Wisconsin GOP suffers major setback in battle for new state congressional map
Consultants: Republican-drawn maps are “partisan gerrymanders”
Two consultants hired by the Wisconsin Supreme Court have declared that the Republican-drawn legislative maps are blatant examples of “partisan gerrymandering.” However, they stopped short of discarding the four maps created by Democratic lawmakers.
Jonathan Cervas, a professor from Carnegie Mellon University, and Bernard Grofman, a political science professor from the University of California, Irvine, submitted a report to the court claiming that the maps drawn by the Republican legislature and the conservative organization Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) were gerrymandered. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the Republican-drawn maps were unconstitutional due to their failure to meet new contiguity requirements.
“Of the remaining plans, the [WILL plan] appears to have a substantial number of fails of the ‘bounded by’ constitutional criteria,” Cervas and Grofman wrote in the report. “We also note that both the Legislature’s plan and the [WILL plan], from a social science perspective, are partisan gerrymanders.”
The consultants emphasized that the ability of these maps to insulate themselves from electoral change is a clear indication of gerrymandering. They firmly stated that geography should not determine political destiny.
Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, vetoed the new maps proposed by GOP lawmakers, claiming that they were merely replicas of the maps he had previously submitted to the Supreme Court. Evers praised the consultants’ report, considering it a significant step towards achieving fair political maps.
“The days of Wisconsinites living under some of the most gerrymandered maps in the country are numbered,” Evers declared. “While this is just one step in the process, today is an important day for the people of Wisconsin who deserve maps that are fair, responsive, and reflect the will of the people.”
The consultants also approved Evers’s maps, as well as proposals from Democratic lawmakers, petitioners who sued the original Republican-drawn maps, and professors from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Republicans argued that their proposed maps were fair because Democratic voters tend to concentrate in cities, while Republican supporters are spread across larger areas. Rick Esenberg, President of WILL, strongly criticized the findings of Grofman and Cervas, accusing them of bias.
Now, the decision on which maps to implement lies with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has a liberal majority. The court must reach a verdict by March 15, following the orders of the state elections commission.
How does the Wisconsin case of partisan gerrymandering highlight the need for a non-partisan approach to redistricting?
Rements.
The issue of gerrymandering has long been a contentious one in American politics. It refers to the practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries in order to favor a particular political party or group. Critics argue that this practice undermines the principle of fair representation, as it allows politicians to choose their voters rather than the other way around.
In Wisconsin, the state’s legislative maps were redrawn in 2011 by the Republican-controlled legislature. The purpose of this redistricting was ostensibly to ensure partisan advantage for the Republican Party. However, Jonathan Cervas and Bernard Grofman, the consultants hired by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, have concluded that the maps drawn by the Republicans go beyond mere partisanship and constitute blatant examples of “partisan gerrymandering”.
Their report highlights the clear intent of the Republican-drawn maps to secure long-term political advantage for their party. They argue that the boundaries of the districts were deliberately manipulated to dilute the voting power of Democratic-leaning communities and concentrate Republican-leaning voters in certain districts. This manipulation of boundaries, according to the consultants, unduly favors the Republican Party and undermines the principle of fair representation.
It is worth noting that Cervas and Grofman did not completely absolve the Democratic-drawn maps either. While they did not deem them to be as egregious as the Republican-drawn maps, they still identified some instances of partisan bias. Nevertheless, the consultants stopped short of calling for the rejection of the Democratic-drawn maps, indicating that they do not rise to the level of unconstitutional gerrymandering.
The findings of Cervas and Grofman carry significant weight, as they were appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to assess the constitutionality of the state’s legislative maps. Their conclusion that the Republican-drawn maps are partisan gerrymanders adds fuel to the ongoing debate surrounding the issue of gerrymandering in the United States.
Gerrymandering is a problem that transcends party lines. Both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of engaging in this practice when given the opportunity. However, the case in Wisconsin highlights the need for a non-partisan and impartial approach to redistricting. The consultants’ findings underscore the urgency of this issue and serve as a reminder of the importance of fair representation and equal voice for all citizens.
As the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviews the consultants’ report, it will be interesting to see how they decide to proceed. The court has previously ruled the Republican-drawn maps to be unconstitutional, but their ruling on the Democratic-drawn maps remains pending. This case has the potential to set a precedent for addressing gerrymandering across the nation.
Regardless of the court’s decision, the issue of gerrymandering and its impact on democratic processes and fair representation should remain at the forefront of public discourse. It is crucial for citizens to be aware of this practice and demand reform to ensure that electoral districts are drawn in a manner that upholds the principles of democracy and equality. Only then can we truly achieve a system that gives everyone an equal say in shaping the future of our nation.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...