The congressmen stated the Wisconsin Supreme Court had carried out a bait-and-switch in soliciting proposed maps. In November, the court docket stated it could favor the map that minimized modifications to the earlier one. But it additionally indicated, based on the congressmen, that it could contemplate not solely so-called core retention, a measure of voters who remained in their prior districts, but in addition whether or not new maps prevented splitting counties, municipalities and communities of curiosity.
But when the court docket selected a map in March, it “swapped its holistic least-change approach, which approach was to take account of multiple factors, for a core-retention-maximization-only standard that looked exclusively to the core-retention scores,” the congressmen instructed the Supreme Court in an emergency application.
The state court docket chosen a map submitted by Mr. Evers, which retained 94.5 p.c of voters in present districts; the map submitted by the congressmen retained 93.5 p.c. Both maps took account of different components, the congressmen wrote.
In relying on solely core retention, they wrote, the state court docket violated their due course of rights. Had they taken discover of the state court docket’s precise standards, they wrote, they’d have submitted a special map.
Lawyers for the governor accused the congressmen of opportunism.
“It takes true chutzpah for petitioners to complain about a supposed bait-and-switch,” the governor’s lawyers wrote. “They urged the Wisconsin Supreme Court to adopt a least-change approach that would ‘maximize core retention’; now they insist that the court violated their due process clause rights by prioritizing core retention.”
Lawyers for the congressmen added that the governor’s map had a second flaw: It deviated from good inhabitants equality by together with districts with 736,714 individuals, 736,715 individuals and 736,716 individuals regardless that the “mathematically ideal” district would comprise 736,714.75 individuals.
Here, too, the governor’s attorneys accused their adversaries of inconsistency, saying they’d twice stated the map happy equal apportionment. In any occasion, they added, “petitioners have not identified a single case striking down a map with a plus-or-minus-one deviation.”