Wisconsin Cases October 06, 2023: Wright v. Wis. Elections Comm'n

Case Description

1

The Court entered the following order on October 6, 2023:

On August 4, 2023, petitioners Stephen Joseph Wright, et al., seven Wisconsin voters, filed a petition for leave to commence an original action under Wis.Stat. § (Rule) 809.70, together with a supporting memorandum and an appendix.

On August 22, 2023, the named respondents in this matter, the Wisconsin Elections Commission, its members, and its administrator, filed a response taking no position on the merits of the petition.

On August 22, 2023, the Wisconsin Legislature filed a motion to intervene as a respondent. On September 5, 2023, the petitioners in this case filed a letter response stating that they

2

do not object to the intervention motion. No other response or opposition to the motion to intervene has been filed.

On August 22, 2023, the Wisconsin Legislature filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief regarding the petition for original action. No response or opposition to this motion to file an amicus brief has been filed.

The court has considered the filings in this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a non-party brief, amici curiae, is granted, and the accompanying brief is accepted for filing;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for leave to commence an original action is denied; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Wisconsin Legislature's motion to intervene is denied as moot.

ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J. (concurring).

This original action is nothing more than a motion for reconsideration of this court's decision in Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2022 WI 19, 401 Wis.2d 198, 972 N.W.2d 559 ("Johnson III"), and appears to have been filed only because of a change in the court's membership. Where does this cycle end? Must this court also allow additional future parties to simply sit this litigation cycle out and come forward next court term-or after the next court election-and present already litigated claims again? What is to stop any party dissatisfied with the outcome here from carrying out challenges ad infinitum, each time from a slightly different angle, until their desired outcome is reached? This litigation chips away at the public's faith in the judiciary as an independent, impartial institution, undermines foundational judicial principles such as stare decisis, and casts a hyper-partisan shadow of judicial bias over the decisions of this court.

Today, my colleagues grant one original action petition and deny another. Specifically, four members of this court vote to grant Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2023AP1399-OA, and deny Wright v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2023AP1412-OA. I concur in Wright and dissent in Clarke because we should not accept either of these cases. Our court just decided redistricting last year in Johnson III. Redistricting should not be an annual event. Redistricting is a process that, under our

3

state constitution, is only supposed to occur once every decade. However, redistricting was required by this court nearly two years ago because the Governor vetoed the maps drawn by the Legislature, creating an impasse. Absent court action, Wisconsin would have been in a constitutional crisis: Wisconsin would have had no maps in place to conduct state and federal elections. Thus, the court, as the final arbiter, was required to act. We clearly are not in that constitutional predicament today.

The congressional map selected by the court was submitted by Democrats, specifically Governor Evers. The state legislative maps ultimately selected by the court were submitted by Republicans, specifically the Wisconsin Legislature. However, the selection of the current state legislative maps occurred only after the United States Supreme Court summarily reversed my colleagues' original selection of Governor Evers' state legislative maps because the Governor's maps violated the Voting Rights Act. Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n , 2022 WI 14, 400 Wis.2d 626, 971 N.W.2d 402 ("Johnson II"), summarily rev'd sub. nom. Wis. Legislature v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 595 U.S. 398 (2022) (per curiam). The issues presented in these original actions have already been decided by this court. The court, acting within its limited role to "answer legal questions," adopted maps that it decided were constitutional as a judicial remedy for an undisputedly unconstitutional situation (the previous district maps no longer matched the geographic distribution of Wisconsin's citizens). This judicial remedy of court-adopted maps stands for the next ten years, absent the enactment of new constitutionally compliant maps by the Legislature and the Governor.

I dissent to the order granting the original action petition filed in Clarke because it appears to be evidence of a partisan and political, rather than a reasoned and restrained, approach, and thus departs from the constitutional role of the judiciary. Some may prefer that other maps be drawn. And now, it seems, there is a pre-ordained plan to accomplish that goal. However, I urge my colleagues to exercise judicial restraint here rather than give in to the temptation to exercise raw, political, partisan power.

4

In granting Clarke, four of my colleagues accept only two of the five issues presented. Those same colleagues add two additional questions to the list of questions to be answered in briefing, two additional questions that are, at best, curious. Why is this? We do not know. These orders are devoid of any stated rationale. Hiding their rationale from the public is far from being transparent and accountable. The Clarke petitioners presented these five issues:

1.Whether the state legislative redistricting plans proposed by the Legislature and imposed by this Court in [Johnson III], are extreme partisan gerrymanders that violate Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under law; and whether this cause of action is justiciable in Wisconsin courts.

2.Whether the state legislative redistricting plans proposed by the Legislature and imposed by this Court in Johnson III are extreme partisan gerrymanders that retaliate against voters based on their viewpoint and exercise of free speech and abridge the ability of voters with disfavored political views to associate with

5

others to advance their political beliefs in violation of Article I, Sections 3 and 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution; and whether these causes of action are justiciable in Wisconsin courts.

3.Whether the state legislative redistricting plans proposed by the Legislature and imposed by this Court in Johnson III are extreme partisan gerrymanders that fail to "adhere[] to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, . . . [and] fundamental principles" in violation of Article I, Section 22 of the Wisconsin Constitution; and whether this cause of action is justiciable in Wisconsin courts.

4.Whether the state legislative redistricting plans proposed by the Legislature and imposed by this Court in Johnson III violate the requirement of Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution that legislators be elected from districts consisting of "contiguous territory."

5.Whether the state legislative redistricting plans proposed by the Legislature and imposed by this Court in Johnson III violate the separation-of-powers principle inherent in the Constitution's division of legislative, executive, and judicial power by usurping the Governor's core constitutional power to veto legislation and the Legislature's core constitutional power to override such a veto.

Four members of this court seemingly attempt to evade several fatal flaws by accepting only two of the five issues presented, namely, the issues relating to contiguity and separation of powers. I suspect the court's focus will be on contiguity even though that issue was already considered and decided in the Johnson litigation. Johnson III, 401 Wis.2d 198, ¶70 ("The Legislature has satisfied the remainder of Wisconsin's constitutional requirements. The assembly districts are contiguous and sufficiently compact."). Accepting this case primarily, if not solely on contiguity, leads one to conclude that four of my colleagues may already know the result they wish to obtain. Moreover, one of the issues added by the court has already been answered in the Johnson litigation with the court's unambiguous conclusion that the "least change" standard applies. Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2021 WI 87, ¶¶64-79, 399 Wis.2d 623, 967 N.W.2d 469 ("Johnson I"). The second added issue regarding fact-finding is not needed for the questions of law presented in the two accepted issues, but if fact-finding were somehow necessary, which is quite unclear, we are not a fact-

6

finding court. The decision to accept the original action petition in Clarke is a travesty which disregards our very recently decided Johnson litigation and completely ignores longstanding, sound legal principles and the precedent that binds the court.

Do my colleagues refuse to accept the other issues or the petition in Wright because they know this court has already decided these matters? Or is it because most of the petitioners in Wright were allowed to intervene in the Johnson litigation? Typically, this court accepts all issues for review before determining which of those issues are necessary to resolve the case. I suspect my four colleagues may have tried to narrow the issues at the outset to be able to better achieve the pre-determined outcome they desire. But will the remedy they seek invoke the other issues not accepted for review, missing the benefit of briefing or argument? Petitioners appear to be raising the contiguity argument as a means to indirectly re-litigate the already litigated and decided issues of political fairness and political gerrymandering. But, the four in the majority did not accept those issues so they are not before the court. This court is asked to consider "partisan fairness" in overturning the current apportionment maps, as the parties claim that "the current legislative maps are extreme partisan gerrymanders." But these issues are not before the court, and this court already addressed the issue of partisan fairness in Johnson I, determining that it was not the court's role to answer political questions such as claims of partisan fairness, but only to answer "legal" questions such as whether the proposed maps "satisfy all constitutional and statutory requirements". Johnson I, 399 Wis.2d 623, ¶4. As these issues have already been expressly decided, we should not be resolving them again here.

Perhaps another answer why four members of this court would limit its selection of issues to contiguity and separation of powers could be an attempt to dodge appellate review. When four members of the judicial branch decide they also serve as members of the legislative and executive branches, should they not at least subject themselves to further appellate scrutiny? Yet, the limited issues the four justices accept seem to seek evasion of any such scrutiny. However, any remedy imposed might nonetheless be subject to review. Typically, we take all the issues presented even if the court does not need to decide them because at its inception, we do not know the matter well enough. We need extensive legal research, briefing and argument. This time around seems different: it seems the four justices find that standard procedure unnecessary, as they already appear to know they do not need to fully research and hear all of the issues and arguments presented. Instead, it seems the four justices only accept the

7

two questions of law in order to avoid having the case proceed through traditional fact finding at the trial court.

Notably, these justices vociferously dissented when the court decided Johnson III, a redistricting action, last year. They primarily objected because there was no fact-finding. Johnson III, 401 Wis.2d 198, ¶161 (Karofsky, J., dissenting). This case, with all of its issues, could have proceeded and facts could have been fully developed in the courts below, but since it now appears that they have changed their view and abandoned their objection once they became a majority of the court, perhaps a thorough process is not what they now desire. It is worth wondering whether this case would withstand a full vetting based upon developed facts and law. Unlike the Johnson litigation, where the court was required to act within a short time frame and remedy a constitutional violation by adopting new maps, these original actions do not pose a situation where the state is without constitutionally compliant maps absent court action. There is no urgency to act with such haste and without a thorough vetting. It is also not urgent to act before the Legislature has decided whether they should proceed with implementing a plan which mirrors Iowa's. Why does the court wish to act with such haste when the Constitution clearly vests redistricting powers within the province of the Legislature and Governor? This hastiness also portends that this case is decided almost before it has begun.

All of this question-raising behavior seems to demonstrate not prudential judicial reasoning, but rather a sheer will to expedite a preconceived determination to ensure that all maps are favorable to a particular constituency. When a court already knows the answer, the procedures in advance of that decision are nothing more than judicial window dressing. This order seems to bear the hallmarks of just that.

Far from being "judicial window-dressing," the court's reliance on foundational legal principles also supports the fact

8

that both petitions should be denied because the Johnson III decision is the law. Under the doctrines of stare decisis, issue preclusion, claim preclusion, and the law of the case, the Johnson III decision stands. Cases that have been decided with finality are not re-litigated. During the Johnson litigation addressing this issue of redistricting maps, we liberally permitted any and all parties to intervene in the case. We then

9

"granted intervention to all parties that sought it." Johnson II, 400 Wis.2d 626, ¶2. While the respondents were parties to the previous litigation, the Clarke petitioners apparently chose not to participate or at a minimum made no attempt to formally do so. The law requires them to live with that decision. Reframing arguments or attempting new fact-finding nonexistent in the previous litigation but involving the same maps should not be allowed to prevail. Were that an acceptable tactic, there would be no finality in the law or litigation. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" may be a good maxim for children, but that has never been the case for fully vetted, fully litigated and decided cases. If these parties believed that these considerations were fundamental to map determinations, the time for participation was during the Johnson litigation. That time has now passed. This

10

court should not re-litigate the exact same maps one year later, with no intervening change in the law or facts presented. At most, we see a motion for reconsideration; but in this case, such a motion is long since time barred. Wis.Stat. § (Rule) 809.64 ("A party may seek reconsideration of the judgment or opinion of the supreme court by filing a motion under s. 809.14 for reconsideration within 20 days after the date of the decision of the supreme court."). There is no other legal basis or procedural mechanism for this court to once again re-examine these maps.

Moreover, the petitioners' claim that the court's decision in Johnson III violated separation of powers does not seem to warrant serious review. In the Johnson litigation, there had to be new redistricting maps; the maps enacted following the 2010 census were undeniably unconstitutional following the 2020 United States Census. The Legislature and the Governor, the branches constitutionally responsible for redistricting, exercised their constitutional authority in a way that resulted in an impasse. Since the impasse meant that there was a lack of constitutionally required maps in place prior to holding the next partisan election, the judicial branch was forced to intervene, albeit in a limited fashion. We were forced to proceed with a judicial proceeding in the Johnson litigation to select constitutionally compliant maps as a remedy for the ongoing constitutional violation.

It will be interesting to see how the separation-of-powers argument is presented. Seemingly, the argument is that by adopting legislative maps submitted by one party (i.e., the Legislature), this court violated the separation of powers because the Governor had previously vetoed those maps as part of the legislative process. Would not the argument that the court violated the separation of powers by "judicially overriding" the Governor's veto of those maps also require finding that this court violated separation of powers by choosing the Governor's proposed congressional maps over the Legislature's proposed congressional maps? Why does that scenario not also infringe on the Legislature's constitutional authority to enact new district maps? Indeed, the congressional maps proposed by the Governor and adopted by this court in Johnson II are still in effect. If the petitioners' separation-of-powers claims have legal merit, should we also be reviewing the Governor's congressional maps to address that same violation? We shall see. My guess is that the majority will not say much about separation of powers.

The petitioners advance the proposition that Clarke raises issues no different than cases recently decided from other states. No other state in the nation is doing or has done what the petitioners ask this court to do. None of those cases align with

11

the procedural posture of the Johnson litigation and this new case. None of the other state cases the parties cited involve asking a state supreme court to reconsider maps that court adopted as constitutional just one year prior. Moreover, Wisconsin, unlike the states upon which the parties rely, constitutionally vests both its legislature and its governor with the constitutional duty to determine redistricting. Wisconsin's unique procedural events

12

in the Johnson litigation have not been replicated in these other states.

All of these factors, when considered together, seem to lead to the reasonable conclusion that accepting this original action is a purely political action to achieve a desired outcome. Despite this court having just declared that the existing maps are constitutional, four members of this court nonetheless accept the original action petition in Clarke. At the same time, four members of this court attempt to evade judicial review by selecting only two of the five issues presented. These are questions of law, yet those justices nonetheless inquire about fact finding and also ask a question which telegraphs that they are poised to overturn the "least change" determination made in Johnson I. 399 Wis.2d 623, ¶¶64-79. Despite this evasive framing of the case, Caperton

13

nonetheless looms large and will remain a cloud over this outwardly handpicked, predetermined, and preordained litigation.

Finally, the Wisconsin Elections Commission does not seem to be a party that is taking a position. The petitioners' requested remedy affects 17 senators in odd-numbered districts. These senators are named parties in Clarke. But each Senate district has within it three Assembly seats, so there are potentially far-reaching ramifications for seats in the Assembly. Why not name those in the Assembly as well? If the result of the Johnson III maps being declared unconstitutional is that senators in odd-numbered districts lack authority to hold their seats, then does the same lack of authority apply to members of the Assembly?

Upon closer inspection, this original action appears to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled motion for reconsideration of this court's decision in Johnson III. This court should not accept the petition in Clarke. In granting the petition in Clarke, four members of this court have chosen to chip away at the public's faith in the judiciary as an independent impartial institution, undermine foundational judicial principles such as stare decisis, and cast a hyper-partisan shadow of judicial bias over the decisions of this court. Such short-sighted behavior demonstrates the court majority's sheer will to expedite a preconceived outcome for a particular constituency. This abandonment of their judicial oath is disappointing. I concur.

I am authorized to state that Justice REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY joins this concurrence.

Explore Related Documents

This section contains links to related documents with the same tags to allow you quickly access other relevant legal materials. These links include document types and counts, enabling you to explore similar content efficiently.

• Causes of Action / Procedures (21)
  • Statutes (2)
  • Regulations (8)
  • Cases (11)
  • Election Law Manual
    • Chapter 2: State Regulation of Candidacies And Candidate Ballot Access, Subchapter 5: Ballot Access Challenges
    • Chapter 2: State Regulation of Candidacies And Candidate Ballot Access, Subchapter 6: Candidate Removal or Substitution
    • Chapter 4: State Regulation of Ballot Measures, Subchapter 4: Court Involvement in Ballot Measure Issues
    • Chapter 7: The Role of Courts on Election Day, Subchapter 2: Election Day Remedies Sought
    • Chapter 7: The Role of Courts on Election Day, Subchapter 3: Special Considerations
    • Chapter 8: Canvassing, Certification, and Recounts, Subchapter 4: Recounts
    • Chapter 9: Election Contests, Subchapter 2: Who Hears Election Contests
    • Chapter 9: Election Contests, Subchapter 3: Statutory Requirements
    • Chapter 9: Election Contests, Subchapter 4: Contest Types
    • Chapter 9: Election Contests, Subchapter 5: Evaluating Evidence in Election Contests
    • Chapter 9: Election Contests, Subchapter 8: Appeals
    • Chapter 10: Statutes Of Limitations and Laches, Subchapter 2: Statutes of Limitations
    • Chapter 10: Statutes Of Limitations and Laches, Subchapter 3: Laches
    • Chapter 11: Extraordinary and Equitable Relief, Subchapter 1: Introduction
    • Chapter 11: Extraordinary and Equitable Relief, Subchapter 2: Extraordinary Writs
    • Chapter 12: Special Considerations, Subchapter 3: The Purcell Principle
• Election Administration / Redistricting (15)
  • Statutes (7)
  • Cases (6)
  • Advisory Opinions (2)
  • Election Law Manual
    • Chapter 12: Special Considerations, Subchapter 4: Redistricting / Reapportionment Plans & Looming Elections
• Election Administration / Redistricting / Judicial Review (5)
  • Statutes (1)
  • Cases (4)
  • Election Law Manual
    • Chapter 12: Special Considerations, Subchapter 4: Redistricting / Reapportionment Plans & Looming Elections