1
00:00:02,035 --> 00:00:05,038
and we lead it to victory
in November.

2
00:00:05,105 --> 00:00:07,541
for your time.
>> Thanks for having me.

3
00:00:07,608 --> 00:00:10,077
>> Next week, Zach
continues his interviews

4
00:00:10,143 --> 00:00:13,013
with candidates running for
governor. Look for more of

5
00:00:13,080 --> 00:00:17,284
his reporting on air and
online in coming weeks. The

6
00:00:17,351 --> 00:00:20,254
battle lines are drawn once
again over voting district

7
00:00:20,320 --> 00:00:23,891
lines, this time Wisconsin
congressional districts.

8
00:00:23,957 --> 00:00:26,894
Republicans have blasted
the order, but the

9
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:29,696
Wisconsin Supreme Court
assigned a pair of three

10
00:00:29,763 --> 00:00:32,933
judge panels to hear two
lawsuits that argue that

11
00:00:33,000 --> 00:00:36,537
the state's congressional
maps must be redrawn

12
00:00:36,603 --> 00:00:38,372
because they are
unconstitutionally favoring

13
00:00:38,438 --> 00:00:43,610
of Republicans. Six of the
state's eight districts are

14
00:00:43,677 --> 00:00:47,181
currently held by
Republicans. The court

15
00:00:47,247 --> 00:00:49,416
playing out in the midst of
a national redistricting

16
00:00:49,483 --> 00:00:52,386
battle, as President Donald
Trump is trying to preserve

17
00:00:52,452 --> 00:00:56,890
a slim Republican majority
in the House in the 2026

18
00:00:56,957 --> 00:01:00,060
elections. Director of the
Elections Research Center

19
00:01:00,127 --> 00:01:03,530
and professor of political
science at UW-Madison,

20
00:01:03,597 --> 00:01:05,999
Barry Burden is here with
more. And thanks very much

21
00:01:06,066 --> 00:01:08,302
for being here.
>> Thanks for having me.

22
00:01:08,368 --> 00:01:11,538
>> So in your expert view,
do Wisconsin congressional

23
00:01:11,605 --> 00:01:14,107
maps unconstitutionally
favor Republicans?

24
00:01:14,174 --> 00:01:16,343
>> Well, they certainly
favor Republicans. Whether

25
00:01:16,410 --> 00:01:19,213
this constitutional or not
will be an issue for the

26
00:01:19,279 --> 00:01:21,114
courts. You know, there are
eight districts in the

27
00:01:21,181 --> 00:01:24,585
state. Six of them are held
by Republicans, two of the

28
00:01:24,651 --> 00:01:27,888
seats held by Democrats.
And it's been that way for

29
00:01:27,955 --> 00:01:30,057
a while. That's one of the
contentions, at least in

30
00:01:30,123 --> 00:01:32,426
one of the cases, is that
it's been a durable and

31
00:01:32,492 --> 00:01:35,295
predictable outcome, that
the drawing of those maps,

32
00:01:35,362 --> 00:01:37,764
which really began in 2011
under Scott Walker and

33
00:01:37,831 --> 00:01:40,267
Republicans continued
essentially with a least

34
00:01:40,334 --> 00:01:43,237
change version of that
after the 2020 census, that

35
00:01:43,303 --> 00:01:45,839
it has locked in A62
majority. So in that sense,

36
00:01:45,906 --> 00:01:47,975
it's certainly tilted
towards Republicans.

37
00:01:48,041 --> 00:01:52,045
>> So other than the six
two district margins, what

38
00:01:52,112 --> 00:01:56,316
stands out about these maps?
>> They're not competitive,

39
00:01:56,383 --> 00:01:59,853
at least for six of those
seats are unlikely to be

40
00:01:59,920 --> 00:02:02,189
held by anything but a
Republican or Democrat,

41
00:02:02,256 --> 00:02:04,858
sort of. Regardless of who
those people are and what

42
00:02:04,925 --> 00:02:07,327
the campaigns are like and
what the issues are like,

43
00:02:07,394 --> 00:02:11,198
we know well in advance the
second district, the eighth

44
00:02:11,265 --> 00:02:13,901
party is going to represent
those seats? Only two of

45
00:02:13,967 --> 00:02:17,171
the seats, the first and
the third, are anywhere

46
00:02:17,237 --> 00:02:19,206
near competitive. We have
Republican incumbents in

47
00:02:19,273 --> 00:02:22,342
both of those districts.
They lean Republican, so

48
00:02:22,409 --> 00:02:25,045
there's always a
there. But even those have

49
00:02:25,112 --> 00:02:27,915
been reliable for
Republican victories.

50
00:02:27,981 --> 00:02:31,018
>> Why was congressional
redistricting kind of left

51
00:02:31,084 --> 00:02:33,854
off the table when
Wisconsin redrew and then

52
00:02:33,921 --> 00:02:37,291
passed into law? New
legislative maps?

53
00:02:37,357 --> 00:02:39,293
>> We don't know exactly,
because the Supreme Court

54
00:02:39,359 --> 00:02:41,895
wasn't transparent about
that. There were lawsuits

55
00:02:41,962 --> 00:02:44,198
brought to the Supreme
Court focusing on the state

56
00:02:44,264 --> 00:02:46,066
legislative districts and
the congressional. They

57
00:02:46,133 --> 00:02:48,335
took up the state
legislative districts, and

58
00:02:48,402 --> 00:02:50,938
that eventually resulted in
new lines being drawn for

59
00:02:51,004 --> 00:02:53,307
the Assembly and state
Senate, the congressional

60
00:02:53,373 --> 00:02:56,176
maps they decided not to
touch and sent them back,

61
00:02:56,243 --> 00:02:58,912
really without any message
as to why they were not

62
00:02:58,979 --> 00:03:01,915
taking them up. It now, in
retrospect, seems to be

63
00:03:01,982 --> 00:03:04,017
something about the process,
because those same groups

64
00:03:04,084 --> 00:03:07,221
came forward essentially
with similar lawsuits, but

65
00:03:07,287 --> 00:03:10,424
now filed in Dane County
Court. That's following an

66
00:03:10,490 --> 00:03:13,260
old process from 2011. We
might talk about that maybe

67
00:03:13,327 --> 00:03:15,329
is where the court was
telling those litigants to

68
00:03:15,395 --> 00:03:18,198
go.
precedent is there for the

69
00:03:19,199 --> 00:03:21,568
Wisconsin Supreme Court to
order circuit judge panels

70
00:03:21,635 --> 00:03:24,238
to hear the cases
challenging these maps?

71
00:03:24,304 --> 00:03:26,440
>> Well, it hasn't been
done before, and that's

72
00:03:26,507 --> 00:03:29,476
because the law that
enabled it was passed in

73
00:03:29,543 --> 00:03:32,112
2011, ironically, by Scott
Walker and Republicans,

74
00:03:32,179 --> 00:03:34,815
when they were unhappy that
Democrats seemed to be

75
00:03:34,882 --> 00:03:37,017
filing suit in Dane County
repeatedly, where they

76
00:03:37,084 --> 00:03:38,952
thought they would get a
favorable hearing from a

77
00:03:39,019 --> 00:03:42,122
judge there. This requires
that any case that has to

78
00:03:42,189 --> 00:03:45,692
do with the apportionment
or districting at the

79
00:03:45,759 --> 00:03:48,896
state level, has to result
in three judge panels being

80
00:03:48,962 --> 00:03:51,298
appointed by the Supreme
Court, and those judges

81
00:03:51,365 --> 00:03:53,934
can't all come from Dane
County. They've got to be

82
00:03:54,001 --> 00:03:57,237
scattered across circuits
what the court did last

83
00:03:57,304 --> 00:03:59,673
week in creating two of
these panels to deal with

84
00:03:59,740 --> 00:04:02,543
the two cases before them.
>> So in the redistricting

85
00:04:02,609 --> 00:04:04,278
battle, are those efforts
about the actual fairness

86
00:04:04,344 --> 00:04:08,448
of of maps or directed
toward partisan advantage?

87
00:04:08,515 --> 00:04:11,985
>> It's all partisanship, I
would say at this point.

88
00:04:12,052 --> 00:04:15,122
And that comes also from
the Supreme Court, which

89
00:04:15,189 --> 00:04:17,991
before this latest round of
districting back in 2018

90
00:04:18,058 --> 00:04:21,061
2019, dealt with a case
that ended up with the

91
00:04:21,128 --> 00:04:24,798
court saying any level of
partisan shenanigans in

92
00:04:24,865 --> 00:04:27,301
drawing districts, at least
for Congress under federal

93
00:04:27,367 --> 00:04:30,270
law, is completely fine.
That's not a matter of law.

94
00:04:30,337 --> 00:04:32,206
It's not a matter of
constitution. So it's

95
00:04:32,272 --> 00:04:34,541
noteworthy that these two
cases in Wisconsin are

96
00:04:34,608 --> 00:04:37,978
under state law and state
constitutions going to the

97
00:04:38,045 --> 00:04:40,214
state supreme Court. So the
litigants have decided to

98
00:04:40,280 --> 00:04:42,449
steer clear of the federal
courts because there's no

99
00:04:42,516 --> 00:04:44,918
longer a remedy there, at
least when it's about

100
00:04:44,985 --> 00:04:47,754
partisanship.
decision just released by

101
00:04:47,821 --> 00:04:51,258
the US Supreme Court on
happens with redistricting

102
00:04:51,325 --> 00:04:54,361
going forward?
>> So Texas is where this

103
00:04:54,428 --> 00:04:57,130
all began. This is a really
strange era we're in that

104
00:04:57,197 --> 00:05:00,200
many states are redrawing
maps in the middle of the

105
00:05:00,267 --> 00:05:02,302
decade. We're sort of
halfway between the last

106
00:05:02,369 --> 00:05:04,972
census and the next census.
Texas began with maps that

107
00:05:05,038 --> 00:05:07,975
were drawn to favor
Republicans by adding about

108
00:05:08,041 --> 00:05:10,477
five seats there. That
would also take away about

109
00:05:10,544 --> 00:05:13,947
five seats from Democrats.
So a ten point swing. Those

110
00:05:14,014 --> 00:05:16,183
maps were declared illegal,
a violation of the Voting

111
00:05:16,250 --> 00:05:18,418
Rights Act. The US Supreme
Court yesterday decided to

112
00:05:18,485 --> 00:05:21,221
allow those maps to go
forward, partly because

113
00:05:21,288 --> 00:05:24,391
they thought the court, the
federal Court, intervened

114
00:05:24,458 --> 00:05:27,194
too close to the primary in
Texas, which comes up very

115
00:05:27,261 --> 00:05:29,229
quickly. Candidates are are
beginning to file already

116
00:05:29,296 --> 00:05:32,466
just next week to get in.
And they weren't convinced

117
00:05:32,533 --> 00:05:35,169
that it was going to be a
violation of the Voting

118
00:05:35,235 --> 00:05:38,005
Rights Act anyway. So it
looks like the new map in

119
00:05:38,071 --> 00:05:40,274
Texas is back on, and all
of the activity in the

120
00:05:40,340 --> 00:05:41,975
other states is also
happening.

121
00:05:42,042 --> 00:05:44,011
>> So does that kind of
create an arms race of

122
00:05:44,077 --> 00:05:46,380
changing maps across the
country?

123
00:05:46,446 --> 00:05:48,382
>> It does. So Texas was
first the the main response

124
00:05:48,448 --> 00:05:52,052
to that was in California,
where Democrats decided to

125
00:05:52,119 --> 00:05:54,221
override their commission.
That draws districts by

126
00:05:54,288 --> 00:05:56,123
having a ballot proposition.
They've now created new

127
00:05:56,190 --> 00:05:59,259
districts that add about
five Democratic seats. So

128
00:05:59,326 --> 00:06:01,195
essentially canceling out
what Republicans did in

129
00:06:01,261 --> 00:06:06,066
Texas. Now we've got
Missouri, Florida, Virginia,

130
00:06:06,133 --> 00:06:09,036
maybe Maryland, maybe
Illinois, Indiana, some

131
00:06:09,102 --> 00:06:11,505
other states, Utah. Because
of a court ruling there,

132
00:06:11,572 --> 00:06:14,208
there's a lot of redrawing.
And it's not clear in the

133
00:06:14,274 --> 00:06:17,744
end which party is going to
be advantaged, but it's the

134
00:06:17,811 --> 00:06:20,047
of this process we have
ever seen.

135
00:06:20,113 --> 00:06:23,317
>> In Wisconsin. Is there
any chance in your mind

136
00:06:23,383 --> 00:06:26,386
that new congressional maps
could be drawn before the

137
00:06:26,453 --> 00:06:29,456
midterms?
that timeline gets met.

138
00:06:29,523 --> 00:06:33,126
We're just now beginning to
have hearings and, you know,

139
00:06:33,193 --> 00:06:35,963
in some motions and filings
for those three judge

140
00:06:36,029 --> 00:06:38,232
panels that were appointed,
there's going to have to be

141
00:06:38,298 --> 00:06:40,300
evidence brought. The
judges are going to have to

142
00:06:40,367 --> 00:06:43,270
rule over those cases. If
they decide the

143
00:06:43,337 --> 00:06:45,873
be struck down, then new
districts need to be

144
00:06:45,939 --> 00:06:48,041
created by some process,
either the state

145
00:06:48,108 --> 00:06:51,144
governor, or the courts
appoint someone to do that

146
00:06:51,211 --> 00:06:54,014
process. It all needs to be
in place probably by the

147
00:06:54,081 --> 00:06:56,383
end of March, so that
candidates know where to

148
00:06:56,450 --> 00:06:59,019
file the filing deadlines
in June for a primary in

149
00:06:59,086 --> 00:07:03,023
August. So this was, you
know, a crunch when the

150
00:07:03,090 --> 00:07:06,293
were redrawn two years ago.
But the final maps were

151
00:07:06,360 --> 00:07:08,328
adopted around this time.
The rulings were just

152
00:07:08,395 --> 00:07:10,397
around Christmas time, and
the maps came shortly

153
00:07:10,464 --> 00:07:15,035
thereafter. Were behind
that schedule. It seems