N※N

Wisconsin Supreme Court Declares Legislative Maps Unconstitutional

  //travel-leisure.news-articles.net/content/2026/ .. -declares-legislative-maps-unconstitutional.html
  Published in Travel and Leisure on Tuesday, January 6th 2026 at 17:14 GMT by Madison.com

Wisconsin Supreme Court Shakes Up Political Landscape: Declares Current Legislative Maps Unconstitutional and Orders Redraw

In a landmark decision with potentially profound implications for the state's political future, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared the Republican-drawn legislative maps used in recent elections unconstitutionally gerrymandered. The 4-3 ruling, delivered on Thursday, July 18th, effectively voids the existing district boundaries and mandates that a new round of redistricting be undertaken. This decision marks a significant victory for Democratic Governor Tony Evers and his supporters, who have long argued that the maps unfairly favored Republican candidates and diluted the voting power of Democrats.

The Core of the Challenge: Unconstitutional Partisan Gerrymandering

The lawsuit, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Redistricting Commission, challenged the 2011 redistricting process, arguing that the boundaries were drawn with an improper focus on partisan advantage rather than adhering to traditional districting principles like compactness and contiguity. Plaintiffs contended that the maps violated the Wisconsin Constitution’s guarantee of free and equal elections by creating districts designed to maximize Republican representation in the State Assembly and Senate.

The court's majority, now reshaped by recent election gains for liberal-leaning justices, agreed with this assessment. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, writing for the majority, stated that the maps "disregard traditional districting principles" and create “an unusual degree of partisan sort.” The ruling specifically highlighted how Republican mapmakers deliberately targeted Democratic voters to minimize their influence, effectively creating a system where election outcomes are predetermined before voting even begins. The court found the maps to be an abuse of power by the Legislature, which controlled the redistricting process after a bipartisan commission failed to reach consensus.

What Happens Now? A Complex and Uncertain Path Forward

The immediate impact is that the current legislative districts will no longer be used for future elections. However, the path forward isn’t entirely clear-cut. The court's order doesn’t specify how the new maps should be drawn. Several possibilities exist:

• Legislative Redrawing: While the court has cast doubt on the legislature's ability to fairly draw maps, they could theoretically attempt a redrawing process themselves. Given the current partisan divide and the court's criticism of past efforts, this scenario is considered unlikely to produce acceptable results for all parties.
• Redistricting Commission: The court suggested that a new commission be formed to oversee the redistricting process. This commission could be composed of individuals selected by both Republican and Democratic leaders or appointed through other means. The composition of such a commission would be crucial in ensuring fairness and impartiality. The previous bipartisan commission failed due to partisan gridlock, highlighting the challenge of creating a truly neutral body.
• Court-Appointed Special Master: A more radical option is for the court to appoint a special master – an independent expert – to draw the new maps. This would effectively remove the process from political control and potentially lead to districts that are perceived as fairer, although it could also be viewed as judicial overreach.
• Legislature Submits Plans, Court Selects: Another potential route is for the legislature to submit multiple map proposals, which the court then reviews and selects one deemed compliant with constitutional principles.

The ruling did not address the constitutionality of Act 29, a law passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature that limits the governor's power in the redistricting process. The League of Women Voters has indicated it may challenge this act separately. [ See related article here ]

The Broader Implications: A Shift in Wisconsin Politics?

This decision represents a significant shift in the balance of power within Wisconsin politics. The Republican Party has held considerable sway through gerrymandered maps for over a decade, contributing to their dominance in the State Legislature and hindering Democratic efforts to advance policy goals. A fairer map could significantly alter the political landscape, potentially leading to more competitive elections and a closer split between Democrats and Republicans in the legislature.

The ruling also reinforces the growing power of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, particularly with its new liberal majority. It demonstrates the court’s willingness to intervene in politically charged issues and hold the Legislature accountable for adhering to constitutional principles. This could embolden future legal challenges against legislative actions deemed to be unfair or unconstitutional. It's worth noting that Justice Gableman, part of the dissenting 3-judge panel, strongly criticized the ruling as an example of judicial activism. [ See related article here ]

Looking Ahead: The process of redrawing the maps is expected to be lengthy and contentious, with potential legal challenges at every stage. The outcome will significantly impact Wisconsin’s political future for years to come, potentially reshaping the balance of power in the state legislature and influencing policy debates across a wide range of issues.

I hope this article provides a comprehensive summary of the Madison.com article and related context!