>> AN ANTICIPATED EXPERT ANALYSIS OF NEW VOTING MAPS
SUBMITTED TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT IS OUT.
RESEARCH FELLOW AT THE LUBAR CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY AT THE
MARQUETTE LAW SCHOOL, JOHN JOHNSON, JOINS US WITH HIS TAKE.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. >> MY PLEASURE.
>> YOU ANALYZED THE MAPS WITH THE CRITERIA SET FORTH BY THE
SUPREME COURT. OVERALL, OF ALL THE MAPS
SUBMITTED BY THE LEGISLATURE, THE GOVERNOR, THE LAW FIRMS AND
OTHERS, WHICH COMPORTS THE MOST IN YOUR ANALYSIS?
>> THERE'S NOT A CLEAR WINNER ACROSS ALL THE CRITERIA.
SOME DO BETTER ON SOME METRICS THAN OTHERS.
>> AND DO YOU THINK THE COURT WILL ACCEPT ANY OF THESE
SUBMITTED MAPS? >> I'M NOT SURE.
I THINK MOST OR ALL OF THEM MEET THE MINIMUM CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS, CONTIGUITY EQUAL POPULATIONS, THOSE KINDS OF
THINGS, BUT THE COURT HAS TO MAKE JUDGMENT CALLS ABOUT WHICH
OF THESE CRITERIA IT VALUES MOST.
>> AND THEN IT IS TRUE, AM I CORRECT, THAT THEY COULD
DECIDED, YOU KNOW, NONE OF THEM REALLY ARE UP TO MUSTER SO WE'RE
GOING TO SEND THIS TO THESE MAP-MAKER CONSULTANTS.
IS THAT THE NEXT STEP IF IT GOES THAT WAY?
>> I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. THE OPINION THAT THE COURT
RELEASED IS NOT AS CLEAR AS I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE ABOUT THE
PROCESS THAT WE'LL FOLLOW HERE, BUT I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, AND HE
HAS CONSULTANTS THEY'VE HIRED HAVE DONE THAT KIND OF WORK FOR
OTHER STATES. >> SO WHAT WAS THE MOST
IMPORTANT CRITERIA UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HOW DID THE
MAPS STACK UP ON THAT? >> WELL, I THINK THE MOST
IMPORTANT CRITERIA IS EQUAL POPULATION.
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. WE DO REDISTRICTING.
ALL OF THE PLANS HAVE A POPULATION DEVIATION OF LESS
THAN 2%, SO I COULD IMAGINE THE JUSTICES SIMPLY DECIDING THAT
ALL OF THEM WERE EQUALLY GOOD ON THAT METRIC.
ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME OF THE PLANS HAVE DEVIATION CLOSER TO
1% AND SOME CLOSER TO 2 LOWER IS BETTER ON THIS METRIC.
SO WE COULD ALSO IMAGINE THE JUSTICES SAY, WELL, WE PREFER TO
HAVE THE LEAST POPULATION DEVIATION, THE MOST EQUAL
POPULATIONS POSSIBLE. THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, SORT OF
PASS-FAIL IS CONTIGUITY, WHICH THESE PLANS ALL SET OUT TO
ACHIEVE. >> SO YOU COMMENTED THAT THE
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE'S MAP STUCK TO THE LEAST CHANGE FROM
THE LAST LEAST CHANGED MAPS. HOW SO?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. SO AS YOU'LL RECALL, THE REASON
THE OLD MAPS WERE THROWN OUT WAS BECAUSE MANY OF THE DISTRICTS
LACKING CONTIGUITY, AND THE LEGISLATIVE REPUBLICANS SUBM
ITTED A MAP WHERE THEY ESSENTIALLY JUST MADE THE FEWEST
CHANGES POSSIBLE TO RESOLVE THOSE CONTIGUITY ISSUES.
SORT OF THE MINIMAL CHANGES NEEDED TO MEET THE NEW
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS THE COURT LAID OUT.
THAT ENDED UP RESULTING IN A LOT OF MUNICIPAL AND BOARD SPLITS,
ACTUALLY, BECAUSE THE REASON WHY THOSE OLD DISTRICTS WERE NOT
CONTIGUOUS IS BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITIES THEMSELVES WERE
NOT CONTIGUOUS. >> SO YOU DESCRIBED THE
REPUBLICANS AS DELIBERATELY NOT PLAYING BALL WITH WHAT THE COURT
REQUESTED. IS THAT AKIN TO KI ND OF THUMBING
THEIR NOSE AT THE PROCESS? >> I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE
LISTENER TO DECIDE, BUT I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE
WAS ANNOYED WITH WHAT THE COURT DID AND CHOSE NOT TO CHANGE THE
PARTISAN IMPACT OF THEIR MAP REALLY AT ALL, WHICH IS
SOMETHING THAT THE COURT SAID THEY WOULD EXPLICITLY CONSIDER.
>> SO BARRY BURDEN, PROFESSOR, TOLD US HE THINKS THE NUMBER ONE
EFFECT WILL BE SHAKING UP INCUMBENTS, WHEREBY NEW MAPS
COULD PUT THEM IN THE SAME DISTRICT. WHAT ARE YOUR OBSE
RVATIONS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PROPOSED DISTRICTS
WITH MULTIPLE INCUMBENTS? >> SO AS FAR AS I'M ABLE TO
TELL, THE LEGISLATIVE REPUBLICANS' MAP WOULDN'T PLACE
ANY INCUMBENTS FROM EITHER PARTY IN THE SAME DISTRICT
CONSISTENTLY WITH THAT LEAST CHANGED APPROACH WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT. ALL THE OTHER PLANS WO ULD DO
THAT, AND PARTICULARLY A LOT OF REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS WOULD BE
PLACED IN THE SAME DISTRICT. SO AS I'VE LOOKED AT THIS, I
BELIEVE THE PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE RIGHT PETITIONERS WOULD
CREATE 17 DISTRICTS WITH NO INCUMBENTS AND THEN THE PLAN
SUBMITTED BY LAW FORWARD AND THE SENATE DEMOCRATS WOULD CREATE 19
DISTRICTS WITH NO INCUMBENTS AND THEN THE PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE
CONSERVATIVE LAW FIRM WOULD CREATE 18 DISTRICTS WITH NO
INCUMBENTS. AND SO IF YOU' RE DRAWING THESE
DISTRICTS WITH NO INCUMBENTS, THAT MEANS INCUMBENTS ARE BEING
PAIRED TOGETHER ELSEWHERE. >> HMM.
WELL, ALSO THIS WEEK, A LAWSUIT WAS FILED OVER MAPS FOR
WISCONSIN'S CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.
ARE THEY FLAWED UNDER THE COURT'S NEW CRITERIA?
>> NOT THE CONTIGUITY ISSUE. MY UNDERSTANDING, I HAVEN'T READ
THE FILING, BUT FROM THE REPORTING I'VE READ, THAT THOSE
LAWYERS ARE ARGUING THAT THE LEAST CHANGE APPROACH IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY FLAWED AND ASKING THE COURT TO REJECT THE
WHOLE CONGRESSIONAL MAP ON THOSE GROUNDS. >> LOTS OF REDISTRIC
TING ALL OVER THE PLACE POTENTIALLY.
JOHN JOHNSON, THANKS VERY MUCH. JOHN JOHNSON, THANKS VERY MUCH.