Wisconsin Supreme Court to Review Dismissed Gerrymandering Lawsuit
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to revisit a previously dismissed lawsuit challenging the state’s congressional district maps, accused of being an “anti-competitive gerrymander.” This decision comes at a time when redistricting battles are unfolding across the nation, with both Republican and Democratic states seeking to influence congressional control through map redesigns.
Originally dismissed in April, the lawsuit was filed by the liberal firm Law Forward representing Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy. The plaintiffs allege that the current district design gives an undue advantage to incumbents, noting that Republicans presently hold six of the state’s eight congressional seats.
Filed initially in Dane County Circuit Court, the lawsuit took an unusual route to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs requested the case be heard by a panel of county judges, as per an untested 2011 statute enacted when Republicans dominated Wisconsin’s government. However, the panel ruled it could not alter the congressional map on partisan grounds, leaving that power to the Supreme Court.
After the panel’s dismissal, attorneys for the Business Leaders group petitioned the state’s highest court, contending the panel’s decision was based on a flawed understanding of partisan gerrymandering. Their argument focuses on “anti-competitive” practices rather than partisan bias.
The Supreme Court’s liberal justices, including Rebecca Dallet, Janet Protasiewicz, Susan Crawford, and Chief Justice Jill Karofsky, have agreed to hear the appeal but declined to expedite it. Notably, the conservative justices, Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley, expressed strong opposition. Bradley criticized the court’s decision, suggesting it was politically motivated, and predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court may reverse the ruling. Ziegler questioned the appeal’s legitimacy under the 2011 law.
Liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet retorted to the dissents, dismissing them as “false, inappropriate, and disingenuous.” She clarified that agreeing to hear the case does not imply any bias toward the outcome.
This appeal is part of a broader national pattern, as states like Texas and California have redrawn their congressional maps to enhance their political parties’ chances in the midterms, emphasizing the ongoing tug-of-war over congressional control.
