>> A case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court could upend
state district voting maps
and the new balance on the high court suggests the liberal
majority could find the maps unconstitutional.
Marissa IC has more,
>> What we have here today is a constitutional violation.
>> When the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral arguments
challenging the state's legislative voting maps,
it felt a little like Groundhog's Day.
>> The districts aren't contiguous
and they violate the separation of powers.
>> Plaintiffs say the case now
before the court makes different challenges not addressed
by the court in 2022.
The last time it ruled on the state's district maps.
The new arguments primarily centered around the continuity
of some districts says Marquette Law School research
fellow John Johnson
>> That have weird little island areas
that are disconnected from the rest of them.
>> These islands were caused
by towns being annexed from municipalities over time.
One party argued the result violates state constitutional
requirements because these districts are not
physically contiguous.
The other side says contiguity has a broader definition
and the lines as drawn have 50 years
of precedent behind them.
If the court were to find the maps unconstitutional,
an alternative would be needed.
>> I think if they choose the separation of powers complaint,
then they have to institute entirely new maps.
Well, certainly one problem argument.
If they only throughout the maps on the basis
of the contiguity challenge, then perhaps they would try
to come up with a new map that only solved that problem.
Because the continuity issue does not affect every district.
It affects about half the districts in the state.
>> Experts caution the justices not
to redraw the maps themselves, calling it a slippery slope.
>> If we are to find these maps unconstitutional
and we were to turn to a map, draw someone
to help draw the maps.
Do you have names of people that you would suggest
>> Justice Brian Hagedorn pushed both parties on
what true partisan fairness looks like for Wisconsin. What
>> Would be neutral?
What's the acceptable range of Republican
or democratic leaning assembly districts
or Senate districts that's within the permissible range?
The key question is, which maps are most likely
to support rather than fort majority rule.
>> Current maps have assembly Democrats holding 35 seats,
Republicans have 64.
There are many methods to draw maps
and Johnson says it is possible to calculate a range
of partisan fairness.
>> Mathematicians have really pioneered over the last few
years is using algorithms to generate
enormous ensembles.
You do that in Wisconsin
and you get, oh, in the neighborhood of 55, 56,
maybe 57 seats leaning Republican in a 50 50 year.
It's consequential because our technology allows us
to more precisely target certain kinds of voters.
In a fundamental way, gerrymandering works
because voters are, are
so polarized between the parties.
And I think that that means that
really any solution is going to leave a lot
of people deeply disappointed.
>> No matter how the court rules,
there's no guarantee this won't happen all over again.
>> Is there any end to this litigation?
>> We're making it up as we go along.
If the balance of power on the Supreme Court changed,
you could be right back here again.
>> If the maps are found unconstitutional,
new ones would be needed.
Prior to the 2024 elections reporting for here
and now, I'm Marissa Wojcik.
>> Following oral arguments, the court is expected
to issue its ruling no later than early 2024.