2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Wisconsin

[Stuart98]

I feel like the most objective position on this case is the Congressional map isn't really a gerrymander, but still leads to an outcome that is heavily skewed. If anything I'd argue that the current WI-01 and WI-03 are relatively favorable to Dems, even though both lean R. To make either lean D you basically have to crack Madison/Milwaukee.

The State Leg maps are clearly gerrymanders. Bigger question is the fix to draw partisan blind maps, or maps aimed at producing a partisan equitable outcome.

The congressional map is essentially the same as the map from last cycle, which was drawn to maximize Republican advantage when the state was a bit bluer and had dramatically different political geography; as it turns out, the way trends worked caused Republicans' advantage on last decade's map to only increase as Dems lost ground in one blue district while the bulk of their gains were in a blood red district. The conservative at the time state Supreme Court chose to use a least change map for this decade because that maintained their partisan advantage. The idea that a map where Trump wins 75% of districts while losing the state is fair is absurd; if Texas had a map where Biden and Democrats won 24/38 seats Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. The map was drawn to maximize Republican advantage and it's not hard to draw a map that follows the state's partisan lean.

[Roll Roons]

The State Leg maps are clearly gerrymanders. Bigger question is the fix to draw partisan blind maps, or maps aimed at producing a partisan equitable outcome.

I think a partisan-blind map is the best way to do it. A district that is competitive now might not be at the end of the decade, and vice versa.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I feel like the most objective position on this case is the Congressional map isn't really a gerrymander, but still leads to an outcome that is heavily skewed. If anything I'd argue that the current WI-01 and WI-03 are relatively favorable to Dems, even though both lean R. To make either lean D you basically have to crack Madison/Milwaukee.

The State Leg maps are clearly gerrymanders. Bigger question is the fix to draw partisan blind maps, or maps aimed at producing a partisan equitable outcome.

The congressional map is essentially the same as the map from last cycle, which was drawn to maximize Republican advantage when the state was a bit bluer and had dramatically different political geography; as it turns out, the way trends worked caused Republicans' advantage on last decade's map to only increase as Dems lost ground in one blue district while the bulk of their gains were in a blood red district. The conservative at the time state Supreme Court chose to use a least change map for this decade because that maintained their partisan advantage. The idea that a map where Trump wins 75% of districts while losing the state is fair is absurd; if Texas had a map where Biden and Democrats won 24/38 seats Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. The map was drawn to maximize Republican advantage and it's not hard to draw a map that follows the state's partisan lean.

Yes it is? It's been explained multiple times more than 2 Biden districts would require violating neutral redistricting principles. You are correct about Texas, but that's an argument to push a redistricting reform nationwide, not to gerrymander to achieve "proportionality"

[ProgressiveModerate]

The State Leg maps are clearly gerrymanders. Bigger question is the fix to draw partisan blind maps, or maps aimed at producing a partisan equitable outcome.

I think a partisan-blind map is the best way to do it. A district that is competitive now might not be at the end of the decade, and vice versa.

I tend to agree. It wasn’t all that long ago Dems were the ones with favorable WI political geography, with the GOP only outright winning huge margins in the greater Milwaukee suburbs/exurbs even in close statewide elections. Geography biases can def swing pretty aggressively, and you risk possibly enhancing a geography bias that works the other way by the end of the decade.

On a partisan blind map, I’d expect a state Sen map that averages about 21R-12D and a state house map averaging about 57R-42D on current coalitions if that’s a the statewide outcome is 50-50. Rs def shouldn’t be winning supermajorities though, especially in the State House.

[Stuart98]

I feel like the most objective position on this case is the Congressional map isn't really a gerrymander, but still leads to an outcome that is heavily skewed. If anything I'd argue that the current WI-01 and WI-03 are relatively favorable to Dems, even though both lean R. To make either lean D you basically have to crack Madison/Milwaukee.

The State Leg maps are clearly gerrymanders. Bigger question is the fix to draw partisan blind maps, or maps aimed at producing a partisan equitable outcome.

The congressional map is essentially the same as the map from last cycle, which was drawn to maximize Republican advantage when the state was a bit bluer and had dramatically different political geography; as it turns out, the way trends worked caused Republicans' advantage on last decade's map to only increase as Dems lost ground in one blue district while the bulk of their gains were in a blood red district. The conservative at the time state Supreme Court chose to use a least change map for this decade because that maintained their partisan advantage. The idea that a map where Trump wins 75% of districts while losing the state is fair is absurd; if Texas had a map where Biden and Democrats won 24/38 seats Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. The map was drawn to maximize Republican advantage and it's not hard to draw a map that follows the state's partisan lean.

Yes it is? It's been explained multiple times more than 2 Biden districts would require violating neutral redistricting principles. You are correct about Texas, but that's an argument to push a redistricting reform nationwide, not to gerrymander to achieve "proportionality"

County and city split minimizing Wisconsin map that went 4-4 in 2020


Avoiding municipal splits was prioritized over avoiding county splits. 5 counties are split purely to avoid municipal splits along their periphery, with a total population of the split areas of 18,184. An additional 7 counties are then split for population equality. Three cities are split for population equality, with the largest being New Berlin.

This notion that neutral redistricting means rigid adherence to municipal or county boundaries is dumb anyway given how arbitrary they often are, but the claim that following them excludes the possibility of four Biden districts is simply not true; stop carrying water for false Republican arguments.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Is the Milwaukee District a VRA one by law or just merely by tradition?

[SilverStar]

Is the Milwaukee District a VRA one by law or just merely by tradition?

It's not a VRA but you can keep WI-04 majority minority while splitting Milwaukee.
https://twitter.com/ProgFlipPAWI/status/1604538771969540098

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Is the Milwaukee District a VRA one by law or just merely by tradition?

There's no such thing as "VRA districts", at least the way the forum defines them. Those extreme racially gerrymandered districts didn't exist until the 90s thanks to Republicans helping pass them to create Safe R seats around them. The VRA only mandates them in cases of racial polarization like Alabama now (like what that broken record L-AL guy who does nothing but repeat the same drivel about the Democrats passing a similar map in 2000 over and over and over again doesn't get.)

WI-04 is a plurality white district now and drawing it to be more white wouldn't prevent the black and Hispanic population from electing their preferred candidate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Incidentally people tend to forget there's a ton of white Democrats in metro Milwaukee. The area to the northeast of Milwaukee is heavily white and overwhelmingly D. Wauwatosa votes like 2:1 D now. Even West Allis is a fairly strong D city at this point. And of course Milwaukee proper whites vote like Dane County.

[Stuart98]

Is the Milwaukee District a VRA one by law or just merely by tradition?

Majority non-white and a VRA district are not the same thing. Current interpretation of the VRA mandates that if a single ethnic or racial minority group votes as a bloc and votes opposite to how the majority group votes, and constitutes a sufficiently large and sufficiently concentrated proportion of the population in an area as to form a majority of a reasonably compact district, then they're entitled to a district where they can elect the candidate of their choice. In Milwaukee drawing such a district is impossible because neither the black nor the hispanic population is large enough on their own to form a majority of a district, and the VRA has no provisions for districts where multiple minority groups collectively form a majority. From what I can tell putting the black and hispanic parts of Milwaukee together was an invention of the 2000s redistricting cycle; prior to that they were separated. There's no legal requirement to keep them together.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

From what I can tell putting the black and hispanic parts of Milwaukee together was an invention of the 2000s redistricting cycle; prior to that they were separated. There's no legal requirement to keep them together.

That wasn't due to any type of gerrymandering though, it's because historically north Milwaukee and south Milwaukee were always in separate districts. It was a relic of the time when Milwaukee had enough population for two districts on its own.

The north Milwaukee seat had most of the black population but was represented by Tom Barrett, who is now better known for his later stint as Milwaukee's mayor and failed gubernatorial bids. The south Milwaukee seat was represented by a faily moderate Democrat Jerry Kleczka, and it even voted for Bush in 2000 due to the strength in the suburbs despite Kleczka winning easily. But after 2000 they were double bunked due to Wisconsin losing a seat and all of Milwaukee in one district. Barrett bowed out despite most agreeing he was favored in the primary, probably because he had his sights set on the mayorship anyway and Kleczka won easily. He probably had the largest D swings in the district he represented without moving in decades. However he retired in 2004 and then Gwen Moore took the seat.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Wb a map like this?

Honestly the most awkward part about redistricting WI is prolly dealing with the southeastern corner of the state, where the district sizes are all slightly too large to match COIs. WI-01 in particular.

I think a fair map should have a Fox Valley district, which would be R-leaning, but still theoretically competitive (Trump + 5 in 2020 on this map).

[WalterWhite]

Wb a map like this?

Honestly the most awkward part about redistricting WI is prolly dealing with the southeastern corner of the state, where the district sizes are all slightly too large to match COIs. WI-01 in particular.

I think a fair map should have a Fox Valley district, which would be R-leaning, but still theoretically competitive (Trump + 5 in 2020 on this map).

A fair Wisconsin map would be a 4-4 map because Wisconsin is a swing state.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Wb a map like this?

Honestly the most awkward part about redistricting WI is prolly dealing with the southeastern corner of the state, where the district sizes are all slightly too large to match COIs. WI-01 in particular.

I think a fair map should have a Fox Valley district, which would be R-leaning, but still theoretically competitive (Trump + 5 in 2020 on this map).

A fair Wisconsin map would be a 4-4 map because Wisconsin is a swing state.

Disagree, especially for Congressional maps; this is because each individual state is just a small part of the national picture. We should draw maps to have coherent districts in each state, and geographic biases should cancel out at the national level. In some states like MA or NV, it's very hard if not impossible to draw a partisan equitable Congressional Map. Ig another good way to think about it is in states where you have County Clustering rules, you're goal isn't to achieve a partisan equitable outcome in each individual cluster, but rather statewide.

At the state leg level, there is a bit of a stronger case for working to overcome geographic biases within said state, however, even then political geography biases can shift pretty fast and a map that once helped the party with unfortunate political geography may later lock them into a majority. WI is honestly kind of a good example, where in the Obama years, Rs had a pretty poor vote distribution, but obv today Dems are the ones who suffer from bad geogrpahy in WI.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I feel like the most objective position on this case is the Congressional map isn't really a gerrymander, but still leads to an outcome that is heavily skewed. If anything I'd argue that the current WI-01 and WI-03 are relatively favorable to Dems, even though both lean R. To make either lean D you basically have to crack Madison/Milwaukee.

The State Leg maps are clearly gerrymanders. Bigger question is the fix to draw partisan blind maps, or maps aimed at producing a partisan equitable outcome.

The congressional map is essentially the same as the map from last cycle, which was drawn to maximize Republican advantage when the state was a bit bluer and had dramatically different political geography; as it turns out, the way trends worked caused Republicans' advantage on last decade's map to only increase as Dems lost ground in one blue district while the bulk of their gains were in a blood red district. The conservative at the time state Supreme Court chose to use a least change map for this decade because that maintained their partisan advantage. The idea that a map where Trump wins 75% of districts while losing the state is fair is absurd; if Texas had a map where Biden and Democrats won 24/38 seats Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. The map was drawn to maximize Republican advantage and it's not hard to draw a map that follows the state's partisan lean.

Yes it is? It's been explained multiple times more than 2 Biden districts would require violating neutral redistricting principles. You are correct about Texas, but that's an argument to push a redistricting reform nationwide, not to gerrymander to achieve "proportionality"

County and city split minimizing Wisconsin map that went 4-4 in 2020


Avoiding municipal splits was prioritized over avoiding county splits. 5 counties are split purely to avoid municipal splits along their periphery, with a total population of the split areas of 18,184. An additional 7 counties are then split for population equality. Three cities are split for population equality, with the largest being New Berlin.

This notion that neutral redistricting means rigid adherence to municipal or county boundaries is dumb anyway given how arbitrary they often are, but the claim that following them excludes the possibility of four Biden districts is simply not true; stop carrying water for false Republican arguments.

Apologize for the late response but with all due respect, you literally talked about how trends caused the map to alter in it's effectiveness. Who's to say that WI-1 will actually stay blue the whole decade for example? Again, if we establish neutral redistricting criteria nationwide, the geographical bias will cancel out like ProgressiveModerate said. R's will benefit in states like WI/PA/OR/TN etc, but D's will benefit in states like NV/TX/MA/WA/SC etc

[Gass3268]

November 21, 2023 is the date in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear the case on the state legislative maps.

[patzer]

If it's considered acceptable to split Detroit down the middle even though the entire city would fit into one district, I see no reason why the same shouldn't be true of Milwaukee.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If it's considered acceptable to split Detroit down the middle even though the entire city would fit into one district, I see no reason why the same shouldn't be true of Milwaukee.

The reason for the Detroit split is courts have also ruled that excessive packing of black voters is a VRA violation, and the split allowed in the past for two black plurality districts, this isn't really the case anymore (it's one black plurality district and one with a narrow white plurality, but in that one probably still a majority of black voters in the D primary so still a "black district"), that's irrelevant in Milwaukee where even a single district still has a white plurality.

[Gass3268]

I have no issue with them splitting the City of Milwaukee. I personally prefer using the Menomonee River as the diving line. It puts the African American and bougie whites in the north with the Hispanics and more working class whites in the south.

Not a fan of splitting Dane County.

[patzer]

I have no issue with them splitting the City of Milwaukee. I personally prefer using the Menomonee River as the diving line. It puts the African American and bougie whites in the north with the Hispanics and more working class whites in the south.

Not a fan of splitting Dane County.

Within those constraints here's my best attempt at a fair map.
2nd: Biden +36.1
4th: Biden +26.7
1st: Biden +13.6
3rd: Biden +4.6
8th: Trump +3.5
7th: Trump +18.4
5th: Trump +25.0
6th: Trump +25.2

[Devils30]

Are Dems waiting to file a lawsuit over these maps for 2024?

[Gass3268]

Are Dems waiting to file a lawsuit over these maps for 2024?

I’m legit not sure a lawsuit is going to be filed for the congressional map. Unless they are waiting for a result on the state maps first.

[Devils30]

Are Dems waiting to file a lawsuit over these maps for 2024?

I’m legit not sure a lawsuit is going to be filed for the congressional map. Unless they are waiting for a result on the state maps first.

I think I red if a justice is impeached that after December 1, the replacement would get appointed through like 2031. Could explain why they would wait to file that lawsuit another 4-8 weeks.

[Nhoj]

Are Dems waiting to file a lawsuit over these maps for 2024?

I’m legit not sure a lawsuit is going to be filed for the congressional map. Unless they are waiting for a result on the state maps first.

I mean the current Map is the one Evers submitted under the previous courts rules, unlike the legislative maps.  Wi-03 of course was drawn to pack as many college towns with ron kind in 2010 and as we saw last year was still competitive with the new min change map and trump 2020 vote. Wi-01 also seems like it could end up competitive this decade if not next cycle.   So all things considered it's not really something urgent for dems to file a lawsuit for.

[Devils30]

Are Dems waiting to file a lawsuit over these maps for 2024?

I’m legit not sure a lawsuit is going to be filed for the congressional map. Unless they are waiting for a result on the state maps first.

I mean the current Map is the one Evers submitted under the previous courts rules, unlike the legislative maps.  Wi-03 of course was drawn to pack as many college towns with ron kind in 2010 and as we saw last year was still competitive with the new min change map and trump 2020 vote. Wi-01 also seems like it could end up competitive this decade if not next cycle.   So all things considered it's not really something urgent for dems to file a lawsuit for.

Disagree, you want Biden +10 WI-3 and Biden +6 WI-1 in 2024 not later.