Redistricting in Wisconsin after the 2020 census

Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures • Majority-minority districts • Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 • Congressional apportionment • Redistricting committees • Deadlines • 2022 House elections with multiple incumbents • New U.S.House districts created after apportionment • Congressional maps • State legislative maps • Lawsuits • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections • Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Wisconsin.

Legislative redistricting
On February 19, 2024, Gov. Tony Evers (D) signed Senate Bill 488 into law, adopting new Wisconsin legislative maps. The maps were approved by majority votes in both chambers of Wisconsin's state legislature on February 13. The state Senate voted 18-14 in favor of adopting the new legislative maps, while the state Assembly vote total was 63-33.

In the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, Janet Protasiewicz defeated Daniel Kelly, changing the balance of the court from a conservative to a liberal majority for the first time in 15 years. On December 22, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 vote that the state's legislative maps were unconstitutional and ordered new maps to be drawn before the 2024 election.

Click here for more information.

Congressional redistricting
Wisconsin enacted its congressional districts on March 3, 2022, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved congressional proposals submitted by Gov. Tony Evers (D). Evers vetoed a legislatively-approved congressional district map on November 18. Those maps had passed the state Senate on October 20 by a 21-12 vote split along party lines, with all Republicans in the chamber voting for the proposal and all Democrats voting against it. They had passed the House on November 11 by a 60-38 party-line vote.

Click here for more information.

Each of Wisconsin's eight United States representatives and 132 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in Wisconsin is also provided.

Summary

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

• February 19, 2024: Gov. Tony Evers signed Senate Bill 488 into law, adopting the same state legislative maps he proposed in 2021.
• February 13, 2024: The Wisconsin State Senate voted 18-14 in favor of adopting the new legislative maps in Senate Bill 488. The Wisconsin State Assembly also voted in favor of adopting the bill 63-33.
• December 22, 2023: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the current state legislative maps unconstitutional and ordered new maps before the 2024 election.
• April 15, 2022: The Wisconsin Supreme Court approved state legislative maps drawn by the state legislature.
• March 23, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision adopting Gov. Evers' state legislative redistricting maps and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• March 3, 2022: The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 to adopt Gov. Evers' map proposals, enacting them into law.
• December 15, 2021: Evers submitted proposals for congressional and state legislative maps to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on December 15.
• November 30, 2021: The supreme court announced it would seek to make as few changes as possible to the current legislative and congressional maps adopted in 2011.
• November 18, 2021: Gov. Evers vetoed the legislative and congressional map earlier approved by the legislature.
• November 11, 2021: The House voted to approve state legislative and congressional maps in a 60-38 party-line vote.
• November 8, 2021: The Senate voted to approve state legislative and congressional redistricting plans in a 21-12 vote split along party lines.
• November 3, 2021: The People's Maps Commission released its final proposed state legislative and congressional maps.
• October 20, 2021: Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) introduced state legislative and congressional map proposals.
• October 6, 2021: The three-judge panel overseeing the federal court lawsuit agreed to pause proceedings until at least November 5, but said that the court would continue to prepare for a trial in January 2022 if maps are not enacted.
• October 1, 2021: The People's Maps Commission, a redistricting commission established by Gov. Evers, released map proposals for Wisconsin's state legislative and congressional districts.
• September 28, 2021: The Wisconsin Senate approved the resolution calling for new district maps to adhere as closely as possible to existing districts in a 19-12 vote along party lines, and the General Assembly approved it in a 60-38 vote.
• September 23, 2021: A Wisconsin General Assembly committee voted to bring a resolution before the full Assembly for a vote on September 28, 2021.
• September 22, 2021: The supreme court decided 4-3 to hear the redistricting case filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.
• September 16, 2021: The presiding judges in the initial August 13 lawsuit denied a motion to dismiss the case.
• September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• September 13, 2021: Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) and Attorney General Josh Kaul (D) asked the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin to allow Evers to intervene in the initial August 13 lawsuit, saying that the governor has the right to intervene based on state law.
• September 1, 2021: The three-judge panel presiding over the initial lawsuit granted legislative Republican's motion to intervene in the suit.
• August 23, 2021: The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, also known as WILL, filed a lawsuit with the Wisconsin Supreme Court asking the court to establish a timeline for the legislature and Gov. Tony Evers (D) to agree on new maps and to draw the maps themselves should they be unable to. On the same day, another lawsuit filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin by voting rights groups asked the federal court to do the same.
• August 13, 2021: Attorney Marc Elias filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of six Democrats against the Wisconsin Elections Commission on August 13, 2021 saying that the current district maps are unconstitutionally malapportioned.
• August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted state legislative district maps

State legislative maps enacted in 2024

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On February 19, 2024, Gov. Tony Evers (D) signed Senate Bill 488 into law, adopting new Wisconsin legislative maps. The maps were approved by majority votes in both chambers of Wisconsin's state legislature on February 13. The state Senate voted 18-14 in favor of adopting the new legislative maps, while the state Assembly vote total was 63-33.

In the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, Janet Protasiewicz defeated Daniel Kelly, changing the balance of the court from a conservative to a liberal majority for the first time in 15 years. On December 22, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 vote that the state's legislative maps were unconstitutional and ordered new maps to be drawn before the 2024 election.

Reactions to 2024 state legislative maps

After signing Senate Bill 488 into law on February 19, 2024, Gov. Evers released a statement that included the following:

“

I will always try to do the right thing for our state. Wisconsinites want fair maps, and Wisconsinites deserve fair maps. So, today, I’m enacting fair maps for the great state of Wisconsin. ... When I promised I wanted fair maps—not maps that are better for one party or another—I damn well meant it. Wisconsin is not a red state or a blue state—we’re a purple state, and I believe our maps should reflect that basic fact. ... This is a great day for Wisconsin, and there is much to celebrate. And we’re not going to stop here. I—and we—are going to continue our fight for a fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting process for Wisconsin. ... If the people of Wisconsin vote to send Democratic majorities to Madison this November, I’ll tell you right now: one of the first orders of business in our first 100 days together will be enacting a fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting system in Wisconsin.

”

On February 19, 2024, Allan Smith of NBC News described the state's newly adopted legislative maps as follows:

“	The existing map heavily favored Republicans — who controlled 64 of 99 seats in the state Assembly and 22 of 33 in the state Senate — in a battleground state that has seen razor-thin margins of victory in recent U.S. Senate and presidential races. According to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis, the new maps have a roughly even split of Democratic and Republican-leaning state Assembly districts, which will all but guarantee a wave of Democratic gains this fall.	”
—Allan Smith, NBC News

State Senate map

Below are the state Senate maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Wisconsin’s 2024 state legislative elections.

Wisconsin State Senate Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Wisconsin State Senate Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

Below are the state House maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Wisconsin’s 2024 state legislative elections.

Wisconsin State House Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Wisconsin State House Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State legislative maps enacted in 2022

On March 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to adopt Gov. Tony Evers' (D) state house and senate redistricting maps and remanded the case for further proceedings. On April 15, 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted state legislative district maps passed by the state legislature.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court had, on March 3, 2022, approved maps that Evers submitted after he vetoed legislative district proposals from Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) on November 18, 2021. The Senate had approved the maps 21-12 along party lines on October 20, 2021, with all Republicans in the chamber voting for the proposal and all Democrats voting against it. The House passed the maps on November 11, 2021, by a 60-38 party-line vote.

Reactions to 2022 state legislative maps

Evers' office released a statement saying, “While the Court stated that it would not consider whether a map was fair, the governor’s maps are significantly less gerrymandered than the state’s current maps and the maps proposed by the Legislature. The governor’s maps have more competitive districts, with two competitive congressional districts, three Senate districts, and eight Assembly districts, which are all highly competitive. By contrast, the maps proposed by the Legislature have only one competitive congressional district, one competitive Senate district, and three competitive Assembly districts.” LeMahieu said, “Bipartisan supermajorities rejected the governor’s People’s Maps Commission (PMC) maps, the PMC failed. Now Governor Evers has abandoned his campaign rhetoric promising for independently-drawn maps to rapidly and secretly draw his own rigged maps without public input. The hypocrisy of the governor is impossible to ignore.”

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Wisconsin enacted its congressional districts on March 3, 2022, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved congressional proposals submitted by Gov. Tony Evers (D). Evers vetoed a legislatively-approved congressional district map on November 18. Those maps had passed the state Senate on October 20 by a 21-12 vote split along party lines, with all Republicans in the chamber voting for the proposal and all Democrats voting against it. They had passed the House on November 11 by a 60-38 party-line vote.

After Evers' veto, the Wisconsin Supreme Court assumed control of the drafting process, as the court had agreed in September to decide new districts if the legislature and governor failed to do so. On November 30, the court announced it would seek to make as few changes as possible to the current legislative and congressional maps adopted in 2011. Evers submitted the now-approved congressional district map to the supreme court on December 15.

On January 10, the Supreme Court issued a 4-3 ruling in which it denied congressional Republicans' request to submit an additional, amended map for the court's consideration and granted Evers the ability to make corrections to the map he submitted.On March 3, 2022, the court decided to adopt Evers' proposal.This map took effect for Wisconsin's 2022 congressional elections.

Congressional maps

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Wisconsin Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Wisconsin Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Evers said, “The maps I submitted to the Court that were selected today are a vast improvement from the gerrymandered maps Wisconsin has had for the last decade and the even more gerrymandered Republicans maps that I vetoed last year.” Law Forward, a law firm which has served as counsel for several voting rights interest groups, said "the Governor’s proposal does much to improve representation for people across our state within the narrow confines the Court defined. The Court rejected other options that would have further entrenched Wisconsin’s partisan gerrymander.”

LeMahieu said, “Evers drew racially gerrymandered maps behind closed doors with no public input. His maps intentionally watered down minority representation for political gain and violated the open and transparent process the public deserved.” Sachin Chheda, director of the Fair Elections Project, an organization opposing partisan gerrymandering, criticized the least-changes criteria: “The ‘least-changes’ criteria is total bunk and not supported by statute or the constitution,” Chheda said in a statement. “It was wholly made up by the ultra-partisan Supreme Court majority in order to help their political overlords, Robin Vos and Devin LeMahieu. We agree with the governor that the Court should be using a non-partisan and fair process to draw maps, not just doing the bidding of their right-wing political allies.”

2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Wisconsin
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Wisconsin's 1st	48.3%	50.3%	44.7%	53.9%
Wisconsin's 2nd	70.2%	28.4%	69.4%	29.2%
Wisconsin's 3rd	46.8%	51.5%	46.8%	51.5%
Wisconsin's 4th	75.9%	22.8%	76.2%	22.6%
Wisconsin's 5th	37.9%	60.8%	41.7%	56.8%
Wisconsin's 6th	41.4%	57.0%	41.6%	56.8%
Wisconsin's 7th	39.3%	59.2%	39.3%	59.2%
Wisconsin's 8th	41.5%	57.0%	41.3%	57.2%

Drafting process

In Wisconsin, both congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the Wisconsin State Legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor.

The Wisconsin Constitution requires that state legislative districts be compact and "that they be bounded by county, precinct, town, or ward lines where possible." The state constitution further stipulates that state legislative districts should be contiguous.

Timeline of 2022 map adoption

Michael Keane, a senior research analyst for the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, prepared the following projected timeline for the 2020 redistricting cycle in Wisconsin.

Projected redistricting timeline for Wisconsin, 2020 cycle
Date	Event
April 1, 2020	Census Day
November 3, 2020	Last congressional and state legislative elections held under previous maps
December 31, 2020	Seats in the U.S. House of Representatives apportioned
February 1, 2021	Redistricting data received from the U.S. Census Bureau (earliest possible date)
February - March 2022	Congressional and state legislative redistricting
March 2022	Deadline for state legislative redistricting
August 9, 2022	First primary election held under new maps
November 8, 2022	First general election held under new maps
January 3, 2023	First legislature elected under new maps inaugurated

January 27, 2020: Gov. Tony Evers creates advisory redistricting commission

On January 27, 2020, Governor Tony Evers (D) signed an executive order creating an advisory redistricting commission to prepare congressional and state legislative district plans for consideration by the state legislature. The legislature, vested with the authority to adopt redistricting plans, would be under no obligation to accept the commission's recommendations. The order mandated that commissioners must come from each of the state's congressional districts and barred elected, public, and political party officials and lobbyists from serving as commissioners. The order specified neither the number of commissioners nor the manner of appointment. It established the following criteria for the commission's proposed maps:

• "Be free from partisan bias and partisan advantage"
• "Avoid diluting or diminishing minority votes, including through the practices of 'packing' or 'cracking'"
• "Be compact and contiguous"
• "Avoid splitting wards and municipalities"
• "Retain the core population in each district"
• "Maintain traditional communities of interest"
• "Prevent voter disenfranchisement"

Evers said, "I believe, and Wisconsinites do, too, that people should get to choose their elected officials, not the other way around. So, when the People’s Maps are presented to the Legislature next year, I hope they will receive unanimous, bipartisan support." Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) criticized the order, saying, "He can form whatever kind of fake, phony, partisan process he wants to create, but I have no doubt in the end we will do it the way we have always have, which is to follow the constitution."

Redistricting committees and/or commissions in 2022

Wisconsin People's Maps Commission membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Member type
Elizabeth Tobias	Citizen
Ruben Anthony, Jr.	Citizen
Annemarie McClellan	Citizen
Christopher Ford	Citizen
Benjamin Rangel	Citizen
Susan Ranft	Citizen
Melissa Prentice	Citizen
Jason Bisonette	Citizen
Anthony Phillips	Citizen

Pre-drafting developments

On September 23, 2021, a Wisconsin General Assembly committee voted to bring a resolution calling for new district maps to adhere as closely as possible to existing districts before the full Assembly for a vote on September 28, 2021. The resolution called for keeping "as much as possible the core of existing districts, thus maintaining 11 existing communities of interest, and promoting the equal opportunity to vote by minimizing disenfranchisement." The Senate approved the resolution in a 19-12 vote along party lines, and the Assembly approved it in a 60-38 vote. Gov. Tony Evers (D) said it was unlikely he would approve any maps that maintained the current districts, saying "The current maps are inadequate, and to base our decision-making on that inadequacy would not be doing the people’s work."

On July 9, Evers vetoed Assembly Bill 369, which would have delayed changes to city council and county board districts until spring of 2022. In his veto message, Evers said the bill "creates too great of a delay in creating the new maps" and would "result in malapportioned maps that do not accurately reflect current populations, which violates the constitutional principle of one person, one vote." The legislation required the February 2022 primary and April 2022 general elections for local offices to be held under current maps and prevented elections under the new maps until 2023.

Drafts and proposals

On October 1, 2021, the People's Maps Commission, a redistricting commission established by Gov. Tony Evers, released map proposals for Wisconsin's state legislative and congressional districts. On October 20, 2021, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) introduced state legislative and congressional map proposals. On November 3, 2021, the People's Maps Commission released its final proposed state legislative and congressional maps. Click on the links below to view each map.

On November 8, 2021, the Senate approved Senate Bill 621 and 622, which would implement the state legislative and congressional district plans introduced by LeMahieu and Vos on October 20, in a 21-12 vote evenly split along party lines. The House voted to approve state legislative and congressional maps in a 60-38 party-line vote. Gov. Evers vetoed both the legislative and congressional maps approved by the legislature. "I’ve said all along I’d veto these maps if they came to my desk. They’re gerrymandering 2.0," Evers said. On November 30, 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court announced it would seek to make as few changes as possible to the current legislative and congressional maps adopted in 2011. Evers submitted proposals for congressional and state legislative maps to the supreme court on December 15.

On January 10, the Supreme Court issued a 4-3 ruling in which it denied congressional Republicans' request to submit an additional, amended map for the court's consideration. The ruling also granted Evers the ability to make corrections to the map submitted on December 15.

Congressional maps

• Governor's Least Changes Congressional Map

• Map A
• Map B
• Map C

• Congressional draft 2
• Congressional draft 3
• Congressional draft 4

• People's Redistricting Committee final congressional map

• Senate Bill 622 - Interactive congressional map
• Senate Bill 621 - Interactive State Assembly and Senate map

State legislative maps

• Governor's Least Changes Assembly
• Governor's Least Changes Senate

• Assembly map 1
• Senate map 1
• Assembly map 2
• Senate map 2
• Assembly map 3
• Senate map 3

• Refined Assembly Draft 1
• Refined Senate Draft 1
• Refined Assembly Draft 2
• Refined Senate Draft 2

• People's Redistricting Committee final Assembly map
• People's Redistricting Committee final Senate map

• Senate Bill 621 - Interactive State Assembly and Senate map

Apportionment and release of census data

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Wisconsin was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Wisconsin
State	2010 census		2020 census		2010-2020
	Population	U.S. House seats	Population	U.S. House seats	Raw change in population	Percentage change in population	Change in U.S. House seats
Wisconsin	5,698,230	8	5,897,473	8	199,243	3.50%	0

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021. The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.

Court challenges

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at [email protected].

Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2023)

In a 4-3 decision on Dec. 22, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the state’s legislative maps violated the state constitution and ordered the state to draw new maps for the 2024 elections. The justice wrote the following in their majority opinion:

“

We hold that the contiguity requirements in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 mean what they say: Wisconsin's state legislative districts must be composed of physically adjoining territory. The constitutional text and our precedent support this common-sense interpretation of contiguity. Because the current state legislative districts contain separate, detached territory and therefore violate the constitution's contiguity requirements, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in future elections ... Because we enjoin the current state legislative district maps from future use, remedial maps must be drawn prior to the 2024 elections.

”

The original petitioners argued that Wisconsin’s legislative districts violated multiple provisions of the state constitution, including equal protection, freedom of speech and association, separation of powers, and contiguous legislative districts. The state's legislative maps were ordered to be enacted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April 2022 after the governor vetoed them and the state legislature failed to override that veto.

Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2022)

On March 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision adopting Gov. Tony Evers' state house and senate redistricting maps and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the Wisconsin Supreme Court erred in its analysis of U.S. Supreme Court precedents on how the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause should be applied in race-based districting cases. In its opinion, the court wrote:

“

The question that our [Voting Rights Act of 1965] precedents ask and the court failed to answer is whether a race-neutral alternative that did not add a seventh majority-black district would deny black voters equal political opportunity. Answering that question requires an “‘“intensely local appraisal”’ of the challenged district.” LULAC, 548 U. S., at 437. When the Wisconsin Supreme Court endeavored to undertake a full strict-scrutiny analysis, it did not do so properly under our precedents, and its judgment cannot stand.

”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion dissenting from the court's judgment, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote:

“	The Court’s action today is unprecedented. In an emergency posture, the Court summarily overturns a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision resolving a conflict over the State’s redistricting, a decision rendered after a 5-month process involving all interested stakeholders. Despite the fact that summary reversals are generally reserved for decisions in violation of settled law, the Court today faults the State Supreme Court for its failure to comply with an obligation that, under existing precedent, is hazy at best. ... This Court’s intervention today is not only extraordinary but also unnecessary. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rightly preserved the possibility that an appropriate plaintiff could bring an equal protection or [Voting Rights Act] challenge in the proper forum. 2022 WI 14, ¶41, n. 24. I would allow that process to unfold, rather than further complicating these proceedings with legal confusion through a summary reversal. I respectfully dissent.	”
—Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.

“	The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.	”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review." Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1. The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution. On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Trifectas and redistricting

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status
State	Primary redistricting authority	Pre-2010 trifecta status	Post-2010 trifecta status	Post-2018 trifecta status
Alabama	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Republican
Colorado	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Democratic	Divided	Democratic
Indiana	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Republican
Iowa	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Republican
Maine	Legislature	Democratic	Republican	Democratic
Michigan	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Divided
New Hampshire	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Divided
North Carolina	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Divided
Ohio	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Divided	Republican	Republican
Oregon	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Democratic
Pennsylvania	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Divided	Republican	Divided
Wisconsin	Legislature	Democratic	Republican	Divided

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in Wisconsin after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Wisconsin neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held both chambers of the Wisconsin State Legislature and the governorship. The following is a timeline of key events during and subsequent to the 2010 redistricting cycle in Wisconsin:

• On July 20, 2011, the legislature approved both congressional and state legislative redistricting plans, which were signed into law by Governor Scott Walker on August 9, 2011.
• On November 21, 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin struck down the district map for the Wisconsin State Assembly, finding in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of state Democrats. The court ruled 2-1 on the matter, with Judges Kenneth Ripple and Barbara Crabb forming the majority. Ripple wrote the following in the court's majority opinion: "We find that Act 43 [the redistricting plan enacted by the state legislature in 2011] was intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters throughout the decennial period by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats. Moreover, as demonstrated by the results of the 2012 and 2014 elections, among other evidence, we conclude that Act 43 has had its intended effect."
• On January 27, 2017, the court ordered state lawmakers to draft a remedial redistricting plan for use in the November 2018 election.
• On March 24, 2017, state attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the district court's ruling.
• On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it would hear the case, Gill v. Whitford. The court also voted 5-4 to stay the district court decision that ordered Wisconsin lawmakers to draft new maps.
• Oral argument in the case took place on October 3, 2017.
• On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate standing to bring the complaint under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

See also

• Redistricting in Wisconsin after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in Wisconsin
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"