Three challenges have recently been launched against Wisconsin’s congressional plan, all invoking state constitutional — not federal — law. These suits pose interesting questions about what (if anything) is legally problematic about this plan. One suit alleges malapportionment because the plan’s districts vary in population by up to two persons, not the arithmetical minimum of one, and this population inequality is unnecessary to achieve any state interest. Another suit alleges both a violation of the separation of powers (because, in adopting the plan, the state supreme court adopted a “least change” criterion instead of independently exercising its remedial authority) and partisan gerrymandering. Arguably the strongest evidence of partisan gerrymandering cited by the suit is that, according to several measures, the plan has been among the most biased in the country in the current cycle.

Lastly, a third suit (for which I’m one of the attorneys) alleges anti-competitive (not partisan) gerrymandering. This suit points out that Wisconsin’s 2011 plan (which the current plan mirrors) aimed to protect incumbents from competition. The suit also describes how uncompetitive races have been under the current plan: In the 2022 and 2024 elections, the median margin of victory was nearly thirty points, and every district but one was won by at least ten points. The suit further notes that alternative maps created without considering election results (but satisfying all federal and state criteria) are almost never as uncompetitive as the current plan.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will now consider which, if any, of these suits to hear. If the court decides to get involved, the plaintiffs have asked for a decision in time to redraw the map before the 2026 election.