## Facts

- Following the 2020 census, Wisconsin was required to redraw congressional and state legislative districts to meet equal-population requirements.
- The legislature passed new maps, but the governor vetoed them, leaving no enacted post-census plan.
- Voters filed an original action alleging they resided in districts drawn from the 2010 census that had become malapportioned and unconstitutional.
- The parties agreed the existing (2011) districts no longer had substantially equal population due to population shifts.
- Petitioners sought a declaration that the existing maps violated the Wisconsin Constitution and requested court-imposed remedial maps; some parties urged the court to address partisan gerrymandering and adopt “politically fair” maps.
- The court accepted original jurisdiction to set the standards governing any judicial remedy.

## Issues

1. Whether the existing congressional and legislative districts had become unconstitutional under the Wisconsin Constitution’s equal-population requirement due to post-2010 population changes.
2. If the political branches failed to enact new maps, what role the court should play and what remedial standard it should apply in selecting or crafting maps.
3. Whether claims seeking “politically fair” maps or alleging partisan gerrymandering present justiciable legal questions.

## Decision

- The court declared the existing districts malapportioned and unconstitutional because they no longer satisfied the equal-population requirement.
- The court held that partisan-gerrymandering or “political fairness” claims present nonjusticiable political questions for Wisconsin courts.
- The court adopted a “least-change” remedial approach: any court-selected remedy should make the smallest changes from the prior districts necessary to cure legal violations and comply with governing law.
- The court did not impose final maps in this decision; it established criteria and invited submissions of proposed maps consistent with those criteria.

## Legal Principles

- The Wisconsin Constitution requires redistricting after each decennial census so districts are apportioned on substantially equal population (“one person, one vote”).
- When existing maps are unconstitutional and the political process fails to produce a valid replacement, a court may act to provide a remedial map for constitutional compliance.
- Redistricting is primarily a legislative function; judicial remedies should be limited to curing legal defects and avoiding unnecessary policy choices.
- “Political fairness” and partisan-gerrymandering claims lack judicially manageable standards under Wisconsin law and are nonjusticiable political questions.
- In choosing among legally compliant remedial proposals, the court may prefer plans that minimally alter existing districts while satisfying equal-population requirements and other applicable federal and state constraints (including the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act).

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Wisconsin’s existing post-2010 districts were unconstitutional due to malapportionment, limited judicial intervention to a least-change remedy aimed at legal compliance, and declined to adjudicate partisan-fairness challenges as political questions.


Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, 399 Wis. 2d 623, 967 N.W.2d 469 (Wis. 2021)