Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
595 U.S. 398
SCOTUS2022Background
- After the 2020 census revealed population shifts, Wisconsin’s legislative districts were malapportioned; the Legislature passed new maps but the Governor vetoed them.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court, acting on an original action filed by voters, solicited proposed maps from parties and selected the Governor’s Assembly and Senate maps as a unit (the Governor’s map added a seventh majority-Black Assembly district in Milwaukee).
- The Wisconsin court justified selecting the Governor’s map in part because it believed the Voting Rights Act (VRA) might require an additional majority-Black district and concluded the map could comply with the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Legislature and voter petitioners challenged that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the state court imposed race-based maps without the narrow-tailoring required by the Equal Protection Clause.
- The U.S. Supreme Court (per curiam) granted review, concluded the Wisconsin Supreme Court misapplied Cooper v. Harris and related precedent (failing to require a strong basis in evidence and an adequate Gingles/totality analysis), reversed the selection of the Governor’s maps, and remanded for further proceedings compatible with equal protection principles and the election timetable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court lawfully adopted race-based maps without satisfying strict scrutiny | The court adopted maps that used race as a predominant factor without a strong evidentiary basis; strict scrutiny was not met | The Governor and court had reason to believe the VRA required an additional majority-Black district; the court gave deference and relied on the VRA concern | Reversed: race-based districting triggers strict scrutiny and requires a strong basis in evidence; the state/court failed to satisfy that standard |
| What showing is required to justify race-based districting under the VRA | Plaintiffs: adding a majority-minority district must be justified by a specific, district-level, strong evidentiary showing that §2 requires it | Defendants: proportionality and demonstrable population shifts supported the additional majority-Black district; some deference and "breathing room" apply | Held that Cooper requires a strong, pre-enactment evidentiary basis and an intense, local Gingles analysis; merely showing the VRA "may" require a map is insufficient |
| Whether the Gingles preconditions and totality-of-circumstances analysis were adequately addressed | Plaintiffs: the Wisconsin court relied on generalities and proportionality instead of district-level Gingles analysis and a full totality review | Defendants: parties largely assumed some majority-Black districts were needed; proportionality supported the court’s approach | Held that the Wisconsin court’s treatment was inadequate—Gingles preconditions require careful, district-by-district evaluation and the totality analysis cannot be reduced to proportionality alone |
| Who must bear the burden of satisfying strict scrutiny when a state court selects a map | Plaintiffs: the map-adopting authority (whether the Governor or the court) must satisfy strict scrutiny with a strong evidentiary basis | Defendants: ambiguous given the unusual posture; the court’s selection process and the Governor’s submissions justified the map | Held that the burden cannot be avoided; whether the Governor or the court is the mapmaker, strict-scrutiny requirements and the strong-basis-in-evidence standard apply; Wisconsin court erred either way |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (race-based districting is "odious" and subject to strict scrutiny)
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (race predominance requires strict scrutiny)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (§2 framework and three preconditions for vote-dilution claims)
- Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994) (proportionality is relevant but never dispositive in §2 totality analysis)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (need for an "intensely local appraisal" in district-specific VRA analysis)
- Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. _ (2017) (State must have a "strong basis in evidence" to conclude §2 requires race-based districting)
- Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. _ (2018) (States must make a strong pre-enactment showing where race is used in redistricting)
- Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996) (the institution making racial classifications must have a strong evidentiary basis before adopting remedial measures)