Marisa Wojcik:

Welcome to “Noon Wednesday,” I’m Marisa Wojcik, multimedia journalist with “Here & Now” on PBS Wisconsin. Today is October 27. After ten years since Wisconsin last redrew its political lines, redistricting is happening again. Now statewide. The last time this process happened in 2011 was so significant that it changed the nature of Wisconsin politics for the next decade. In fact, it was so important to Wisconsins history that two Wisconsin Public Radio journalists made an entire podcast series about it called, “WPR reports: Mapped Out” and Bridgit Bowden and Shawn Johnson join me now. Thank you so much for being here.

Bridgit Bowden:

Thanks for having us.

Shawn Johnson:

Thanks for having us.

Marisa Wojcik:

So, Bridgit, I’ll start with you. The series, by the way, which is just amazing. It is so rich in audio and content, but it starts by contrasting the scene of the 2011 ACT 10 protests outside the capitol with that of the republican hired lawyers who are across the street quietly working away inside the map room, then takes us all the way through the history to where we are today with the episode called “Locked In.” This is a complex topic. Is this podcast for the political wonks or those like myself who need a little bit of a history lesson?

Bridgit Bowden:

I think that the podcast is really for both groups of people. We start out in episode one with a very basic lesson about what is redistricting. If you are one of those people who is starting at square one and has not really heard of redistricting before, we got you. Start with episode one and learn all about what it means and the impacts of redistricting, and in the later episodes, we get into the meaty details about what happened in 2011, what it meant for the state, and also what is going to happen this year, so I think that both of those groups of people would enjoy this podcast.

Marisa Wojcik:

And, Shawn, what did Wisconsins maps and the landscape of state politics look like before and after these maps were drawn, and just why exactly were 2011 maps so consequential?

Shawn Johnson:

Well, if you look at just a couple years before these maps were drawn, and it is hard to imagine now, but we had democratic control of state government in Wisconsin, and, really, we should say more broadly, you had a democrat in the White House, democratic control of Congress, democratic controlled everything, and, you know, the way things typically go and have historically gone in those situations is that in the midterm election, the party out of power has a good year, and that was the case for republicans in 2010, and they were, you know, swept into power in 2011, and just had, you know, an enormous pent up agenda that, you know, they passed that year that I think you could definitely say will, you know, be a part of Wisconsins history for years to come. When you’re talking about changing union rights, changing voting law, firearm laws, you know, you name it, this was a chance for republicans to do what they wanted to do. As part of that, they passed this map and that allows them to, you know, borrow from the title of today “lock in” those decisions from that session, and beyond that for the next decade, there’s never really in any threat of losing the majority, and so you saw an ambitious republican agenda throughout the decade.

Marisa Wojcik:

Bridgit, you spoke to Wisconsin voters who lived the impacts of the maps as well as those who tried to run for state legislature. What did you learn from those personal stories?

Bridgit Bowden:

Right. So, we wanted to travel to various parts of the state and look at what this 2011 map really meant. So, we looked at the maps, and we saw a few places where there were distinct changes that happened in the 2011 so we went and found some people who could tell us what it has meant, people who live in those places. So, we talked to a woman who lives in Deforest, Wisconsin, for example, just north of Madison, and she’s a member of the village board. Deforest in 2011 was split up into three different assembly districts and three different senate districts. So, she told us as a local elected official, when she tries to talk to state representatives and senators, she has to contact six different people because there’s six people who represent the area of Deforest, and so, you know, that’s a tangible impact of this map. We also went to Eau Claire where we met a woman who tried to run for office. She’s a democrat. She ran in a district that is now a heavily republican district, and what she told us is she’ll never try to run again because she feels like she doesn’t have any sort of shot. So, you can actually see in people’s real lives what the 2011 map did across the state.

Marisa Wojcik:

And, Shawn, 2011’s maps eventually wound up in the US Supreme Court where the ideas of a partisan advantage versus a partisan gerrymander were really picked apart and put on stage. This current round of redistricting happening right now is likely to also end up in the court. Can you explain what is the difference between a partisan advantage and a gerrymander, and why is it so difficult to make changes, partisan gerrymander specifically.

Shawn Johnson:

I don’t know where the line is between a partisan advantage and a partisan gerrymander. The courts just decided they will not draw the line, especially the federal court system decided because of a decision by the US Supreme court that partisan gerrymandering cases are not something that the federal court system is going to decide. They are not denying that partisan gerrymandering, the map drawing that gives one party the advantage over another, is happening. They are just saying, we are not going to decide when it becomes so severe that you have violated the constitutional rights of the party that is not drawing the map. The party that is not in power. And so, as we enter, you know, the 2021-22 round of redistricting, you know, as you mentioned, we know this is going to court. We are not quite sure which court is going to decide it because right now it is before the state Supreme Court and a federal panel. Right now, the state Supreme Court gets first crack at it, and what we do know is that the, you know, the hopes of some democrats specifically in Wisconsin that we would have, you know, a kind of a baseline for when a map gets too partisan and that you can bring that kind of case in 2021. That’s not going to happen. They have to fight this out on other grounds.

Marisa Wojcik:

Bridgit, there’s audio of Arnold Schwarzenegger, a republican, hes with the prosecution following the arguments before the Supreme Court, and it is great audio. He says hasta la vista, gerrymandering. Some may see this as a democrats versus republicans issue. Nationally, is it bipartisan, or is it one party having domination over the other?

Bridgit Bowden:

Right. So, you’re absolutely right. In Wisconsin, this is an issue that we mostly here democrats calling for redistricting reform, but across the country it really depends on your political circumstances. So, in other places, maybe places that have been long controlled by democrats where democrats had control over map drawing, there are republicans who are calling for redistricting reform. Great example of this is Illinois. Illinois is controlled by democrats, and we see republican lawmakers there asking for very similar reforms as we hear from Wisconsin democrats. Other states like Maryland have also seen democratic gerrymanders, and then you see republicans being the ones asking for reform. So, it, you know, it is an issue that is not one party’s issue or another party’s issue, but it really depends on the political circumstances of your state. In our final episode, episode 6, you’ll hear more about that next week, and you’ll hear from other republicans who championed this issue.

Marisa Wojcik:

So, Shawn, if Wisconsins constitution says that the legislature must draw maps of the legislature’s own districts, isn’t that a conflict of interest, and at this point, if those districts are already locked in to have a certain advantage for republicans, is that going to continue to compound, and is there any way out of it? Is there any other way that these maps can or should be drawn?

Shawn Johnson:

I think the question of whether it’s a conflict of interest for the legislature, I think we can look at it practically and say, yeah, you know? They have a definite conflict of interest there just from a practical right in front of your own eyes perspective, but in terms of law, the constitution says the legislature does it. The idea being that the legislature is the voice of the people, and so it is definitely within their purview to do that. You know, they are going to get a chance to draw the maps. Anything they do needs approval of the governor, though. The governor is, right now, democratic Governor Tony Evers, and he’s already sent clear signs he’s going to veto the map that republicans have developed. He’s calling it gerrymandering 2.0. So that leaves us in the courts. And there is a chance that a court, you know, the state supreme court could say, look, we don’t want to mess with the map too much. We’re going to make as few changes as possible. That’s what republicans hope the state Supreme Court will say. There’s also a chance the court, if it’s not the state Supreme Court, it could be a federal court. Says we are not beholden to look at this map from a decade ago. We’re going to redraw this map using, you know, objective criteria and, you know, do the best version of the map we can do right now in 2021. We’re not beholden to a decision from the legislature of 2011. I think at this point in the process you can definitely see it going either way.

Marisa Wojcik:

And, Bridgit, you already touched on this a little bit, but what can we expect from future episodes? You have an episode next week, but you also tease a little bit that there might be some more coming, even further after next week?

Bridgit Bowden:

Yeah. So next week, next Wednesday is the last episode of our first batch of episodes, and it is sort of about all of the options of what could happen this year. That said, redistricting is happening this year. We will be following up whenever, whatever what happens is going to happen, and we’ll follow up with episodes that keep you informed on that.

Marisa Wojcik:

All right. And lastly, Shawn, you reported on this for WPR as it was happening the last ten years. Did anything surprise you, specifically, as you dug into the archives? Talked with some of the key players. What specifically are you looking for as the current political fight goes forward?

Shawn Johnson:

I think that whenever you spend a lot of time on one topic, like we have here, and you really analyze everyone’s words from a decade ago, I think what struck me is just how, I guess, fuzzy the redistricting criteria that mapmakers have to follow can be. You know, you can decide as a map maker, a legislator, that we’re going to emphasize one criteria over here, maybe keeping urban communities together, and then in another part of the state say, we’re going to split this city apart, satisfying two completely different criteria, but as long as you kind of say that’s what we’re doing, we’re following these criteria, you have a lot of leeway as a legislator, especially when the governor’s from your own party. I guess it was just listening back to some of the debates and some of what sounded at the time like really, you know, technical jargon. Now a decade later, you see why it was presented that way and the power of those words, and what they ultimately meant, you know, that that is kind of foundation of power in Wisconsin is this kind of gray area of what makes a map okay.

Marisa Wojcik:

All right. We leave it there. Shawn Johnson and Bridget Bowden, thank you so much for joining us.

Bridgit Bowden:

Thank you so much.

Shawn Johnson:

Thanks for having us.

Marisa Wojcik:

It is a really great series. You can find it at wpr.org/presents, and for more from “Here & Now” and PBS Wisconsin, you can visit pbswisconsin.org/news. Thank you so much for joining us on “Noon Wednesday.”