The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard hours of arguments Wednesday in two lawsuits seeking to throw out the state’s congressional map, a fight that could reshape the state’s eight U.S. House seats for 2028 and beyond.
The court, now with a 5-2 liberal majority after Justice Chris Taylor joined last month, took up appeals after two three-judge panels dismissed the cases this spring. Those panels said they could not override earlier Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings that put the current map in place. Wednesday’s hearing focused on whether those dismissals were correct and whether the challenges can proceed to trial.
Wisconsin’s House map sends six Republicans and two Democrats to Congress. Statewide races are often decided by a few points, but most House districts are not competitive. Democrats are concentrated in Milwaukee- and Madison-based seats. The map traces to lines Republican lawmakers first drew after 2010.
“The legislature that drew these maps came from districts and created maps that are some of the most gerrymandered in the country. That map should not bind us forward and forward in perpetuity. I don’t see how that’s constitutional.”
Chief Justice Jill Karofsky
After the 2020 census, a then-conservative high court adopted a “least changes” plan based on a map submitted by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. Challengers say that still locked in a Republican tilt. Any new map would not affect the 2026 midterms. Plaintiffs are aiming at 2028.
The first case, Bothfeld v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, is a partisan-gerrymandering claim. Voters argue the map unconstitutionally discriminates against Democrats.
The second, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, uses a different theory. Backed by Law Forward and Harvard Law School’s Election Law Clinic, the group says the map is an “anti-competitive” gerrymander: districts drawn so safe that votes are “wasted” and general elections are uncompetitive.
They say that violates state constitutional guarantees of equal protection, free government, and the right to vote. No Wisconsin congressional incumbent has lost a general election under this map and its predecessor over the past decade, they argue.
“The legislature that drew these maps came from districts and created maps that are some of the most gerrymandered in the country,” Chief Justice Jill Karofsky said. “That map should not bind us forward and forward in perpetuity. I don’t see how that’s constitutional.”
Justice Taylor questioned why Wisconsin could not act when other states have. Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn was skeptical that the plaintiffs had a legal hook beyond a political complaint about fairness.
A ruling for the plaintiffs would not immediately draw new lines. It would revive the lawsuits and send them back for trial. The Legislature and governor could still try to pass a replacement map. If they deadlocked, the courts would again be in the middle.
Republicans call the cases a mid-decade power play by a newly liberal court revisiting maps it already approved. Democrats and the challengers say the state constitution does not freeze a gerrymander in place forever.
A decision is expected later in the term but well after the 2026 midterms. The earliest any new maps could take effect would be 2028.
