Redistricting in Wisconsin

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

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Wisconsin's eight United States Representatives and 132 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Wisconsin was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Wisconsin after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

Following the 2020 United States Census, Wisconsin was apportioned eight congressional seats, which was unchanged from the number it had after the 2010 census.

Wisconsin's State Assembly is made up of 99 districts; Wisconsin's State Senate is made up of 33 districts.

In Wisconsin, both congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the Wisconsin State Legislature.

On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in Gill v. Whitford, a case addressing the constitutionality of Wisconsin's state legislative district map. In November 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin found that the district map for the Wisconsin State Assembly constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander "intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters ... by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats."

On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States remanded the case to the district court, finding that the maps' challengers had failed to demonstrate standing to bring a complaint under Article III of the United States Constitution. See below for more information.

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. On February 19, 2024, Gov. Tony Evers (D) signed Senate Bill 488 into law, adopting new Wisconsin legislative maps. Gov. Evers originally proposed the newly adopted legislative maps in 2021. 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 on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

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

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Wisconsin
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Wisconsin
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Wisconsin's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

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 independent 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.

Race and ethnicity

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

“	No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.	”
—Voting Rights Act of 1965

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Wisconsin was home to one congressional majority-minority district.

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.

State process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

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.

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

See also: How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Wisconsin, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Wisconsin

Wisconsin comprises eight congressional districts. The table below lists Wisconsin's current U.S. Representatives.

 padding-left: 10px !important;
 padding-right: 10px !important;

} } .partytd.Democratic { background-color: #003388; color: white; text-align: center; } .partytd.Republican { background-color: #db0000; color: white; text-align: center; } .partytd.Libertarian { background-color: #fdd007; text-align: center; } .partytd.Green { background-color: #6db24f; color: white; text-align: center; } .partytd.Gray { text-align: center; } .bptable.gray th { background:#4c4c4c;color:#fff; }

Office	Name	Party	Date assumed office	Date term ends
U.S. House Wisconsin District 1	Bryan Steil	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Wisconsin District 2	Mark Pocan	Democratic	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Wisconsin District 3	Derrick Van Orden	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Wisconsin District 4	Gwen Moore	Democratic	January 3, 2005	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Wisconsin District 5	Scott Fitzgerald	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Wisconsin District 6	Glenn Grothman	Republican	January 3, 2015	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Wisconsin District 7	Tom Tiffany	Republican	May 19, 2020	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Wisconsin District 8	Tony Wied	Republican	November 12, 2024	January 3, 2025

State legislative maps

See also: Wisconsin State Senate and Wisconsin State Assembly

Wisconsin comprises 33 state Senate districts and 99 state Assembly districts. Each state Senate district contains three state Assembly districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

See also: Redistricting in Wisconsin after the 2020 census

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.

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. Gov. Evers originally proposed the newly adopted legislative maps in 2021. 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.”

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Wisconsin after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

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. On July 20, 2011, the legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by Governor Scott Walker on August 9, 2011.

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On July 20, 2011, the state legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan, which was signed into law on August 9, 2011. That summer, opponents of the new legislative and congressional maps filed suit in federal court through Baldus v. Brennan, alleging "partisan and racial gerrymandering and ... violation of the Voting Rights Act and various state constitutional criteria." Fifteen Wisconsin residents filed as the plaintiffs in that suit. On March 22, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin ruled that two state Assembly districts violated the Voting Rights Act. The court ordered that these two districts be redrawn. On April 11, 2012, the court accepted the redrawn 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:

“	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.	”
—Judge Kenneth Ripple

Judge William Griesbach dissented and wrote the following in his dissent:

“	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.	”
—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.

The plaintiffs in the case proposed a three-part test for determining whether illegal partisan gerrymandering has occurred in a state.

1. Intent: "Plaintiffs would have to establish that a state had an intent to gerrymander for partisan advantage."
2. Effect: "Plaintiffs would need to prove a partisan effect by proving that the efficiency gap for a plan exceeds a certain numerical threshold."
3. 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."

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.

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.

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."

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.

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

There were 11 competitive elections for the Wisconsin State Assembly in 2012, compared to 14 in 2010. There were four mildly competitive state Assembly races in 2012, compared to six in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of five competitive elections.

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

See state election laws

The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Wisconsin state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Redistricting ballot measures

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Wisconsin ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked no ballot measures relating to redistricting in Wisconsin.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Wisconsin. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Redistricting in Wisconsin - Google News

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Wisconsin after the 2010 census
• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

External links

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"