The Federal court in Wisconsin has determined that the Wisconsin state assembly maps are unconstitutional and represent gerrymandering. Although the Supreme Court’s decisions have made it difficult for lower courts to challenge voting maps, the lower court has found that Wisconsin’s mapping decision impedes the representational rights of the citizens. However, this does not mean the maps will be struck down at this point. The court has asked the parties to propose alternative maps. Regardless of the decisions, it will likely go before the Supreme Court.
- The court reached this decision despite a web of Supreme Court decisions that have discouraged, if not exactly foreclosed, lower courts from striking down gerrymandered maps — a testament both to the egregiousness of Wisconsin’s maps and the creativity of the lawyers who challenged them.
- Gill will amount to more than some excited headlines followed by a sinking feeling of powerlessness, however, is likely to depend entirely on how Justice Anthony Kennedy views this case when it almost certainly reaches the Supreme Court.
- The mapmakers developed a mathematical model for evaluating voter partisan preferences in the aggregate.
“With regard to the first of these burdens, the court detailed the great lengths state mapmakers went to in order to ensure that Republicans performed very well under the state’s assembly maps.”