WISCONSIN STATE AFL-CIO v. Elections Bd.
This text of 543 F. Supp. 630 (WISCONSIN STATE AFL-CIO v. Elections Bd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The WISCONSIN STATE AFL-CIO, John W. Schmitt as its president and individually, and Jack B. Reihl as its secretary-treasurer and individually; the United Auto Workers Union, Region 10, Ralph W. Koenig as its director and individually, and William Troestler as the coordinator of its Community Action Program and individually; the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and Matthew Flynn as its chairman and individually; Ronald J. De Lain as the Clerk of Brown County and individually; Gary R. George as a member of the Wisconsin State Senate and individually; and, John Brogan, Plaintiffs,
v.
ELECTIONS BOARD, an independent agency of the State of Wisconsin; its chairman, William Mattka; each of its members individually, Gary Aamodt, Stephen A. Beyer, Gregory B. Conway, Esther Kaplan, James Murphy, John Niebler, and Helen Sigmund; and, its executive secretary, Gerald J. Ferwerda, Defendants,
and
the Republican Party of Wisconsin, the League of Women Voters, the City of Milwaukee, Clifford W. Krueger, Stephen R. Leopold, Thomas A. Hauke, Annette Polly Williams, Governor Lee S. Dreyfus, Tommy G. Thompson, Donald J. Hannaway, Fred A. Risser and Ed G. Jackamonis, Intervening parties.
United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.
*631 Jon P. Axelrod, Madison, Wis., for plaintiffs.
F. Joseph Sensenbrenner, Deputy Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., for defendants.
Before BAUER, Circuit Judge, and GORDON and EVANS, District Judges.
DECISION and ORDER
In 1972 the Wisconsin Legislature enacted legislation to reapportion the state's 33 Senate districts and 99 Assembly districts on the basis of the 1970 census. See Wis. Stat. § 4.001(1). The 1972 legislative elections and subsequent legislative elections have been conducted under the district boundaries established by the Wisconsin Legislature in 1972.
In 1980, the Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce, conducted a decennial census of Wisconsin, as well as all other states. The 1980 census figures, as recertified by the Census Bureau on May 19, 1982, set the population of Wisconsin at 4,705,521. According to the current census figures, if the state were to be divided into 33 Senate districts of precisely equal numbers, each district would contain 142,591 persons. The population required to make the districts perfectly equal in population *632 will be referred to in this decision as the "ideal norm." The ideal norm for 99 Assembly districts, according to the 1980 census, is 47,531.
The 1980 population of 4,705,521 represents a 6.5 percent increase from the 1970 population of 4,417,933. The 1980 census figures also reveal shifts in population, most notably an increase in the population in northern Wisconsin and a decrease in the population in southeastern Wisconsin, particularly in the City of Milwaukee. Because of population growth and shifts, there exists today significant disparities in the populations of the current state legislative districts. The existing Senate districts range from a district where the population exceeds the ideal norm by 27.3%, to a district where the population is less than the ideal norm by 22.5%. The current Assembly districts range from a district where the population exceeds the ideal norm by 29% to a district where the population is less than the ideal norm by 33.4%.
To date, a new legislative reapportionment plan has not been enacted. We have been advised that a plan was passed by the legislature in May but that it was vetoed by Governor Lee Dreyfus. The vetoed plan has been submitted to us for our consideration and, after reviewing it, we conclude that it is one of the worst efforts before us and for that reason we decline to adopt it. The plan has, in our opinion, no redeeming value[1] and we will not discuss it further in this opinion.
This action, seeking a declaration that the present apportionment of Wisconsin's legislative districts is unconstitutional and praying for a judicial plan of reapportionment was filed in this district on February 2, 1982. Judge Terence T. Evans, the United States District Court judge to whom this matter was originally assigned, determined that the case was appropriate for treatment by a three judge panel under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, and accordingly he requested in a letter to the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that two other judges be appointed to form a panel to consider this case. On February 8, 1982, Chief Judge Walter J. Cummings of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals designated Judge Myron L. Gordon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Judge William J. Bauer of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to join Judge Evans in forming a three judge court to consider this case.
On February 22, 1982, we entered an order declaring the current reapportionment scheme unconstitutional and enjoining the defendant state Elections Board from preparing for or administering any elections using the current Senate and Assembly districts. The order also set deadlines for the filing of motions to intervene and for the submission of proposed reapportionment plans. Within the scheduled deadlines, the court received eight motions to intervene and, after one was withdrawn, the remaining seven were granted. Three of the parties, in addition to the original plaintiffs, submitted proposed state-wide reapportionment plans. Other parties submitted plans dealing with portions of Milwaukee County. Plans were also submitted by interested non-parties.
Subsequently, Governor Dreyfus moved to intervene. He also moved that we abstain from further proceedings because he had filed a petition to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to consider reapportionment. The Governor's motion to intervene as a party was granted. His abstention motion was denied. In light of the intervention of the Governor, legislative leaders of both the majority Democratic party and the minority Republican party moved to intervene in the case. Their motions were granted.
*633 The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the Governor's petition and assumed jurisdiction of his reapportionment action, but that action was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. On April 1, 1982, the Western District court transferred the case to us. The matter is properly here, and the requisite conditions precedent to the exercise of our jurisdiction have been satisfied.
On April 21, 1982, we entertained oral arguments, and on April 23 an order was entered noting that we were reluctant to act until convinced that all reasonable efforts to establish a constitutionally acceptable redistricting plan had been exhausted by those charged with a duty to perform. Because the elected representatives of the people of Wisconsin have been unable to agree, we must now discharge our duty under the law. Before performing that duty, however, we deem it appropriate to note the following.
In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
The WISCONSIN STATE AFL-CIO, John W. Schmitt as its president and individually, and Jack B. Reihl as its secretary-treasurer and individually; the United Auto Workers Union, Region 10, Ralph W. Koenig as its director and individually, and William Troestler as the coordinator of its Community Action Program and individually; the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and Matthew Flynn as its chairman and individually; Ronald J. De Lain as the Clerk of Brown County and individually; Gary R. George as a member of the Wisconsin State Senate and individually; and, John Brogan, Plaintiffs,
v.
ELECTIONS BOARD, an independent agency of the State of Wisconsin; its chairman, William Mattka; each of its members individually, Gary Aamodt, Stephen A. Beyer, Gregory B. Conway, Esther Kaplan, James Murphy, John Niebler, and Helen Sigmund; and, its executive secretary, Gerald J. Ferwerda, Defendants,
and
the Republican Party of Wisconsin, the League of Women Voters, the City of Milwaukee, Clifford W. Krueger, Stephen R. Leopold, Thomas A. Hauke, Annette Polly Williams, Governor Lee S. Dreyfus, Tommy G. Thompson, Donald J. Hannaway, Fred A. Risser and Ed G. Jackamonis, Intervening parties.
United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.
*631 Jon P. Axelrod, Madison, Wis., for plaintiffs.
F. Joseph Sensenbrenner, Deputy Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., for defendants.
Before BAUER, Circuit Judge, and GORDON and EVANS, District Judges.
DECISION and ORDER
In 1972 the Wisconsin Legislature enacted legislation to reapportion the state's 33 Senate districts and 99 Assembly districts on the basis of the 1970 census. See Wis. Stat. § 4.001(1). The 1972 legislative elections and subsequent legislative elections have been conducted under the district boundaries established by the Wisconsin Legislature in 1972.
In 1980, the Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce, conducted a decennial census of Wisconsin, as well as all other states. The 1980 census figures, as recertified by the Census Bureau on May 19, 1982, set the population of Wisconsin at 4,705,521. According to the current census figures, if the state were to be divided into 33 Senate districts of precisely equal numbers, each district would contain 142,591 persons. The population required to make the districts perfectly equal in population *632 will be referred to in this decision as the "ideal norm." The ideal norm for 99 Assembly districts, according to the 1980 census, is 47,531.
The 1980 population of 4,705,521 represents a 6.5 percent increase from the 1970 population of 4,417,933. The 1980 census figures also reveal shifts in population, most notably an increase in the population in northern Wisconsin and a decrease in the population in southeastern Wisconsin, particularly in the City of Milwaukee. Because of population growth and shifts, there exists today significant disparities in the populations of the current state legislative districts. The existing Senate districts range from a district where the population exceeds the ideal norm by 27.3%, to a district where the population is less than the ideal norm by 22.5%. The current Assembly districts range from a district where the population exceeds the ideal norm by 29% to a district where the population is less than the ideal norm by 33.4%.
To date, a new legislative reapportionment plan has not been enacted. We have been advised that a plan was passed by the legislature in May but that it was vetoed by Governor Lee Dreyfus. The vetoed plan has been submitted to us for our consideration and, after reviewing it, we conclude that it is one of the worst efforts before us and for that reason we decline to adopt it. The plan has, in our opinion, no redeeming value[1] and we will not discuss it further in this opinion.
This action, seeking a declaration that the present apportionment of Wisconsin's legislative districts is unconstitutional and praying for a judicial plan of reapportionment was filed in this district on February 2, 1982. Judge Terence T. Evans, the United States District Court judge to whom this matter was originally assigned, determined that the case was appropriate for treatment by a three judge panel under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, and accordingly he requested in a letter to the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that two other judges be appointed to form a panel to consider this case. On February 8, 1982, Chief Judge Walter J. Cummings of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals designated Judge Myron L. Gordon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Judge William J. Bauer of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to join Judge Evans in forming a three judge court to consider this case.
On February 22, 1982, we entered an order declaring the current reapportionment scheme unconstitutional and enjoining the defendant state Elections Board from preparing for or administering any elections using the current Senate and Assembly districts. The order also set deadlines for the filing of motions to intervene and for the submission of proposed reapportionment plans. Within the scheduled deadlines, the court received eight motions to intervene and, after one was withdrawn, the remaining seven were granted. Three of the parties, in addition to the original plaintiffs, submitted proposed state-wide reapportionment plans. Other parties submitted plans dealing with portions of Milwaukee County. Plans were also submitted by interested non-parties.
Subsequently, Governor Dreyfus moved to intervene. He also moved that we abstain from further proceedings because he had filed a petition to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to consider reapportionment. The Governor's motion to intervene as a party was granted. His abstention motion was denied. In light of the intervention of the Governor, legislative leaders of both the majority Democratic party and the minority Republican party moved to intervene in the case. Their motions were granted.
*633 The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the Governor's petition and assumed jurisdiction of his reapportionment action, but that action was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. On April 1, 1982, the Western District court transferred the case to us. The matter is properly here, and the requisite conditions precedent to the exercise of our jurisdiction have been satisfied.
On April 21, 1982, we entertained oral arguments, and on April 23 an order was entered noting that we were reluctant to act until convinced that all reasonable efforts to establish a constitutionally acceptable redistricting plan had been exhausted by those charged with a duty to perform. Because the elected representatives of the people of Wisconsin have been unable to agree, we must now discharge our duty under the law. Before performing that duty, however, we deem it appropriate to note the following.
In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), the United States Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution requires that state legislative districts be apportioned on a population basis.
"We hold that, as a basic constitutional standard, the Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis. Simply stated, an individual's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the State."
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 568, 84 S.Ct. at 1385. In so holding, the Supreme Court extended the "one person, one vote" principle enunciated with respect to congressional reapportionment in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), to state legislative reapportionment.
Pursuing the concept of apportionment by population, the court continued:
"By holding that as a federal constitutional requisite both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis, we mean that the Equal Protection Clause requires that a State make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable." Reynolds, supra, at 577, 84 S.Ct. at 1388.
Clearly, with respect to apportionment, equal population is the "most elemental requirement of the Equal Protection Clause." Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 409-410, 97 S.Ct. 1828, 1830, 52 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977); Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 22, 95 S.Ct. 751, 763, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975). To prevent the debasement of citizens' voting power and to honor the dictates of the Equal Protection Clause, equality of population, to the extent it is practicable, is the cornerstone of any constitutional apportionment plan.
Within the overall requirement that districts be as equal in population as practicable, different standards of population equality apply to different types of plans. A congressional plan is held to a more exacting standard of population equality than a legislative plan, Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 23, 95 S.Ct. 751, 764, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975), Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 741-742, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 2325, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973). Similarly, a court-ordered legislative plan is held to a higher standard of equality than a legislative plan enacted by a state. See: Chapman and Connor, supra.
Some deviations from a strict population standard may be permitted in a legislative reapportionment plan, if they promote some rational state policy, Reynolds, supra, at 579, 84 S.Ct. at 1390:
"So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the apportionment of seats in either or both of the two houses of a bi-cameral state legislature."
*634 While some deviations are permitted, the court in Reynolds observed:
"[C]areful judicial scrutiny must of course be given, in evaluating state apportionment schemes, to the character as well as the degree of deviations from a strict population basis. But if, even as a result of a clearly rational state policy of according some legislative representation to political subdivisions, population is submerged as a controlling consideration in the apportionment of seats in a particular legislative body, then the right of all of the State's citizens to cast an effective and adequately weighted vote would be unconstitutionally impaired." Reynolds, supra, at 580, 84 S.Ct. at 1390 (Emphasis added.)
The United States Supreme Court has declined to define a statistically permissible level of population variation. Each case must be considered on its own facts. We believe that a court-ordered legislative reapportionment plan should meet a high standard of population equality. Deviations from population equality should, if at all possible, be of the de minimis variety.
The plans submitted to us differ greatly in their range of deviation. For example, the plan submitted by the plaintiff Democrats has an assembly deviation range of 2.83 (high district + 1.36, low district - 1.47) while the plan submitted by the Republican party has a deviation range of 10.11 (high district + 5.60, low district -4.54). The Democrats' plan is the lowest, and the Republican plan the second highest. We believe that a constitutionally acceptable plan should not deviate as high as 10%, and should, if possible, be kept below 2%.
The Wisconsin Constitution provides that Assembly districts should "... consist of contiguous territory and be in as compact form as practicable." Wis.Const. Art. IV, § 4. Within the limitations imposed by the requirement of population equality, the state may legitimately desire to make districts compact and contiguous.
"A State may legitimately desire ... to provide for compact districts of contiguous territory in designing a legislative apportionment scheme."
Reynolds, supra, 377 U.S. 533, 578, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1389, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). The Wisconsin Supreme Court has defined "contiguous" to mean that a district "cannot be made up of two or more pieces of detached territory," State ex rel. Lamb v. Cunningham, 83 Wis. 90, 148, 53 N.W. 35, 57 (1892). The term "compact" has not been defined in Wisconsin, but other states with similar constitutional requirements have defined "compact" as meaning closely united in territory. See People ex rel. Woodyatt v. Thompson, 155 Ill. 451, 40 N.E. 307 (1895).
The constitutional requirement of compactness is not absolute; the districts must be as compact "as practicable," Wis. Const. Art. IV, § 4. Practical factors such as natural or political subdivision boundaries may legitimately vary the shapes of districts. In other words, districts should be reasonably, though not perfectly, compact and contiguous, People ex rel Scott v. Grivetti, 50 Ill.2d 156, 277 N.E.2d 881 (1971).
Although important, the requirement of compactness is clearly subservient to the overall objective of population equality. See People ex rel. Scott v. Grivetti, supra. While recognizing the secondary importance of compactness, we note that some of the plans submitted to us contain districts that are anything but compact. Some contain districts that wiggle and meander without any discernible reason save, perhaps, for the desire to stretch a district to fit some political end.
The most commonly urged justification for variation from strict population equality in state legislative reapportionment plans is that the integrity of county lines should be preserved. See Sims v. Amos, 336 F.Supp. 924, 933 (M.D.Ala.1972). Adherence to that justification has been urged in this suit, but only by those who have submitted plans with significant population deviations. The Wisconsin Constitution provides that county, town and ward lines should be maintained:
"The members of the Assembly shall be chosen biennially, by single districts, on *635 the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday of November after the adoption of this amendment, by the qualified electors of the several districts, such districts to be bounded by county, precinct, town or ward lines to consist of contiguous territory and be in as compact form as practicable."
Article IV, § 4, Wisconsin Constitution (emphasis supplied).
At one time, Assembly districts which divided counties were held unconstitutional in Wisconsin except where a county was entitled to more than one state Representative. State ex rel. Attorney General v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440, 468, 51 N.W. 724 (1892). County lines were considered to be "inviolable" in Wisconsin, and the principle was incorporated into the court-ordered reapportionment plan adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1964. See State ex rel. Reynolds v. Zimmerman, 23 Wis.2d 606, 128 N.W.2d 16 (1964). That plan, the last "intact-county" plan in Wisconsin, established population deviation ranges that would be totally unacceptable today. The 1964 court-ordered plan, announced before the United States Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. Sims, contained 53 Assembly districts with deviations exceeding 10%. The largest average deviation, 32.5%, was in Walworth County with a population of 52,368, 12,840 over the ideal norm of 39,528. At the other end of the scale was the Calumet County district with a population of 22,268, 17,260 below the ideal norm. Calumet County's deviation was 43.7%. The total deviation, high to low, was 76.2%. Considering the United States Supreme Court decisions of the 1960's and the drastic deviations in the 1964 plan, it is little wonder that Robert W. Warren, the then-Attorney General of Wisconsin, now United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, found the Wisconsin constitutional requirements regarding the respecting of county lines to be "nugatory" in an opinion written in 1969. See 58 Op. Atty. Gen. 88 (1969).
While maintaining the integrity of county lines may be a desirable objective, we believe its general incompatibility with population equality makes it only a consideration of secondary importance. On this point we further observe that the best plan on keeping counties intact, the plan denominated as "Republican II," only keeps 34 together, while the "Democrat II" plan keeps 30 intact.
The other Republican plan submitted to us keeps only 19 counties intact and the second Democratic plan that we have considered keeps 26 counties together. None of the other plans are particularly impressive on this point although all, except for the so-called "Hauke-Leopold" plan with 21, keep more than the present 23 counties together.
Our plan, which will be discussed later, was drafted with the somewhat elusive goal of maintaining the integrity of county lines firmly in mind. We were able to succeed only to the extent of keeping 31 counties intact.
Although the Wisconsin Constitution quoted above provides for the maintenance of county, town and ward lines[2], absent is any requirement that city and village boundaries be maintained. The plaintiffs, whose plan splits more municipalities than those submitted by others, argue that the framers of the Constitution realized that the dividing of cities and villages would be necessary to achieve population equality in districts. They rely on State ex rel. Lamb v. Cunningham, supra, at 148, 53 N.W. 35, where the Supreme Court states:
"It will be observed that the section quoted speaks of `ward lines,' but contains no other reference to cities. From this it is manifest that the framers of the constitution, even at that early day, contemplated that the necessity was likely to arise for dividing up cities by ward lines in the formation of assembly districts, and thus allow smaller factors to enter into the *636 formation of such districts, and to that extent facilitate the equality of representation."
Thus, they conclude, there is no Wisconsin constitutional requirement that city or village boundaries be maintained.
The Republicans concede that the maintenance of municipal boundaries is not constitutionally required, but argue that the court should engage in a "... carefully tailored relaxation of the Article IV restrictions against breaching of county, municipal, village, town and ward boundaries." Republican Party Brief, p. 40. They argue that the degree of relaxation of the requirements should be limited and that population variances of around 10% are acceptable, if necessary to adhere better to municipal lines.
The Blaney Institute, Inc., of Madison, Wisconsin, which has been very helpful to the court in providing comparative data on the plans submitted[3], reports that the number of "municipal splits" in the two Republican plans are 48 and 66, while the numbers for the two Democratic party plans are 105 and 115. The two Republican plans average 192.5, and the two Democratic plans average 186.5 in the number of county splits.
We believe the maintenance of municipal boundaries to be important. We agree, however, with the apparent sentiment of all involved in this case that the splitting of municipal boundaries is necessary to adhere to the one person, one vote, principle. We believe that municipal splits should be used sparingly and we have tried to do so in our plan.
Closely related to the goal of maintaining the integrity of county and municipal lines is the objective of preserving identifiable communities of interest in redistricting. One important aspect of this concern is avoiding any dilution in the voting strength of racial and ethnic minorities. Among the identifiable racial and ethnic minorities in Wisconsin, only black citizens of Milwaukee County represent a sufficiently large population in a relatively concentrated area to be an effective majority in any Senate or Assembly districts. We believe that sound policy requires that any redistricting plan ensure fair representation to the black population. Our plan clearly meets this objective. We will comment on this aspect of our plan when we discuss its impact on Milwaukee County later in this decision.
A substantial number of Hispanics reside in Milwaukee County but, because of their dispersement within the county, it is impossible to draw an otherwise constitutional Assembly district with a high percentage of Hispanic residents. Our plan, however, avoids as much as possible the fragmentation of the Hispanic community by including the areas of heaviest Hispanic concentration in one Assembly district. By locating the primary concentration of the Hispanic population in one district, the plan helps to ensure that Hispanics will have the greatest potential to influence the election of a Representative of their choice.
Like the Hispanic minority, American Indians are dispersed throughout the state to the extent that it is impossible to draw an otherwise constitutional district with a large (over 65%) percentage of American Indian inhabitants. However, by locating one of the primary concentrations of American Indians (Menominee, Forest and a portion of Shawano Counties) in one district, our plan will have the potential to provide them with an opportunity to influence the election of a State Representative of their choice.
We have carefully studied the plans and arguments submitted to us by both the parties and the non-parties to this litigation. Although we have found all of them to be helpful, we are particularly indebted to Attorneys Ronald R. Ragatz, Jon P. Axelrod, Stephen G. Ryan and Robert M. Whitney for their excellent briefs and analyses. The submissions have been very helpful to us in *637 meeting our obligations in this difficult case.
Keeping in mind the criteria discussed above, we have reluctantly concluded that we can, by drawing our own plan, be more faithful to the goals of reapportionment than would be the case if we were to take the easy way out and merely adopt one of the plans submitted to us. For this reason we promulgated the attached plan as our reapportionment plan.
We have no desire to comment extensively on our plan. We will, however, make a number of general observations.
Population Equality
The Best in the History of Wisconsin
The old "intact county" state constitutional requirements resulted, since statehood, in a Wisconsin legislature that was not apportioned according to population until 1972. Even the 1964 plan, drafted during the formative years of the "one person, one vote" principle had, as we have observed, intolerable population deviations of 76.2%. The best plan submitted to us, as we have further observed, has a population deviation of 2.83%. Our plan not only improves upon the plaintiffs' submission, it surpasses the effort of the 1972 legislature and creates the lowest population deviation in the history of Wisconsin.
The ideal population of an assembly district, as stated on page 2, is 47,531. The largest of our ninety-nine districts is number 43, with a population of 47,944. The smallest of our districts is number 26, with a population of 47,119. The high district is only 413 over the ideal, and the low is only 412 people under. The deviation in our plan is a scant 1.74%.
Our plan has no districts that vary from the ideal norm by more than 0.87%. Of the plans submitted to us, only the plaintiffs' did reasonably well on this point, but even their plan contained nine districts that had more than a 1% deviation. The other plans, Hauke-Leopold with 34 districts over one percent deviation, the Republicans with 38, and the plan submitted by intervenor Senator Clifford W. Krueger with 45, have failed to impress us. We believe that our plan honors the young but equitable constitutionally required condition that, in a representative form of government, the vote of each person be, to the extent reasonably possible, equal in weight to the vote of another.
Milwaukee County
General
Milwaukee County has a population of 964,988. Its population represents 20.5% of Wisconsin's 4,705,521 inhabitants. It has 641,443 more people than the second largest county in Wisconsin. It contains 18 municipalities plus the state's largest city. It has the state's largest concentrations of black and Hispanic inhabitants. It contains many of the often conflicting interests involved in reapportionment, and for these reasons we deem it appropriate to comment on how our plan operates in it.
Minority
Three districts, numbers 10, 11, and 12, contain more than 65% black residents. Coupled together into a Senate district, our plan serves the constitutional mandate of not diluting minority voting strength.
District 15 of our plan contains Wards 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229 and 230, the wards of the city (and state for that matter) that have the largest concentrations of Hispanic citizens. Thus, the objectives discussed previously on pages 11 and 12 of this decision are served.
Intact Communities
The City of Wauwatosa, with 51,308 residents, and the City of West Allis, with a population of 63,982, join the City of Milwaukee in being communities within Milwaukee County having populations above the ideal norm for one district. Our plan, however, serves their "community of interest" by creating one district for each that contains only residents of either West Allis or Wauwatosa. In so doing, District 16, *638 with 47,618 residents of West Allis, contains 74.4% of the city's total population. District 67, which contains 47,198 of Wauwatosa's 51,308 people, holds 91.9% of its residents.
The City of Milwaukee, with 636,210 people, could contain 13 districts full of only city residents. As an intervenor in this suit, the city has argued that it should not be cut up into split districts as it is at present, and that other plans, notably the Democrats, only give it nine full districts. Our plan gives the City of Milwaukee 10 full districts and 5 split districts. In three of the split districts, the city versus non-city ratios is 44,131 to 3,535 (District 17), 44,000 to 3,667 (District 14), and 37,473 to 10,042 (District 1). With the city having 125,604 residents (87.9% of the total) of the total population of 142,848 in these districts we believe our plan to be sufficiently sensitive to the concerns of the state's largest city.[4]
Of the sixteen communities of less than 47,531 in Milwaukee County, our plan keeps thirteen intact. The intact communities are Brown Deer, West Milwaukee, Shorewood, Whitefish Bay, Fox Point, Bayside (including the portion of Bayside in Ozaukee County), River Hills, St. Francis, South Milwaukee, Cudahy, Franklin, Hales Corners and Greenfield. The three split communities are Oak Creek (split 6,801 in one district and 10,131 in another), Greendale (13,504 in one district, 3,424 in another), and Glendale (9,446 in one district, 4,436 in another).
In addition to our treatment of Wauwatosa and West Allis, and our grouping of blacks and Hispanics, we believe our plan honors various "communities of interest" by keeping together pockets of interest like the north shore suburbs, the east side of Milwaukee, and the cities of Cudahy-South Milwaukee.
Incumbent Residency
In our order of April 23, 1982 we reviewed some of the options available to us, including the option of drafting our own plan and stated: "In judicially enacting any plan, incumbent residency will not be a consideration of this court." We have been faithful to that pledge. At no time in the drafting of this plan did we consider where any incumbent legislator resides or whether our plan would inure to the political benefit of any one person or party.
While our plan has been drafted without incumbency considerations, we were mindful of the fact that the fall elections only call for the election of Senators presently holding odd numbered Senate seats. Consequently, the residents of Wisconsin presently living in even numbered Senate districts will not be electing Senators under our plan until 1984. To minimize the number of people affected by our plan as it relates to Senate districts, we have tried, as much as possible consistent with the principle of one person, one vote, to use even numbers for the Senate districts in our plan that roughly correspond to areas assigned to even numbered districts in the 1972 act.
Because all ninety-nine members of the state Assembly will be selected under this plan, we saw no reason to adhere to any numbering system for Assembly districts that related to the 1972 law.
Conclusion
The drafting of our plan required an enormous effort[5]. It was done without the use of a computer, and some of the data submitted to us was, in some ways, inaccurate. The certifications of population pockets were occasionally changed, and even the final state population was adjusted again *639 on May 24, 1982[6]. Some minor changes could not be incorporated into our plan. For example, on May 26, 1982 we were advised by the Legislative Reference Bureau that the City of St. Francis was incorrectly listed in previously submitted data as having 10,066 people when it actually had 24 people less. The 24 people lost to St. Francis were actually residents of the city of Milwaukee, thus raising its stated population from 636,210 to 636,234. We were not told the ward(s) of Milwaukee that contained the newly found 24.
We have tried to be as accurate as possible in drafting our plan. For the reasons stated above, and due to the enormity of the task, however, we recognize the possibility that arithmetic and/or inclusion-exclusion error could slip into the final product. For this reason we request that Dr. H. Rupert Theobald[7], Chief of the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, review our plan as soon as possible and advise us if any corrections are necessary.
For the foregoing reasons the court issues the following orders:
1. The appended judicial plan of reapportionment be effective for the 1982 legislative elections and thereafter until such time as a valid constitutional redistricting plan is enacted into law.
2. The injunction issued on February 22, 1982 is dissolved.
3. All deadlines, relating to such matters as notice of elections, and the circulating and filing of nomination papers for the full election are relaxed to the extent necessary to permit the elections to take place as scheduled. The defendant Elections Board, if necessary, may set new dates that are not inconsistent with the purpose of this order, to wit: the election of legislators in the fall.
APPENDIX
THE 1982 FEDERAL COURT REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN FOR THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
The Plan includes:
A Population List of the 99 Assembly Districts
A Population List of the 33 Senate Districts
A Listing, by Assembly Districts, of the Component Parts of Each District
Assembly Districts
Assembly Deviation from Norm
District Population People Percentage
1 47,515 -16 -.03%
2 47,339 -192 -.40%
3 47,417 -114 -.24%
4 47,854 +323 +.68%
5 47,708 +177 +.37%
6 47,509 -22 -.05%
7 47,814 +283 +.60%
8 47,504 -27 -.06%
9 47,522 -9 -.02%
10 47,389 -142 -.30%
11 47,707 +176 +.37%
12 47,861 +330 +.69%
13 47,612 +81 +.17%
14 47,667 +136 +.29%
*640
Assembly Districts
Assembly Deviation from Norm
District Population People Percentage
15 47,200 -331 -.70%
16 47,618 +87 +.18%
17 47,666 +135 +.28%
18 47,588 +57 +.12%
19 47,731 +200 +.42%
20 47,565 +34 +.07%
21 47,525 -6 -.01%
22 47,232 -299 -.63%
23 47,135 -396 -.83%
24 47,263 -268 -.56%
25 47,143 -388 -.82%
26 47,119 -412 -.87%
27 47,254 -277 -.58%
28 47,616 +85 +.18%
29 47,796 +265 +.56%
30 47,530 -1 .00%
31 47,586 +55 +.11%
32 47,841 +310 +.65%
33 47,783 +252 +.53%
34 47,459 -72 -.15%
35 47,893 +362 +.76%
36 47,601 +70 +.15%
37 47,680 +149 +.31%
38 47,698 +167 +.35%
39 47,621 +90 +.19%
40 47,778 +247 +.52%
41 47,818 +287 +.60%
42 47,354 -177 -.37%
43 47,944 +413 +.87%
44 47,678 +147 +.31%
45 47,609 +78 +.16%
46 47,751 +220 +.46%
47 47,533 +2 .00%
48 47,274 -257 -.54%
49 47,376 -155 -.33%
50 47,223 -308 -.65%
51 47,580 +49 +.10%
52 47,656 +125 +.26%
53 47,852 +321 +.68%
54 47,180 -351 -.74%
55 47,218 -313 -.66%
56 47,685 +154 +.32%
57 47,691 +160 +.34%
58 47,464 -67 -.14%
59 47,302 -229 -.48%
60 47,884 +353 +.74%
61 47,233 -298 -.63%
62 47,801 +270 +.57%
63 47,186 -345 -.73%
64 47,611 +80 +.17%
65 47,517 -14 -.03%
66 47,125 -406 -.85%
67 47,198 -333 -.70%
68 47,471 -60 -.12%
69 47,292 -239 -.50%
70 47,133 -398 -.84%
71 47,145 -386 -.81%
72 47,463 -68 -.14%
73 47,603 +72 +.15%
74 47,363 -168 -.35%
75 47,735 +204 +.43%
76 47,327 -204 -.43%
77 47,521 -10 -.02%
78 47,921 +390 +.82%
79 47,788 +257 +.54%
80 47,606 +75 +.16%
81 47,296 -235 -.49%
82 47,522 -9 -.02%
83 47,543 +12 +.03%
84 47,767 +236 +.50%
85 47,704 +173 +.36%
86 47,171 -360 -.75%
87 47,555 +24 +.05%
88 47,656 +125 +.26%
89 47,829 +298 +.63%
90 47,750 +219 +.46%
91 47,244 -287 -.60%
92 47,560 +29 +.06%
93 47,629 +98 +.21%
94 47,560 +29 +.06%
95 47,339 -192 -.40%
96 47,287 -244 -.51%
97 47,852 +321 +.68%
98 47,389 -142 -.30%
99 47,482 -49 -.10%
Senate Districts
NOTE: SENATE DISTRICTS SHALL BE REFERRED
TO AS "SD" AND ASSEMBLY
DISTRICTS AS "AD". AFTER
LISTING THE TOTAL FOR EACH
SENATE DISTRICT, THE NEXT NUMBER
WILL INDICATE THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE BY WHICH THE DISTRICT
DEVIATES FROM THE IDEAL
SENATE DISTRICT SIZE OF 142,591.
THE NEXT NUMBER WILL INDICATE
THE PERCENTAGE OF DEVIATION.
SD 1:
AD 1 47,515
AD 2 47,339
AD 3 47,417
______
142,271 -320 -.22%
SD 2
AD 4 47,854
AD 5 47,708
AD 6 47,509
______
143,071 +480 +.34%
*641
Senate Districts
SD 3
AD 7 47,814
AD 8 47,504
AD 9 47,522
_______
142,840 +249 +.17%
SD 4
AD 10 47,389
AD 11 47,707
AD 12 47,861
_______
142,957 +366 +.26%
SD 5
AD 13 47,612
AD 14 47,667
AD 15 47,200
_______
142,479 -112 -.08%
SD 6
AD 16 47,618
AD 17 47,666
AD 18 47,588
_______
142,872 +281 +.20%
SD 7
AD 19 47,731
AD 20 47,565
AD 21 47,525
______
142,821 +230 +.16%
SD 8
AD 22 47,232
AD 23 47,135
AD 24 47,263
______
141,630 -961 -.67%
SD 9
AD 25 47,143
AD 26 47,119
AD 27 47,254
_______
141,516 -1075 -.75%
SD 10
AD 28 47,616
AD 29 47,796
AD 30 47,530
_______
142,942 +351 +.25%
SD 11
AD 31 47,586
AD 32 47,841
AD 33 47,783
______
143,210 +619 +.43%
SD 12
AD 34 47,459
AD 35 47,893
AD 36 47,601
______
142,953 +362 +.25%
SD 13
AD 37 47,680
AD 38 47,698
AD 39 47,621
______
142,999 +408 +.28%
SD 14
AD 40 47,778
AD 41 47,818
AD 42 47,354
______
142,950 +359 +.25%
SD 15
AD 43 47,944
AD 44 47,678
AD 45 47,609
______
143,231 +640 +.45%
SD 16
AD 46 47,751
AD 47 47,533
AD 48 47,274
______
142,558 -33 -.02%
SD 17
AD 49 47,376
AD 50 47,223
AD 51 47,580
______
142,179 -412 -.29%
SD 18
AD 52 47,656
AD 53 47,852
AD 54 47,180
______
142,688 +97 +.07%
SD 19
AD 55 47,218
AD 56 47,685
AD 57 47,691
______
142,594 +3 +0%
SD 20
AD 58 47,464
AD 59 47,302
AD 60 47,884
______
142,650 +59 +.04%
SD 21
AD 61 47,233
AD 62 47,801
AD 63 47,186
______
142,220 -371 -.26%
SD 22
AD 64 47,611
AD 65 47,517
AD 66 47,125
______
142,253 -338 -.24%
SD 23
AD 67 47,198
AD 68 47,471
AD 69 47,292
______
141,961 -630 -.44%
SD 24
AD 70 47,133
AD 71 47,145
AD 72 47,463
______
141,741 -850 -.60%
*642
Senate Districts
SD 25
AD 73 47,603
AD 74 47,363
AD 75 47,735
______
142,701 +110 +.08%
SD 26
AD 76 47,327
AD 77 47,521
AD 78 47,921
______
142,769 +178 +.12%
SD 27
AD 79 47,788
AD 80 47,606
AD 81 47,296
______
142,690 +99 +.07%
SD 28
AD 82 47,522
AD 83 47,543
AD 84 47,767
______
142,832 +241 +.17%
SD 29
AD 85 47,704
AD 86 47,171
AD 87 47,555
______
142,430 -161 -.11%
SD 30
AD 88 47,656
AD 89 47,829
AD 90 47,750
______
143,235 +644 +.45%
SD 31
AD 91 47,244
AD 92 47,560
AD 93 47,629
______
142,433 -158 -.11%
SD 32
AD 94 47,560
AD 95 47,339
AD 96 47,287
______
142,186 -405 -.28%
SD 33
AD 97 47,852
AD 98 47,389
AD 99 47,482
______
142,723 +132 +.09%
Assembly Districts
FIRST ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Milwaukee County:
City of St. Francis City of Milwaukee, wards 234, 260, 261, 263-278, and 280SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 205, 206, 240-259, 279, and 281THIRD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of South Milwaukee City of Cudahy City of Oak Creek, wards 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12FOURTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 40-65FIFTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Village of Shorewood Village of Whitefish Bay Village of Fox Point Village of Bayside Village of River Hills City of Glendale, wards 3, 4, 8, and 9Ozaukee County:
Village of BaysideSIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Village of Brown Deer City of Glendale, wards 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 City of Milwaukee, wards 163-169, 171, 172, 173, 178, and 179SEVENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 80-83, 85, 170, 174-177, 282-295, 299, and 300Washington County:
City of Milwaukee, 2 people from ward 285EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31-39, 84, 86-89, 126, 127, 180-182NINTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
*643 City of Milwaukee, wards 90-104, 123-125, 129, 130, 133-135, 139, 141, 142, 309, 310TENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 1-3, 22-24, 29, 30, 122, 128, 131, 136, 183, 184, 185, and 187-193ELEVENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 4-15, 105-112, and 186TWELFTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 16-18, 67, 68, 113-121, 194-199, and 303THIRTEENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 66, 69-77, 132, 137, 138, 140, 304-308, 311-313FOURTEENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 78, 79, 143-150, 154, 155, 158, and 314-324 City of West Allis, wards 16 and 17FIFTEENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 151-153, 156, 221-233, 235-239, and 262SIXTEENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of West Allis, wards 1-15, 19-27, and 34SEVENTEENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Milwaukee, wards 157, 159-162, 200-204, and 207-220 City of West MilwaukeeEIGHTEENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Greenfield Village of Greendale, wards 7, 9 City of West Allis, wards 18, and 28-33NINETEENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Racine County:
City of Racine, wards 2-4, 6, 17-22, 24-28 Town of Mount Pleasant, wards 1, 4-6 Village of Elmwood ParkTWENTIETH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Racine, wards 1, 5, 7-16, 23, 29-32 Village of North Bay Village of Wind PointTWENTY-FIRST ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Caledonia Town of Mount Pleasant, wards 2-3, 7-12 Town of Raymond Town of Yorkville Village of Union Grove City of SturtevantTWENTY-SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Kenosha County:
Town of Brighton Town of Bristol Town of Paris Town of Pleasant Prairie, wards 5, 8, 9 Town of Randall Town of Salem Town of Wheatland Village of Paddock Lake Village of Silver Lake Village of Twin Lakes Town of Burlington City of BurlingtonWalworth County:
Town of Bloomfield Village of Genoa City*644 TWENTY-THIRD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Pleasant Prairie, wards 1-4, 6, 7 City of Kenosha, wards 4-6, 14-18, 24-30, 33, 34TWENTY-FOURTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Somers City of Kenosha, wards 1-3, 7-13, 19-23, 31, 32TWENTY-FIFTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Rock County:
Town of Beloit Town of Janesville Town of Rock City of Beloit, wards 1-11, 13-15, 19 City of Janesville, wards 11-13TWENTY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Bradford Town of Clinton Town of La Prairie Town of Turtle Village of Clinton City of Beloit, wards 12, 16-18, 20-22 City of Janesville, wards 1-10, 20, 21TWENTY-SEVENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
All of Walworth County except: Town of Bloomfield Town of East Troy Town of LaGrange Town of Spring Prairie Town of Whitewater Village of East Troy Village of Genoa City City of WhitewaterTWENTY-EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Village of Greendale, except wards 7 and 9 Village of Hales Corners City of Franklin City of Oak Creek, wards 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17TWENTY-NINTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Dover Town of Norway Town of Rochester Town of Waterford Village of Rochester Village of Waterford Town of East Troy Town of Spring Prairie Village of East TroyWaukesha County:
Town of Vernon City of Muskego City of New Berlin, ward 21THIRTIETH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Brookfield City of Brookfield, wards 7, 10-13, 16, 18-20 City of New Berlin, except ward 21THIRTY-FIRST ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Dodge County:
City of WatertownJefferson County:
Town of Aztalan Town of Concord Town of Farmington Town of Ixonia Town of Jefferson Town of Lake Mills Town of Milford Town of Waterloo Town of Watertown Village of Johnson Creek Village of Sullivan *645 City of Jefferson City of Lake Mills City of Waterloo City of WatertownTHIRTY-SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Cold Spring Town of Hebron Town of Koshkonong Town of Oakland Town of Sumner City of Fort Atkinson City of Whitewater Town of Harmony Town of Johnstown Town of Lima City of Janesville, wards 14-19 City of WhitewaterTHIRTY-THIRD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Beaver Dam Town of Burnette Town of Calamus Town of Chester Town of Clyman Town of Elba Town of Emmet Town of Fox Lake Town of Hustisford Town of Lebanon Town of Leroy Town of Lowell Town of Oak Grove Town of Portland Town of Shields Town of Trenton Village of Clyman Village of Hustisford Village of Lowell Village of Reeseville City of Beaver Dam City of Fox Lake City of Juneau City of WaupunFond du Lac County:
City of WaupunTHIRTY-FOURTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
LaCrosse County:
Town of Medary City of LaCrosse except ward 18THIRTY-FIFTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
LaCrosse County except: Town of Medary City of LaCrosse, wards 1-17Monroe County:
Town of Leon Town of Little Falls Town of SpartaTHIRTY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Crawford County
Vernon County
Grant County:
Town of Boscobel Town of Marion Town of Millville Town of Mount Hope Town of Woodman Town of Wyalusing Village of Bagley Village of Mount Hope Village of Woodman City of BoscobelTHIRTY-SEVENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Green County:
Green County except: Town of Brooklyn Town of Exeter Town of New Glarus Town of York Village of Belleville Village of Brooklyn Village of New Glarus *646 Town of Avon Town of Center Town of Fulton Town of Magnolia Town of Milton Town of Newark Town of Plymouth Town of Porter Town of Spring Valley Village of Footville Village of Orfordville City of Edgerton City of MiltonTHIRTY-EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Iowa County
Lafayette County
Sauk County:
Town of Franklin Town of Prairie du Sac Town of Spring Green Town of Troy Village of Plain Village of Prairie du Sac Village of Sauk City Village of Spring GreenTHIRTY-NINTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
All of Grant County except for that portion in Assembly District Thirty-sixRichland County:
Town of Eagle Town of RichwoodFORTIETH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Pierce County
St. Croix County:
Town of Hudson Town of Kinnickinnic Town of Pleasant Valley Town of Troy Town of Warren Village of North Hudson Village of Roberts City of Hudson City of River Falls (that part located in St. Croix County)FORTY-FIRST ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Dunn County:
Town of Eau Galle Town of Hay River Town of Knapp Town of Lucas Town of Menomonie Town of New Haven Town of Otter Creek Town of Sheridan Town of Sherman Town of Stanton Town of Tiffany Town of Weston Town of Wilson Village of Boyceville Village of Downing Village of Ridgeland Village of Wheeler City of Menomonie Town of Baldwin Town of Cady Town of Eau Galle Town of Emerald Town of Erin Prairie Town of Glenwood Town of Hammond Town of Richmond Town of Rush River Town of St. Joseph Town of Somerset Town of Springfield Town of Star Prairie Village of Baldwin Village of Hammond Village of Somerset Village of Star Prairie Village of Wilson Village of Woodville City of Glenwood City of New Richmond*647 FORTY-SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Burnett County
Polk County
Town of Cylon Town of Forest Town of Stanton Village of Deer ParkFORTY-THIRD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Buffalo County
Pepin County
Trempealeau County
FORTY-FOURTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Eau Claire County:
Town of Bridge Creek Town of Brunswick Town of Clear Creek Town of Drammen Town of Fairchild Town of Lincoln Town of Otter Creek Town of Pleasant Valley Town of Washington Village of Augusta Village of Fairchild Village of Fall Creek City of Altoona City of Eau Claire, wards 2-5, 13, 15, 17-20FORTY-FIFTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Jackson County
Monroe County except that portion within Assembly District Thirty-fiveFORTY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Oneida County
Vilas County
FORTY-SEVENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Price County
Rusk County
Barron County:
Town of Chetek City of ChetekTaylor County:
Town of Browning Town of Chelsea Town of Cleveland Town of Goodrich Town of Greenwood Town of Grover Town of Hammel Town of Jump River Town of McKinley Town of Medford Town of Molitor Town of Pershing Town of Rib Lake Town of Westboro Village of Rib Lake City of MedfordFORTY-EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Florence County
Forest County
Menominee County
Langlade County:
Town of Ainsworth Town of Evergreen Town of Langlade Town of Norwood Town of Polar Town of Price Town of Rolling Town of Wolf River Village of White LakeMarathon County:
Town of Harrison Town of PloverMarinette County:
Town of Amberg Town of Athelstane Town of Beecher Town of Dunbar Town of Goodman Town of Niagara Town of Pembine *648 Town of Silver Cliff Town of Wausaukee Village of Niagara Village of WausaukeeOconto County:
Town of Armstrong Town of Breed Town of Doty Town of How Town of Lakewood Town of Riverview Town of TownsendShawano County:
Town of Almon Town of Aniwa Town of Bartelme Town of Birnamwood Town of Fairbanks Town of Germania Town of Grant Town of Gresham Town of Herman Town of Hutchins Town of Morris Town of Red Springs Town of Seneca Town of Tigerton Town of Wittenberg Village of Aniwa Village of Birnamwood Village of Bowler Village of Eland Village of Mattoon Village of WittenbergFORTY-NINTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Douglas County
Bayfield County:
Town of Barnes Town of Hughes Town of Iron River Town of Orienta Town of Oulu Town of Port WingFIFTIETH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Ashland County
Iron County
Sawyer County
All of Bayfield County except Town of Barnes Town of Hughes Town of Iron River Town of Orienta Town of Oulu Town of Port WingFIFTY-FIRST ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Washburn County
All of Barron County except Town of Chetek Town of Dovre Town of Sioux Creek Village of New Auburn (that part located in Barron County) City of ChetekFIFTY-SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Beaver Town of Grover Town of Lake Town of Middle Inlet Town of Peshtigo Town of Porterfield Town of Pound Town of Stephenson Town of Wagner Village of Coleman Village of Crivitz Village of Pound City of Marinette City of Peshtigo Town of Abrams Town of Bagley Town of Brazeau Town of Lena Town of Little River Town of Little Suamico Town of Maple Valley Town of Oconto *649 Town of Pensaukee Town of Spruce Town of Stiles Village of Lena Village of Suring City of OcontoFIFTY-THIRD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Brown County:
Town of Pittsfield Town of Suamico Village of Howard Village of Pulaski City of Green Bay, wards 7-12, 21, 25, 27-35FIFTY-FOURTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Chase Town of Gillett Town of Morgan Town of Oconto Falls Town of Underhill City of Gillett City of Oconto FallsOutagamie County:
Town of Black Creek Town of Center Town of Cicero Town of Maine Town of Oneida Town of Osborn Town of Seymour Village of Black Creek Village of Nichols City of Seymour Town of Angelica Town of Belle Plaine Town of Bonduel Town of Green Valley Town of Hartland Town of Lessor Town of Maple Grove Town of Navarino Town of Pella Town of Richmond Town of Washington Town of Waukechon Town of Wescott Village of Cecil City of ShawanoFIFTY-FIFTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Dovre Town of Sioux Creek Village of New Auburn (that part located in Barron County)Chippewa County:
Town of Auburn Town of Birch Creek Town of Bloomer Town of Cleveland Town of Cooks Valley Town of Eagle Point Town of Estella Town of Hallie Town of Howard Town of Lake Holcombe Town of Ruby Town of Sampson Town of Tilden Town of Wheaton Town of Woodmohr Village of New Auburn (that part located in Chippewa County) City of Bloomer City of Chippewa Falls City of Cornell Town of Colfax Town of Dunn Town of Elk Mound Town of Grant Town of Peru Town of Red Cedar Town of Rock Creek Town of Sand Creek Town of Spring Brook Town of Tainter Village of Colfax Village of Elk Mound*650 FIFTY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Anson Town of Arthur Town of Colburn Town of Delmar Town of Edson Town of Goetz Town of Lafayette Town of Sigel Village of Boyd Village of Cadott City of Stanley City of Eau Claire (that part located in Chippewa County, ward 16) Town of Ludington Town of Seymour Town of Union Town of Wilson City of Eau Claire, wards 1, 6-12, 14FIFTY-SEVENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Clark County
Town of Brighton Town of Eau Pleine Town of Holton Town of Hull Town of McMillan Town of Spencer Village of Spencer Village of Unity (that part located in Marathon County) City of Abbotsford (that part located in Marathon County) City of Colby (that part located in Marathon County) Town of Aurora Town of Deer Creek Town of Ford Town of Holway Town of Little Black Town of Maplehurst Town of Roosevelt Town of Taft Village of Gilman Village of Lublin Village of StetsonvilleFIFTY-EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Portage County:
Town of Alban Town of Amherst Town of Dewey Town of Hull Town of New Hope Town of Sharon Town of Stockton Village of Amherst Village of Amherst Junction Village of Nelsonville Village of Park Ridge Village of Rosholt Village of Whiting City of Stevens PointWaupaca County:
Town of Dupont Town of Harrison Town of Helvetia Town of Iola Town of St. Lawrence Town of Scandinavia Town of Union Town of Wyoming Village of Big Falls Village of Iola Village of Ogdensberg Village of Sandinavia City of MarionFIFTY-NINTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Almond Town of Belmont Town of Buena Vista Town of Grant Town of Lanark Town of Linwood Town of Pine Grove Town of Plover Village of Almond *651 Village of Plover Town of Dayton Town of FarmingtonWood County:
Town of Grand Rapids Village of Biron Village of Port Edwards City of Wisconsin RapidsSIXTIETH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Marshfield (that part located in Marathon County) Town of Carson Town of Eau Pleine Village of Junction City Village of Milladore (that part located in Portage County) All of Wood County except: Town of Grand Rapids Village of Biron Village of Port Edwards City of Wisconsin RapidsSIXTY-FIRST ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Lincoln County
Town of Ackley Town of Antigo Town of Elcho Town of Neva Town of Parrish Town of Peck Town of Summit Town of Upham Town of Vilas City of Antigo Town of Berlin Town of Hamburg Town of Hewitt Town of Maine Town of Texas Village of BrokawSIXTY-SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Bergen Town of Bern Town of Cassel Town of Cleveland Town of Day Town of Emmet Town of Frankfort Town of Green Valley Town of Halsey Town of Johnson Town of Marathon Town of Mosinee Town of Rib Falls Town of Rib Mountain Town of Rietbrock Town of Stettin Town of Wien Village of Athens Village of Edgar Village of Fenwood Village of Marathon City Village of Stratford City of Mosinee City of Wausau, Wards 11-25SIXTY-THIRD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Bevent Town of Easton Town of Elderon Town of Franzen Town of Guenther Town of Hatley Town of Knowlton Town of Kronenwetter Town of Norrie Town of Reid Town of Ringle Town of Wausau Town of Weston Village of Elderon Village of Rothschild City of Schofield City of Wausau, Wards 1-10*652 SIXTY-FOURTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Palmyra Town of Sullivan Village of Palmyra Town of LaGrange Town of Whitewater Town of Eagle Town of Mukwonago Town of Ottawa Town of Summit Town of Waukesha Village of Dousman Village of Eagle Village of Mukwonago City of Delafield City of Waukesha, Wards 24-27, 30, 31SIXTY-FIFTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Pewaukee except Wards 1-3 City of Waukesha except Wards 24-27, 30, 31SIXTY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Erin Town of Delafield Town of Genesee Town of Merton Town of Oconomowoc Town of Pewaukee, Ward 3 Village of Chenequa Village of Hartland Village of Lac La Belle Village of Merton Village of Nashotah Village of North Prairie Village of Oconomowoc Lake Village of Wales City of OconomowocSIXTY-SEVENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Wauwatosa except Wards 9 and 21SIXTY-EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Wauwatosa, Wards 9 and 21 City of Milwaukee, Wards 296-298, 301, 302 Village of Butler Village of Elm Grove Village of Menomonee Falls, Wards 14, 18, 20 City of Brookfield, Wards 1-6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 21-24SIXTY-NINTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Richfield, Wards 1, 3-7, 13-15 Town of Lannon Town of Lisbon Town of Pewaukee, Wards 1 and 2 Village of Menomonee Falls except Wards 14, 18 and 20 Village of Pewaukee Village of SussexSEVENTIETH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Cedarburg Village of Thiensville City of Cedarburg City of Grafton City of Mequon, Wards 2, 4-8, 12, 13 Town of Germantown Town of Richfield, Wards 9, 11, 12 Village of GermantownSEVENTY-FIRST ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Belgium *653 Town of Grafton Town of Port Washington Town of Saukville Village of Belgium Village of Saukville City of Mequon, Wards 1, 3, 9-11, 14-16 City of Port WashingtonSheboygan County:
Town of Holland Town of Lima Town of Wilson Village of Cedar Grove Village of Oostburg City of Sheboygan, Wards 7 and 8SEVENTY-SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Village of Newburg (part) Town of Farmington Town of Fredonia Town of Jackson Town of Polk Town of Richfield, Wards 2, 8 and 10 Town of Trenton Town of West Bend Village of Fredonia Village of Jackson Village of Newburg (part) Village of Slinger City of West BendSEVENTY-THIRD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Door County
Kewaunee County
Town of Green Bay Town of ScottSEVENTY-FOURTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Eaton Town of Humboldt Town of Morrison Town of New Denmark Village of DenmarkCalumet County:
Town of Charleston Town of Rantoul Village of Hilbert Village of PotterManitowoc County:
Town of Cato Town of Cooperstown Town of Eaton Town of Franklin Town of Gibson Town of Kossuth Town of Manitowoc Rapids Town of Maple Grove Town of Mishicot Town of Rockland Town of Two Creeks Town of Two Rivers Village of Francis Creek Village of Kellnersville Village of Maribel Village of Mishicot Village of Reedsville Village of Valders Village of Whitelaw City of Two RiversSEVENTY-FIFTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Allouez Town of Bellevue City of Green Bay, Wards 1-6, 13-20, 22SEVENTY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Kiel (that part located in Calumet County) Town of Centerville Town of Liberty Town of Manitowoc Town of Meeme Town of Newton *654 Town of Schleswig Village of Cleveland Village of St. Nazianz City of Manitowoc City of Kiel (that part located in Manitowoc County) Town of MoselSEVENTY-SEVENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Sheboygan Village of Kohler City of Sheboygan, Wards 1-6, 9-16SEVENTY-EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of New Holstein City of New Holstein Town of Calumet Town of Marshfield Town of Osceola Town of Taycheeda Village of Mt. Calvary Village of St. Cloud Town of Greenbush Town of Herman Town of Lyndon Town of Mitchell Town of Plymouth Town of Rhine Town of Russell Town of Scott Town of Sheboygan Falls Town of Sherman Village of Adell Village of Cascade Village of Elkhart Lake Village of Glenbeulah Village of Howards Grove Village of Random Lake Village of Waldo City of Plymouth City of Sheboygan FallsSEVENTY-NINTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Grand Chute City of Appleton, Wards 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 12, 14-19EIGHTIETH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Winnebago County:
Town of Clayton Town of Menasha Town of Winchester Town of Winneconne Village of Winneconne City of Menasha City of Neenah, Wards 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 14EIGHTY-FIRST ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Neenah Town of Oshkosh Town of Vinland City of Neenah, Wards 2-4, 6, 11, 13, 15, 16 City of Oshkosh, Wards 29-34, 37, 41-43EIGHTY-SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Brillion Town of Brothertown Town of Chilton Town of Harrison Town of Stockbridge Town of Woodville Village of Sherwood Village of Stockbridge City of Brillion City of Chilton City of Appleton (that part located in Calumet County Wards 9, 13, 22, 23) Town of Buchanan Village of Combined Locks Village of Kimberly *655 City of Appleton, Wards 2, 5, 10, 11, 20, 24 City of Appleton (that part located in Winnebago County Ward 21)EIGHTY-THIRD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of DePere Town of Glenmore Town of Holland Town of Lawrence Town of Rockland Town of Wrightstown Village of Wrightstown City of DePere (All of the city of DePere except Ward 9) Town of Freedom Town of Kaukauna Town of Vandenbroek Village of Little Chute City of KaukaunaEIGHTY-FOURTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Hobart Village of Ashwaubenon City of DePere, Ward 9 City of Green Bay, Wards 23, 24, 26, 36-46EIGHTY-FIFTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Bovina Town of Dale Town of Deer Creek Town of Ellington Town of Greenville Town of Hortonia Town of Liberty Town of Maple Creek Village of Bear Creek Village of Hortonville Village of Shiocton City of New London (that part located in Outagamie County) Town of Bear Creek Town of Caledonia Town of Fremont Town of Larrabee Town of Lebanon Town of Lind Town of Little Wolf Town of Matteson Town of Mukwa Town of Royalton Town of Waupaca Town of Weyauwega Village of Embarrass Village of Fremont City of Clintonville City of Manawa City of Waupaca City of Weyauwega City of New London (that part located in Waupaca County) Town of Poygan Town of Wolf RiverEIGHTY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Green Lake County
Town of Alto Town of Metomen Town of Ripon Village of Brandon Village of Fairwater City of RiponWaushara County:
Waushara County except:
Town of Plainfield Village of PlainfieldEIGHTY-SEVENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Adams County
Juneau County
Marquette County
Town of Plainfield *656 Village of PlainfieldEIGHTY-EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Ashippun Town of Brownsville Town of Herman Town of Hubbard Town of Lomira Town of Rubicon Town of Theresa Town of Williamstown Village of Iron Ridge Village of Kekoskee Village of Lomira Village of Neosho Village of Theresa City of Horicon City of Mayville Town of Ashford Town of Auburn Village of Campbellsport Town of Addison Town of Barton Town of Hartford Town of Kewaskum Town of Wayne Village of Kewaskum City of HartfordEIGHTY-NINTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Eden Town of Empire Town of Fond du Lac Town of Forest Village of Eden Village of North Fond du Lac City of Fond du LacNINETIETH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Byron Town of Eldorado Town of Friendship Town of Lamartine Town of Oakfield Town of Rosendale Town of Springvale Town of Waupun Village of Oakfield Village of Rosendale Town of Algoma Town of Black Wolf Town of Nekimi Town of Nepeuskun Town of Omro Town of Rushford Town of Utica City of Omro City of Oshkosh, Wards 35, 36, 38-40, 44, 45NINETY-FIRST ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Richland County except that portion within the thirty-ninth Assembly District Sauk County except: Town of Greenfield Town of Merrimac Village of Merrimac City of Wisconsin Dells That portion within the thirty-eighth Assembly DistrictNINETY-SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Columbia County
Town of Westford Village of Randolph Town of Greenfield Town of Merrimac Village of Merrimac City of Wisconsin Dells*657 NINETY-THIRD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Dane County:
Town of Berry Town of Black Earth Town of Cross Plains Town of Dane Town of Mazomanie Town of Middleton Town of Roxbury Town of Springfield Town of Vermont Town of Vienna Town of Westport Village of Black Earth Village of Cross Plains Village of Dane Village of Maple Bluff Village of Mazomanie Village of Waunakee City of Madison, Wards 15-18 City of Middleton, except Ward 5NINETY-FOURTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Village of Shorewood Hills City of Madison, Wards 50-66 City of Middleton, Ward 5NINETY-FIFTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Madison City of Madison, Wards 30-32, 34-42, 44-49NINETY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
City of Madison, Wards 6, 7, 12, 19-29, 33, 43NINETY-SEVENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Blue Mounds Town of Dunn Town of Fitchburg Town of Montrose Town of Oregon Town of Perry Town of Primrose Town of Rutland Town of Springdale Town of Verona Village of Belleville (part) Village of Blue Mounds Village of Brooklyn (part) Village of Mount Horeb Village of Oregon City of Verona Town of Brooklyn Town of Exeter Town of New Glarus Town of York Village of Belleville (part) Village of Brooklyn (part) Village of New Glarus Town of Union City of EvansvilleNINETY-EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Burke Town of Blooming Grove Village of McFarland City of Madison, Wards 1-5, 8-11, 13, 14 City of Monona City of Sun Prairie, Wards 7, 8NINETY-NINTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Town of Albion Town of Bristol Town of Christiana Town of Cottage Grove Town of Deerfield Town of Dunkirk Town of Medina Town of Pleasant Spring Town of Sun Prairie Town of Windsor Town of York *658 Village of Cambridge Village of Cottage Grove Village of Deerfield Village of DeForest Village of Marshall Village of Rockdale City of Stoughton City of Sun Prairie except Wards 7, 8 Village of Cambridge (part)ORDER
On page 17 of our reapportionment decision and order of June 9, 1982 we stated:
"We have tried to be as accurate as possible in drafting our plan. For the reasons stated above, and due to the enormity of the task, however, we recognize the possibility that arithmetic and/or inclusion-exclusion error could slip into the final product. For this reason we request that Dr. H. Rupert Theobald, Chief of the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, review our plan as soon as possible and advise us if any corrections are necessary."
Dr. Theobald and his staff at the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau reviewed our plan as requested and on June 15, 1982 we received his corrections. His corrections, copied and attached to this decision as Exhibit A, with the exception of the changes regarding the City of Brookfield are adopted by the court and the order of June 9, 1982 is accordingly amended to reflect the changes.
Exhibit A advised us that on June 14, 1982, it was learned that the previously supplied ward population data for the City of Brookfield contained errors. Because our plan divided the city, the new data for Brookfield increased the population of our plan's Assembly District 30 by 653 from 47,530 to 48,183. The new data reduced the population of our plan's Assembly District 68 by 653 from 47,471 to 46,818.
As originally contemplated by the court, the deviations in Assembly Districts 30 and 68 were a very acceptable 0% and .12%. With the data changes, the districts become the highest and lowest in our plan and we deem their deviation to be unacceptable. Accordingly, we order the following changes:
AD 30 loses City of Brookfield ward 16 and gains the City's ward 17
AD 68 loses City of Brookfield ward 17 and gains the City's ward 16
As a result of this shift, the new figures for the districts are as follows:
AD 30 47,437 -94 -.20% AD 68 47,564 +33 +.07%
The component lists for Assembly Districts 30 and 68 are amended to reflect this change, as are the Senate district figures for the districts that include AD 30 and AD 68. The changes do not affect the deviation range of the court's plan which remains at 1.74%.
In light of the foregoing, the following amendments to the plan are made:
1. The description of the Thirtieth Assembly District, found at page (e) of the components list, is amended to read:
THIRTIETH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Waukesha County:
Town of Brookfield
City of Brookfield, wards 7, 10-13, 17-20
City of New Berlin, except ward 21
2. The description of the Sixty-eighth Assembly District, found at page (s) of the components list, is amended to read:
SIXTY-EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Milwaukee County:
City of Milwaukee, wards 296-298, 301, 302
City of Wauwatosa, wards 9 and 21
Waukesha County:
Village of Butler
Village of Elm Grove
Village of Menomonee Falls, wards 14, 18, 20
City of Brookfield, wards 1-6, 8, 9, 14-16, 21-24
3. The population statistics for Assembly Districts Thirty and Sixty-eight, found *659 at pages i and ii respectively, are amended to read:
Assembly Deviation from Norm District Population People Percentage 30 47,437 -94 -.20% 68 47,564 +33 +.07%
4. The population statistics for Senate Districts 10 and 23, found at pages II. and III. respectively, should read:
SD 10
AD 28 47,616
AD 29 47,796
AD 30 47,437
_______
142,849 +258 +.18%
SD 23
AD 67 47,198
AD 68 47,564
AD 69 47,125
_______
142,004 -587 -.41%
(NOTE: The reference here is to Senate Districts
10 and 23 as found in the
Court's Reapportionment Plan of
June 9, 1982. Because all Senate
districts are renumbered later in this
order, 10 will be changed to 28, and
23 will be changed to 33.)
In addition to the changes announced above, several of the parties have moved that we adopt various changes in the numbering system used in our plan to designate Senate districts. The plaintiffs have also suggested that in one instance the grouping pattern of Assembly districts within a Senate district be changed. These matters were argued by the parties in court on June 15, 1982 and were taken under advisement.
On page 16 of our decision of June 9, 1982 with regard to incumbent residency we stated:
"In our order of April 23, 1982 we reviewed some of the options available to us, including the option of drafting our own plan and stated: `In judicially enacting any plan, incumbent residency will not be a consideration of this court.' We have been faithful to that pledge. At no time in the drafting of this plan did we consider where any incumbent legislator resides or whether our plan would inure to the political benefit of any one person or party.
"While our plan has been drafted without incumbency considerations, we were mindful of the fact that the fall elections only call for the election of Senators presently holding odd numbered Senate seats. Consequently, the residents of Wisconsin presently living in even numbered Senate districts will not be electing Senators under our plan until 1984. To minimize the number of people affected by our plan as it relates to Senate districts, we have tried, as much as possible consistent with the principle of one person, one vote, to use even numbers for the Senate districts in our plan that roughly correspond to areas assigned to even numbered districts in the 1972 act.
"Because all ninety-nine members of the state Assembly will be selected under this plan, we saw no reason to adhere to any numbering system for Assembly districts that related to the 1972 law."
The Democratic party leaders, intervenors Fred A. Risser and Ed G. Jackamonis, have argued in motion papers filed on June 15, 1982 that the court's plan contains serious constitutional flaws because it "... provides no vote and no representation in the Senate for 713,225 Wisconsin residents from January, 1983 until January, 1985." (Brief In Support Of Motion For Stay Pending Appeal, p. 2). While this change may have some emotional appeal, we believe it to be a house of cards that collapses when exposed to even the gentle breeze of cursory analysis. We believe the argument to be contrary to Wisconsin law (See: December 15, 1953 opinion of the Wisconsin Attorney General on the point) and contrary to common sense. The "serious errors," however, can be corrected, according to the motion papers, by simply assigning different numbers to five Senate districts.
In addition to the Democrats, other parties, particularly Governor Dreyfus, have suggested that the numbering system be changed. The changes are not urged to avoid error but rather to make our plan more consistent with the numbering system used in 1972. We believe the suggestions to have merit and because none of them go to the basic design or integrity of our plan we adopt them and order the following:
*660
SD 1 in the court's plan is renumbered SD 7
" 2 " " " " " " " 4
" 3 " " " " " " " 5
" 4 " " " " " " " 6
" 5 " " " " " " " 3
" 6 " " " " " " " 8
" 7 " " " " " " " 21
" 8 " " " " " " " 22
" 9 " " " " " " " 15
" 10 " " " " " " " 28
" 11 " " " " " " " 13
" 12 " " " " " " " 32
" 13 " " " " " " " 17
" 14 " " " " " " " 10
" 15 " " " " " " " 31
" 16 " " " " " " " 12
" 17 " " " " " " " 25
" 18 " " " " " " " 30
" 19 " " " " " " " 23
" 20 " " " " " " " 24
" 21 " " " " " " " 29
" 22 " " " " " " " 11
" 23 " " " " " " " 33
" 24 " " " " " " " 20
" 25 " " " " " " " 1
" 26 " " " " " " " 9
" 27 " " " " " " " 19
" 28 " " " " " " " 2
" 29 " " " " " " " 14
" 30 " " " " " " " 18
" 31 " " " " " " " 27
" 32 " " " " " " " 26
" 33 " " " " " " " 16
Consistent with these numerical changes, we believe it appropriate that changes be made in the components of four of the Senate districts as renumbered. Therefore, the following four changes are made:
1. Senate District 2 as renumbered by this order shall consist of Assembly Districts 54, 82, 83
2. Senate District 30 as renumbered by this order shall consist of Assembly Districts 52, 53, and 84.
3. Senate District 12 as renumbered by this order shall consist of Assembly Districts 46, 48, and 61
4. Senate District 29 as renumbered by this order shall consist of Assembly Districts 47, 62, and 63.
The changes in Senate Districts 2 and 30 as renumbered were suggested by the Democrats. The changes in Senate Districts 12 and 29 as renumbered were not suggested by anyone but appear to us to be consistent with the theory espoused by the Democrats and obviate the Republican suggestion that we issue an order allowing Senator Clifford Krueger to reside outside of his district.
We request that Dr. Theobald incorporate the changes ordered herein into his previously prepared analysis and submit an amended analysis to us as soon as possible.
SO ORDERED.
EXHIBIT A
APPARENT TECHNICAL ERRORS:
The review of the court's redistricting plan by the legislative reference bureau (LRB) was limited to an independent recompiling, from the text and maps supplied with the court's order, of the text describing each assembly district and the statistics of population for that district.
In making this review, 7 types of errors were encountered:
(1) OMISSIONS.
A.Dist.29 Assembly district 29 contains the town of Vernon in Waukesha county. The town surrounds the village of Big Bend. Inasmuch as both the court and the LRB established the identical district population number 47,796 the failure to list the village as one of the components of the district as shown on page "(e)" appears to have been an inadvertent omission.
A.Dist.41 Assembly district 41 contains the town of Cady in St. Croix county. The town surrounds that part of the village of Spring Valley which is located in St. Croix county (the remainder of the territory of the village of Spring Valley, including the entire population of that village, is located in Pierce county). The failure to list the St. Croix county part in the components of the assembly district as shown on page "(i)" does not affect the population total 47,818 for A.Dist.41.
(2) APPARENT ERRORS IN ADDITION. In two cases, the LRB was unable to find a reason why the numbers compiled by the LRB did not agree with those published by the court:
A.Dist.6 Court: 47,509; LRB: 47,533. Difference: 24.
*661 A.Dist.31 Court: 47,586; LRB: 47,587. Difference: 1.
(3) ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON CENSUS CHANGES. All other differences in population numbers appear attributable to the successive census corrections of November 16, 1981, and May 24, 1982:
A.Dist.1 No difference. The 5/24/82 shift of 24 persons was allocated to ward 271 of the city of Milwaukee and ward 1 of the city of St. Francis. Detailed census information will not be available until July.
A.Dist.64 Court: 47,657; LRB: 47,611. Difference: 46. See A.Dist.65.
A.Dist.65 Court: 47,471; LRB: 47,517. Difference: 46. The 5/24/82 census corrections contained a 46-person adjustment affecting the city and town of Waukesha. Inasmuch as A.Dist.64 contains the entire town of Waukesha, the adjustment was allocated to ward 26 of the city of Waukesha.
A.Dist.76 Court: 47,316; LRB: 47,327. Difference: 11. The 11/16/81 census corrections contained an 11-person adjustment affecting the town of Liberty and the village of Valders in Manitowoc county. The difference appears to have been attributable to that shift. However, while the court and LRB disagree on the A.Dist.76 population containing the town of Liberty, both agree on the population number for A.Dist. 7447,363 containing the village of Valders.
A.Dist.79 Court: 47,788; LRB: 47,681. Difference: 107. The 5/24/82 census corrections contained a 107-person reduction in the Outagamie county population of the city of Appleton and a 38-person increase in the population of the town of Grand Chute in that county. Since the entire town and a large part of the city are both in this assembly district, the Appleton reduction was allocated to ward 17. Census detail will not be available until July.
A.Dist.90 Court: 47,750 LRB: 47,779. Difference: 29. The 11/16/81 census corrections contained a 29-person increase in the population of the town of Algoma in Winnebago county.
(4) CITY OF BROOKFIELD.
A.Dists.30 and 68 As contained in the court's plan, the 2 assembly districts divide the city of Brookfield in Waukesha county. Based on the ward population data for that city then available, the court and LRB agree on the population totals for A.Dist.30 (47,530) and A.Dist.68 (47,471) and corresponding Senate Districts 10 and 23. On 6/14/82, LRB learned that the city of Brookfield ward population data contained errors. Using the newly-corrected population information, the population of A.Dist.30 is increased by 653 to 48,183, and the population of A.Dist.68 is reduced by 653 to 46,818.
(5) TERMINOLOGY.
A.Dists.34 and 35 The "wards" of the city of La Crosse used in the court's order appear to be the supervisory district wards used by the county. A different ward plan promulgated by the city is under litigation.
(6) MISLABELED MUNICIPALITIES.
A.Dist.21 Sturtevant, in Racine county, is a village (not a city); see page "(c)" of the court's order.
A.Dist.41 Knapp, in Dunn county, is a village (not a town); see page "(h)" of the court's order.
A.Dist.44 Augusta, in Eau Claire county, is a city (not a village); see page "(i)" of the court's order.
A.Dist.48 Gresham and Tigerton, in Shawano county, are villages (not cities); see page "(k)" of the court's order.
A.Dist.54 Bonduel, in Shawano county, is a village (not a town); see page "(n)" of the court's order.
A.Dist.63 Hatley, in Marathon county, is a village (not a town); see page "(r)" of the court's order.
A.Dist.69 Lannon, in Waukesha county, is a village (not a town); see page "(s)" of the court's order.
A.Dist.70 Grafton, in Ozaukee county, is a village (not a city); see page "(s)" of the court's order.
*662 A.Dist.72 The town and village of Fredonia are in Ozaukee county; (not Washington county); see page "(t)" of the court's order.
A.Dist.88 Brownsville, in Dodge county, is a village (not a town); see page "(y)" of the court's order.
(7) MAP CORRECTIONS.
A.Dist.83 The district, in the Brown county/Outagamie county area, was not shown on either map panel "M2a" or "M2b" of the court's order.
Senate District 10, as shown on map panel "M3b", failed to include the western part of the city of Oak Creek which is correctly shown as a part of A.Dist.28 on map panel "M16".
NOTES
[1] For example, the hastily conceived plan (LRB-5659/1 as amended by LRBa5675/1 and LRBa5674/1) has an assembly deviation range of 6.02%, a rate that may very well be constitutionally unacceptable, as the deviations do not appear to be the result of efforts to adhere to a state policy directed toward maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions. See Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 93 S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973).
[2] The Constitution also requires adherence to precinct lines, but Wisconsin no longer has precincts.
[3] The data compilations have not been challenged and are, for that reason, accepted as true.
[4] The remaining city of Milwaukee split districts are number 6, with 25,142 city residents to 22,367 non-city, and number 68, where 9,664 city residents join residents of Waukesha County in forming a district.
[5] We wish to note that two of our law clerks, Thomas R. Streifender, Case-Western Reserve University, A.B., 1970; Marquette University Law School, J.D., 1980; and William F. Brown, University of Wisconsin, B.A., 1977; Harvard University Law School, J.D., 1980, have worked closely with us on this project, and that their contributions to our efforts have been considerable.
[6] On March 23, 1981, the state's population was certified as 4,705,335. That figure was changed on November 16, 1981 to 4,705,767. The May 24, 1982 correction changed the population to the figure used in our plan, 4,705,521.
[7] In a letter dated May 13, 1982, Judge Evans asked counsel for the Republican and Democratic parties to authorize Dr. Theobald to provide the court with technical assistance if it so desired. On May 17, 1982, Judge Evans received a letter signed by Assembly Speaker Ed Jackamonis, Senate President Fred Risser and minority party leaders State Representative Tommy Thompson and Senator Walter Chilsen granting the request. The letter from the party leaders, however, stated that Dr. Theobald and his staff, who are dependent on the legislature for such things as pay and budget, recognized that no plan could please every member of the legislature, and that they wished that steps be taken to avoid the appearance that they in any way influenced the courts' decision. To avoid any appearance of influence, the party leaders suggested that a written record be made of any contacts between the court and the Bureau. Because we believed that working with this condition would not be in the courts' interest, we declined to call upon Dr. Theobald or his staff for any technical assistance although the court did call the Bureau approximately eight times to obtain additional maps and census data or to verify conflicting statistical data.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
543 F. Supp. 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wisconsin-state-afl-cio-v-elections-bd-wied-1982.