(WPR) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal of the lawsuit that struck down Wisconsin’s Republican-drawn legislative map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
It gives Republicans defending the map a chance at vindication, and it gives Democrats challenging the map a chance to set a new standard in redistricting cases that could upend partisan gerrymanders throughout the country.
The nation’s highest court announced its decision to take the case in a brief order Monday. It said it would postpone the question of whether it has jurisdiction "to the hearing of the case on the merits."
Redistricting experts widely believed justices would hear Wisconsin’s appeal because it’s so unusual.
Legislative boundaries get redrawn every decade after the U.S. Census to make sure they’re equal in population, but when one party controls all of state government as Republicans did after the 2010 wave election, they can draw maps that give themselves a partisan edge.
The 2-1 decision that struck down Wisconsin’s legislative map found Republicans were so partisan and so precise in their drawing of Wisconsin’s legislative map in 2011 that they had silenced the voices of Democratic voters in the process.
While redistricting challenges are common, the U.S. Supreme Court has never upheld a partisan redistricting lawsuit. The Democratic plaintiffs in Wisconsin’s case are hoping to change that.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on the court, wrote a 12-page concurrence to a 2004 redistricting case that suggested he was open to striking down political gerrymanders if someone could come up with a way to measure how much partisanship is too much.
The groups challenging Wisconsin’s case developed a new metric for measuring partisanship that they call the "efficiency gap." It compares the total number of votes cast for the Legislature statewide to the total number of seats a party wins.
The higher the efficiency gap, plaintiffs say, the more dramatic the partisan gerrymander, and Wisconsin’s legislative map had one of the highest efficiency gaps of any redistricting plan in the nation going back four decades.
While the precise schedule of Wisconsin’s redistricting case is not yet known, experts say the court could hear oral arguments late this year or early next year, and a decision in the case is almost sure to come by June 2018.
The timing of how the case unfolds is especially important.
As it stands now, the same court that struck down Wisconsin’s map issued a separate 3-0 decision ordering the state Legislature to draw a new map by November 2017 so it would be ready in time for the 2018 election cycle.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice, led by Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel, asked the court to stay that ruling, which would let Wisconsin’s current legislative map remain in place while this Supreme Court appeal proceeds.
If the Legislature is forced to draw new maps, they’d have to be more competitive, which would give Democrats a better shot at winning legislative seats than they have right now.
Whichever party controls the Legislature after the 2020 election would have a shot at drawing legislative boundaries for the next decade.
Wisconsin Public Radio, © Copyright 2017, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System and Wisconsin Educational Communications Board.
Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty: Statement on U.S. Supreme Court decision to hear Gill v. Whitford, Wisconsin’s redistricting case
PRESS RELEASE -- Today, in a highly significant development, the United States Supreme Court has decided to hear Gill v. Whitford, the long running challenge to Wisconsin’s legislative maps. The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take the case. Following is a statement from Rick Esenberg, WILL president and general counsel, on today’s decision:
“In this case, what the plaintiffs have effectively asked the Court to do is gerrymander in favor of competitiveness, that is, to draw maps that compensate for the fact that Democrat voters tend to be more geographically concentrated. That’s a political judgment the Court has repeatedly recognized as nonjusticiable.
“As Judge Griesbach noted in his dissent in Gill, the remarkable thing about the case is that these allegedly gerrymandered maps actually respect all traditional redistricting principles. We are confident the Supreme Court, as it has in the past, will decline to insert the judiciary into political questions on whether or not to make up whatever natural disadvantage these maps may confer.”
The Supreme Court also issued a stay of the three judge redistricting panel’s order to have new maps drawn by November 1, 2017, pending the Court’s decision in Gill.
AG Schimel Statement on SCOTUS Stay in Redistricting Case
PRESS RELEASE -- By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court of the United States this morning granted Attorney General Brad D. Schimel’s application for a stay in the redistricting case, Gill v. Whitford. Earlier today, the Court agreed to hear the case, which is expected to be scheduled for oral argument during the term starting in October 2017.
The stay prevents implementation of the three-judge panel’s ruling, which would have required the Wisconsin Legislature to redraw district maps in the coming months.
Attorney General Brad Schimel released the following statement in response.
”The stay is particularly important because it preserves the Legislature’s time, effort, and resources while this case is pending. In our stay application, I argued that requiring the Legislature to re-draw district maps this year would have been a waste of resources. I also argued that it was likely that the lower court’s decision would be eventually overturned. I am pleased that the Court granted our request on this important issue.”
AG Schimel Statement on SCOTUS Decision to Take Redistricting Case
PRESS RELEASE -- Earlier today, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to decide the redistricting case, Gill v. Whitford, after the maps were struck down last year by a divided three-judge panel in the Western District of Wisconsin.
Attorney General Brad Schimel released the following statement in response to the Court’s decision.
"I am thrilled the Supreme Court has granted our request to review the redistricting decision and that Wisconsin will have an opportunity to defend its redistricting process. As I have said before, our redistricting process was entirely lawful and constitutional, and the district court should be reversed."
Democratic Party of Wisconsin Statement on SCOTUS Decision to Review Partisan Redistricting
PRESS RELEASE -- The following is the statement of Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Martha Laning with regards to the Supreme Court of the United States' decision to review partisan redistricting in Wisconsin:
"Last year, the courts found that the 2011 redistricting process, led by state Republicans behind closed doors, created Assembly district lines that violated the constitutional rights of the voters.
"I am confident that the 2011 legislative maps will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as well and electoral fairness will be restored to Wisconsin. District maps should be fair and each vote should matter. Every voter should have their voice heard and have the chance to be represented by someone who shares their values.
"I look forward to the creation of new district lines that respect Wisconsin's tradition of fair and open government and ensure that all of the people and communities in our state are represented equally."
Last Update: Jun 19, 2017 1:27 pm CDT
