Governor Tony Evers made news yesterday, calling a special session of the Legislature to end partisan gerrymandering. This is akin to Jeffrey Dahmer issuing a call for safe neighborhoods.
A Dairyland Sentinel Analysis by Joe Handrick
It’s Not a Bad Idea, Actually
To be clear, I believe the Legislature should pass such a law (or better yet, constitutional amendment). Require that maps be drawn using non-partisan criteria including:
- Equal population (+/- 1%).
- Compactness.
- Contiguity (allow splitting of wards to avoid island territories).
- Municipal boundary integrity except when needed to achieve population equality.
- Ward integrity except when needed to avoid municipal islands.
Finally, map drawers should be prohibited from using or considering partisan election data.
Dems Will Not Go For It
Democrats would never agree to such neutral terms. Why? Because the only way to achieve a map that Democrats view as “fair” is to disregard compactness and municipal integrity.
In other words, the only way Evers and other Democrats can draw a map that they like is to engage in gerrymandering and to use partisan data to guide their way. This stems from the fact that Wisconsin’s Democratic voters are unevenly distributed – those voters have segregated themselves into small pockets in urban centers particularly in Madison and Milwaukee.
If a computer or non-partisan map drawer were to divide the state into 99 equally populated and compact shapes (as state law requires), there will always be more GOP seats than Democratic seats. Experts from both parties have testified under oath this is true.
The key for Democrats is to carve apart those urban areas, string them out to rural areas, and artificially create more Democratic seats.
This is the textbook definition of gerrymandering.
So, what Evers and Democrats have done is to attempt to re-define gerrymandering so that any non-gerrymandered district is considered a gerrymander and any district they gerrymander is simply called “fair.”
Exhibit A
Below are two maps of the same area. One is the Walker era map (as approved by the federal courts) and one is the Evers map. They are not labeled. Can you guess which one is which?
Map A splits two municipalities while Map B splits six.
Below is a graph showing how the two districts compare on compactness according to Dave’s Redistricting. District A is far more compact. Map B is, in fact, one of the least compact districts ever created in the State of Wisconsin.
As you probably guessed, Map B is Tony Evers’ map. Because they used partisan data and disregarded municipal lines, the drawers were able to take the blue parts of many cities and cobble together a clearly gerrymandered Democratic district.
An additional bit of evidence exposing the scope of the Evers gerrymander is not visible on the map. Evers changed the district number from odd to even so that this senate seat would be up for election in 2024 instead of 2026. The result was that over 100,000 voters were disenfranchised because they were forced to skip an election.
The purpose was obvious: If you’re going to gerrymander and create a Democratic seat, why wait two years to elect a Democrat to it?
The Slicing of La Crosse
Perhaps nowhere was the fracturing of municipalities more egregious than what Evers did to La Crosse. The population of La Crosse can fit into one assembly district, but Evers sliced it into thirds.
This type of partisan gerrymandering would seemingly be illegal under Evers’ proposal, but not under the Democrats new-found definition of gerrymandering. When these bizarrely shaped districts appeared in Evers’ map, the usual suspects claimed that these gerrymanders were not actually gerrymanders, but rather “fairness.”
You see, in their world only Republicans gerrymander.
If you don’t believe me, below is what a Democratic group calling itself The Election Center said just this week in an X post. (Note: In case you think the Election Center is actually a non-partisan group, they also posted yesterday support for schools that have gender-transition policies that keep transitioning secret from parents. So, I guess their view on gerrymandering is that if a district identifies as a non-gerrymander then it’s OK.)
The Bottom Line
Evers’ claim to want to ban gerrymandering has more holes in it than an Iranian fighter jet.
Perhaps, however, the Legislature should take him up on his proposal but put in very specific language outlining the non-partisan, constitutionally based criteria that must be followed.
