WASHINGTON _ The chances of a new Supreme Court challenge to partisan gerrymandering significantly increased Monday as federal judges in Wisconsin ruled that the state's Republican leaders had unconstitutionally drawn electoral districts to "entrench" their control over the state Assembly.
The state's legislative districts had been drawn so meticulously to ensure partisan advantage that Republicans won overwhelming control of the house in 2012, with 60 of 99 seats, even though Democrats won 51 percent of the vote statewide, the judges noted.
The 2-1 decision from a three-judge federal district court panel was the first in which federal judges have ruled a state's electoral map was so one-sided, it denied voters from one party a voice in state government.
The judges said Republican leaders had drawn districts for the Legislature after the last census with the aim of preserving their majority for a decade almost regardless of what voters had to say. Republicans had control of the both houses of the state Legislature, and Gov. Scott Walker signed their election map into law.
"We conclude that the evidence establishes that one of the purposes (of the state map) was to secure Republican control of the Assembly under any likely future electoral scenario for the remainder of the decade, in other words to entrench the Republican Party in power," wrote Judge Kenneth Ripple.
The case has been seen as potentially having a national impact because the losing side is almost certain to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court.
"This is a monumental victory for the plaintiffs in this case, but more importantly this is a historic moment for our nation and the betterment of democracy," said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, which backed the 12 Wisconsin Democrats who filed the lawsuit. "With this decision, partisan gerrymandering should come to an end in Wisconsin and is now on its way to extinction across the nation."
The judges did not say what Wisconsin must do to solve the problem. They asked both sides to submit briefs on a possible remedy.
In the past, the Supreme Court has have been closely divided over claims of partisan gerrymandering. They have never struck down a state's electoral map because it gave one party an unfair and overwhelming advantage over the other, although some justices have suggested that the court might do so if the right case arose.
