Data Wonk: The State Supreme Court Minority’s View of Gerrymandering
Karofsky’s opinion starts with the current district map’s violation of Wisconsin’s requirement that districts be contiguous. This means that all the parts of the district are connected to the rest of the district. Instead, at least half of the districts have small islands that are completely surrounded by other districts.
The court majority concluded that these islands do not qualify as contiguous, thus violating the Wisconsin Constitution. It offered the Legislature the chance to develop a district plan that satisfied the constitution and send it to the governor for his signature or veto.
What happens next depends on whether the governor approves the Legislature’s map. If he approves the revised maps, they take effect starting with the 2024 fall election. It is likely, I think, that his approval will not come unless he concludes the maps do not favor one or the other of the two major parties.
But the much more likely scenario is that the Legislature will submit a map to protect Republican dominance, which will be vetoed by the governor. Once again responsibility for the maps would revert to the Supreme Court. The court’s decision prepares for this eventuality by hiring two consultants, who are charged with coming up with a map that the court could select.
In her dissent, Rebecca Bradley complains that the majority neglects to offer a single measure, metric, standard, or criterion by which it will gauge ‘partisan impact.’ Most convenient for the majority’s endgame, there aren’t any, lending the majority unfettered license to design remedial maps fulfilling the majority’s purely political objectives.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision on redistricting is a hopeful sign for the future of democracy in Wisconsin. That said, we are at the start of the process, not the end. The court’s aim is to promote fairness and end the practice of gerrymandering, which has been an issue in Wisconsin for years.
In their dissents, Justices Ziegler, Rebecca Bradley, and Hagedorn express differing opinions on the court’s decision. Hagedorn accuses the court majority of favoring one political party over another, highlighting the need for neutrality in judicial process and consistent application of rules.
Hagedorn’s dissent, though concise, fails to acknowledge the court’s desire to remove the existing imbalance and restore fairness to the redistricting process. His argument suggests that the court’s decision perpetuates the gerrymandering that originated from the previous redistricting law.
Rebecca Bradley, on the other hand, focuses on the lack of clear measures to gauge partisan impact in the majority’s decision. She criticizes the majority’s ability to design remedial maps that align with their own political objectives without adhering to any specific criteria or standards.
The efficiency gap, a measure of partisan impact, is one approach to evaluating the fairness of district maps. It compares the wasted votes of the two major parties in an election. The gaps for various Wisconsin maps demonstrate the severity of gerrymandering in the state. Comparing them to maps developed by Matt Petering, an engineering faculty member at UW-Milwaukee, highlights the potential for creating fairer district boundaries that prioritize voters over party interests.
The inclusion of data on voting patterns in map development remains a contentious point. While the Iowa model is often cited as a fair example, it falls short of achieving optimal fairness due to a provision in the law that prohibits the use of such data. However, many other states have devised maps that rate better than Iowa’s, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and tailored approach to redistricting.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recognition of the need to address gerrymandering is a step forward in safeguarding democracy in the state. The decision sets the stage for the future of redistricting, aiming to establish fair and balanced maps that prioritize the voice of every voter. As the process unfolds, the court’s consultants will play a crucial role in developing a map that upholds these principles.
While the decision marks progress, it is important to monitor future developments closely. The path to fair redistricting in Wisconsin may face further challenges, but the court’s commitment to promoting democracy offers hope for a more equitable political landscape.
