CASE SUMMARY
On August 13, 2021, a group of Wisconsin voters filed a federal lawsuit against the members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission challenging the state's 2010-cycle congressional and legislative plans as unconstitutional. The plaintiffs alleged that based on the 2020 Census data, the prior decade's districts had become malapportioned in violation of the one person, one vote constitutional requirement under Article I, § 2 and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. They also alleged that the state legislature was unlikely to enact properly apportioned redistricting plans in time for the 2022 elections and the failure to do so would result in burdens upon the plaintiffs' freedom of association in violation of the 1st Amendment. The plaintiffs sought a judicial declaration that the 2010-cycle redistricting plans were unconstitutional; an injunction barring the defendants from conducting any elections using those districts; a court ordered schedule for enacting new, properly apportioned plans; and, in the event the political branches failed to do so, for the court to enact properly apportioned redistricting plans on its own.
On August 27, 2021, the district court granted the Wisconsin Legislature's motion to intervene in the case as defendants. On September 16, 2021, the court consolidated this action with a similar case challenging Wisconsin’s electoral districts, Black Leaders Organizing for Communities v. Spindell. On October 6, 2021, the case was stayed in light of the redistricting challenge petition accepted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. On November 18, 2021, the court issued an order extending the stay of this case until January 4, 2022, and on December 17, 2021, the court further extended the stay until January 28, 2022.
On March 3, 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an opinion and order in Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission adopting the congressional and legislative plans proposed by the Governor as final and directing the state to implement them for use in future elections.
On March 7, 2022, the Wisconsin Legislature filed an emergency application for a stay of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling adopting the legislative plans pending a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 9, 2022, the Congressmen Intervenors filed a similar application with the U.S. Supreme Court in regards to the adopted congressional plan.
On March 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order denying the Congressmen Intervenors' request for a stay on the adopted congressional plan. That same day, the Court issued an opinion reversing and remanding the Wisconsin Supreme Court's adoption of the Governor's legislative redistricting plans on the grounds it erroneously applied the Court's precedents as to the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. Specifically, the Court found the Wisconsin Supreme Court committed legal error by concluding the Governor's intentional addition of a seventh majority-black legislative district satisfied strict scrutiny review under the Equal Protection Clause, reiterating its holding in Cooper v. Harris that a State must show it had a "strong basis in evidence" for concluding that their race-based redistricting decisions were necessary for compliance with § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court remanded the case back to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion and equal protection jurisprudence.
On May 5, 2022, the federal district court dismissed the case in light of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Related Case: Black Leaders Organizing for Communities v. Spindell
Similar Case: Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
CASE LIBRARY
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin - No. 3:21-cv-00512
- Complaint - 8/13/21
- Letter from Court Regarding Three-Judge Court Request - 8/16/21
- Motion to Intervene by the Wisconsin Legislature - 8/17/21
- Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene by the Wisconsin Legislature - 8/17/21
- Order Designating Three-Judge Court - 8/18/21
- Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Wisconsin Legislature's Motion to Intervene - 8/24/21
- Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs - 8/26/21
- Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs - 8/26/21
- Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene by the Wisconsin Legislature - 8/26/21
- Opinion and Order - 8/27/21
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman, Mike Gallagher, Bryan Steil, Tom Tiffany, and Scott Fitzgerald's Motion to Intervene - 8/30/21
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman, Mike Gallagher, Bryan Steil, Tom Tiffany, and Scott Fitzgerald's Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Intervene - 8/30/21
- Declaration of Congressman Glenn Grothman - 8/30/21
- Declaration of Congressman Mike Gallagher - 8/30/21
- Declaration of Congressman Bryan Steil - 8/30/21
- Declaration of Congressman Tom Tiffany - 8/30/21
- Declaration of Congressman Scott L. Fitzgerald - 8/30/21
- Declaration of Kevin M. Leroy - 8/30/21
- Notice of Consent to Consolidation - 9/3/21
- Answer - 9/7/21
- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Congressmen Glenn Grothman, Mike Gallagher, Bryan Steil, Tom Tiffany, and Scott Fitzgerald's Motion to Intervene - 9/7/21
- Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Intervene of Billie Johnson, Eric O'Keefe, Ed Perkins, and Ronald Zahn - 9/7/21
- Reply of Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiffs Billie Johnson, Eric O'Keefe, Ed Perkins, and Ronald Zahn in Support of Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs - 9/8/21
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman, Mike Gallagher, Bryan Steil, Tom Tiffany, and Scott Fitzgerald's Reply in Support of Their Motion to Intervene - 9/9/21
- Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers' Motion to Intervene - 9/13/21
- Memorandum in Support of Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers' Motion to Intervene - 9/13/21
- Proposed Intervenor-Defendant Tony Evers' Answer - 9/13/21
- Response by the Wisconsin Legislature on Consolidation - 9/13/21
- Parties' Joint Proposal Regarding Scheduling - 9/13/21
- Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to the Wisconsin Legislature's Motion to Dismiss - 9/13/21
- Opinion and Order - 9/16/21
- Motion to Intervene by the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors Citizen Data Scientists - 9/20/21
- Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene by Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors Citizen Data Scientists - 9/20/21
- Complaint of Intervenor-Plaintiffs - 9/21/21
- First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 9/21/21
- Order - 9/21/21
- Answer by the Wisconsin Legislature to Hunter Complaint - 9/22/21
- Notice of State Court Proceedings and Motion to Stay Proceedings - 9/23/21
- Notice by the Wisconsin Legislature - 9/23/21
- Notice by the Wisconsin Legislature of U.S. Supreme Court Petition - 9/24/21
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman, et al., Answer to Hunter Plaintiffs' Complaint - 9/27/21
- Letter to Court from William R. Taylor - 9/28/21
- Motion to Dismiss BLOC Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by the Wisconsin Legislature - 9/30/21
- Motion to Dismiss Johnson Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Complaint by the Wisconsin Legislature - 9/30/21
- Defendants' Answer to BLOC Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - 9/30/21
- Intervenor-Defendant Governor Tony Evers' Response to Stay Motion - 10/1/21
- Response to Johnson Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Stay by the Wisconsin Legislature - 10/1/21
- Defendants' Response to Johnson Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay - 10/1/21
- Hunter Plaintiffs' Opposition to Johnson Intervenors' Second Motion to Stay Proceedings - 10/1/21
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman, et al., Statement Regarding the Johnson Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Stay and the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Grant of Petition for Original Action in Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission - 10/1/21
- Notice of Position of Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor Citizen Data Scientists on Matters Raised in the Court's September 23, 2021 Order - 10/1/21
- BLOC Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay Proceedings - 10/1/21
- Declaration of Douglas M. Poland in Support of BLOC Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion to stay Proceedings - 10/1/21
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman, et al., Motion for Leave to File a Response to the Hunter Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Johnson Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Stay Proceedings - 10/1/21
- Joint Proposed Discovery Plan and Pretrial Schedule - 10/1/21
- Plaintiffs' Conditional Motion for Leave to File Reply to Congressmen Glenn Grothman, et al.'s, Proposed Response - 10/4/21
- Johnson Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings - 10/5/21
- Johnson Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Wisconsin Legislature's Motion to Dismiss - 10/6/21
- Opinion and Order - 10/6/21
- Proposed Intervenor-Defendant Tony Evers' Answer - 10/7/21
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman, et al.'s, Motion to Dismiss the Johnson Plaintiffs' Complaint - 10/7/21
- Answer of Defendants to Complaint of Johnson Intervenor-Plaintiffs - 10/7/21
- Johnson Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Congressmen Intervenor-Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - 10/19/21
- BLOC Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Wisconsin Legislature's Motion to Dismiss - 10/20/21
- Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss BLOC Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by the Wisconsin Legislature - 10/27/21
- Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Johnson Plaintiffs' Complaint by the Wisconsin Legislature - 10/27/21
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman, et al.'s, Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss the Johnson Plaintiffs' Complaint - 10/27/21
- Joint Submission on Status of Proceedings in the Wisconsin Supreme Court - 11/5/21
- Order Continuing Stay Until December 6, 2021 - 11/17/21
- U.S. Supreme Court Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition - 12/6/21
- Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion for Status Conference - 2/24/22
- Johnson Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Position on Dismissal - 3/18/22
- Intervenor-Defendant Governor Evers's Position on Dismissal - 3/18/22
- BLOC Plaintiffs' Statement of Dismissal - 3/18/22
- Defendants' Bostelmann, et al., Statement on Dismissal - 3/18/22
- Hunter Plaintiffs' Statement in Opposition to Dismissal - 3/18/22
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman's, et al., Position on Dismissal - 3/18/22
- The Wisconsin Legislature's Position on Dismissal - 3/18/22
- Johnson Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Updated Position on Dismissal - 3/25/22
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman, et al., Response to This Court's March 21, 2022 Order - 3/25/22
- BLOC Plaintiffs' Updated Position on Dismissal - 3/28/22
- Hunter Plaintiffs' Updated Statement in Opposition to Dismissal - 3/28/22
- Intervenor-Defendant Governor Evers' Updated Statement of Position - 3/28/22
- The Wisconsin Legislature's Response Regarding Dismissal - 3/28/22
- Johnson Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Updated Position on Dismissal - 4/20/22
- The Wisconsin Legislature's Response Regarding Dismissal - 4/20/22
- Congressmen Glenn Grothman, et al., Response to This Court's April 1, 2022 Order - 4/20/22
- BLOC Plaintiffs' Position on Status - 4/20/22
- Intervenor-Defendant Governor Evers' Position on Status - 4/20/22
- Hunter Plaintiffs' Statement on Case Status - 4/20/22
- BLOC Plaintiffs' Updated Position on Status - 5/4/22
- Hunter Plaintiffs' Statement on Case Status - 5/4/22