- In this week's look ahead the United States Supreme Court will
rule on a Wisconsin case that could have major ramifications
across the national political spectrum.
The case is Gill versus Whitford and centers on a dispute
over whether Wisconsin's Republican-drawn legislative
boundaries are indeed gerrymandering.
Challengers say these district maps unconstitutionally
benefit Republicans.
The lower courts have already ruled
these maps unconstitutional.
Election law experts say the Wisconsin case is the best
chance yet for the high court to put limits on what lawmakers may
do to gain a partisan advantage
in creating political district maps.
Wisconsin Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca of Kenosha
said quote, now that the Supreme Court has decided
to hear the case there could be a precedent set
to end extreme partisan gerrymandering.
Voters should be able to choose their representatives,
not the other way around.
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel is charged with
defending the Republican-drawn districts and said, quote,
I'm thrilled the Supreme Court has granted our request to
review the restricting decision.
Our redistricting process was entirely lawful and
constitutional and the district court should be reversed.
So in tonight's closer look, the Supreme Court's ultimate ruling
could shift how legislative and congressional lines are drawn
in every state.
As a result, who controls state houses and Congress?
Wisconsin Public Radio Capitol Bureau Chief Shawn Johnson has
been tracking this case through the lower courts for months.
Shawn joins us with his perspective and insight.
Thanks for being here. - Hi Fred.
- How big of a deal in your estimation and in others
is this that this case went to the U.S. Supreme Court?
- It's big in Wisconsin because it's our map.
It would change the way that we divide up legislative districts.
Potentially change who gets elected in the Wisconsin
legislature but it's much bigger than that.
Because it's a big national deal.
It's saying this redistricting process,
which everyone knows has a partisan element to it.
It's saying there is a point at which
somebody can get too partisan.
And Democrats who brought this case are saying
that's what happened in Wisconsin.
And they want the Supreme Court to use this case
and what happened here as a template for saying no.
That is rejecting other, what they view as partisan
gerrymanders around the country.
- Why did the high court decide to take Wisconsin's case
in particular?
- I think bottom line, the three-judge federal panel
that struck down Wisconsin's map on a 2-1 decision
is what made this case ripe for that appeal.
That panel upset the status quo.
It changed the status quo.
It sided with this partisan gerrymandering case.
And said yes, you can strike down a map for being too
partisan for discriminating against Democratic voters.
In this case because of their political beliefs,
making it harder for them to translate votes
to legislative seats.
Once that court made that ruling it made it very likely
the Supreme Court was going to want to get involved.
- The argument on the part of the challengers to the maps is
Republicans drew the lines knowing full well
that Democratic votes would be quote wasted.
Is this a novel challenge?
- It's a novel way of measuring an old phenomenon.
What plaintiffs have done in this case is they have come up
with the new metric they call the efficiency gap.
It is a way of measuring what has gone on forever
in redistricting.
The party in charge of drawing the maps,
as Republicans were after the 2010 wave elections
when they had the legislature and governor's office.
They are able to crack and pack voters from the other side.
So pack a bunch of Democratic voters into districts that
they're going to win anyways.
So that they're quote wasting votes.
Overvoting in those districts.
And then you crack them, spread them out in other districts
where they come up just short and end up wasting those votes,
too.
They put a new metric on that that can measure one state's
maps against another.
And by that metric, the efficiency gap,
Wisconsin has one of the biggest partisan gerrymanders
over the last 40 years.
- Meanwhile the court stayed or declined the lower court's
ruling that Republicans in Wisconsin had to draw up new
maps by the 2018 elections.
And GOP leaders like Attorney General Schimel have been saying
that this is a victory right out of the gate.
What do you know about what experts are saying as to whether
or not that stay has anything to do with their thinking
on the case itself?
- You know it's definitely positive for Republicans because
at least the experts that we've talked to say that makes it
more likely, no matter what happens in this case,
even if the court were to agree and say yes,
this was an unconstitutional gerrymander.
It makes it more likely that this map will be in place for
the 2018 election.
So it's a win for Republicans.
As to whether or not it gives you some inclination of where
justices are going to rule, possibly.
Because one reason they would issue a stay is they think that
Republicans are going to eventually prevail.
But they could be issuing that stay because they don't want to
upset the status quo while they're hearing this case.
That is they don't know where they're going with it.
- All right, Shawn Johnson. Thanks.
- You're welcome.
- It's expected the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments
late this year or early next year.