849 F. Supp. 2d 840
E.D. Wis.2012Background
- Wisconsin underwent new redistricting after the 2010 census, drawing both state legislative and congressional maps (Acts 39, 43, 44).
- The redistricting process was run largely by Republican leaders with limited Democratic participation and secrecy around drafting; public input from Dems was minimal.
- Lawsuits were filed (Baldus and Voces de la Frontera) challenging Acts 43 (legislative) and 44 (congressional) as violating federal and state law; the matter was assigned to a three-judge federal panel.
- The court found Act 43 violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Latino voting strength in Milwaukee (Assembly Districts 8 and 9); other claims were largely unresolved or rejected.
- Act 44 showed no population deviation and the court held there was no viable one-person, one-vote violation for congressional districts; several other claims were dismissed or rendered moot.
- The court granted relief on the Latino-voting-rights claim, enjoining Act 43 in its current form, and dismissed remaining claims with prejudice; various motions were denied as moot or administrative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Act 43 violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting Latino influence in Milwaukee? | Latinos in 8 and 9 lacked an equal opportunity to elect candidates of choice. | Act 43 maintained population equality and used neutral criteria; no Section 2 violation. | Yes, Act 43 violated Section 2; relief granted for the Latino districts. |
| Do Act 43’s population deviations exceed constitutional tolerances for state redistricting? | Deviations and shifts were excessive and politically motivated. | Deviations were de minimis; not constitutionally actionable under current standards. | No constitutional violation; deviations deemed insufficient for relief (Claims One and Eight dismissed). |
| Did Act 44 violate one-person, one-vote or permit partisan gerrymandering in congressional districts? | Act 44 was designed to maximize partisan advantage without population deviation. | Act 44 preserved perfect population equality; no viable standard for partisan gerrymandering. | No one-person, one-vote violation; partisan-gerrymandering claim not tested due to lack of workable standard. |
| Did the plan disenfranchise voters by moving state-senate seats to odd/even districts (Claim Three)? | Voters shifted between districts caused temporary disenfranchisement. | Temporary disenfranchisement is permissible if not targeting a group disproportionately. | No equal-protection violation based on the record. |
| Is there a viable Section 2 remedy if Latinos lack a majority-minority district and two influence districts are used? | Two influence districts should not substitute for a majority-minority district. | Section 2 allows compensatory measures; coalition or influence districts may be permissible. | Judge rejected substitution as a remedy; majority-minority district required; thus, Act 43 found deficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (one-person, one-vote principle governs legislative apportionment)
- Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1983) (deviations analyzed with legitimate goals; standards for deviations)
- Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (U.S. 1983) (minor deviations may be challenged if arbitrary or discriminatory)
- LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (U.S. 2006) (importance of citizen voting-age population in §2 analysis)
- Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2009) (clarifies that §2 can require majority-minority districts but may not require influence districts)