Here & Now

WPR's Shawn Johnson Breaks Down Redistricting Trial

NOW THOSE VERY MAPS WERE ONCE AGAIN UNDER THE LEGAL MICROSCOPE THIS WEEK IN FEDERAL COURT. WISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO’S SHAWN JOHNSON HAS BEEN COVERING THE TRIAL AND JOINS US NOW FROM THE STATE CAPITOL. SHAWN, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR DOING SO.

SHAWN JOHNSON:

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

SO AS WE’VE MENTIONED, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL TRIALS ALREADY OVER WISCONSIN MAPS. WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS ONE?

SHAWN JOHNSON:

YEAH. SO YOU GO BACK TO 2011, REPUBLICANS DREW THE MAP IN QUESTION. IN 2012, A FEDERAL COURT LARGELY UPHELD IT. I THINK THAT CHALLENGE WAS MORE OF A TRADITIONAL REDISTRICTING LAWSUIT. YOU KNOW, IT ENDED UP BEING OVER A COUPLE DISTRICTS IN MILWAUKEE, DISTRICTS IN KENOSHA, RACINE COUNTY. IT WAS REALLY TARGETED. THIS LAWSUIT IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. IT’S A PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING SUIT AND IT’S BASICALLY SAYING THAT THE SITUATION THAT YOU HAVE IN WISCONSIN IS SO GERRYMANDERED IN FAVOR OF REPUBLICANS THAT THE ENTIRE MAP SHOULD BE THROWN OUT AND A NEW ONE DRAWN.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

SO THEY ALSO ARE SEEKING TO SHOW, THE PLAINTIFFS, THAT IS, THAT THERE IS A MEASUREMENT TO PROVE THAT THESE MAPS ARE ALLEGEDLY TOO PARTISAN. WHAT IS THAT?

SHAWN JOHNSON:

YES. SO TYPICALLY PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING LAWSUITS HAVEN’T GONE ANYWHERE IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. I MEAN, I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING PEOPLE FEEL LIKE, YES, REDISTRICTING IS PARTISAN. WE KIND OF KNOW IT IS. BUT HOW DO WE MEASURE IT. AND SO THERE WAS THIS CASE A LITTLE MORE THAN A DECADE AGO WHERE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WAS SPLIT 4-4, WITH JUSTICES — FOUR JUSTICES SAYING WE SHOULD STAY OUT OF THESE CASES, FOUR JUSTICES SAYING WE SHOULD GET INVOLVED. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY IN THE MIDDLE SAYING I CAN’T GET INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, BUT I’M OPEN TO THE IDEA OF GETTING INVOLVED IN PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING CASES IF SOMEONE CAN COME UP WITH A REASONABLE MEASURE TO SHOW THAT IT’S HAPPENING. SO THAT’S BASICALLY WHAT PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE, WHO ARE A GROUP OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS IN WISCONSIN, SAY THAT THEY HAVE HERE IN WISCONSIN. THEY SAY THAT THE MAP WAS DRAWN BY REPUBLICANS HERE WITH A CLEAR INTENT TO LIMIT THE VOICES OF DEMOCRATS IN THE LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS. AND THEY ALSO SAY THAT BY THIS NEW MEASURE, THE EFFICIENCY GAP, WHICH WAS DRAWN UP BY POLITICAL SCIENTISTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, THAT THAT MEASURE SHOWS THAT WISCONSIN HAS AMONG THE MOST GERRYMANDERED LEGISLATIVE MAPS IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

WHAT IS THIS EFFICIENCY GAP?

SHAWN JOHNSON:

SO BASICALLY THE EFFICIENCY GAP LOOKS AT THIS CONCEPT OF WASTED VOTES. AND WHAT I MEAN IS LET’S SAY YOU HAVE A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE AND A REALLY STRONGLY DEMOCRATIC VOTE AND THEY GET 80% OF THE VOTE IN THAT DISTRICT. THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE GETS 20%. THEY’RE WASTING A LOT OF VOTES THERE, MEANING THAT’S A LOT OF VOTES THEY DIDN’T NEED TO CAST IN ORDER TO ELECT THAT SEAT. YOU TAKE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CLOSE SEAT, WHERE MAYBE REPUBLICANS GET 55% OF THE VOTE, DEMOCRATS GET 45%. DEMOCRATS ARE WASTING VOTES THERE. THOSE ARE VOTES THEY’RE CASTING IN A LOSING SEAT. SO YOU ADD THOSE UP, COMPARE THEM TO THE STATEWIDE VOTE TOTAL, AND THAT’S YOUR EFFICIENCY GAP. IN WISCONSIN EVEN THOUGH DEMOCRATS GET A LOT OF VOTES STATEWIDE AND IN FACT IN 2012 THEY GOT MORE VOTES STATEWIDE FOR LEGISLATIVE RACES, THEY DIDN’T WIN MANY SEATS. AND THE GAP IS SO HIGH HERE THAT PLAINTIFFS SAY THAT THE COURT OUGHT TO JUST THROW THIS MAP OUT.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN NEXT WITH THIS TRIAL?

SHAWN JOHNSON:

I THINK WE DON’T KNOW. I MEAN, THIS IS A THREE-JUDGE PANEL HERE. YOU HAVE TWO JUDGES THAT WERE APPOINTED BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS, ONE JUDGE APPOINTED BY A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. SO I THINK THE FACT THAT IT’S EVEN AT THIS TRIAL LEVEL IS SIGNIFICANT. THESE JUDGES FEEL LIKE THE ARGUMENTS BEING RAISED HERE ARE WORTHY ENOUGH TO HEAR IT OUT IN A TRIAL. IF THEY DECIDE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE, THEY COULD ORDER THE WHOLE MAP TOSSED. THEY COULD ORDER THAT TO HAPPEN VERY QUICKLY. THEY COULD POTENTIALLY DRAW THE MAP THEMSELVES. I THINK THERE’S A HUGE RANGE OF OPTIONS THERE ON WHAT COULD HAPPEN. I THINK WHAT WE DO KNOW IS WHATEVER THEY DECIDE IS LIKELY TO BE APPEALED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

WOW. BIG CASE, BIG CASE. SHAWN JOHNSON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COVERING IT ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US.

SHAWN JOHNSON:

YOU’RE WELCOME.