Wisconsin Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Challenges To GOP-Friendly Congressional Maps

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Huff Post/AP

Jun 25, 2025, 06:29 PM EDT


MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear challenges brought by Democrats seeking to throw out the battleground state’s current congressional district boundaries before the 2026 midterms.

The decisions, made without explanation from the court, is a setback for Democrats who had hoped for new, friendlier district boundary lines in Wisconsin as they attempt to win back control of the House next year.

Democrats asked the court to redraw the maps, which would have put two of the state’s six congressional seats currently held by Republicans into play. It was the second time in as many years that the court had refused to hear the challenges.

Democrats hoped the court would revisit the congressional lines after it ordered state legislative boundaries redrawn. Democrats then picked up seats in the November election. “It’s good that Wisconsin has fair maps at the state level, but we deserve them at the federal level as well,” Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan said. “Unfortunately, gerrymandered maps for members of Congress will remain in Wisconsin.”

Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wisconsin-congress-redistricting_n_685c771fe4b0f78c57378c5b

---

The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court

Only barely, by 1 vote IIRC.

[riversedge]

1. I wish the SC would tell us their reasoning for the decision, so I can at least try to understand it.

[Bettie]

2. They made a ruling yesterday that

gives the legislature an easy path to go around the governor's vetos as well. It's odd.

[Miguelito Loveless]

3. So, we are betrayed yet again

[SCantiGOP]

7. Perhaps they applied the law

This should not have been a partisan decision.

[The Mouth]

8. It's only Gerrymandering when the other side does it.

[Miguelito Loveless]

9. It should not,

but the MAGAs are nothing but partisan, and our side seems absolutely determined to facilitate their rule breaking.

[riversedge]

5. I missed that one. Thanks for post. I will have to do some reading today--drizzle outside anyways.

[ananda]

4. Folders, not fighters.

I wish all decent people would stand up and fight.

[cadoman]

6. the courts wish more folks would read their opinions directly, tbh

The political and media spin on their decisions can be rather wild.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=974608

And you can search for decisions here:

https://www.wicourts.gov/opinions/sopinion.htm

It looks like the crux of the issue is the governor interpreted the bill as an appropriations bill and used their partial veto power over appropriations bills to remove the gerrymander. The circuit courts agreed with that interpretation, the WI SC did not:

"The governor partially vetoed S.B. 971 and modified
substantive portions of its policies. The governor and DPI maintain S.B. 971
was an “appropriation bill” and was therefore subject to the governor’s
partial veto authority. The circuit court agreed with the executive branch.
We disagree and hold that S.B. 971 was not an appropriation bill."

"Turning to the bill at issue in this case, the text of S.B. 971 did
not set aside public funds for a public purpose; therefore, S.B. 971 was not
an appropriation bill. Instead, S.B. 971 created accounts into which money
could be transferred to fund the programs established under Act 19 and Act
20, and it changed other aspects of the “literacy coaching program.” The
bill, however, does not set aside any public funds; in fact, it expressly states
that “$0” was appropriated."