The new assembly and senate maps.
What happened on Monday really happened in April.
When Gov. Tony Evers signed his own redistricting maps into law this week he was just completing a process that was pretty much inevitable as soon as Janet Protasiewicz crushed Dan Kelly in a bitter state Supreme Court race last spring. Liberals took the court majority when Protasiewicz took her seat in August and the rest was just waiting for the legal machinery to grind through the process.
The only thing that was surprising was the very final act. Faced with four bad choices, from his point of view, Speaker Robin Vos chose the least unpleasant option and rushed it to Evers’ desk to outflank the court. Liberal and Democratic groups had submitted four sets of maps to the court while conservative groups had offered three. Since it was clear that the court would pick one of the liberal offerings, Vos saw his world narrowing. He would face what he saw as execution, but he still had some degree of choice over the means.
What’s likely to happen now is that the case before the court will be ruled moot. This is important because maps adopted by the Legislature and signed by the governor are more legally defensible than court-imposed maps going forward. Courts generally defer to the other branches when it comes to redistricting. So legislative Democrats’ claims that this was some sort of Trojan Horse don’t seem to have much credibility. All but two legislative Democrats voted against their own governor’s plan. Paranoia runs deep, I guess.
According to a Marquette Law School analysis based on 2022 election data, Evers’ maps project a 53-46 Republican advantage in the Assembly and a 17-16 edge for the GOP in the Senate. Maps submitted by the liberal law firm Law Forward would have reduced the Republicans to a projected 50-49 majority, so maybe that’s what the Democrats were holding out for. In any event, according to a report by the court-appointed experts hired to review all seven submissions, Democrats do even better if the analysis is made off of 2020 data. Republicans currently hold 63-36 and 22-10 majorities in the Assembly and Senate, respectively, with one open seat in the Senate.
So, what’s it all mean? Well, there’s no question this is a victory for democracy and for just overall fairness. If you step back, look at the big picture, and try to remember where we were a year ago, this is a day for rejoicing. The Republicans have gamed the system for the last six election cycles, forcing deep red policies down the throat of a purple state without ever having to worry about getting punished at the polls for it. Now, even if they retain their majorities they’ll have to look over their shoulders. Democratic majorities in both houses do not become inevitable, but they become possible.
And Vos’ claim that this is gerrymandering for the Democrats is preposterous and it’s especially ludicrous coming from him. All of the independent experts who have looked at this say the maps meet all the legal criteria and they aren’t designed to benefit one party or the other. Rather they pretty well reflect the overall statewide split. Under the new maps it’s likely that a party that wins a statewide election will also gain control of the Legislature.
I also hope that this could mean a return to a more civil politics and legislative bodies that actually tried to work out differences and address problems. Maybe that’ll happen, but it’s not a sure thing. Look at Congress, if you can stand to. Each house has razor-thin majorities and control is always up for grabs and yet I wouldn’t call what has been going on in Washington civil or even functional.
The problem there is that the narrow Republican majority in the House has actually empowered its tiny hardest-right minority. They see any compromise with Democrats as treason. They took down one speaker and they hold the ax over the head of another.
So, there’s no guarantee that fair maps will lead to comity or even to more moderate representation. Fair maps could strengthen the middle in both parties and in both houses…unless they don’t.
The other thing that this might do is improve the quality of candidates on both sides. Under the current maps, candidate quality really doesn’t matter much, despite what Vos says. Blue districts vote for Democrats regardless of the quality of either candidate and the same holds true for red districts and Republicans. More competitive districts should mean more swing voters basing their decisions on the actual candidates and not just rubber-stamping the party picks. That is unless it becomes a game of turnout versus persuasion. If the idea is to win competitive seats by turning out each party’s base rather than attracting persuadable voters in the middle we could be back to square one.
All of which is to say that we’ve now entered a new chapter but we haven’t nearly finished the book. Things should get better, but how much better and in exactly what ways are still open questions.
Dave Cieslewicz is a Madison- and Upper Peninsula-based writer who served as mayor of Madison from 2003 to 2011. You can read more of his work at Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos.
