MADISON, Wis. (AP) \u2014 The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a pair of three-judge panels to\u00a0hear two lawsuits\u00a0that argue the battleground state\u2019s congressional maps must be redrawn because they unconstitutionally favor Republicans.<\/p>\n
The court’s minority conservative justices blasted the creation of the three-judge panels as unimaginable political maneuvering designed to benefit Democrats. It’s unclear whether new districts could be ordered in time for the 2026 midterms as some Democrats want.<\/p>\n
The court battle in Wisconsin is playing out amid a national redistricting battle as President Donald\u00a0Trump is trying to preserve\u00a0a slim Republican majority in the House in next year\u2019s elections.<\/p>\n
Both of the pending redistricting cases in Wisconsin argue that the state\u2019s congressional maps, first adopted in 2011, are an unconstitutional gerrymander favoring Republicans. Six of the state’s eight districts are currently held by Republicans.<\/p>\n
Law firms that brought the pending cases in Wisconsin had argued over objections from Republicans that the cases should be heard by three-judge panels as required under a 2011 law passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature and signed by then-Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican. Any decisions of those panels can be appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is controlled 4-3 by liberal justices.<\/p>\n
The court\u2019s rulings to proceed with the three-judge panels were 5-2, with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn agreeing with liberal justices that the panels were appropriate. But Hagedorn objected to the court assigning the judges to hear the cases, saying a more neutral process should have been used.<\/p>\n
\u201cI am not suggesting the judicial panel will fail to do its job with integrity and impartiality,\u201d Hagedorn wrote. \u201cBut 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
One case will be heard by judges from Dane, Portage and Marathon counties. All three of the judges endorsed Justice Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate in this year\u2019s Wisconsin Supreme Court race, and two of them were appointed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.<\/p>\n
The other case will be heard by judges from Dane, Milwaukee and Outagamie counties. Two of the judges endorsed the liberal Crawford this year and the third was appointed by Evers.<\/p>\n
The two dissenting conservative justices blasted the court’s ruling creating the panels.<\/p>\n
\u201cHand picking circuit court judges to perform political maneuvering is unimaginable,\u201d Justice Annette Ziegler wrote. \u201cYet, my colleagues persist and appear to do this, all in furtherance of delivering partisan, political advantage to the Democratic Party.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court did not address the underlying arguments of the lawsuit, only the procedural question of whether the cases should first be heard by three-judge panels.<\/p>\n
The lawsuits argue that the state’s current congressional district boundary lines are unconstitutional and need to be redrawn. One case was brought by a bipartisan\u00a0coalition of business leaders\u00a0and the other was filed on behalf of voters by the liberal Elias Law Group.<\/p>\n
Abha Khanna, a partner with Elias Law Group, said the ruling was a \u201cpositive development\u201d in the fight for new maps before the 2026 midterms.<\/p>\n
Doug Poland, an attorney with Law Forward which represents the business group, said he looked forward to \u201cdelivering competitive congressional maps for the voters of Wisconsin,\u201d but didn’t give a timeframe.<\/p>\n
Wisconsin\u2019s six Republican members of Congress also argued that two of the four liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court justices who accepted millions of dollars in campaign donations from the state Democratic Party should not participate in the cases. But both Crawford and Justice Janet Protasiewicz declined to step aside.<\/p>\n
Republicans hold six of the state\u2019s eight U.S. House seats, but only two of those districts are considered competitive. In 2010, the year before Republicans redrew the congressional maps, Democrats held five seats compared with three for Republicans.<\/p>\n
The current congressional maps, which were based on the previous ones, were approved by the state Supreme Court when it was controlled by conservative judges. The U.S. Supreme Court in March 2022\u00a0declined to block\u00a0them from taking effect.<\/p>\n
Democrats are pushing to have the current maps redrawn in ways that would put two of the six seats currently held by Republicans into play. One they hope to flip is the western Wisconsin seat of Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who won in 2022 after longtime Democratic Rep. Ron Kind retired. Van Orden won reelection in the 3rd District in 2024.<\/p>\n
The other seat they are eyeing is southeastern Wisconsin\u2019s 1st District, held by Republican Rep. Bryan Steil since 2019. The latest maps made that district more competitive while still favoring Republicans.<\/p>\n
The cases are pending after the Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this year\u00a0refused to hear\u00a0other congressional redistricting challenges.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
MADISON, Wis. (AP) \u2014 The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a pair of three-judge panels to\u00a0hear two<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2333,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-us"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2332"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2332\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2334,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2332\/revisions\/2334"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}