Frederica Freyberg:

The once-every-decade and very contentious redistricting process is well underway in Wisconsin, and late this week the Republican-drawn maps came before a joint committee for a public hearing.

Robin Vos:

Our goal from the start was to finish — was produce a least-changes maps that prioritize core retention while adjusting for population change.

Frederica Freyberg:

Like the last maps, the new ones would give Republicans a significant advantage in future elections, according to experts, but Governor Tony Evers is expected to veto the GOP maps in favor of his own, which still maintain a Republican majority, but a smaller one.

Sachin Chheda:

Not only do we not get the things that we asked for as a people. We don’t even get the debate, because the system is rigged. And as the elections show, the electorate shifts back and forth, the Assembly and the Senate do not.

Frederica Freyberg:

And so with the governor’s veto of the GOP maps all but certain, the maps are heading to court. Wisconsin Public Radio’s Capitol Bureau Chief Shawn Johnson has delved into redistricting in a big way over the past several weeks with the podcast “Mapped Out” co-produced with WPR’s Bridget Bowden. He joins us now with the latest. Hey, Shawn.

Shawn Johnson:

Hey Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

Are you pretty much mapped out then?

Shawn Johnson:

As you know, when you dive into a big project like this, even if I were theoretically mapped out, these episodes are very tight and not too exhaustive for the listener.

Frederica Freyberg:

They’re great really.

Shawn Johnson:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

But seriously, if the new GOP maps look a lot like their old maps, experts have depicted those old ones as the most gerrymandered in the country. Why are Republicans saying they are good maps?

Shawn Johnson:

They have said they are good maps for basically a couple reasons. The overriding reason is that they make very few changes to the last maps, which they like. They passed a resolution in September that said here are the principles that we are going to follow when we draw these new maps. Core retention, this idea of a least changes map, was one of the things they listed. The idea of not pairing a bunch of incumbents, so you end up having a lot of new representatives was one of the things they listed. Based on these criteria they unveiled a month ago, these maps pass with flying colors and they have the added benefit of cementing this Republican map that has helped them hold their majority for a decade.

Frederica Freyberg:

So an example of the current or old maps from your podcast that was super interesting was how the city of Deforest, which has a population of 10,000 has three Assembly and three Senate districts. Is that an example of how tortuous the process can become when trying to draw the perfect partisan map?

Shawn Johnson:

I think in Deforest’s case it’s an example of how a community of that size, which would be easy to put in a single district if that were a priority, can kind of get bumped down the priority list when you have other goals in mind. Mapmakers are always kind of staggering their priorities, what they really want to do. In 2011 Deforest came up on the short end of that. They have three representatives, three senators. Nobody really calls it home. In this new map Deforest would actually be less divided than under the old one, but you do have other communities where they’re still definitely chopped up differently than they were a decade or so ago.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what’s the outcome of a guaranteed Republican sweep in the legislature and then citing a line from your reporting, you say when you have a majority that you know you won’t lose, you can afford to think big. Basically you can do what you want regardless of public opinion. And what’s a primary example of that?

Shawn Johnson:

I like to think of it in three categories of things. There’s stuff that Republicans have done in the past that gets locked in. So they passed Act 10, for example, or voter ID. There was never really a big attempt to undo those policies because the new legislature was never going to overturn those things. There’s stuff that they don’t have to do. For example, medical marijuana is supported by more than 80% of the public, but there’s never been a push in Wisconsin really to allow for medical marijuana. And then you have stuff that might have been unthinkable for Republicans before, like right-to-work, a private sector right-to-work law, where they said for years they didn’t want that. But around 2015, under the current maps, they changed their mind and they passed it pretty quickly. So there’s all sorts of categories of stuff where Republicans can behave differently, whether it means doing something or not doing something, when you have the map at your back.

Frederica Freyberg:

As we mentioned, this is expected to land in the courts after the Republican-held Legislature votes on them in the coming days and Evers vetoes them, as is expected. How is this court process going to go? We have like less than a minute.

Shawn Johnson:

Yeah. I mean, that’s the big question this time around. I think it’s pretty much a given it’s going to go to court. In the past, that has gone to a federal court where a three-judge panel has decided maps. But the federal court has given indications that it’s going to give the state Supreme Court the first shot at it this time. The state Supreme Court hasn’t drawn maps in Wisconsin since 1964. So it’s not a given they’re going to do it this time but this is where Republicans want it resolved and they’re asking the court to basically agree with their idea of making as few changes as possible to the maps that they passed that they like from 2011.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Shawn Johnson, thanks very much. Thanks for your work.

Shawn Johnson:

Thanks, Fred.