(The Center Square) – A conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice once again called the court’s decision to hear an appeal of a three-judge panel’s ruling on the state’s congressional maps an “activist court” doing the “bidding of its political masters.”
The court stated it would hear a second congressional map challenge and did so while acknowledging that it’s uncertain whether it has the authority to review the rulings of a three-judge panel assigned to the case.
The order in the Elizabeth Bothfeld v. Wisconsin Elections Commission case comes less than two weeks after a similar ruling in a case filed by the Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy.
“The Democratic Party bought multiple seats on this court to achieve yet another outcome unobtainable democratically,” Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote in dissent. “Like last time, the United States Supreme Court will likely reverse the majority’s unlawful ruling and protect our Republic. No kings. No queens either.”
Both cases argue that Wisconsin’s current maps were gerrymandered and created in an unconstitutional way.
The Bothfeld case was rejected by a panel including Dane County Judge Julie Genovese, Milwaukee County Judge Mark Sanders and Outagamie County Judge Emily Lonergan.
The originally drawn maps were challenged after the 2020 U.S. Census and four maps were submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, including maps from Gov. Tony Evers and the state’s Republican Congress members. Ultimately, the court chose Evers’ maps.
“We acknowledge that there is an unresolved question as to whether an ‘appeal’ from a final decision or order of a panel in an apportionment challenge is a matter of right or a matter of this court’s discretion,” the order to hear the case stated. “We conclude that it is not necessary to resolve this issue in this case because it will not affect the outcome.”
The minority of conservative judges disagree and, in dissent, wrote that the court should have analyzed if it had standing to review the case before hearing it.
“Entertaining Bothfeld’s previously rejected theory to once again overturn a map that was already ordered by this court, well outside the court’s normal constitutional boundaries, smacks of judicial overreach,” Justice Annette Ziegler wrote in dissent, joined by Bradley. “Moreover, this order will not be published, thus limiting accessibility of the public. This is an unprecedented matter of public import, and every effort should be made to make the public aware of this issue.”
