Redrawing Democracy: The Battle Over Wisconsin’s Districts
It’s not every day that a legal fight over congressional maps in a Midwestern state commands national attention. Yet here we are: Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, buoyed by the recent election of liberal Judge Susan Crawford, faces a pivotal challenge to the state’s congressional lines, one that could tip the scales in the battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. At the heart of the controversy is a simple but powerful question: Should a state’s political boundaries reflect its people — or preserve a partisan status quo?
The latest challenge comes from nine Democratic-leaning Wisconsin residents, stretching from Milwaukee to Eau Claire. They are represented by the Elias Law Group, chaired by Marc Elias, a figure familiar to anyone with a passing interest in modern voting rights cases. Their suit asks the court not simply to hear their case, but to do so without waiting for lower court rulings, underscoring the urgency and high stakes looming over the next election cycle. For many, this isn’t just about geography or numbers — it’s about whether Wisconsin’s democracy is functioning as it should.
Disenfranchisement is not an abstract idea here. As plaintiff after plaintiff has testified, the current map effectively packs Democrats into just two of eight congressional districts. The numbers bear this out: Democrats regularly win statewide offices and command enormous support across the state. Yet, as it stands, only two Democrats represent Wisconsin in the U.S. House. Harvard Law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, who has studied partisan gerrymandering nationally, explains that “packing and cracking” tactics often produce exactly this result — burying some voters’ influence while inflating others.
The Legal Grounds: ‘Least Change’ and a Liberal Majority
A closer look reveals that the controversy isn’t new. Last year, a similar attempt to have the Wisconsin Supreme Court intervene was swatted away, with justices insisting the matter came too late. But Democrats never abandoned their project. In December 2023 the court, in a significant move, threw out state legislative maps drawn under the so-called “least change” principle. This standard—designed to make the smallest possible shifts from prior maps—in practice froze in place Republican advantages dating back more than a decade.
Now, bolstered by Judge Crawford’s victory and a 4-3 liberal majority, Democrats argue the moment is ripe for a reset. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s willingness to discard “least change” on the legislative side, they argue, opens the door for fairer congressional districts as well. Democratic attorney Abha Khanna, speaking for the petitioners, declared with pointed urgency: “Wisconsin voters should not have to endure another election cycle under unconstitutional district lines.”
“Wisconsin voters should not have to endure another election cycle under unconstitutional district lines.”
— Abha Khanna, Elias Law Group
The implications extend far beyond Madison. According to a recent Pew Research study, Wisconsin is now a linchpin in national politics — one of just a handful of states where a single House race could determine the balance of power in Washington. Republicans, for their part, warn of a partisan power grab, pointing to liberal justices’ attendance at Democratic-leaning donor events. The conservative side fears a domino effect, with more blue states joining the movement to redraw maps mid-decade.
Principles, Power, and the Path Forward
Addressing questions about judicial impartiality, critics have zeroed in on Judge Crawford, whose presence at a virtual event described as a ‘chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026’ ruffled feathers. She has firmly denied discussing specifics about redistricting, yet the controversy highlights a real tension between political advocacy and the judiciary’s role. But the anti-democratic consequences of the current map are hard to ignore. How can a state that elects Democratic governors and senators be represented in Washington by a congressional delegation skewed so far to the right?
History offers sobering lessons. Supreme Court decisions such as Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), which declared partisan gerrymandering a non-justiciable issue for federal courts, punted the responsibility back to states. But that does not mean there is no recourse. As election law expert Justin Levitt observes, “When state courts step in, it’s not judicial activism, but a defense of the checks and balances that keep representative government honest.”
Beyond that, the stakes couldn’t be clearer. If the lawsuit succeeds, Democrats would need to flip only three seats to change the House majority. For Wisconsin families who feel ignored by politicians in distant districts, a new map might mean their voices finally carry weight. For Republicans, accustomed to a system that amplifies rural and suburban votes at the expense of urban and diverse communities, fairness looks a little less palatable.
Gerrymandering undermines faith in the entire electoral process. A robust body of research — from the Brennan Center for Justice to nonpartisan local think tanks — finds a clear connection between distorted maps and eroded civic trust. When voters believe their ballots will never matter because lines were drawn to discount their political leanings, turnout drops and cynicism rises. It’s not just a math exercise: It’s about the legitimacy of governance in the eyes of the governed.
So, as Wisconsin’s Supreme Court weighs next steps, the nation should pay close attention. This fight is a microcosm of a larger battle for democratic legitimacy — a reminder that, in America, every vote must genuinely count. Is it too much to expect district lines that reflect, rather than stifle, the will of the people?
