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
- Whether the existing congressional and legislative districts had become unconstitutional under the Wisconsin Constitution’s equal-population requirement due to post-2010 population changes.
- 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.
- 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.