court panels, should be revived.
Legal Challenges and Disputes
The court is considering two lawsuits, both pointing to gerrymandering but with distinct arguments. One suit, filed by the national Democratic firm Elias Law Group, alleges that the existing map was strategically designed by Republicans to maintain their political dominance. Conversely, the liberal firm Law Forward claims the map is anti-competitive, protecting incumbents and thus stifling electoral competition. More details on these cases can be found here and here.
Representatives for Republican lawmakers and the GOP-led Wisconsin Legislature have rejected these claims, arguing that the plaintiffs are bypassing the legislative process. The legal battle, which spanned nearly eight hours of debate, centers on whether the current 6-2 Republican majority in Wisconsin’s congressional delegation was intentionally crafted through partisan redistricting in 2011, later upheld by the previous conservative Supreme Court majority in a 2022 decision.
The “Least Change” Directive Under Scrutiny
Central to the arguments is the so-called “least change” directive, which the Supreme Court had previously endorsed to make minimal adjustments to existing maps. Elias attorney Abha Khanna criticized this approach, stating, “There’s only one least change map left standing in Wisconsin. That map is essentially resting on legal quicksand.”
Chief Justice Jill Karofsky, part of the liberal majority, expressed concern that adhering to the least change principle entrenches the original political biases of the 2011 Legislature. Meanwhile, Justice Brian Hagedorn defended past decisions, arguing there was no intention to favor any political party.
Debate Over Anti-Competitive Gerrymandering
The concept of anti-competitive gerrymandering, as presented by Law Forward, seemed to puzzle some justices. This argument posits that the 2011 map secured both Republican and Democratic incumbents, denying voters genuine choices. Justice Rebecca Dallet questioned whether this theory accounted for the popularity of certain incumbents, suggesting that it might not consider the individual strengths of candidates.
Law Forward’s attorney Nicholas Stephanopoulos proposed using computer-generated maps to assess competitiveness by comparing statewide party performances with district outcomes. This method, he argued, would eliminate candidate-specific advantages by focusing on elections like presidential and gubernatorial races.
Future of the Gerrymandering Lawsuits
The Supreme Court is tasked with determining whether the earlier dismissal of the lawsuits by three-judge panels was appropriate. These panels had argued that they lacked the authority to overturn a map sanctioned by the state’s highest court. Republican attorneys cautioned that any circuit court intervention could lead to constitutional challenges and potential overturn by the U.S. Supreme Court.
However, lawyers for Law Forward and Elias Law Group maintain that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has the capacity to review and potentially remand the cases for further consideration. The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for the state’s electoral landscape.
