Wisconsin’s Detached Legislative Districts Face Legal Challenge in Lawsuit
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin state Rep. Jimmy Anderson faces an inconvenient and potentially unconstitutional situation when he wants to visit residents in certain neighborhoods he represents. From his Fitchburg home in suburban Madison, Anderson must exit his own district, pass through another district, reenter his district, and then head north through yet another district to finally reach a cluster of homes assigned to his district. This unusual practice of detached districts, referred to as noncontiguous districts, is being challenged in a recent lawsuit seeking to strike down and replace the current Assembly and Senate districts before the 2024 election.
The Wisconsin Constitution requires legislative districts to consist of contiguous territory, and the presence of detached sections violates this requirement. The resulting map looks like Swiss cheese, with some districts dotted with small neighborhood holes assigned to different representatives. This peculiar practice is cited as one of several alleged violations in the lawsuit, which also challenges partisan gerrymandering as illegal under the state constitution.
While the legality of partisan gerrymandering has had mixed results in similar cases across the country, Democrats in Wisconsin are hopeful that the state’s new liberal majority in the Supreme Court will deliver a decisive rejection of gerrymandering that has given Republicans a disproportionate legislative majority. However, the challenge to the noncontiguous districts could provide a separate basis for the court to strike down the current maps.
Wisconsin’s Assembly districts are among the most tilted nationally, with Republicans consistently winning more seats than expected based on their average share of the vote. On the other hand, states like Nevada have seen Democrats benefiting from redistricting. Most states follow traditional principles for redrawing legislative districts after each census, including population equality, compactness, and contiguity. While some states use narrow strips of roads or rivers to connect distinct parts of a district, Wisconsin takes the concept of contiguity in a loose sense.
The detached districts in Wisconsin have been described as “profoundly weird” by Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Marymount University Law School. Rep. Anderson’s district includes more than a dozen scattered territories around Madison that are disconnected from the district’s main portion. This poses a challenge for Anderson, who uses a wheelchair and must repeatedly load and unload it from his van when canvassing. It also confuses his constituents, who may not realize their neighbors are represented by a different representative.
The lawsuit argues that detached districts violate the state constitution, referring to an 1892 case where the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that districts cannot be made up of detached territory. Despite this precedent, the practice has only grown over time, with the majority of Assembly and Senate districts containing disconnected portions. Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based group involved in the lawsuit, argues that observing the words of the constitution is crucial.
However, the issue of noncontiguous districts has not always been a point of contention. In 1992, a federal judicial panel endorsed the use of detached districts when considering a redistricting lawsuit in Wisconsin. The panel likened disconnected “islands” in legislative districts to towns that legally annex noncontiguous areas. They argued that the slight distance between towns and islands did not warrant a rejection of the legislative plan’s lack of literal contiguity.
Now, 30 years later, the roles are reversed with Republicans proposing and adopting Assembly and Senate maps with disconnected districts. Democrats, who control the governor’s office, are now backing the legal challenge. Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos maintains that the districts are constitutional and contends that prior court rulings support their legality.
Critics argue that contiguity requirements have not always been explicitly defined in redistricting, leaving a margin for interpretation. The balancing act between criteria like contiguity, compactness, population equality, and municipality boundaries can be challenging. While the noncontiguous sections in Anderson’s district may not significantly affect the partisan composition of his voters, redistricting experts warn that such disconnected districts can still be exploited for political gain.
The outcome of the lawsuit remains to be seen, but the challenge to noncontiguous districts may present a neutral basis for the court to strike down the current maps. Regardless of the legal outcome, the detached districts in Wisconsin have raised concerns about community representation and the fairness of elections in the state.