State Supreme Court rejects GOP-backed map rules
State Supreme Court justices on Friday rejected a plan meant to ensure lawsuits over new legislative and congressional district boundaries go to them instead of federal judges.
The court voted to deny a request filed last summer to change state court rules from former Republican Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen and conservative legal firm Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.
“The court determined that, as drafted, the procedures proposed in this administrative rule petition are unlikely to materially aid this court’s consideration of an as yet undefined future redistricting challenge, and voted to deny the petition,” the order said.
“Our decision in this rule matter should not be deemed predictive of this court’s response to a petition for review asking this court to review a lower court’s ruling on a redistricting challenge or a request that we assume original jurisdiction over a future redistricting case or controversy,” the justices added.
“It remains well-settled that redistricting challenges often merit this court’s exercise of its original jurisdiction.”
The request reflected the enormity of the political stakes of the next round of redistricting in a purple state like Wisconsin, recognizing that it is all but certain to be courts and not legislators that have the final say on what legislative and congressional districts look like for the next decade.
Where the lines are drawn plays a major role in determining who controls the Legislature and has an upper hand in the state’s congressional delegation. Republican lawmakers established maps in 2011 that handed them large majorities in the Statehouse and an advantage in five of the state’s eight congressional districts.
States are required to draw new legislative and congressional districts before the 2022 elections to account for changes in population. With split control of state government, courts are widely expected to have to decide where to draw Wisconsin’s lines.
Rick Esenberg, the institute’s president and general counsel, said the petition was filed based on “prior remarks from the Court that a rule would be helpful for it in assessing redistricting matters.”
“The Court has determined the proposed rule is not needed, but has made clear that rejection of the rule does not mean the Court will reject its jurisdictional role with respect to redistricting,” Esenberg said in a statement.
Sachin Chheda, director fo the Fair Elections Project, praised the order denying the petition.
“The State Supreme Court has made the right decision in denying the effort to rig the map-drawing process through a ridiculously partisan proposed rule,” he said.