FAQs

What is the rationale for pursuing legislation rather than utilizing the ballot initiative process?

Unlike a number of other states, Wisconsin does not have any statewide ballot initiative process that would allow voters to propose new state laws or constitutional amendments through a petition and to compel a referendum vote.  That is the reason this voter-led grassroots effort to introduce and gain support for passage of a statute creating an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) is so important.  

After IRC legislation is enacted, the focus will be on legislative passage of a joint resolution for a constitutional amendment in two consecutive sessions. Voters can then vote to pass a ballot referendum creating a truly independent redistricting commission.

What does the Wisconsin Constitution currently say about who is responsible for redistricting?

Article IV of Wisconsin’s Constitution provides that the Wisconsin Legislature “shall apportion and district anew” Wisconsin’s voting maps, which are then submitted to the Governor for approval as part of the regular legislative process. The maps are drawn by experts, using sophisticated software, following the Legislature’s instructions. In other words, the Legislature delegates the actual drawing of the maps. The Proposal calls for the Legislature to delegate that job to the IRC, which then submits the maps to the Legislature for approval. The Proposal also provides a process to use if the Legislature and Governor fail to finalize maps before a date certain. (Decision Making Process, #s 4&5). 

The ultimate goal is to amend Wisconsin’s Constitution, and provide for an IRC with complete control over the redistricting process. The first step, however, is to pass legislation that allows the Legislature to delegate the process to an IRC.

How will voters learn about the IRC and the application process?

Because the IRC needs to represent the entire state, the proposal calls for a statewide public awareness campaign (for example, online advertising, radio ads, placement in government buildings and public locations, public service announcements, etc.) that explains the IRC and encourages all registered Wisconsin voters to apply. The application will also be advertised and accessible online. Finally, applications will be sent to 10,000 Wisconsin voters who are randomly selected to ensure equal representation throughout the state. (Step One: Process for Soliciting and Selecting IRC Applicants)

How can the selection process ensure that commissioners from the applications received will reflect the demographics of Wisconsin?

The initial process will use statistically weighted random selection to select the pool of 240 potential commissioners from the applications received. This is a method of choosing people randomly, but with different probabilities assigned to different groups so the final selection reflects certain characteristics—such as demographics or geography—in proportion to their presence in the population. Efforts will be made at each step of the selection to create an IRC that reflects the diversity of Wisconsin. (Step Two: Process for Selecting IRC Commissioners #2)

Why use the Department of Administration (DOA) to help administer and provide guidance and staff support for the work of the IRC?

The Draft proposal for IRC legislation creates a permanent governmental entity that has an important role to play in creating good and efficient government in Wisconsin. The DOA is a governmental agency in the Administrative Branch of Government that administers state commissions. As such, the DOA has nonpartisan staff with experience with various aspects of Wisconsin State Government, such as but not limited to: working with the public, understanding state law, rules and regulations, and familiarity with the legislative and budget processes. Because of these aspects, the DOA has been selected as the oversight and guiding agency for the IRC. (Process for Soliciting and Selecting IRC Applicants, 1.) 2.) 3.) and Step Two: Process for Selecting Commissioners, 1.) 2.) 4.), Department of Administration Involvement and Responsibilities with IRC, 1.) 2.), Budget Section, 4.)

Why is there a contribution limit for applicants to the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC)?

Contribution limits for Commissioner Applicants are used as a method to limit potential political influence of a Commissioner, and to limit the influence of the Legislature, candidates, political party, or political action committees on the IRC Commissioners. The LWV ad hoc Redistricting Committee selected contribution limits of $2,000 annual limit with a 5-year combined maximum of $10,000. The Campaign contribution limits can be found here: Ethic commission Campaign Contribution Limits. (Process for Soliciting and Selecting IRC Applicants, Step One: Process for Soliciting IRC Applicants, #3.)

How will commissioners be trained to understand redistricting?

When the IRC convenes as a full body and begins to organize, the Commissioners will participate in initial formal orientation training to include topics such as: the role of the IRC and the IRC Commissioner, basics of the IRC statute/Constitutional Amendment, training on running efficient meetings. Special emphasis will be placed on the process for mapping and mapping criteria. There will also be implicit bias training, media contact training, commission transparency and independence, and more. (IRC Training)

These orientation modules will assist Commissioners to further identify their ongoing training needs.  DOA staff will also recommend critical topics for training. Since Commissioners will be coming from a variety of geographical areas of Wisconsin and from different backgrounds, it is important that all Commissioners have familiarity with the entirety of geographies that make up Wisconsin, as well as orientation to the size, locations and nature of diverse cultural, ethnic, religious, economic, and other communities that make up the whole of Wisconsin.  

IRC Commissioners will hear from and have access to lessons learned from more established IRC’s such as California, Michigan, and others. Experts will be brought in as complex training needs and requirements surface.  Extensive training on mapping software and map drawing and analysis will begin very early in the process. 

The LWV ad hoc Redistricting Committee rejected the idea that commissioners should seek out individuals to serve on the IRC who have a deep knowledge of redistricting because many such individuals also have strong partisan affiliations, and as a result of their expertise they could have undue influence on other IRC members. Once that decision was made, it follows that any selection method will generate a commission in which most if not all members are going to need a substantial amount of training in the many facets of redistricting. This training will be built into the legislation with respect to the timeline of work, the experts that will be needed, etc. While redistricting draws on many bodies of knowledge, developing a solid understanding of it with minimal background is possible.

With respect to the issue of random selection specifically, the proposal indicates that the pool is pre-screened for eligibility and ineligibility prior to random selection. The first 9 commissioners who are selected randomly from vetted subpools then choose (nonrandomly) the remaining 9 members. “These final nine (9) selectees shall be chosen in an effort to ensure the commission reflects this state's diversity, including, but not limited to, racial, ethnic, geographic, age, economic, gender diversity, and historically underrepresented populations. Other information provided in the applications may influence the final selections.” Thus, there are many aspects of the selection process that ensure all members have the commitment and ability to learn, and to fairly represent the public interest.

How will Artificial Intelligence (AI) be used by the IRC? What are the opportunities and threats posed by AI?

AI has the potential to support redistricting in important ways. AI can:

• Analyze vast amounts of demographic, geographic, and political data;

• Use algorithms to create thousands of voting district maps based on specific criteria; 

• Evaluate the fairness of proposed maps; 

• Optimize maps to reach fairness goals; 

• Provide clear documentation of how criteria are used in producing maps;

• Empower communities and voters to more easily submit maps.

Depending on how it is used, AI can also pose threats. These include AI models that are complex and difficult to understand; bad, incomplete, or biased data used to produce an automated gerrymander; and an over-reliance on AI that can compromise value judgments about communities, representation, and fairness. 

To protect against these threats and others, the IRC must be careful and transparent about how AI is used.

How will a Wisconsin IRC provide opportunities for public input in the redistricting process?

The Wisconsin IRC will provide traditional in-person public hearings along with virtual hearings. Their website will include digital tools to ensure accessibility, transparency, and opportunities for community input. Submissions will be visible in real time to commissioners and the public. These may include, but are not limited to:

• Written feedback

• Community-of-interest maps

• Full or partial district maps

• Files, shapefiles, or documents

• Comment on others’ submissions

(Department of Administration Involvement and Responsibilities with IRC following the Selection Process)

Who can submit a map to the IRC for review?

Any Wisconsin resident may submit written comments, draft maps, shape files, and other documents to the IRC for review. (This excludes experts hired by the IRC who may not reside in Wisconsin.) Because persons who reside outside Wisconsin will not be directly impacted by Wisconsin’s voting district maps, they are prohibited from submitting maps.

The IRC is required to review all submissions as part of its work. (Public Hearings of the IRC)

What are some nationally recognized measures used to analyze maps?

There are a variety of nationally recognized measures used to analyze voting district maps. Population deviation, adherence to the Voting Rights Act, partisan fairness, compactness, preservation of political boundaries, and maintaining communities of interest are some of the criteria to be considered and analyzed when redistricting. 

This Redistricting Criteria & Measurement Guide outlines several of them: Redistricting Criteria & Measurement Guide

What does “fair” mean in this Draft Proposal for IRC Legislation?

Fair redistricting is the creation of electoral districts in a way that ensures equal representation, respects communities and demographics, avoids partisan or racial bias, and is conducted transparently and impartially.

Measurements of “fairness” can be used to compare and determine a map’s “fairness”, such as: Efficiency Gap, Mean-Median Difference, Majority Concordance, and Proportional Deviation, amongst other measurements. (Other Considerations: Partisan Fairness)

What is a Community of Interest, and why are they considered when redistricting?

Community of Interest (COI) is the most difficult mapping criterion to operationalize.  All commissions have used it as a mapping criterion, and a number of good definitions have been developed. Unfortunately, no commission has found a very effective way to apply it, at least in part because different people in one geographic area can have very different ideas about what their community interest is, as well as the fact that different criteria conflict with each other. 

The key question is how to identify geographic areas that contain communities of people with broadly shared public policy interests and representational needs, including those that arise from common ethnic, racial, social, cultural, geographic, environmental, socioeconomic, or historic identities or concerns. And it must explicitly exclude interests based on political party, incumbents or candidates. Typically, commissions ask people to submit maps or descriptions of areas based on their perceptions of their COI, and then try to capture them in proposed maps. This is one of the most important ways that individuals can have input into the redistricting process. It will be up to the IRC to decide how to operationalize this concept, in consultation with subject matter experts. (Other Considerations: Communities of Interest)

Does the IRC submit more than one set of maps to the Legislature at any one time?

No. Although many maps can be drawn and reviewed, it is the IRC’s job to determine which one set of maps -- State Assembly, State Senate, and Congressional -- best represents Wisconsin voters. The Proposal also provides a process to use if the IRC cannot agree on a set of maps. After the IRC submits a set of maps, if they cannot be adopted through the legislative process, the IRC is charged with reviewing and responding to objections, which may include providing new maps for consideration. Up to three sets of maps may be submitted. But at no one time will the IRC submit more than one set of maps for adoption. (Decision Making Process, #s 2&3) 

What happens if the Wisconsin Legislature and/or Governor reject maps the IRC submits?

If the Wisconsin Legislature or Governor rejects the maps submitted by the IRC, they must provide the IRC with written objections. The IRC then has 15 days to respond, which can include submitting revised maps. The Legislature and Governor have up to three opportunities to approve IRC maps by August 15 of the year the census data are made available. If the maps are still not approved by that deadline, any person or group can petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court to adopt one of the IRC’s final maps. The Court may also send the maps back to the IRC to fix any constitutional issues before final adoption. (Decision Making Process, #s 4 & 5)

Has the Iowa Model been considered?

The Iowa Model of redistricting has been in place since 1980 – 45 years.  It has worked well for Iowa in the past; however, Wisconsin and Iowa are very different states.

Iowa’s Constitution (section 42.6) describes the functions of their redistricting commission, which is advisory only:  to provide advice and guidance to the Legislative Services Agency (like Wisconsin’s Legislative Reference Bureau) on certain redistricting matters and to conduct public hearings and submit a report to the Iowa General Assembly on the first proposed plan. This advisory commission of 5 is appointed by the leaders in the Iowa legislature and has no decision- making power regarding maps.  In Iowa, if the maps drawn by the Legislative Services Agency are rejected by the Legislature three times, the Legislature draws the maps.  There is no requirement for a supermajority to approve the maps which could lead to partisan advantages.  There is no involvement of the voters of Iowa in redistricting other than their votes for legislative representation.   The Iowa Model does not ensure that the number of districts won by each party reflects their share of the statewide vote, potentially resulting in a significant imbalance in representation. 

The political climate in Iowa is very different from that of Wisconsin.  Their redistricting model had broad buy-in and confidence from both Democrats and Republicans who have a history of bipartisan cooperation.

In Wisconsin we are all aware of the politically charged and partisan landscape which has resulted in a history of gerrymandering and where political interests heavily influence district boundaries.  Thus, the Independent Redistricting Commission model is being put forward to ensure that the map drawing process is not controlled by any political party.   

Wisconsin has a complex geography which presents unique challenges in maintaining equal population, compactness, and contiguity, while respecting natural boundaries.  Wisconsin is characterized by diverse landforms shaped by glaciers such as rugged terrain, bluffs, and unique geological formations as well as significant waterbodies. Wisconsin’s varied topography results in irregularly shaped districts.   Iowa’s simpler geography made up of flat plains and rolling hills allows Iowa map makers to emphasize compactness and contiguity, thus the many square districts seen in the Iowa maps.  Geographical differences influence the complexity of map drawing and how mapping criteria are applied in practice.

Wisconsin also has a very diverse population compared to Iowa.  We have two major urban centers in Milwaukee and Madison as well as suburban and rural areas which lead to varied needs and representation across Wisconsin.   We have distinct Communities of Interest throughout our state.  This population diversity cannot be fully addressed by the Iowa Model.  

Iowa’s model was put in place many years ago.  Since then, other well researched models have successfully been put into practice. As we observe what is occurring across the country with redistricting, safeguards and guardrails against gerrymandering are needed more than ever.

What provisions are included in this proposal to counter prison gerrymandering?

According to the Redistricting Data Hub, prison gerrymandering “is the practice of distorting representation by counting incarcerated people in the jail or prison where they are confined, rather than at their place of residence. Since the vast majority of incarcerated people cannot choose which facility to be confined at and are denied the right to vote, where they are counted impacts the representation of the communities to which they belong and in which they are confined.” In order to end prison gerrymandering in Wisconsin, state law must be changed to require that incarcerated people be counted at their home address, not where they are incarcerated, for purposes of redistricting. 

This is a huge issue in Wisconsin, as described in this Redistricting Data Hub report, Prison Gerrymandering in Wisconsin; however, because this draft proposal is for legislation to create an independent redistricting commission, it does not include provisions for ending this harmful and discriminatory practice.

Why focus on the redistricting process and not on election reform or other types of government reforms such as advocating for something different from single-seat districts. Change to a parliamentary style government or final five voting?

Based on research, the LWV ad hoc Redistricting Committee determined that the development and implementation of an IRC is one of the most effective ways to improve the ability of voters to have direct influence on the outcome of elections. An IRC is not able to use partisan data or election result data to protect incumbents or to favor a candidate or political party, thereby increasing the potential of legislative district and congressional election outcomes to be balanced in relationship to statewide election results. Efforts to make other changes for the election or government reform will likely require more time to be approved and can happen simultaneously with redistricting reform efforts.