A Closer Look at the Partisan Implications of Gov. Evers’ Proposed Maps

When the Wisconsin Supreme Court tossed the state’s legislative district maps in December 2023, they invited the legislature and governor to once more seek an agreement on state legislative maps. The Court also simultaneously solicited proposed remedial maps from the parties to the original court case—one of whom was Gov. Evers himself.

The Court ultimately accepted submissions from six parties, 4 liberal or Democratic and 2 conservative or Republican. Having had the chance to review all the proposals and fearing what the Court’s new liberal majority might do, Republican legislators suddenly found themselves in the unexpected position of supporting Evers’ own proposal. On February 13, both houses of the legislature passed Evers’ map submission, with near uniform Republican support and only one vote in each chamber from Democrats.

Republicans explained their sudden support for Evers map as simply picking the worst of several bad options. In Senator Van Wanggaard’s words, “Republicans were not stuck between a rock and hard place. It was a matter of choosing to be stabbed, shot, poisoned or led to the guillotine. We chose to be stabbed, so we can live to fight another day.”

As I write this, Gov. Evers has not yet signed these maps; although, he has indicated he likely will.

The differences between the partisan lean of Evers’ plan and the three other Democratic-aligned proposals are small but measurable. The Court’s consultants calculated separate partisan bias scores and mean-minus-median-gaps for each plan in their report. For each measure, Evers map is not the best (of the four) for Republicans in either house, but it does have the most favorable Republican score when averaged across both houses.

The consultants also calculate each plan’s “majoritarian concordance,” or the reliability with which it converts an electoral majority into a legislative majority. Considering both houses across 13 statewide races since 2016, the Evers map fails the majority concordance standard 6 times—all in instances where a losing GOP candidate would’ve still won a majority of legislative seats.[1] No other plan fairs quite so well for Republicans.

Another benefit to Republicans is a small reduction in paired incumbents, relative to the other Democratic-aligned plans. The governor’s plan places 25 Republican Assembly incumbents into a district with another incumbent, compared to between 27 and 31 in the other plans. In the Senate, the Evers plan pairs 1 more Republican incumbent than the Senate Democrat’s proposed map, but fewer than either the Law Forward or Wright proposals.[2]

These partisan differences between the Democratic-aligned plans appear, if anything, smaller in the 2022 elections, when the Evers map would’ve performed very similarly to the Law Forward plan. The graphic below compares the partisan lean of the tipping point seat in each house under three different election scenarios.

partisan lean of the tipping point seat in the wisconsin legislature under various scenarios

The rightmost graph shows the share of the vote won by Tony Evers in his reelection campaign. Evers won the state by 3.4 percentage points, enough to give him a majority of the seats in both houses under all four of the Democratic-aligned proposals. (Note: These statistics cover all 33 state senate districts).

The middle graph shows the share of the vote won by Ron Johnson in his reelection campaign. Johnson won the state by one percentage point. That narrow victory would’ve won a majority of the seats in both houses under the Evers and Law Forward plans. Johnson still would’ve narrowly lost both houses under the plan submitted by the Wright Petitioners. Under the Senate Democrats map, Johnson would’ve won a majority of seats in the Assembly and lost a majority in the state senate.

Of course, state legislative races are decided by their own candidates—not top of the ticket races. We can’t simply add up state legislative votes in new districts, because many of the old races were not contested by both parties. Instead, I employ a statistical model using top-of-the-ticket races to estimate state legislative results, had both parties run candidates. The results of that model are shown in the leftmost graph. In general, state legislative Republicans did about 1 point better than Ron Johnson.

Indeed, under my modeled estimate of 2022 state legislative races, Republicans would’ve likely held a majority in every house of every plan, except for the state senate in the Senate Democrats proposal. (Again, this considers all 33 seats, not just the 17 odd-numbered districts being elected in 2022).

The 2022 result is not a prediction of 2024. The larger presidential electorate, heightened attention, greater fundraising, and variable incumbency effects may change the contours of those legislative races in consequential ways.

Still, these three election scenarios give a reasonable sense of the range of outcomes in recent Wisconsin elections. With that in mind, here are graphs showing the lean of each legislative seat under the Evers proposal compared with the previous map.

comparison of assembly seat margins

In these graphs, each tick mark shows the partisan lean of one seat. The larger, red tick mark shows the tipping point seat—the one that determines majority control. This is another way of visualizing the statistics I discussed above. In both houses, the tipping point seat was won by both Gov. Evers and Senator Ron Johnson in their 2022 reelection campaigns. State legislative Republicans did slightly better than Johnson, but even in that scenario, the tipping point seat is far more competitive than in any scenario under the old maps.

comparison of senate seat margins

Here is a greatly simplified version of the above graph. In these graphs, I have simply counted the number of seats leaning to each party by double and single digit margins, under each scenario. The first row shows the Evers map, the second row shows the previous maps.

assembly simple seat lean totals

Under the old maps, Ron Johnson won a double-digit victory in 55/99 Assembly districts and 19/33 Senate districts. That falls to 46 and 15, respectively, under the Evers proposal—short of a majority.

Under all three scenarios and in both houses, the Evers map creates a situation where majority control will be decided by a set of more competitive districts.

assembly simple seat lean totals

Click the image below to open an interactive map where you can view the Evers map and the previous district boundaries, with the districts shaded by my modeled 2022 legislative margin. For simplicity’s sake, the rest of this discussion will reference only that election scenario.

The Evers map creates 42 Assembly districts with a double-digit Democratic lean and 4 districts with a single-digit lean. Here are where those changes take place.

  • The south central region now includes 16 D-leaning seats, up from 12 previously. None of these are particularly competitive.
  • Racine/Kenosha now include 4 D-leaning seats, up from 3.
  • The Milwaukee metro includes 14 double-digit D-leaning seats, up from 13. The area retains 1 district with a single-digit Democratic lean.
  • The City of Sheboygan is unified, becoming a district with a single-digit Democratic lean.
  • Oshkosh/Neenah/Appleton are drawn to include 3 D-leaning seats, rather than 2.
  • The Eau Claire area is drawn to include 2 D-leaning seats, rather than 1.
  • Northwestern Wisconsin is redrawn to include one D-leaning seat, stretching along the coast from Superior to Ashland.
  • The La Crosse area is drawn to include 2 D-leaning seats, rather than 1.

To win a majority in November 2024 under the Evers map, Democrats could win all of the seats which lean toward them, plus four of the 7 districts with a single-digit Republican lean. The most likely targets include districts 61 (SW Milwaukee suburbs), 88 and 89 (both in the Green Bay area), and either 85 (Wausau) or 30 (Hudson).

Similarly, to win a majority in the state senate, Democrats would need to win the 10 seats with a double-digit Democratic lean, all 6 seats with a single digit lean in their favor, and one of the two seats with a single-digit Republican lean. Both of those seats are in the Milwaukee suburbs. District 21 stretches from Racine, through Oak Creek and Franklin, up to the southwestern part of the city. District 8 includes much of Milwaukee County’s north shore, as well as southern Ozaukee County.

Because only even-numbered districts will hold election in 2024, I see essentially no chance of Democrats winning a majority this November. However, Democrats have three likely pickup opportunities in 2024 with the Evers senate map—districts 14 (NW of Madison), 18 (Fox Valley), and 30 (Green Bay). Any one of these pickups would end the GOP supermajority in the upper chamber. Winning all of them will put the senate majority very much in play during the 2026 cycle.


[1] These races are Secretary of State 2022 and President 2020 among Assembly seats as well as AG 2018 and Governor 2018 among both Senate and Assembly seats.

[2] Incumbent pairing statistics are from page 13 of the Legislature’s response brief.

Continue ReadingA Closer Look at the Partisan Implications of Gov. Evers’ Proposed Maps

Lubar Center Programs Put the Positives—and Some of the Needs—of Milwaukee in the Spotlight

Good and positive things about Milwaukee, making those things better, and, in some cases, keeping them from getting worse. That sums up three recent programs of the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette Law School. Let’s catch up by offering brief summaries of each of the programs, each of which was moderated by Derek Mosley, director of the Lubar Center. 

Get to Know: Cecelia Gore, executive director of the Brewers Community Foundation, February 13, 2024

Cecelia Gore is a well-known figure in Milwaukee’s philanthropic community. She was program director of the Jane Bradley Pettit Foundation from 2001 to 2009. Since 2009, she has been executive director of the Brewers Community Foundation, the charitable arm of Milwaukee’s major league baseball team. In that role, she has overseen the raising and distribution of millions of dollars to support efforts such as education programs, home construction for low-income people, and sports programs for youths.

Each baseball season, she talks to every player on the Brewers about donating part of his salary to the Brewers Foundation—and, she told Mosley during the program in Marquette Law School’s Lubar Center, 100% of the players take part (which is not true of all major league teams). She also instituted the “50-50 raffle” at Brewers home games, which allows fans to buy tickets. Half of the proceeds go to the holder of the winning ticket at each game and half go to the foundation. Since 2010, the raffles have raised more than $50 million—so more than $25 million has gone to Milwaukee nonprofit causes.

Gore has also been involved in many other local philanthropic efforts. She was co-chair of the Greater Milwaukee Foundation’s “Greater Together Initiative,” which recently announced it has raised $700 million to be used to increase opportunity and equity on multiple fronts for low-income people in the Milwaukee area.

Gore is an optimist about the future of Milwaukee. Solving problems will take a lot of hard work. But, she said, “The community is filled with people who want to make a difference. . . . We all have the opportunity to do as much as we can.”

In all her time working for the Brewers at American Family Field, Mosley asked, has Gore ever gone down the slide Bernie Brewer uses when a Brewers player hits a home run? “I’ve done it once, and I’ll probably never do it again,” she said.   

Watch the conversation with Gore by clicking here.

##

Get to Know: Peggy Williams-Smith, president/CEO of VISIT Milwaukee, January 30, 2024

Peggy Williams-Smith has had a lifelong education in what’s good about Milwaukee, and she’s a positive, eager saleswoman for telling as much of the world about Milwaukee as she and her organization can reach. A Milwaukee-area native whose path has included a lot of jobs, from Walgreen’s when she was young to 13 years working for Marcus Corporation hotels and resorts. She has headed VISIT Milwaukee, the tourism and economic development organization, since 2019.

Williams-Smith’s conversation with Mosley covered a literal and figurative waterfront of developments in Milwaukee tourism, almost all of them positive. The literal waterfront involves the rapid growth of Milwaukee in recent years as a stopping point for cruise ships on the Great Lakes. The figurative waterfront includes successful promotion campaigns, praise of Milwaukee as a tourist destination from several national publications, the coming Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, and the major expansion of the Baird Center, Milwaukee’s convention center. VISIT Milwaukee was involved in bringing more than 500 events to Milwaukee, involving more than $800 million in business.  

“There’s no better place to be in the world than the summer in Milwaukee,” Williams-Smith said. One thing that means is she and her staff of about 40 are doing more to promote Milwaukee tourism the rest of the year, including in the winter.

The conversation with Williams-Smith may be viewed by clicking here.

##

On the Issues: Museums and Arts Funding in Wisconsin, January 19, 2024

Wisconsin’s ranking in state funding of arts and culture programs? Fiftieth and last, said Rob Henken, president of the Wisconsin Policy Forum, a nonprofit research organization. Wisconsin’s support of arts and culture efforts from the private sector, including individuals and businesses? No exact ranking, but it’s been pretty strong, speakers at a forum on the subject at Marquette Law School’s Lubar Center said. Put the two together and you have an important part of life in Wisconsin that is doing OK, but facing many serious issues.

In addition to Henken, six leaders of museums and arts organizations spoke at the program. “Museums shape communities,” said Ellen Censky, president/CEO of the Milwaukee Public Museum. But the museum, with 550,000 visitors a year, is a big and vivid example of both the positives and negatives of the museum scene. The public museum is making progress with building a replacement building, on the north side of downtown, that will launch it into a new and, supporters believe, exciting future. But the process of getting there has faced numerous challenges. And Censky told Mosley that one thing that she worries about is whether a major crisis will occur involving the current deteriorating building before the new building is ready.

Laurie Winters, executive director/CEO of the Museum of Wisconsin Art in West Bend, described how that museum went from 2,900 visitors in 2012 to 225,000 in 2023, thanks to a beautiful new facility and expanded programming. But everything that is improving the museum and arts picture for Milwaukee and Wisconsin “is happening in spite of” and not because of governmental help, she said.

Adam Braatz, executive director of the nonprofit Imagine MKE, said, “The reality is the entire sector is on the precipice of a cliff.” Things could get worse without more support, he said.

Also taking part in the discussion were Clayborn Benson, executive director of Wisconsin Black Historical Society; Polly Morris, executive director of the Lynden Sculpture Garden; and Marcela Garcia, executive director of the Walker’s Point Center for the Arts.

The discussion may be watched by clicking here.       


Continue ReadingLubar Center Programs Put the Positives—and Some of the Needs—of Milwaukee in the Spotlight

Law School Alphabet Soup

This is the third in a series of weekly blog posts this semester concerning the Office of Student Affairs (past entries can be found here and here).Photo of alphabet soup

As soon as one walks through the doors of Eckstein Hall, she is likely to hear any number of initialisms and acronyms: ASP, AWA, CPC, CREAC, FGP, IRAC, LGL, MLM, MVLC, NSLI, OTI, SBA, and SSP, just to name a few. Some may already be conversant with Washington, D.C.’s “alphabet soup” (primarily made up of federal-agency abbreviations). Here at Marquette Law School, we have our own version.

For those new to our community, I’ve included at the bottom of this post a glossary of the above terms. Perhaps it might help ease the transition. But I’ll focus especially on the first and last of the list: ASP and SSP.

The Academic Success Program or ASP—where a pair of upper-level students lead weekly review and skill-building sessions for each first-year doctrinal course—is a core feature of the 1L experience here. I say “here” because you won’t find a program like ASP at every law school. In fact, some preliminary research, looking at supplementary academic programs across 199 U.S. law schools, yielded only about 20 other law schools that hold sessions akin to those of our ASP program.*

Each Marquette ASP session lasts 45 minutes—often over the lunch hour, but sometimes necessitating an even earlier start to the day than the course schedule requires. With three sessions per week (one for each doctrinal 1L course each semester), that amounts to two hours and 15 minutes of time that students might otherwise spend reading, talking, sleeping, networking, applying to jobs, or doing any number of other worthy and valuable things. Time is a precious commodity in law school, and we suggest to our 1Ls that they spend 135 minutes of their week attending ASP.

And they do so—with roughly 79% of the entering class of 2023, for example, attending 10 or more sessions in their first semester. Neither the Law School nor individual faculty members require 1Ls to attend ASP. Rather, first-year students are self-motivated to do so because of the opportunity to review, clarify, and—critically—apply the material taught in the prior calendar week’s classes.

As you might surmise, though, it’s not the numbers that make the program special. It’s the people. (If you’ve read the prior two posts in this series, you might also begin to sense a theme.) Our ASP student leaders are selected not merely based on their successful performance in the course during their own first year. Their selection is guided by their desire to be a resource to first-year students, their intellectual humility and professionalism, and their willingness to sacrifice some of their own upper-level course preferences to be able to sit in on every class meeting of the doctrinal course. The upper-level ASP student leaders observe the classes, work with faculty members, prepare for the sessions, present, and self-assess. These impressive student leaders receive credit for their time and work, but, if I had to guess, I think most would do it even without that. Such is the pride that ASP leaders take in their work, having remembered the benefit they reaped from the program when they were 1Ls.

On the other end of the alphabet, we find the Student Success Program or SSP. We regard ASP and SSP as an integrated series, with each intended to complement the other.

SSP features regular fall-semester workshops that aim to provide a foundational understanding of how to “do” law school. SSP starts with videos in our online Pre-Orientation program. The videos walk a student through how (and why) to read a case in law school. Unfortunately for our students, I’m the star of those initial sessions. But things quickly take a turn for the better, as—for the remainder of the semester—our upper-level SSP student leaders take the helm to plan, rehearse, and present as many as eight workshops on topics ranging from synthesizing notes to outlining to exam writing.

SSP, too, is an entirely voluntary program, and yet, this past fall, attendance at the sessions averaged over 75% of the first-year class. It might not hurt that we offer participating students a free lunch, but I prefer to think of that as simply an added bonus.

ASP and SSP are not the only paths to academic enrichment; classes are, of course, at the heart of the law-school experience, and faculty and staff routinely work one-on-one with students to discuss content and individualized learning strategies. But ASP and SSP provide students with another important and informal setting for learning, not to mention built-in mentorship from leaders eager to help. Thus, for Marquette law students, ASP and SSP really are key terms.

Glossary

ASPAcademic Success Program: Weekly skill-building sessions, led by upper-level student leaders, for each first-year doctrinal course

AWA – Appellate Writing and Advocacy: Upper-level workshop course offered annually in the fall semester; a prerequisite for participation in the Law School’s Moot Court Program

CPC Career Planning Center: Located in suite 240, the CPC provides programming, resources, and one-on-one advising to Marquette law students as they pursue their professional goals—from internships to post-graduate employment.

CREAC – Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application, Conclusion: A common organizational structure used for writing legal briefs and memoranda; typically taught in the Law School’s first-year Legal Analysis, Writing, and Research courses

FGPFirst Generation Professionals: Student-run organization that brings together students of all backgrounds who are the first in their families to attend law school; one of the largest student-run organizations at Marquette Law School

IRAC – Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion: A common organizational structure used when writing law-school exam answers; explained and discussed in depth at SSP sessions

LGL – Law Governing Lawyers: Marquette Law School’s required course in professional responsibility and lawyer ethics

MLM Marquette Law Mentorship: Marquette Law School’s official mentorship program, which pairs new law students with volunteer upper-level mentors

MVLCMarquette Volunteer Legal Clinics: Legal-advice clinics organized by the Law School, serving especially the Milwaukee community, and staffed by volunteer attorneys and Marquette law students; law students can start volunteering with the MVLCs and other pro bono opportunities as early as the summer before their first year of law school

NSLINational Sports Law Institute: Affiliated with the Marquette Sports Law Program, the NSLI awards the Sports Law Certificate to graduating Marquette law students who complete the associated curricular requirements.

OTIOn the Issues: As one of a series of events hosted by Marquette Law School’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education, OTIs bring leading community voices to Eckstein Hall to discuss important and timely policy matters.

SBAStudent Bar Association; With its entire membership elected by the student body, SBA sponsors important law school initiatives as well as annual events, including Barristers’ Ball.

SSPStudent Success Program:  A series of fall-semester workshops that cover the basics of how to “do” law school; led by upper-level student leaders and offered annually to first-year students; shamelessly proudly serves lunch

* My sincere thanks to Abigail Nilsson for her exhaustive (and likely exhausting) research on this topic.

Continue ReadingLaw School Alphabet Soup