Wisconsin quietly became the last front in the national redistricting fight — and a never-before-used legal process looks set to determine the state's congressional line in the midterm elections.
The saga unfolding in the crucial battleground of the Midwest could result in more congressional districts being handed to Democrats ahead of next year's midterm elections. But unlike other states that redrew their congressional maps mid-decade, the push for a new map in Wisconsin is on the brink now on an obscure GOP-controlled law the state Legislature passed 14 years ago.
Days before Thanksgiving, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a pair of three-judge panels to oversee two lawsuits alleging the state's current congressional map is unconstitutional and calling for it to be overhauled. The two panels will meet for the first time Friday for an initial hearing.
And Friday’s first steps are just the last steps on a long and difficult path.
Earlier this year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected two lawsuits seeking the redrawing of the state's eight congressional districts. for the second time in as many years that the court rejected such an attempt.
The decisions raised eyebrows among many court watchers in the state. The Liberals regained a majority on the technically non-partisan bench in a costly and high-profile election in 2023 and maintained a majority in an even more expensive race in 2025. Many Democrats believed it was only a matter of time before the high court's liberal majority allowed the redistricting case against the state's maps to proceed.
But in July, just two weeks after the state Supreme Court's latest rejection of a redistricting challenge, two sides a new case has been opened Dane County Circuit Court, the lower court, makes the same arguments about the maps. These cases are effectively it worked a process created by state Republicans and signed into law by then-Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2011 that requires the state Supreme Court to appoint a panel to hear redistricting cases.
IN Order 5-2 issued On Nov. 25, the state Supreme Court explained that it had used this process and convened two panels, one to hear each congressional redistricting case. One conservative judge joined four liberals on the court, ushering in an unprecedented effort in a purple state.
In an interview with NBC News, nonpartisan Wisconsin law and litigation experts explained that while the process has not been used in Wisconsin before, the idea of a panel of three judges drawn from different courts meeting to hear a redistricting case is not unusual. In fact, it was modeled after federal laws require the creation of a similar commission to hear most redistricting cases.
“Yes, this is the first time a three-judge panel has appeared in a Wisconsin state court to hear a redistricting claim. But a three-judge panel to decide issues related to redistricting or the Voting Rights Act is what happens in federal court,” said Bree Grossi Wild, executive director of the nonpartisan State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. “This is exactly how redistricting battles played out in federal court.”
Grossi Wilde said that while she expects more political criticism, she stressed that the trial itself is not a new decision created by the liberal-controlled Supreme Court.
“This is not a procedure that [state] The Supreme Court was created with this particular moment in mind,” she said. “This is a legislative procedure that the Supreme Court is required to follow.”
But the process, location of the cases and the expedited timelines for those cases have led many court watchers in Wisconsin to believe there is a high likelihood the state could have new maps before the midterm elections — and that they would almost certainly give Democrats an advantage over the current map, in which Republicans currently hold six of the eight seats.
But doing so in the time allotted may still be difficult: Wisconsin's filing window for candidates running for Congress and other offices. opens in April, deadline is June 1.
“If you look at the judges on these panels, where they come from, who appointed them, it's a partisan panel. Call it what it is,” said Brandon Scholtz, an independent political strategist in Wisconsin. “This is a partisan political move by what is supposed to be a nonpartisan court. It really looks like a push to create bipartisan commissions to determine redistricting at the congressional level.”
One of the panels includes three judges who supported liberal Supreme Court Justice Susan Crawford during her re-election campaign earlier this year. The other panel had two judges who sided with Crawford.
The process has already been criticized by conservatives on the state Supreme Court and Republicans across the state. The court's two conservative judges, who opposed the process in a recent ruling, have criticized the use of panels, voicing harsh opinions, particularly criticizing their colleagues on the bench for their selection of judges.
“Today, my colleagues—ignoring the United States Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution, and fundamental legal principles—endorse a collateral attack on our court's decision by a panel of district judges that is not supported by law,” conservative Judge Annette Ziegler wrote in her opinion.
“The selection of district court judges for political maneuvering is unimaginable,” she added. “Yet my colleagues persist and appear to be doing it, all for the sake of providing a partisan political advantage to the Democratic Party.”
Elected Republicans also criticized the court's decision.
“These people care about one thing: power,” said GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden, whose 3rd District will likely be affected by the new map. published on X after the ruling.
In a statement to NBC News, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Devin Remicker accused the GOP of “throwing a tantrum because they lost a majority on the state Supreme Court that was vital to rigging the rules in favor of Republicans.”
“Wisconsin Republicans are now forced to play in a much fairer and more impartial system where they do not have a judiciary to stack the deck for their candidates,” Remicker said.
Lawyers challenging the current congressional map in one of the cases said it was normal legal practice for the case to proceed in a lower court after the state Supreme Court rejected it.
“We followed the usual course of filing a regular lawsuit in a lower court, as is usually the case,” said Abha Khanna, an attorney with the Democratic firm Elias Law Group, which referred one of the cases to the commission.
But many political figures in the state see the current process as a pushback against Republican efforts in states like Texas to win seats in their own redistricting battles ahead of 2026.
“There is a rush to change Wisconsin's lines,” Scholz said. “And that's because it became a national story – everyone got excited over the summer. And the truth is that Democrats and liberals on the court have a real opportunity to maybe change those lines. So that's where we are.”
