The Wisconsin Supreme Court today appointed separate three-judge panels to hear two lawsuits seeking new congressional lines, opening the door to new maps being in place ahead of the 2026 elections.
Conservative Justice Annette Ziegler slammed the move, accusing her colleagues of acting “in furtherance of delivering partisan, political advantage to the Democratic Party.”
Today’s orders come amid a national debate over mid-decade redistricting after President Donald Trump initiated a push in Texas to create more GOP seats. That triggered a series of states looking to redraw their maps with Republicans clinging to a narrow majority in the House of Representatives. Though Wisconsin is a perpetual swing state in national elections, Republicans currently have a 6-2 GOP majority in its House delegation.
It was unclear how long the three-judge panels would take to review the suits now before them. It is the first time the state has used a GOP-authored law from 2011 laying out a process to hear a challenge to a congressional district.
>> WisPolitics is now on the State Affairs network. Get custom keyword notifications, bill tracking and all WisPolitics content. Get the app or access via desktop.
The Elections Commission has consistently said it needs maps in place by March in order for candidates to begin circulating nomination papers April 15.
Elias Law Group partner Abha Khanna, part of the legal team for one set of plaintiffs, called the appointment of the three-judge panel a positive development, adding “we look forward to continuing the fight for fair maps in Wisconsin before the 2026 midterm elections.”
The attorneys for the GOP members of the House delegation declined comment.
U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Prairie du Chien and a top Dem target next fall, responded to news about the court’s order with a post on X saying that “These folks care about one thing: power.”
Now, one three-judge panel will hear a lawsuit that alleges the current map is an anti-competitive gerrymander that protects incumbents and eliminates meaningful competition in the seats.
The other will hear a suit that alleges the map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
Along with ripping the court’s decision, Ziegler slammed how the liberal majority selected the judges who will serve on the two panels.
Five of them endorsed liberal Susan Crawford ahead of this spring’s race as she won an open seat on the court. The lone judge who didn’t was appointed to the bench by Dem Gov. Tony Evers in 2019.
“Hand picking circuit court judges to perform political maneuvering is unimaginable,” Ziegler wrote.
The court in June unanimously rejected two lawsuits seeking new maps, including one filed by the same legal team involved in the current case alleging a partisan gerrymander. But in those cases, the plaintiffs asked the justices to overturn the 2022 ruling that put the lines in place. The latest challenges instead sought the appointment of three-judge panels under the 2011 law.
Attorney Doug Poland with Law Forward, the firm involved in the anti-competitive gerrymander suit, hailed the court for rejecting “efforts to stonewall our case by attorneys” for GOP congressmen and the Republican-controlled state Legislature. He said the firm looks forward to “prevailing on the merits, and delivering competitive congressional maps for the voters of Wisconsin.”
Wisconsin’s GOP members of Congress had urged the court to dismiss both suits, arguing they don’t fit under the parameters of the process the Republican-controlled Legislature laid out in a 2011 bill that was signed by then-Gov. Scott Walker.
The congressional lines now in place were approved by the then-conservative majority on the state Supreme Court after Dem Gov. Tony Evers and GOP lawmakers who control the Legislature were unable to agree on new lines. In that suit, the court ordered the parties to take a least-change approach to the maps Republicans drew in 2011 when the GOP had full control of the Capitol. Ultimately, the court chose the lines submitted by Evers.
Republicans argued that process was reserved for a challenge to the lines drawn by lawmakers and approved by the governor and wasn’t applicable to a map imposed by the court.
The liberal majority on the court rejected that argument, declining “to adopt such a cramped reading of the statute, particularly given that neither we nor other courts have consistently used the term ‘apportionment’ in such a limited sense.”
Ziegler and fellow conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley dissented, arguing a panel of three circuit court judges doesn’t have the authority under Wisconsin’s Constitution to overturn a decision issued by the state Supreme Court.
“The text of the constitution is clear; this court’s decisions are final,” Ziegler wrote. “That should be the beginning and end of this case. The court should leave it in the hands of the People through their elected representatives to decide their maps.”
Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn sided with his four liberal colleagues in finding that the 2011 law was applicable to both challenges. Still, he didn’t agree with the process the liberal majority used in selecting the panel.
Both lawsuits were filed with a Dane County judge, and each was appointed to one of the panels.
Along with Dane County Judge Julie Genovese, Milwaukee County Judge Mark Sanders and Outagamie County Judge Emily Lonergan will hear the lawsuit that claims the maps are an illegal partisan gerrymander.
Dane County Judge David Conway, Portage County Judge Patricia Baker and Marathon County Judge Michael Moran will hear the suit claiming the lines are an anti-competitive gerrymander.
Hagedorn wrote he would’ve appointed a randomly selected panel. Instead, he wrote his colleagues had hand-selected two judges to serve with their Dane County counterpart who originally received the suit.
“To be clear, I am not suggesting the judicial panel will fail to do its job with integrity and impartiality,” Hagedorn wrote. “But this approach is an odd choice in the face of a statute so clearly designed to deter litigants from selecting their preferred venue and judge.”
Of the judges appointed, all but Lonergan endorsed Crawford ahead of this spring’s election. Lonergan was appointed to the bench by Evers, and she listed on her application having endorsed liberal Supreme Court candidates Lisa Neubauer, Rebecca Dallet, Ed Fallone and JoAnne Kloppenburg.
Crawford and fellow liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz today rejected efforts by GOP members of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation to force them off the suits.
In both cases, the congressmen and GOP voters had argued the justices were biased.
Crawford participated in a fundraising call ahead of the election put together by organizers who billed the race as a chance to pick up congressional seats for Dems. Meanwhile, they cited the nearly $10 million in support Protasiewicz received from the Dem Party during her 2023 race and comments she made knocking the maps.
Protasiewicz wrote the motion “lacks any basis in law.”
Crawford wrote that demanding a justice recuse because of statements made by third parties “improperly implies that the judge had endorsed or adopted such views. This insinuation is inappropriate, particularly where the judge has expressly disclaimed such an endorsement, and undermines judicial impartiality. Further, it would chill protected speech and undermine this court’s central role of deciding cases of statewide importance.”
