2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Wisconsin

[Gass3268]

Probably the grounds for a Evers veto, if he goes that route.
https://twitter.com/jdjmke/status/1757487467395944739?s=46

[henster]

Probably the grounds for a Evers veto, if he goes that route.
https://twitter.com/jdjmke/status/1757487467395944739?s=46

Special elections are held under old lines all the time in between redistricting years, it happened for a couple races in NY in 2022 and TX-34 special is probably the most notable. IMO all this posturing from Dems seems unnecessary, the maps the court produces aren't going to that much different from Evers in the end. Dragging this out further is just less time Dems have to hit the ground running on flipping seats.

[Nyvin]

With Evers Map in the State Senate, Democrats could "potentially" flip 8, 14, 18, and 30.   That'd bring them to 18R-15D, two short of majority.

For Republicans, they could flip 32 (like always really).  Pfaff doesn't really outperform the baseline of the district much if at all.   The rest of the D-held seats up this year are all safe.

From there, in 2026 the Democrats need to win three out of four of 5, 17, 21, and 31 (all but 31 are R incumbents) for a majority.

Biden actually won all the districts listed here.

[Oryxslayer]

Probably the grounds for a Evers veto, if he goes that route.
https://twitter.com/jdjmke/status/1757487467395944739?s=46

Special elections are held under old lines all the time in between redistricting years, it happened for a couple races in NY in 2022 and TX-34 special is probably the most notable. IMO all this posturing from Dems seems unnecessary, the maps the court produces aren't going to that much different from Evers in the end. Dragging this out further is just less time Dems have to hit the ground running on flipping seats.

This is quite literally standard practice since you are fulfilling a unfinished term that was elected under old lines. People noted in 2022 when Nebraska used their new lines for the NE-01 special election that the GOP probably would have sucessfully challenged the results if they had a upset loss.

[Yoda]

So what is the timeline for action from the Governor? How long does he have to decide whether to sign the maps into law or let the WI Supremes draw their own map?

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/redistrictnet/status/1759593888694583658?s=46

[Gass3268]

Evers signed the bill approving the maps.

https://twitter.com/danrshafer/status/1759596438533685749?s=46

I’ll have a breakdown coming here soon comparing the maps.

[wbrocks67]

Can someone TLDR these maps- are they good?

[Gass3268]

Can someone TLDR these maps- are they good?

Light Republican lean for both, but totally doable for Dems to get majorities. Also a number of seats I would expect Democrats to continue to improve on as the decade progresses, with not many I think they would have to worry about.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So they went with the original Evers maps right?

[Pres Mike]

What about the federal house map?

[Oryxslayer]

So they went with the original Evers maps right?

Yes. After enough strongarming the governors eventual maps got passed. The calculations made by Vos & Co. are that these are basically the best they could get. The other 3 maps deemed 'acceptable' by the masters worse for the GOP, and anything new the court will order would likely be worse still. That said, the mapping differences are the equivalent of splitting hairs. This map is closely analogous to Michigan, Pennsylvania, and maybe come next year Ohio's, which really shows the guiding mapping principle for the Midwest Dems has be partisan equity. Dems are guaranteed to gain a bunch of seats, and both chambers should be competitive (Senate might take until 2026 when the other half of seats are up). Control though will be down to the multitude of factors that always matter in marginal races.

What about the federal house map?

This suit and ruling has zero connections to or relevance for the Congressional plan. They are two separate things.

That said, Elias's team is making motions against the congressional plan directly at the State Supreme Court, with the aim of getting a new congressional plan for 2024 onwards. That was reported last month, updates have yet to appear.

EDIT: Congressional map update. Dems definitely want this to happen

https://twitter.com/GovEvers/status/1760401447722598566?t=GXtD6nII3At4f5goiR7ZGQ...

[walleye26]

Can someone TLDR these maps- are they good?

Light Republican lean for both, but totally doable for Dems to get majorities. Also a number of seats I would expect Democrats to continue to improve on as the decade progresses, with not many I think they would have to worry about.

Yes, full agreement here. Evers ceded the R-trending areas up by Douglas, Ashland, and Sawyer Counties to the Republicans, along with the Point-Rapids-Black River Falls seats. Personally, I wish he would have done a Wausau-Stevens Point Senate district, as that would only be about R+4, but I get it.

However, he did put all of St Croix County and Pierce into one. The Hudson/River Falls/New Richmond area is growing quickly, so if some of this is Twin Cities blue spillover it could help Dems by the end of the decade. I also think the GB suburbs (De Pere, Bellevue, etc could really shift blue too. However, this is small potatoes compared to what happens in Ozaukee and Waukesha counties this decade.

[Yoda]

What about the federal house map?

This suit and ruling has zero connections to or relevance for the Congressional plan. They are two separate things.

That said, Elias's team is making motions against the congressional plan directly at the State Supreme Court, with the aim of getting a new congressional plan for 2024 onwards. That was reported last month, updates have yet to appear.

What I'm worried about is the speed with which the WI Supreme Court would have to move to get new maps in time for November. I think I read somewhere that WI needs new lines in place by sometime in March for candidate filing deadlines. They'd have to rule the current maps a gerrymander in very short order (the easier part) and then, assuming they hired experts to evaluate proposals again, select a new map or draw their own.

[Nyvin]

Can someone TLDR these maps- are they good?

Light Republican lean for both, but totally doable for Dems to get majorities. Also a number of seats I would expect Democrats to continue to improve on as the decade progresses, with not many I think they would have to worry about.

Yes, full agreement here. Evers ceded the R-trending areas up by Douglas, Ashland, and Sawyer Counties to the Republicans, along with the Point-Rapids-Black River Falls seats. Personally, I wish he would have done a Wausau-Stevens Point Senate district, as that would only be about R+4, but I get it.

However, he did put all of St Croix County and Pierce into one. The Hudson/River Falls/New Richmond area is growing quickly, so if some of this is Twin Cities blue spillover it could help Dems by the end of the decade. I also think the GB suburbs (De Pere, Bellevue, etc could really shift blue too. However, this is small potatoes compared to what happens in Ozaukee and Waukesha counties this decade.

The Douglas/Ashland/Bayfield area wasn't totally conceded.   He drew a D vote sink in AD-73, which actually was kind of a smart move since the area is R-trending overall and all three assembly seats have R incumbents right now so any competitive district would've been a tough flip.  I think the Senate seat would stay with the GOP in any shape it was drawn. 

Getting AD-73 as an auto-flip to Dems is probably the best possible outcome for that area given the circumstances.

I agree with Wausau-Stevens Point though, I don't know why they didn't put them together, maybe that would've been seen as too partisan.

I like his Hudson/River Falls district, AD-30.

[walleye26]

Can someone TLDR these maps- are they good?

Light Republican lean for both, but totally doable for Dems to get majorities. Also a number of seats I would expect Democrats to continue to improve on as the decade progresses, with not many I think they would have to worry about.

Yes, full agreement here. Evers ceded the R-trending areas up by Douglas, Ashland, and Sawyer Counties to the Republicans, along with the Point-Rapids-Black River Falls seats. Personally, I wish he would have done a Wausau-Stevens Point Senate district, as that would only be about R+4, but I get it.

However, he did put all of St Croix County and Pierce into one. The Hudson/River Falls/New Richmond area is growing quickly, so if some of this is Twin Cities blue spillover it could help Dems by the end of the decade. I also think the GB suburbs (De Pere, Bellevue, etc could really shift blue too. However, this is small potatoes compared to what happens in Ozaukee and Waukesha counties this decade.

The Douglas/Ashland/Bayfield area wasn't totally conceded.   He drew a D vote sink in AD-73, which actually was kind of a smart move since the area is R-trending overall and all three assembly seats have R incumbents right now so any competitive district would've been a tough flip.  I think the Senate seat would stay with the GOP in any shape it was drawn. 

Getting AD-73 as an auto-flip to Dems is probably the best possible outcome for that area given the circumstances.

I agree with Wausau-Stevens Point though, I don't know why they didn't put them together, maybe that would've been seen as too partisan.

I like his Hudson/River Falls district, AD-30.

Can someone TLDR these maps- are they good?

Light Republican lean for both, but totally doable for Dems to get majorities. Also a number of seats I would expect Democrats to continue to improve on as the decade progresses, with not many I think they would have to worry about.

Yes, full agreement here. Evers ceded the R-trending areas up by Douglas, Ashland, and Sawyer Counties to the Republicans, along with the Point-Rapids-Black River Falls seats. Personally, I wish he would have done a Wausau-Stevens Point Senate district, as that would only be about R+4, but I get it.

However, he did put all of St Croix County and Pierce into one. The Hudson/River Falls/New Richmond area is growing quickly, so if some of this is Twin Cities blue spillover it could help Dems by the end of the decade. I also think the GB suburbs (De Pere, Bellevue, etc could really shift blue too. However, this is small potatoes compared to what happens in Ozaukee and Waukesha counties this decade.

The Douglas/Ashland/Bayfield area wasn't totally conceded.   He drew a D vote sink in AD-73, which actually was kind of a smart move since the area is R-trending overall and all three assembly seats have R incumbents right now so any competitive district would've been a tough flip.  I think the Senate seat would stay with the GOP in any shape it was drawn. 

Getting AD-73 as an auto-flip to Dems is probably the best possible outcome for that area given the circumstances.

I agree with Wausau-Stevens Point though, I don't know why they didn't put them together, maybe that would've been seen as too partisan.

I like his Hudson/River Falls district, AD-30.

Yes, the AD-73 and AD-30 are both good. The only thing I would have changed is the southern half of Douglas, Bayfield, and Ashland is currently grouped with Sawyer and some of Burnett. I would have taken some of Burnett out and swapped it with the town of Lac du Flambeau in Vilas to keep the tribes together. Instead of it being like 54-44 that would make it more like 52-46.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Can someone TLDR these maps- are they good?

Light Republican lean for both, but totally doable for Dems to get majorities. Also a number of seats I would expect Democrats to continue to improve on as the decade progresses, with not many I think they would have to worry about.

Disagree a bit - it depends upon what you mean by "light Republican"

Because of geography, to create maps that are in line with the state's partisanship you have to make a conscious effort to unpack Dems in many places, and we definitely see that on this make with how places like Madison, La Crosse, and Eau Claire are drawn especially for the Assembly map. On the flip side in places like Fox Valley there was a clear effort ot group as many Dems together to get D-leaning seats. Not every single decision was made to maximize Dem seats, but both maps did a reasonably good job at trying to achieve partisan equity through these small decisions without starting to do absurd things.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I know it's sort of impossible to avoid without doing something absurd because of geography, but kind of insane how there are 9 narrow Biden districts on the State Senate map (<Biden + 10).

Even though the State Senate map has a Biden majority, I'd argue in the long run the Assembly map may be more favorable because the State Senate map has so many narrow seats a good handful of which have had mixed trends for Dems and very little room for growth outside those 18 Biden seats.

In the State Assembly map most of the narrow Biden seats seem to be in D shifting areas (or at least stagnant), with quite a few narrow Trump seat that could be tantalizing in the future like the Waukesha based AD-82 or the exurban MSP AD-30.

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1760711933982875760

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1760711933982875760

Uggghhhh:

Evers' request is the latest development in the congressional map inquiry as Democrats face a tight deadline to put new maps in place with under nine months until the November election. The court has not publicly indicated it will review the motion, and the Wisconsin Elections Commission has said that any new maps must be in place by March 15 to take effect for 2024.

A whopping 22 days to get the whole process done :/

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1760711933982875760

Uggghhhh:

Evers' request is the latest development in the congressional map inquiry as Democrats face a tight deadline to put new maps in place with under nine months until the November election. The court has not publicly indicated it will review the motion, and the Wisconsin Elections Commission has said that any new maps must be in place by March 15 to take effect for 2024.

A whopping 22 days to get the whole process done :/

I'll take later over the status quo.

That said, hopefully New York's new maps more than make up for it.

[Gass3268]

I mean the court could always overrule the the Wisconsin Elections Commission, but that would probably invite SCOTUS to come in and invoke the Purcell principle. 2026 feels like the most likely scenario here.

[The Mikado]

I mean the court could always overrule the the Wisconsin Elections Commission, but that would probably invite SCOTUS to come in and invoke the Purcell principle. 2026 feels like the most likely scenario here.

Which is fine given that any likely new map would probably push WI from 6-2 R to 5-3 R. This is relatively low stakes.

[Tekken_Guy]

I mean the court could always overrule the the Wisconsin Elections Commission, but that would probably invite SCOTUS to come in and invoke the Purcell principle. 2026 feels like the most likely scenario here.

Which is fine given that any likely new map would probably push WI from 6-2 R to 5-3 R. This is relatively low stakes.

Or possibly 4-4.

[Gass3268]

I mean the court could always overrule the the Wisconsin Elections Commission, but that would probably invite SCOTUS to come in and invoke the Purcell principle. 2026 feels like the most likely scenario here.

Which is fine given that any likely new map would probably push WI from 6-2 R to 5-3 R. This is relatively low stakes.

I think this court would allow the same process to play out as they did for the state legislature maps, which I think would result in a 4-4 map or at the very last a 4-3-1 map.