Wisconsin State Assembly elections, 2018
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 17 (online or mail), or Nov. 2 (in-person)
- Early voting: Varies by locality
- Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6
- Online registration: Yes
- Same-day registration: Yes
- Voter ID: Photo ID required
- Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
2018 Wisconsin Assembly elections | |
---|---|
![]() | |
General | November 6, 2018 |
Primary | August 14, 2018 |
Past election results |
2016・2014・2012・2010・2008 2006・2004・2002・2000 |
2018 elections | |
---|---|
Choose a chamber below: | |
Republicans held their majority in the 2018 elections for Wisconsin State Assembly, winning 63 seats to Democrats' 36. All of the chamber's 99 seats were up for election. At the time of the election, Republicans held 64 seats to Democrats' 35.
The Republican Party maintained control of the state Senate and Assembly but lost its trifecta in Wisconsin in 2018 as the Democratic Party flipped the governorship.
The Wisconsin State Assembly was one of 87 state legislative chambers with elections in 2018. There are 99 chambers throughout the country.
Wisconsin state Assembly members serve two-year terms, with all seats up for election every two years.
For more information about the Democratic primary, click here.
For more information about the Republican primary, click here.
Post-election analysis
- See also: State legislative elections, 2018
The Republican Party maintained control of both chambers of the Wisconsin State Legislature in the 2018 election. The Wisconsin State Senate was identified as a battleground chamber. Seventeen out of 33 seats were up for election. Republicans increased their majority in the Wisconsin State Senate from 18-15 to 19-14. One Democratic incumbent was defeated in the general election.
The Wisconsin State Assembly held elections for all 99 seats. The Republican majority in the State Assembly was reduced from 64-35 to 63-36. Two Democratic incumbents were defeated in the primary and no incumbents were defeated in the general election.
National background
On November 6, 2018, 87 of the nation's 99 state legislative chambers held regularly scheduled elections for 6,073 of 7,383 total seats, meaning that nearly 82 percent of all state legislative seats were up for election.
- Entering the 2018 election, Democrats held 42.6 percent, Republicans held 56.8 percent, and independents and other parties held 0.6 percent of the seats up for regular election.
- Following the 2018 election, Democrats held 47.3 percent, Republicans held 52.3 percent, and independents and other parties held 0.4 percent of the seats up for regular election.
- A total of 469 incumbents were defeated over the course of the election cycle, with roughly one-third of them defeated in the primary.
Want more information?
- Incumbents defeated in 2018's state legislative elections
- 2018 election analysis: Partisan balance of state legislative chambers
- 2018 election analysis: Number of state legislators by party
- 2018 election analysis: State legislative supermajorities
Candidates
General election candidates
font-size: 16px !important;
} .thirdpartyname:not(:first-child) { padding-top: 5px; } .thirdpartyname { margin:0; } .candidate:last-child { padding-bottom: 5px; } @media only screen and (max-width: 600px) { .candidateListTablePartisan td { font-size: 12px !important; vertical-align: top; }
}
Wisconsin State Assembly General Election 2018
- Incumbents are marked with an (i) after their name.
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
Office Democratic
Republican
Other District 1
Joel Kitchens (i)
Roberta Thelen (Independent)
District 2 Kevin Bauer (Libertarian Party)
Jeff Dahlke (Independent)
District 3
Ron Tusler (i)
District 4
David Steffen (i)
District 5
Jim Steineke (i)
District 6
Gary Tauchen (i)
Mike Hammond (Libertarian Party)
District 7
Daniel Riemer (i)
Matthew Bughman (Libertarian Party)
District 8 District 9 District 10
David Bowen (i)
District 11
Jason Fields (i)
District 12 District 13
Rob Hutton (i)
District 14 Rick Braun (Libertarian Party)
Steven Shevey (Moderation Party)
District 15
Joe Sanfelippo (i)
District 16 District 17
David Crowley (i)
District 18
Evan Goyke (i)
District 19 District 20 District 21
Jessie Rodriguez (i)
District 22
Janel Brandtjen (i)
District 23
Jim Ott (i)
District 24
Daniel Knodl (i)
District 25
Paul Tittl (i)
District 26
Terry Katsma (i)
District 27
Tyler Vorpagel (i)
District 28 District 29
Rob Stafsholt (i)
Brian Corriea (Libertarian Party)
District 30 District 31
Amy Loudenbeck (i)
District 32
Tyler August (i)
District 33
Cody Horlacher (i)
District 34
Rob Swearingen (i)
District 35
Mary Felzkowski (i)
District 36
Jeffrey Mursau (i)
District 37
John Jagler (i)
District 38 District 39
Mark Born (i)
District 40
Kevin Petersen (i)
District 41
Joan Ballweg (i)
District 42
Jon Plumer (i)
District 43
Don Vruwink (i)
District 44
Debra Kolste (i)
District 45
Mark Spreitzer (i)
![]()
Reese Wood (Libertarian Party)
District 46
Gary Hebl (i)
District 47
Jimmy Anderson (i)
District 48
Melissa Agard (i)
District 49
Travis Tranel (i)
District 50 James Krus (Independent)
District 51
Todd Novak (i)
District 52 District 53
Michael Schraa (i)
District 54
Gordon Hintz (i)
District 55
Mike Rohrkaste (i)
District 56
Dave Murphy (i)
District 57
Amanda Stuck (i)
District 58
Rick Gundrum (i)
District 59 District 60
Robert Brooks (i)
District 61
Samantha Kerkman (i)
District 62 District 63
Robin Vos (i)
District 64
Peter Barca (i)
Thomas Harland (Constitution Party)
District 65
Tod Ohnstad (i)
District 66
Greta Neubauer (i)
District 67
Rob Summerfield (i)
District 68 District 69
Bob Kulp (i)
District 70
Nancy VanderMeer (i)
District 71 District 72
Scott Krug (i)
District 73
Nick Milroy (i)
District 74
Beth Meyers (i)
District 75
Romaine Quinn (i)
District 76
Chris Taylor (i)
District 77 District 78
Lisa Subeck (i)
District 79 District 80
Sondy Pope (i)
District 81
Dave Considine (i)
District 82
Ken Skowronski (i)
Jason Sellnow (Libertarian Party)
District 83
Chuck Wichgers (i)
District 84
Mike Kuglitsch (i)
District 85
Patrick Snyder (i)
District 86
John Spiros (i)
Michael Tauschek (Independent)
District 87
James Edming (i)
District 88
John Macco (i)
District 89
John Nygren (i)
District 90 District 91 District 92 District 93
Warren Petryk (i)
District 94
Steve Doyle (i)
District 95
Jill Billings (i)
District 96 District 97
Scott Allen (i)
District 98
Adam Neylon (i)
District 99
Cindi Duchow (i)
Write-in candidates
- District 22: Michele Divelbiss
- District 32: Jeremiah Sutton
Primary candidates
font-size: 16px !important;
} .thirdpartyname:not(:first-child) { padding-top: 5px; } .thirdpartyname { margin:0; } .candidate:last-child { padding-bottom: 5px; } @media only screen and (max-width: 600px) { .candidateListTablePartisan td { font-size: 12px !important; vertical-align: top; }
}
Wisconsin State Assembly Primary Election 2018
- Incumbents are marked with an (i) after their name.
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
Office Democratic
Republican
Other District 1
Joel Kitchens (i)
District 2 Libertarian Party
Kevin Bauer
District 3
Ron Tusler (i)
District 4
David Steffen (i)
District 5
Jim Steineke (i)
District 6
Gary Tauchen (i)
Libertarian Party
Mike Hammond
District 7
Daniel Riemer (i)
Libertarian Party
Matthew Bughman
District 8 District 9 District 10
David Bowen (i)
District 11
Jason Fields (i)
District 12 District 13
Rob Hutton (i)
District 14 Libertarian Party
Rick Braun
District 15
Joe Sanfelippo (i)
District 16 Rick Banks
Brandy Bond
Kalan Haywood
Danielle McClendon-Williams
Supreme Moore Omokunde
District 17
David Crowley (i)
District 18 District 19 District 20 District 21
Jessie Rodriguez (i)
District 22
Janel Brandtjen (i)
District 23
Jim Ott (i)
District 24
Daniel Knodl (i)
District 25
Paul Tittl (i)
District 26
Terry Katsma (i)
District 27
Tyler Vorpagel (i)
District 28 District 29
Rob Stafsholt (i)
Libertarian Party
Brian Corriea
District 30 District 31
Amy Loudenbeck (i)
District 32
Tyler August (i)
District 33
Cody Horlacher (i)
District 34
Rob Swearingen (i)
District 35
Mary Felzkowski (i)
District 36
Jeffrey Mursau (i)
District 37
John Jagler (i)
District 38 District 39
Mark Born (i)
District 40
Kevin Petersen (i)
District 41
Joan Ballweg (i)
District 42
Jon Plumer (i)
District 43
Don Vruwink (i)
District 44
Debra Kolste (i)
District 45
Mark Spreitzer (i)
![]()
Libertarian Party
Reese Wood
District 46
Gary Hebl (i)
District 47
Jimmy Anderson (i)
District 48
Melissa Agard (i)
District 49
Travis Tranel (i)
District 50 District 51
Todd Novak (i)
District 52 District 53
Michael Schraa (i)
District 54
Gordon Hintz (i)
District 55
Mike Rohrkaste (i)
District 56
Dave Murphy (i)
District 57
Amanda Stuck (i)
District 58
Rick Gundrum (i)
District 59 District 60
Robert Brooks (i)
District 61
Samantha Kerkman (i)
District 62 District 63
Robin Vos (i)
District 64
Peter Barca (i)
Constitution Party
Thomas Harland
District 65
Tod Ohnstad (i)
District 66
Greta Neubauer (i)
District 67
Rob Summerfield (i)
District 68 District 69
Bob Kulp (i)
District 70
Nancy VanderMeer (i)
District 71 District 72
Scott Krug (i)
District 73
Nick Milroy (i)
District 74
Beth Meyers (i)
District 75
Romaine Quinn (i)
District 76
Chris Taylor (i)
District 77 District 78
Lisa Subeck (i)
District 79 District 80
Sondy Pope (i)
District 81
Dave Considine (i)
District 82
Ken Skowronski (i)
Libertarian Party
Jason Sellnow
District 83
Chuck Wichgers (i)
District 84
Mike Kuglitsch (i)
District 85
Patrick Snyder (i)
District 86 District 87
James Edming (i)
District 88
John Macco (i)
District 89
John Nygren (i)
District 90 District 91 District 92 District 93
Warren Petryk (i)
District 94
Steve Doyle (i)
District 95
Jill Billings (i)
District 96 District 97
Scott Allen (i)
District 98
Adam Neylon (i)
District 99
Cindi Duchow (i)
Margins of victory
A margin of victory (MOV) analysis for the 2018 Wisconsin State Assembly races is presented in this section. MOV represents the percentage of total votes that separated the winner and the second-place finisher. For example, if the winner of a race received 47 percent of the vote and the second-place finisher received 45 percent of the vote, the MOV is 2 percent.
The table below presents the following figures for each party:
- Elections won
- Elections won by less than 10 percentage points
- Elections won without opposition
- Average margin of victory[1]
Wisconsin State Assembly: 2018 Margin of Victory Analysis | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Party | Elections won | Elections won by less than 10% | Unopposed elections | Average margin of victory[1] |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
Total |
The margin of victory in each race is presented below. The list is sorted from the closest MOV to the largest (including unopposed races).
Seats flipped
The below map displays each seat in the Wisconsin State Assembly which changed partisan hands as a result of the 2018 elections, shaded according to the partisan affiliation of the winner in 2018. Hover over a shaded district for more information.
State legislative seats flipped in 2018, Wisconsin State Assembly | |||
---|---|---|---|
District | Incumbent | 2018 winner | Direction of flip |
Wisconsin State Assembly District 14 | ![]() |
![]() |
R to D |
Incumbents retiring
Thirteen incumbents did not run for re-election in 2018. Those incumbents were:
Name | Party | Office |
---|---|---|
André Jacque | ![]() |
Assembly District 2 |
Dale Kooyenga | ![]() |
Assembly District 14 |
Leon D. Young | ![]() |
Assembly District 16 |
Adam Jarchow | ![]() |
Assembly District 28 |
Joel Kleefisch | ![]() |
Assembly District 38 |
Ed Brooks | ![]() |
Assembly District 50 |
Jesse Kremer | ![]() |
Assembly District 59 |
Tom Weatherston | ![]() |
Assembly District 62 |
Kathy Bernier | ![]() |
Assembly District 68 |
Terese Berceau | ![]() |
Assembly District 77 |
Eric Genrich | ![]() |
Assembly District 90 |
Dana Wachs | ![]() |
Assembly District 91 |
Lee A. Nerison | ![]() |
Assembly District 96 |
Process to become a candidate
See statutes: Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations, Chapter 8
The filing process for both ballot-qualified party candidates and other candidates (e.g., independents, non-recognized party candidates, etc.) is the same. The filing procedure, however, does vary somewhat according to the type of office being sought. Please note that only ballot-qualified party candidates can participate in primaries.[2]
For federal and state candidates
A candidate for federal office must file a declaration of candidacy with the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The declaration of candidacy must state the following:[2][3]
- that the individual is a candidate for the office named on the form
- that the individual meets the qualifications for office, or will meet the qualifications by the time he or she assumes office if elected
- that the individual will otherwise qualify for office if nominated and elected
The declaration of candidacy must be sworn before an individual authorized to administer oaths. The declaration of candidacy must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on June 1 preceding the election (if June 1 falls on non-business day, the form will be due on the next preceding business day).[2][3][4][5]
In addition to the declaration of candidacy, the candidate must submit nomination papers to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The number of signatures required varies according to the office being sought. Requirements are summarized in the table below.[2][4][5]
Nomination paper signature requirements for federal candidates | ||
---|---|---|
Office | Minimum signatures | Maximum signatures |
U.S. Senator | 2,000 | 4,000 |
U.S. Representative | 1,000 | 2,000 |
State senator | 400 | 800 |
State representative | 200 | 400 |
State supreme court justice | 2,000 | 4,000 |
Nomination papers must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 1 preceding the election (if June 1 falls on non-business day, the form will be due on the next preceding business day).[2][4][5]
Write-in candidates
On April 2, 2014, Governor Scott Walker signed into law AB 419, which requires that write-in candidates file campaign finance statements in order to have their votes tallied. Otherwise, there are no specific filing requirements for write-in candidates.[6]
Salaries and per diem
- See also: Comparison of state legislative salaries
State legislative salaries, 2024[7] | |
---|---|
Salary | Per diem |
$57,408/year | $140/day for senators. Dane County senators are allowed half that amount. $155.70/day (with overnight) or $77.85/day (no overnight) for representatives. Dane County representatives receive only $77.85/day. |
When sworn in
Wisconsin legislators assume office the first Monday in January following the election, unless the first Monday of January falls on January 1 or 2. In those cases, legislators assume office on January 3.[8]
Wisconsin political history
Party control
2018
In the 2018 elections, the Republican majority in the Wisconsin State Assembly was reduced from 64-35 to 63-36.
Wisconsin State Assembly | |||
---|---|---|---|
Party | As of November 6, 2018 | After November 7, 2018 | |
Democratic Party | 35 | 36 | |
Republican Party | 64 | 63 | |
Total | 99 | 99 |
2016
In the 2016 elections, Republicans increased their majority in the Wisconsin State Assembly from 63-36 to 64-35.
Wisconsin State Assembly | |||
---|---|---|---|
Party | As of November 7, 2016 | After November 8, 2016 | |
Democratic Party | 36 | 35 | |
Republican Party | 63 | 64 | |
Total | 99 | 99 |
Trifectas
A state government trifecta is a term that describes single-party government, when one political party holds the governor's office and has majorities in both chambers of the legislature in a state government. Republicans in Wisconsin gained a state government trifecta as a result of the 2010 elections, when the governorship and both legislative chambers switched to Republican control. Republicans also had trifectas in the state in 1995 and 1998. Democrats held a trifecta following the 2008 elections.
Wisconsin Party Control: 1992-2025
Two years of Democratic trifectas • Ten years of Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.
Year | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Governor | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
Senate | D | R | R | R | D | D | R | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
House | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
Wave election analysis
- See also: Wave elections (1918-2016)
The term wave election is frequently used to describe an election cycle in which one party makes significant electoral gains. How many seats would Republicans have had to lose for the 2018 midterm election to be considered a wave election?
Ballotpedia examined the results of the 50 election cycles that occurred between 1918 and 2016—spanning from President Woodrow Wilson's (D) second midterm in 1918 to Donald Trump's (R) first presidential election in 2016. We define wave elections as the 20 percent of elections in that period resulting in the greatest seat swings against the president's party.
Applying this definition to state legislative elections, we found that Republicans needed to lose 494 seats for 2018 to qualify as a wave election.
The chart below shows the number of seats the president's party lost in the 10 state legislative waves from 1918 to 2016. Click here to read the full report.
State legislative wave elections | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | President | Party | Election type | State legislative seats change | Elections analyzed[9] | |
1932 | Hoover | R | Presidential | -1,022 | 7,365 | |
1922 | Harding | R | First midterm | -907 | 6,907 | |
1966 | Johnson | D | First midterm[10] | -782 | 7,561 | |
1938 | Roosevelt | D | Second midterm | -769 | 7,179 | |
1958 | Eisenhower | R | Second midterm | -702 | 7,627 | |
2010 | Obama | D | First midterm | -702 | 7,306 | |
1974 | Ford | R | Second midterm[11] | -695 | 7,481 | |
1920 | Wilson | D | Presidential | -654 | 6,835 | |
1930 | Hoover | R | Presidential | -640 | 7,361 | |
1954 | Eisenhower | R | First midterm | -494 | 7,513 |
Competitiveness
Every year, Ballotpedia uses official candidate lists from each state to examine the competitiveness of every state legislative race in the country. Nationally, there has been a steady decline in electoral competitiveness since 2010. Most notable is that the number of districts with general election competition has dropped by more than 10 percent.
Results from 2016
Click here to read the full study »
Historical context
Uncontested elections: In 2014, 32.8 percent of Americans lived in states with an uncontested state senate election. Similarly, 40.4 percent of Americans lived in states with uncontested house elections. Primary elections were uncontested even more frequently, with 61 percent of people living in states with no contested primaries. Uncontested elections often occur in locations that are so politically one-sided that the result of an election would be a foregone conclusion regardless of whether it was contested or not.
Open seats: In most cases, an incumbent will run for re-election, which decreases the number of open seats available. In 2014, 83 percent of the 6,057 seats up for election saw the incumbent running for re-election. The states that impose term limits on their legislatures typically see a higher percentage of open seats in a given year because a portion of incumbents in each election are forced to leave office. Overall, the number of open seats decreased from 2012 to 2014, dropping from 21.2 percent in 2012 to 17.0 percent in 2014.
Incumbent win rates: Ballotpedia's competitiveness analysis of elections between 1972 and 2014 documented the high propensity for incumbents to win re-election in state legislative elections. In fact, since 1972, the win rate for incumbents had not dropped below 90 percent—with the exception of 1974, when 88 percent of incumbents were re-elected to their seats. Perhaps most importantly, the win rate for incumbents generally increased over time. In 2014, 96.5 percent of incumbents were able to retain their seats. Common convention holds that incumbents are able to leverage their office to maintain their seat. However, the high incumbent win rate may actually be a result of incumbents being more likely to hold seats in districts that are considered safe for their party.
Marginal primaries: Often, competitiveness is measured by examining the rate of elections that have been won by amounts that are considered marginal (5 percent or less). During the 2014 election, 90.1 percent of primary and general election races were won by margins higher than 5 percent. Interestingly, it is usually the case that only one of the two races—primary or general—will be competitive at a time. This means that if a district's general election is competitive, typically one or more of the district's primaries were won by more than 5 percent. The reverse is also true: If a district sees a competitive primary, it is unlikely that the general election for that district will be won by less than 5 percent. Primaries often see very low voter turnout in comparison to general elections. In 2014, there were only 27 million voters for state legislative primaries, but approximately 107 million voters for the state legislative general elections.
Redistricting in Wisconsin
- See also: Redistricting in Wisconsin
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.[12]
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.[12]
Court challenge to Assembly districts
In June 2012, Democrats assumed a one-vote majority in the Wisconsin State Senate as the result of a series of recall elections. Although Democrats lost the majority five months later, they were able, in the meantime, to compel law firm Michael Best and Friedrich to turn over files related to the 2011 redistricting cycle (Republicans tasked with drafting new maps in 2011 worked out of the Michael Best and Friedrich office in Madison, Wisconsin). Before Democrats assumed the majority, they had asked Michael Best and Friedrich to turn over the requested records, but the firm refused, saying that it answered to the majority leader. Democrats used these records as evidence when they filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the Wisconsin State Assembly map treated voters "unequally, diluting their voting power based on their political beliefs, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection." 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:[13][14]
“ | 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.[15] | ” |
—Judge Kenneth Ripple |
Judge William Griesbach dissented and wrote the following in his dissent:[13]
“ | I am unable to accept proof of intent to act for political purposes as a significant part of any test for whether a task constitutionally entrusted to the political branches of government is unconstitutional. If political motivation is improper, then the task of redistricting should be constitutionally assigned to some other body, a change in law we lack any authority to effect.[15] | ” |
—Judge William Griesbach |
The court declined to order a remedy when it issued its ruling. Instead, the court ordered the parties involved in the case to submit briefs outlining recommended remedies within 30 days.[13]
The plaintiffs in the case proposed a three-part test for determining whether illegal partisan gerrymandering has occurred in a state.[13]
- Intent: "Plaintiffs would have to establish that a state had an intent to gerrymander for partisan advantage."
- Effect: "Plaintiffs would need to prove a partisan effect by proving that the efficiency gap for a plan exceeds a certain numerical threshold."
- State interest: "Plaintiffs placed the burden on the defendants to rebut the presumption by showing that the plan 'is the necessary result of a legitimate state policy, or inevitable given the state's underlying political geography.'"
Peter Barca (D), the minority leader of the Wisconsin State Assembly, said, "This is an historic victory for voters and further admonishment of the extremely slanted maps that trample the democratic will of the people of Wisconsin." Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) said, "There are only two things that are certain about this case: it's unprecedented and it isn't over. The state of Wisconsin has competitive legislative districts that meet every traditional principle of redistricting. Republicans win elections because we have better candidates and a better message that continues to resonate with the voters."[16]
On January 27, 2017, the court ordered state lawmakers to draft a remedial redistricting plan for use in the November 2018 election. The court ordered that this plan be adopted by the legislature and signed into law by the governor by November 1, 2017. On March 24, 2017, state attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the district court's ruling.[17][18][19]
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 by November 1, 2017. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch voted to stay the district court order. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer dissented. 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 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 Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Kagan wrote a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Thomas authored an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Gorsuch.[20][21][22]
In response to the ruling, Bill Whitford, a plaintiff in the suit, said, "The discouraging thing is just the delay. We have a road map forward ... I don't think we'll have any difficulty meeting the burdens the court asked us to meet." Wisconsin Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin doubted the viability of a further challenge, saying, "I think it is quite notable that [the plaintiffs] put together a failry large, well-funded litigation team, had a four-day trial, and the Supreme Court unanimously held 9-0 they did not prove the basis of standing. The plaintiffs here failed to prove up the minimal standing to even bring a lawsuit."[23]
On September 14, 2018, in response to the high court's ruling in Gill, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Also on September 14, 2018, the Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Committee filed a similar but separate suit in the same court.[24][25]
Pivot Counties
- See also: Pivot Counties by state
Twenty-three of 72 Wisconsin counties—32 percent—are Pivot Counties. Pivot Counties are counties that voted for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012 and for Donald Trump (R) in 2016. Altogether, the nation had 206 Pivot Counties, with most being concentrated in upper midwestern and northeastern states.
Counties won by Trump in 2016 and Obama in 2012 and 2008 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
County | Trump margin of victory in 2016 | Obama margin of victory in 2012 | Obama margin of victory in 2008 | ||||
Adams County, Wisconsin | 21.92% | 8.73% | 18.35% | ||||
Buffalo County, Wisconsin | 21.82% | 2.93% | 14.66% | ||||
Columbia County, Wisconsin | 2.14% | 13.58% | 15.26% | ||||
Crawford County, Wisconsin | 5.40% | 19.98% | 27.03% | ||||
Door County, Wisconsin | 3.22% | 6.99% | 17.33% | ||||
Dunn County, Wisconsin | 11.09% | 4.97% | 14.95% | ||||
Forest County, Wisconsin | 26.58% | 5.44% | 15.16% | ||||
Grant County, Wisconsin | 9.43% | 13.77% | 23.88% | ||||
Jackson County, Wisconsin | 11.74% | 15.01% | 21.84% | ||||
Juneau County, Wisconsin | 26.05% | 7.03% | 9.00% | ||||
Kenosha County, Wisconsin | 0.31% | 12.23% | 18.06% | ||||
Lafayette County, Wisconsin | 8.99% | 15.37% | 22.32% | ||||
Lincoln County, Wisconsin | 20.60% | 0.71% | 12.48% | ||||
Marquette County, Wisconsin | 24.09% | 0.27% | 5.28% | ||||
Pepin County, Wisconsin | 23.08% | 2.22% | 12.89% | ||||
Price County, Wisconsin | 25.00% | 0.04% | 13.40% | ||||
Racine County, Wisconsin | 4.28% | 3.54% | 7.41% | ||||
Richland County, Wisconsin | 5.50% | 16.13% | 20.63% | ||||
Sauk County, Wisconsin | 0.35% | 18.47% | 23.04% | ||||
Sawyer County, Wisconsin | 18.41% | 0.49% | 6.23% | ||||
Trempealeau County, Wisconsin | 12.64% | 14.08% | 26.39% | ||||
Vernon County, Wisconsin | 4.43% | 14.73% | 22.00% | ||||
Winnebago County, Wisconsin | 7.34% | 3.73% | 11.66% |
In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump (R) won Wisconsin with 47.2 percent of the vote. Hillary Clinton (D) received 46.5 percent. In presidential elections between 1900 and 2016, Wisconsin cast votes for the winning presidential candidate 76.7 percent of the time. In that same time frame, Wisconsin supported Republicans slightly more than Democratic candidates, 50.0 to 46.7 percent. The state, however, favored Democrats in every presidential election from 2000 to 2012 before voting for Trump in 2016.
Presidential results by legislative district
The following table details results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections by state Assembly districts in Wisconsin. Click [show] to expand the table. The "Obama," "Romney," "Clinton," and "Trump" columns describe the percent of the vote each presidential candidate received in the district. The "2012 Margin" and "2016 Margin" columns describe the margin of victory between the two presidential candidates in those years. The "Party Control" column notes which party held that seat heading into the 2018 general election. Data on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections broken down by state legislative districts was compiled by Daily Kos.[26][27]
In 2012, Barack Obama (D) won 43 out of 99 state Assembly districts in Wisconsin with an average margin of victory of 34.1 points. In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won 36 out of 99 state Assembly districts in Wisconsin with an average margin of victory of 34.6 points. Clinton won three districts controlled by Republicans heading into the 2018 elections. |
In 2012, Mitt Romney (R) won 56 out of 99 state Assembly districts in Wisconsin with an average margin of victory of 12.1 points. In 2016, Donald Trump (R) won 63 out of 99 state Assembly districts in Wisconsin with an average margin of victory of 19.4 points. Trump won two districts controlled by Democrats heading into the 2018 elections. |
2016 Presidential Results by State Assembly District ' | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | Obama | Romney | 2012 Margin | Clinton | Trump | 2016 Margin | Party Control |
1 | 49.45% | 49.55% | R+0.1 | 40.19% | 55.31% | R+15.1 | R |
2 | 45.06% | 53.88% | R+8.8 | 35.98% | 58.55% | R+22.6 | R |
3 | 46.37% | 52.37% | R+6 | 39.25% | 54.77% | R+15.5 | R |
4 | 47.96% | 51.02% | R+3.1 | 42.82% | 51.96% | R+9.1 | R |
5 | 45.84% | 53.01% | R+7.2 | 35.60% | 58.94% | R+23.3 | R |
6 | 44.15% | 54.75% | R+10.6 | 30.90% | 64.34% | R+33.4 | R |
7 | 57.11% | 41.73% | D+15.4 | 55.20% | 39.20% | D+16 | D |
8 | 86.53% | 12.79% | D+73.7 | 82.43% | 14.14% | D+68.3 | D |
9 | 74.69% | 24.42% | D+50.3 | 71.60% | 23.86% | D+47.7 | D |
10 | 89.76% | 9.63% | D+80.1 | 89.09% | 8.09% | D+81 | D |
11 | 86.92% | 12.62% | D+74.3 | 85.40% | 12.20% | D+73.2 | D |
12 | 80.00% | 19.52% | D+60.5 | 79.28% | 17.84% | D+61.4 | D |
13 | 41.61% | 57.43% | R+15.8 | 46.60% | 48.01% | R+1.4 | R |
14 | 42.53% | 56.71% | R+14.2 | 49.36% | 45.05% | D+4.3 | R |
15 | 44.86% | 54.03% | R+9.2 | 43.63% | 50.53% | R+6.9 | R |
16 | 90.18% | 8.97% | D+81.2 | 88.16% | 8.20% | D+80 | D |
17 | 86.03% | 13.52% | D+72.5 | 85.53% | 11.96% | D+73.6 | D |
18 | 89.18% | 10.15% | D+79 | 87.03% | 9.71% | D+77.3 | D |
19 | 69.95% | 28.13% | D+41.8 | 72.67% | 20.16% | D+52.5 | D |
20 | 58.37% | 40.39% | D+18 | 55.33% | 39.27% | D+16.1 | D |
21 | 47.93% | 51.07% | R+3.1 | 44.81% | 50.06% | R+5.3 | R |
22 | 42.44% | 56.73% | R+14.3 | 35.41% | 60.15% | R+24.7 | R |
23 | 34.62% | 64.61% | R+30 | 50.43% | 44.81% | D+5.6 | R |
24 | 43.05% | 56.18% | R+13.1 | 45.71% | 49.32% | R+3.6 | R |
25 | 46.93% | 51.76% | R+4.8 | 35.85% | 58.74% | R+22.9 | R |
26 | 45.64% | 53.35% | R+7.7 | 38.91% | 55.22% | R+16.3 | R |
27 | 45.07% | 53.89% | R+8.8 | 40.39% | 54.00% | R+13.6 | R |
28 | 43.68% | 54.77% | R+11.1 | 32.63% | 61.90% | R+29.3 | R |
29 | 48.16% | 50.05% | R+1.9 | 38.58% | 54.01% | R+15.4 | R |
30 | 46.24% | 52.24% | R+6 | 42.51% | 50.44% | R+7.9 | R |
31 | 46.56% | 52.48% | R+5.9 | 40.68% | 53.70% | R+13 | R |
32 | 41.42% | 57.37% | R+15.9 | 34.97% | 59.41% | R+24.4 | R |
33 | 39.95% | 58.97% | R+19 | 35.54% | 59.27% | R+23.7 | R |
34 | 44.59% | 54.39% | R+9.8 | 35.28% | 60.34% | R+25.1 | R |
35 | 46.89% | 52.10% | R+5.2 | 34.68% | 60.52% | R+25.8 | R |
36 | 46.49% | 52.48% | R+6 | 32.07% | 64.35% | R+32.3 | R |
37 | 45.97% | 52.93% | R+7 | 39.87% | 54.26% | R+14.4 | R |
38 | 41.66% | 57.48% | R+15.8 | 38.23% | 56.78% | R+18.5 | R |
39 | 42.12% | 56.85% | R+14.7 | 32.76% | 62.11% | R+29.4 | R |
40 | 45.04% | 53.94% | R+8.9 | 32.61% | 62.85% | R+30.2 | R |
41 | 48.58% | 50.35% | R+1.8 | 36.02% | 59.60% | R+23.6 | R |
42 | 51.09% | 48.03% | D+3.1 | 40.26% | 54.51% | R+14.3 | R |
43 | 58.46% | 40.22% | D+18.2 | 50.24% | 43.54% | D+6.7 | D |
44 | 63.57% | 35.53% | D+28 | 55.44% | 38.62% | D+16.8 | D |
45 | 63.99% | 34.88% | D+29.1 | 52.83% | 41.86% | D+11 | D |
46 | 63.63% | 35.46% | D+28.2 | 61.74% | 32.95% | D+28.8 | D |
47 | 71.05% | 27.83% | D+43.2 | 71.89% | 23.13% | D+48.8 | D |
48 | 77.21% | 21.61% | D+55.6 | 76.06% | 19.26% | D+56.8 | D |
49 | 56.34% | 42.26% | D+14.1 | 42.01% | 51.26% | R+9.3 | R |
50 | 54.10% | 44.84% | D+9.3 | 38.35% | 57.05% | R+18.7 | R |
51 | 59.12% | 39.77% | D+19.4 | 48.42% | 46.59% | D+1.8 | R |
52 | 45.04% | 53.91% | R+8.9 | 38.03% | 56.66% | R+18.6 | R |
53 | 43.36% | 55.55% | R+12.2 | 34.18% | 60.93% | R+26.7 | R |
54 | 57.39% | 41.08% | D+16.3 | 49.16% | 44.12% | D+5 | D |
55 | 47.32% | 51.08% | R+3.8 | 41.80% | 51.70% | R+9.9 | R |
56 | 43.05% | 55.69% | R+12.6 | 37.98% | 56.68% | R+18.7 | R |
57 | 58.41% | 39.31% | D+19.1 | 51.73% | 41.22% | D+10.5 | D |
58 | 31.25% | 67.77% | R+36.5 | 28.43% | 66.52% | R+38.1 | R |
59 | 31.24% | 67.73% | R+36.5 | 25.52% | 69.73% | R+44.2 | R |
60 | 31.82% | 67.23% | R+35.4 | 32.35% | 62.53% | R+30.2 | R |
61 | 44.42% | 54.59% | R+10.2 | 36.49% | 58.50% | R+22 | R |
62 | 45.73% | 53.46% | R+7.7 | 41.17% | 54.02% | R+12.9 | R |
63 | 42.73% | 56.47% | R+13.7 | 37.80% | 57.26% | R+19.5 | R |
64 | 58.84% | 40.05% | D+18.8 | 52.63% | 42.23% | D+10.4 | D |
65 | 67.06% | 31.78% | D+35.3 | 57.76% | 36.48% | D+21.3 | D |
66 | 75.23% | 23.77% | D+51.5 | 68.34% | 26.50% | D+41.8 | D |
67 | 48.07% | 50.75% | R+2.7 | 36.41% | 58.15% | R+21.7 | R |
68 | 51.24% | 47.56% | D+3.7 | 40.11% | 54.44% | R+14.3 | R |
69 | 43.65% | 55.15% | R+11.5 | 34.08% | 60.83% | R+26.8 | R |
70 | 48.55% | 50.09% | R+1.5 | 36.82% | 57.83% | R+21 | R |
71 | 57.55% | 41.03% | D+16.5 | 50.34% | 43.28% | D+7.1 | D |
72 | 48.68% | 50.09% | R+1.4 | 36.95% | 58.55% | R+21.6 | R |
73 | 60.93% | 37.66% | D+23.3 | 47.53% | 47.49% | D+0 | D |
74 | 57.74% | 40.88% | D+16.9 | 46.22% | 49.38% | R+3.2 | D |
75 | 47.55% | 51.22% | R+3.7 | 34.53% | 60.84% | R+26.3 | R |
76 | 81.64% | 15.70% | D+65.9 | 82.30% | 11.34% | D+71 | D |
77 | 82.23% | 16.20% | D+66 | 83.80% | 11.48% | D+72.3 | D |
78 | 71.91% | 26.85% | D+45.1 | 75.62% | 19.47% | D+56.2 | D |
79 | 60.89% | 38.29% | D+22.6 | 62.65% | 32.43% | D+30.2 | D |
80 | 63.93% | 35.08% | D+28.9 | 62.12% | 32.50% | D+29.6 | D |
81 | 61.46% | 37.67% | D+23.8 | 51.23% | 43.11% | D+8.1 | D |
82 | 43.03% | 56.32% | R+13.3 | 43.69% | 51.79% | R+8.1 | R |
83 | 31.12% | 68.10% | R+37 | 29.71% | 65.91% | R+36.2 | R |
84 | 42.31% | 56.84% | R+14.5 | 41.43% | 53.68% | R+12.3 | R |
85 | 52.04% | 46.78% | D+5.3 | 44.67% | 49.90% | R+5.2 | R |
86 | 43.96% | 55.02% | R+11.1 | 36.19% | 59.18% | R+23 | R |
87 | 44.81% | 53.95% | R+9.1 | 30.93% | 64.82% | R+33.9 | R |
88 | 48.79% | 50.35% | R+1.6 | 43.75% | 50.75% | R+7 | R |
89 | 46.02% | 52.97% | R+6.9 | 32.41% | 63.26% | R+30.9 | R |
90 | 63.31% | 35.13% | D+28.2 | 53.29% | 39.82% | D+13.5 | D |
91 | 60.63% | 37.68% | D+22.9 | 55.95% | 36.72% | D+19.2 | D |
92 | 55.89% | 42.98% | D+12.9 | 40.90% | 54.33% | R+13.4 | R |
93 | 47.10% | 51.80% | R+4.7 | 38.30% | 56.18% | R+17.9 | R |
94 | 51.53% | 47.32% | D+4.2 | 45.50% | 49.03% | R+3.5 | D |
95 | 64.46% | 33.93% | D+30.5 | 58.03% | 34.66% | D+23.4 | D |
96 | 55.57% | 42.95% | D+12.6 | 42.90% | 51.64% | R+8.7 | R |
97 | 39.90% | 59.02% | R+19.1 | 39.37% | 54.43% | R+15.1 | R |
98 | 33.69% | 65.46% | R+31.8 | 35.20% | 59.58% | R+24.4 | R |
99 | 26.70% | 72.64% | R+45.9 | 28.97% | 66.40% | R+37.4 | R |
Total | 52.92% | 45.97% | D+7 | 47.01% | 47.78% | R+0.8 | - |
Source: Daily Kos |
See also
- Wisconsin State Assembly
- Wisconsin State Legislature
- State legislative elections, 2018
- Wisconsin state legislative Democratic primaries, 2018
- Wisconsin state legislative Republican primaries, 2018
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Excludes unopposed elections
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Government Accountability Board, "Ballot Access Manual (2020)," accessed May 30, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations, "Chapter 8, Section 21," accessed May 30, 2023
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations, "Chapter 8, Section 20," accessed May 30, 2023
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations, "Chapter 8, Section 15," accessed May 30, 2023
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "Wisconsin Will No Longer Count Write-in Votes Unless Write-in Candidate Files Paperwork," May 17, 2014
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "2024 Legislator Compensation," August 21, 2024
- ↑ Wisconsin Statutes, "Chapter 13: Legislative Branch: 13.02 Regular sessions," accessed October 5, 2021
- ↑ The number of state legislative seats available for analysis varied, with as many as 7,795 and as few as 6,835.
- ↑ Lyndon Johnson's (D) first term began in November 1963 after the death of President John F. Kennedy (D), who was first elected in 1960. Before Johnson had his first midterm in 1966, he was re-elected president in 1964.
- ↑ Gerald Ford's (R) first term began in August 1974 following the resignation of President Richard Nixon (R), who was first elected in 1968 and was re-elected in 1972. Because Ford only served for two full months before facing the electorate, this election is classified as Nixon's second midterm.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 All About Redistricting, "Wisconsin," accessed May 7, 2015
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Whitford v. Gill: Opinion and Order," November 21, 2016
- ↑ Wisconsin State Journal, "Democrats' short-lived 2012 recall victory led to key evidence in partisan gerrymandering case," July 23, 2017
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Capital Times, "In split decision, federal judges rule Wisconsin's redistricting law an unconstitutional gerrymander," November 21, 2016
- ↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Whitford v. Gill: Opinion and Order," January 27, 2017
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "Wisconsin Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Partisan Gerrymandering Lawsuit," March 25, 2017
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider Whether to Grant Stay in Important Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case," May 30, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "UPDATE ON STAY: Breaking: Supreme Court to Hear WI Gerrymandering Case, Gill v. Whitford, Next Term Analysis," June 19, 2017
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Journal Sentinel, "Democrats seek to bring redistricting case back to Supreme Court before 2020 elections," June 18, 2018
- ↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Whitford v. Gill: Amended Complaint," September 14, 2018
- ↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Committee v. Gill: Three Judge Panel Requested," September 14, 2018
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' statewide election results by congressional and legislative districts," July 9, 2013
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' 2016 presidential results for congressional and legislative districts," February 6, 2017