Caitlin McKown/UW Applied Population Lab

Series: Gerrymandering, Wisconsin And The Courts

It's an unsavory truth in American democracy that politicians, to some extent, do get to choose their voters. The party in power often tries to draw state legislative and U.S. House of Representatives district maps to its own advantage, and courts have been reluctant to stop it unless there's strong evidence of racial discrimination. The Republican wave of election victories in 2010, and the increasing sophistication of redistricting software set the stage for an aggressive new batch of legislative maps in Wisconsin and other states. Multiple federal lawsuits challenging this redistricting followed. One court challenge arising from Wisconsin, Gill v. Whitford, set out to prove that partisan gerrymandering could violate voters' rights even if it wasn't racially discriminatory. The case reached the U. S. Supreme Court, and the resulting decision could trigger a seismic change in how political parties consolidate electoral power.
 
One of the most far-reaching consequences of the 2010 midterm elections was that strong partisan majorities in state legislatures — Republican like Wisconsin and Democratic like Illinois — controlled the redrawing of congressional and state-level electoral districts.
As voters in many states learn more about the ongoing practice and effects of partisan gerrymandering, a high-profile lawsuit originating in Wisconsin may have profound implications for how much a political party can do to keep itself in power.
Wisconsin is at the center of what is shaping up to be a landmark legal decision about how electoral districts are determined and the role of partisanship in creating legislative district boundaries.
Where Wisconsin's voters live and which political parties they support is at the heart of a major lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Months of waiting and guessing are customary in cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that cycle is hitting home in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin is embroiled in a legal battle that could radically reshape the state's political landscape. Literally.
In the age of big data, it is possible to influence election results by drawing district boundaries without producing the bizarre-looking legislative districts which gave "gerrymandering" its name.
The arguments driving a potentially landmark court case over partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin may already be outdated.
Prior to 2011, Milwaukee-area residents Marla Stephens and Kris Lennon felt that their votes counted. Now, however, they say the impact of their votes is diminished due to Wisconsin's 2011 redistricting — which is under challenge in a U.S. Supreme Court case.
No matter which way the U.S. Supreme Court decides, change could be coming to Wisconsin's partisan system for redrawing electoral districts.