Those challenging Wisconsin’s congressional map as an “anti-competitive gerrymander” argue the state Supreme Court should appoint a three-judge panel to hear the case.
But GOP members of the state’s congressional delegation countered the lawsuit doesn’t fit with the Legislature’s intention for the process it laid out in 2011 to hear an apportionment challenge.
In dueling filings late Thursday, the two sides laid out their arguments on whether the justices should allow the challenge to move forward under a 2011 GOP-authored law that directs the Supreme Court to appoint a three-judge panel to hear an apportionment challenge to a legislative or congressional district.
The GOP House members argued in an amicus brief that the 2011 law was meant to apply only to legislative apportionment or redistricting. The congressional map currently in place was picked by the state Supreme Court in 2022 after the GOP-controlled Legislature and Dem Gov. Tony Evers couldn’t agree on new lines.
>> 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 House Republicans argue the law applies to “legislative acts of redistricting, not court judgments.” They want the request for a three-judge panel to be rejected. Republicans hold an 6-2 edge in the Wisconsin House delegation.
“Appointing a three-judge panel here would flip the constitutional hierarchy of Wisconsin’s judiciary on its head, empowering an inferior tribunal to override a final judgment of this Court,” the Republicans argued.
But attorneys for the Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy, which supports free and fair elections, countered the 2011 law “unambiguously encompasses” the lawsuit. What’s more, the group’s attorneys argued Wisconsin case law includes numerous decisions where that interchangeably use the terms “apportionment,” “reapportionment,” and “redistricting,” and the law therefore covers the lawsuit
The business leaders’ brief also argues the court’s role at this point is ministerial and the justices should appoint the three-judge panel. Those judges could then consider arguments over whether it is appropriate for the panel to hear the case and to adjudicate and decide the factual issues raised by plaintiffs’ complaint and to thoughtfully consider and rule on the legal issues before they reach this Court.”
There are two challenges to the maps pending before the court, both seeking the appointment of a three-judge panel. The justices asked for briefs by yesterday in both cases laying out arguments on whether they should appoint the panel.The second suit was filed by a group of Dem voters represented by the firm of Marc Elias alleging the map is a partisan gerrymander. The Dem voters yesterday urged the court to act quickly so a new map could be in place before the August 2026 primary if the lines are found to be unconstitutional.
