New lawsuit seeks to redraw Wisconsin's congressional maps before 2026 midterms
The latest lawsuit brought by a bipartisan coalition of business leaders was filed in Dane County circuit court, rather than directly with the state Supreme Court as the rejected cases were. The justices did not give any reason for declining to hear those cases, but typically lawsuits start in a lower court and work their way up.
This new lawsuit's more lengthy journey through the courts might not be resolved in time to order new maps before the 2026 midterms.
The Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy argue in the new lawsuit that Wisconsin's congressional maps are unconstitutional because they are an anti-competitive gerrymander. The lawsuit notes that the median margin of victory for candidates in the eight districts since the maps were enacted is close to 30 percentage points.
'Anti‐competitive gerrymanders are every bit as antithetical to democracy, and to law, as partisan gerrymanders and racial gerrymanders,' the lawsuit argues. 'This is because electoral competition is as vital to democracy as partisan fairness.'
The lawsuit alleges that an anti-competitive gerrymander violates the state constitution's guarantees of equal protection to all citizens, the promise to maintain a free government and the right to vote.
The lawsuit was filed against the state's bipartisan elections commission, which administers elections. Commission spokesperson Emilee Miklas declined to comment.
The Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy had attempted to intervene in one of the redistricting cases brought by Democrats with the state Supreme Court, but the justices dismissed the case without considering their arguments.
Members of the business coalition include Tom Florsheim, chairman and CEO of Milwaukee-based Weyco Group, and Cory Nettles, the founder of a private equity fund and a former state commerce secretary.
Republicans hold six of the state's eight U.S. House seats, but only two of those districts are considered competitive. In 2010, the year before Republicans redrew the congressional maps, Democrats held five seats compared with three for Republicans.
The current congressional maps, which were based on the previous ones, were approved by the state Supreme Court when it was controlled by conservative judges. The U.S. Supreme Court in March 2022 declined to block them from taking effect.
Democrats had wanted the justices to revisit congressional lines as well after the court ordered state legislative boundaries redrawn before last year's election. Democrats then narrowed the Republican legislative majorities in November, leading to a bipartisan compromise to pass a state budget last week.
Now Democrats are pushing to have the current maps redrawn in ways that would put two of the six seats currently held by Republicans into play. One they hope to flip is the western Wisconsin seat of Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who won in 2022 after longtime Democratic Rep. Ron Kind retired. Von Orden won reelection in the 3rd District in 2024.
The other seat they are eyeing is southeastern Wisconsin's 1st District, held by Republican Rep. Bryan Steil since 2019. The latest maps made that district more competitive while still favoring Republicans.
The two rejected lawsuits were filed by Elias Law Group, which represents Democratic groups and candidates, and the Campaign Legal Center on behalf of voters.
Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy are represented by Law Forward, a liberal Madison-based law firm, the Strafford Rosenbaum law firm in Madison and Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court of Canada dismisses constitutional challenge of sex-work law
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected a constitutional challenge of the criminal law on sex work, upholding the convictions of two men who argued its provisions are overly broad. The case tested key elements of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which took effect in late 2014. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper brought in the legislation in response to a landmark Supreme Court ruling known as the Bedford decision. The law was intended to protect sex workers from third parties who commercialize the sale of sexual services and allow them to shield themselves from the dangers posed by some clients. Mikhail Kloubakov and Hicham Moustaine were convicted in Alberta of offences under the new law as a result of their employment in 2018 as paid drivers for an escort business, a commercial sex operation. The men successfully contested the provisions in question on the constitutional grounds that they deprive sex workers of the right to security. The first provision criminalizes receiving money or some other material benefit from the sex work of others in exploitative circumstances. The second provision prohibits procuring someone to offer sexual services for sale. An Alberta judge found the provisions were too broad because they apply to people receiving a material benefit from sex work who may otherwise be supporting the safety of sex workers. The Crown appealed, arguing the judge mistakenly concluded that the provisions violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, entered convictions against Kloubakov and Moustaine and referred the matter for sentencing. In its unanimous ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court said the material benefit and procuring offences at the heart of the case permit sex workers to take the safety measures contemplated in the Bedford decision. The court said that while the material benefit offence prohibits someone from receiving a financial or other benefit while knowing it flows from the purchase of sexual services from others, the scope is narrowed by exceptions that allow sex workers to protect themselves by hiring staff. A third party who provides security to someone who sells sexual services could do so lawfully, the court said, as long as they do not encourage the person to sell sex and provided the benefit they receive is proportionate to the value of the services they provide. The top court noted the legislated exceptions do not apply in circumstances that Parliament regards as exploitative, including when a material benefit is obtained through a commercial enterprise. The court said judges will determine on a case-by-case basis whether any given enterprise is a commercial enterprise engaged in the commodification of sexual activity. However, certain conduct does not fall under scope of a commercial enterprise, the court said. That includes: — an individual who sells their own sexual services, whether independently or co-operatively with others; — a third party, such as a driver, receptionist, bodyguard, or manager, who provides security services to someone who sells their own sexual services under a co-operative arrangement; — sex workers who operate indoors from a not-for-profit safe house; — and an individual or entity that merely rents premises to an independent sex worker and does not participate in turning sexual activity into a commodity. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025. Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
Washington Post
20 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court pauses ruling that weakens Voting Rights Act in some states
The Supreme Court on Thursday paused a lower-court ruling that bars individuals in seven Midwestern states from bringing lawsuits claiming voting laws are racially discriminatory under a landmark civil rights law. The justices sided with Native American tribes who sought the emergency stay, arguing that the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit gutted a powerful Voting Rights Act tool that helps ensure voting maps are drawn equitably.
Los Angeles Times
22 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
9th Circuit upholds block on background checks for California ammunition buyers
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that California's policy of background checks for bullet-buyers violates the 2nd Amendment, effectively killing a 2016 ballot measure meant to strengthen the state's notoriously stringent gun laws. Writing for two of the three judges on the appellate panel, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta said the law 'meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms' guaranteed by the constitution, by forcing California gun owners to re-authorize before each ammunition purchase. 'The right to keep and bear arms incorporates the right to operate them, which requires ammunition,' the judge wrote. The ruling is the latest blow to statewide efforts to regulate guns. Both the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have significantly restricted gun control measures in just the last decade. Two of the three controlling cases Ikuta cited in her decision were handed down in the last three years. Thursday's ruling drew primarily from a 2022 Supreme Court decision that sharply limited gun control measures passed by individual states, finding that such laws must be 'consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' California had attempted to sidestep that test in part by pointing to Reconstruction-era loyalty oaths some Americans were required to make before buying guns. But that didn't sway the panel. 'The problem of ensuring that citizens are loyal to the United States by requiring a one-time loyalty oath is not analogous to California's recurring ammunition background check rules,' Ikuta wrote. 'These laws are not relevant.' Judge Jay Bybee disagreed. 'California, which has administered the scheme since 2019, has shown that the vast majority of its checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay,' the judge wrote in his dissent. 'The majority has broken with our precedent and flouted the Supreme Court's guidance.' Data from the California Department of Justice's Bureau of Firearms shows the program approved 89% of purchases, most within about three minutes. It rejected slightly more than 10% on technicalities that were later resolved, and fewer than one percent because the buyer was banned. Although the 2022 case had 'ushered in a new era for Second Amendment jurisprudence,' Bybee wrote, it didn't preclude the bullet-background check scheme. 'We have repeatedly rejected the majority's boundless interpretation of the Second Amendment,' Bybee wrote. 'It is difficult to imagine a regulation on the acquisition of ammunition or firearms that would not 'meaningfully constrain' the right to keep and bear arms under the majority's new general applicability standard.' It was not immediately clear if the ruling would lift restrictions in place for the last six years. California leaders have not yet said whether they would appeal the decision. Gun rights activists were thrilled by the news. 'Today's ruling is a major step forward for the Second Amendment and the rights of every law-abiding citizen,'said Dan Wolgin, CEO of Ammunition Depot, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
