Good morning.

Wednesday in Whitewater will be cloudy with a high of 52. Sunrise is 5:51 and sunset is 7:53 for 14 hours 2 minutes of daytime. The moon is a waxing gibbous with 95.3 percent of its visible disk illuminated.
Whitewater’s Lakes Advisory Committee meets at 4 PM.
On this day in 1945, American soldiers liberate the Dachau concentration camp.
Yesterday’s post (Candidates Should Live in Their Districts Before Running for Office) discussed residency for candidates running for Wisconsin’s First Congressional District (in which most of the City of Whitewater is located). Today’s post addresses a related topic: the second of two separate three-judge panels has declined to rule on a challenge to the boundaries of Wisconsin’s congressional districts. Shawn Johnson reports that
The order issued Tuesday is the second in the past month dismissing challenges to the state’s congressional districts, which currently give Republicans a 6-2 edge.
The case was brought by the liberal firm Law Forward on behalf of a group called Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy. It argues Wisconsin’s congressional map is an “anti-competitive gerrymander,” designed to entrench incumbent candidates at the expense of voters.
In a 13-page ruling, Dane County Judge David Conway, Marathon County Judge Michael Moran and Portage County Judge Patricia Baker wrote that only the Wisconsin Supreme Court could decide to overturn a map on the grounds that it was too partisan.
“While plaintiffs have constructed a detailed theory to support their claims, this panel does not write on a blank slate when it comes to the use of partisan considerations in redistricting,” the judges wrote. “Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, Plaintiffs’ claims are non-justiciable and non-cognizable under Wisconsin law.”
In a statement after the decision, Law Forward attorney Doug Poland promised to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
“This is the first anti-competitive gerrymandering case ever filed in Wisconsin courts, and it deserves to be heard,” Poland said. “We believe that the circuit court was wrong in concluding that anti-competitive gerrymandering is ‘functionally equivalent’ to partisan gerrymandering. They are different claims, based on different evidence, that target different ways of manipulating representation to the detriment of voters.”
See Shawn Johnson, Second judicial panel rejects challenge to Wisconsin congressional map (‘The ruling leaves in place Wisconsin’s current map, which gives Republicans a 6-2 advantage in the state’s US House delegation’), Wisconsin Public Radio, April 28, 2026.
The rulings from these two circuit court panels are not surprises. It was asking much, too much, of these panels to adopt and apply a new standard to redress the past gerrymandering of Wisconsin’s congressional districts. (It was asking even more than too much, so to speak, to expect that a decision could be handed down in 2026, as the plaintiffs in one of the cases expected.)
If there is a judicial determination, then it will come from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and it will apply no sooner than the 2028 congressional elections.
Redressing past wrongs should only be done in the right way. The right way here, if there is to be one, requires the considered judgment of Wisconsin’s highest court delivered after unhurried deliberation.
Previously: Wisconsin Supreme Court Appoints Redistricting Panels and Plaintiffs in Wisconsin Congressional Redistricting Cases Propose Different Timelines.
_____
Upcoming posts (in no decided order): Claims of Legacy, a Particular Species of Democrat, a Whitewater Comparative Analysis, Whitewater’s Workforce, ‘What Ails, What Heals’ Reviewed, and Outcome Driven Argumentation.
JPL Tests Next-Generation Electric Thruster:



