Court Opinion

ID: 9912667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 21:13:06.953123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:11.638678
License: Public Domain

2023 WI 79

                  SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:            2023AP1399-OA

COMPLETE TITLE:          Rebecca Clarke, Ruben Anthony, Terry Dawson,
                         Dana Glasstein, Ann Groves-Lloyd, Carl
                         Hujet, Jerry Iverson, Tia Johnson, Angie
                         Kirst, Selika Lawton, Fabian Maldonado,
                         Annemarie McClellan, James McNett, Brittany
                         Muriello, Ela Joosten (Pari) Schils,
                         Nathaniel Slack, Mary Smith-Johnson, Denise
                         Sweet and Gabrielle Young,
                                   Petitioners,
                         Governor Tony Evers in his official
                         capacity, Nathan Atkinson, Stephen Joseph
                         Wright, Gary Krenz, Sarah J. Hamilton,
                         Jean-Luc Thiffeault, Somesh Jha, Joanne Kane
                         and Leah Dudley,
                                   Intervenors-Petitioners,
                              v.
                         Wisconsin Elections Commission, Don Millis,
                         Robert F. Spindell, Jr., Mark L. Thomsen,
                         Ann S. Jacobs, Marge Bostelmann, Carrie
                         Riepl, in their official capacities as
                         Members of the Wisconsin Election
                         Commission;, Meagan Wolfe in her official
                         capacity as the Administrator of the
                         Wisconsin Elections Commission;, Andre
                         Jacque, Tim Carpenter, Rob Hutton, Chris
                         Larson, Devin LeMahieu, Stephen L. Nass,
                         John Jagler, Mark Spreitzer, Howard
                         Marklein, Rachael Cabral-Guevara, Van H.
                         Wanggaard, Jesse L. James, Romaine Robert
                         Quinn, Dianne H. Hesselbein, Cory Tomczyk,
                         Jeff Smith and Chris Kapenga in their
                         official capacities as Members of the
                         Wisconsin Senate,
                                   Respondents,
                         Wisconsin Legislature, Billie Johnson, Chris
                         Goebel, Ed Perkins, Eric O'Keefe, Joe
                         Sanfelippo, Terry Moulton, Robert Jensen,
                         Ron Zahn, Ruth Elmer and Ruth Streck,
                                   Intervenors-Respondents.

                                       ORIGINAL ACTION
OPINION FILED:                 December 22, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:                 November 21, 2023

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
    COURT:
    COUNTY:
    JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
KAROFSKY, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in
which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, DALLET and PROTASIEWICZ, JJ., joined.
ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion. REBECCA GRASSL
BRADLEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion. HAGEDORN, J., filed a
dissenting opinion.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:

       For the petitioners, there were briefs filed by Daniel S.
Lenz, T.R. Edwards, Elizabeth M. Pierson, Scott B. Thompson, and
Law    Forward,        Inc.,    Madison;   Douglas      M.   Poland,    Jeffrey     A.
Mandell, Rachel E. Snyder, and Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, Madison;
Elisabeth S. Theodore (pro hac vice), John A. Freedman (pro hac
vice), and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, D.C.; Mark P. Gaber
(pro hac vice), Brent Ferguson (pro hac vice), Hayden Johnson
(pro hac vice), Benjamin Phillips (pro hac vice), and Campaign
Legal Center, D.C.; Annabelle E. Harless (pro hac vice), and
Campaign      Legal     Center,     Chicago;   Ruth     M.   Greenwood      (pro   hac
vice), Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos (pro hac vice), and Election
Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, Cambridge. There was an oral
argument by Mark Gaber.

       For the intervenor-petitioner, Governor Tony Evers in his
official      capacity,        there   were    briefs    filed   by     Anthony     D.
Russomanno,          assistant     attorney     general,      Faye     B.   Hipsman,
assistant attorney general, Brian P. Keenan, assistant attorney
general, with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney
                                           2
general; Mel Banes, and Office of Governor Tony Evers, Madison;
Christine      P.   Sun    (pro   hac   vice),       Dax    L.     Goldstein     (pro    hac
vice), and States United Democracy Center, Los Angeles; John
Hill (pro hac vice), and States United Democracy Center, DuBois.
There was an oral argument by Anthony D. Russomanno, assistant
attorney general.

       For    the   intervenor-petitioner,                Nathan     Atkinson,      Stephen
Joseph       Wright,      Gary    Krenz,          Sarah    J.      Hamilton,     Jean-Luc
Thiffeault, Somesh Jha, Joanne Kane and Leah Dudley, there were
briefs filed by           Sarah A. Zylstra, Tanner G. Jean-Louis, and
Boardman Clark LLP, Madison; Sam Hirsch (pro hac vice), Jessica
Ring   Amunson      (pro    hac    vice),     Elizabeth         B.   Deutsch     (pro   hac
vice), Arjun R. Ramamurti, (pro hac vice), and Jenner & Block
LLP, D.C. There was an oral argument by Sam Hirsch.

       For    the   respondents,        Tim       Carpenter,       Chris   Larson,      Mark
Spreitzer,      Dianne      H.    Hesselbein,        and    Jeff     Smith,      in    there
official capacities as Members of the Wisconsin Senate, there
were briefs filed by Tamara B. Packard, Eduardo E. Castro, and
Pines Bach LLP, Madison. There was an oral argument by Tamara B.
Packard.

       For the intervenors-respondents, Wisconsin Legislature, and
respondents, Andre Jacque, Rob Hutton, Devin LeMahieu, Stephen
L. Nass, Howard Marklein, John Jagler, Rachael Cabral-Guevara,
Van H. Wanggaard, Jesse L. James, Romaine Robert Quinn, Cory
Tomczyk,      and   Chris    Kapenga,      in      there    official       capacities     as
Members of the Wisconsin Senate,                     there were briefs filed by
Kevin M. St. John, and Bell Giftos St. John LLC, Madison; Jessie
Augustyn, and Augustyn Law LLC, Appleton; Adam K. Mortara, and
Lawfair      LLC,   Nashville;      Taylor         A.R.    Meehan     (pro    hac     vice),
Rachael C. Tucker (pro hac vice), Daniel M. Vitagliano (pro hac
vice), C’Zar D. Bernstein (pro hac vice), and Consovoy McCarthy
                                              3
PLLC, Arlington; Scott A. Keller (pro hac vice), Shannon Grammel
(pro hac vice), Gabriela Gonzalez-Araiza (pro hac vice), and
Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP, D.C.; Matthew H. Frederick (pro hac
vice), and Lehotsky Keller Cohn, LLP, Austin. There was an oral
argument by Taylor A.R. Meehan.

    For      the   intervenors-respondents,         Billie        Johnson,   Chris
Goebel, Ed Perkins, Eric O’Keefe, Joe Sanfelippo, Terry Moulton,
Robert Jensen, Ron Zahn, Ruth Elmer and Ruth Streck, there were
briefs filed by Richard M. Esenberg, Luke N. Berg, Nathalie E.
Burmeister, and Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Inc.,
Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by Richard M. Esenberg.

    An amicus curiae brief was filed by Nathan J. Kane, and WMC
Litigation     Center,   Madison,      on     behalf       of     the    Wisconsin
Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc.

    An amicus curiae brief was filed by Margo S. Kirchner, and
Wisconsin     Justice    Initiative,        Inc,    Milwaukee;          Daniel   J.
Schneider, and Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition, Chicago, on behalf
of the Wisconsin Justice Initiative, Inc. & Wisconsin Fair Maps
Coalition.

    An amicus curiae brief was filed by Matthew W. O’Neill, and
Fox, O’Neill & Shannon, S.C., Milwaukee, on behalf of Matthew
Petering, PhD.

    An      amicus   curiae   brief       was      filed     by     Nicholas     E.
Fairweather, and Hawks Quindel S.C., Madison; Jonathan B. Miller
(pro hac vice), Michael Adame (pro hac vice), and Public Rights
Project, Oakland, on behalf of Local Elected Officials.

                                      4
       An amicus curiae brief was filed by Robert Yablon, Bryna
Godar, and State Democracy Research Initiative, University of
Wisconsin Law School, Madison, on behalf of Legal Scholars.
       An amicus curiae brief was filed by Samuel T. Ward-Packard,
and Elias Law Group LLP, D.C.; Abha Khanna (pro hac vice), and
Elias Law Group LLP, Seattle; William K. Hancock (pro hac vice),
Julie Zuckerbrod (pro hac vice), and Elias Law Group LLP, D.C.,
on behalf of Jo Ellen Burke, Jennie Tunkieicz and John Persa.

       An amicus curiae brief was filed by Tony Wilkin Gibart,
Adam   Voskuil,   Daniel   P.   Gustafson,   and   Midwest   Environmental
Advocates, Madison, on behalf of Coalition on Lead Emergency.

                                     5
                                                                2023 WI 79
                                                        NOTICE
                                          This opinion is subject to further
                                          editing and modification.   The final
                                          version will appear in the bound
                                          volume of the official reports.
No.   2023AP1399-OA

STATE OF WISCONSIN                    :            IN SUPREME COURT

Rebecca Clarke, Ruben Anthony, Terry Dawson,
Dana Glasstein, Ann Groves-Lloyd, Carl Hujet,
Jerry Iverson, Tia Johnson, Angie Kirst, Selika
Lawton, Fabian Maldonado, Annemarie McClellan,
James McNett, Brittany Muriello, Ela Joosten
(Pari) Schils, Nathaniel Slack, Mary Smith-
Johnson, Denise Sweet and Gabrielle Young,

           Petitioners,

Governor Tony Evers, in his official capacity;
Nathan Atkinson, Stephen Joseph Wright, Gary
Krenz, Sarah J. Hamilton, Jean-Luc Thiffeault,
Somesh Jha, Joanne Kane and Leah Dudley,

           Intervenors-Petitioners,                          FILED
      v.
                                                        DEC 22, 2023
Wisconsin Elections Commission, Don Millis,
Robert F. Spindell, Jr., Mark L. Thomsen, Ann            Samuel A. Christensen
                                                        Clerk of Supreme Court
S. Jacobs, Marge Bostelmann, Joseph J.
Czarnezki in their official capacities as
Members of the Wisconsin Election Commission;,
Meagan Wolfe in her official capacity as the
Administrator of the Wisconsin Elections
Commission;, Andre Jacque, Tim Carpenter, Rob
Hutton, Chris Larson, Devin LeMahieu, Stephen
L. Nass, John Jagler, Mark Spreitzer, Howard
Marklein, Rachael Cabral-Guevara, Van H.
Wanggaard, Jesse L. James, Romaine Robert
Quinn, Dianne H. Hesselbein, Cory Tomczyk, Jeff
Smith and Chris Kapenga in their official
capacities as Members of the Wisconsin Senate,

           Respondents,
Wisconsin Legislature; Billie Johnson, Chris
Goebel, Ed Perkins, Eric O'Keefe, Joe
Sanfelippo, Terry Moulton, Robert Jensen, Ron
Zahn, Ruth Elmer and Ruth Streck,

             Intervenors-Respondents.

KAROFSKY, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in
which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, DALLET and PROTASIEWICZ, JJ., joined.
ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion. REBECCA GRASSL
BRADLEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion. HAGEDORN, J., filed a
dissenting opinion.

      ORIGINAL ACTION.      Rights declared.

      ¶1     JILL J. KAROFSKY, J.      In Wisconsin the number of state

legislative      districts        containing      territory     completely

disconnected from the rest of the district is striking.                  At

least 50 of 99 assembly districts and at least 20 of 33 senate

districts include separate, detached territory.             A particularly

stark example is the Madison-area 47th Assembly District (shown

in yellow below).          This district contains more than a dozen

separate, detached parts that are home to thousands of people

who   must   cross   one   or   more   other   districts   before   reaching

another part of the 47th.1

      1The following images of assembly and senate districts are
from the Legislative Technology Services Bureau's Geographic
Information Services website.    Legislative Technology Services
Bureau, Geographic Information Services, Wisconsin District Maps
(https://gis-ltsb.hub.arcgis.com/pages/district-maps).      This
court "take[s] judicial notice of the location of the various
political subdivisions of the state," including the location of
legislative districts. See Ryan v. State, 168 Wis. 14, 15, 168
N.W. 566 (1918).

                                       2
    ¶2    Here we are asked to determine whether these districts

violate   Article   IV,     Sections       4    and    5   of   the   Wisconsin

Constitution,   which     provide   that       state   legislative    districts

must consist of "contiguous territory."                Wis. Const. art. IV,

§§ 4-5.   Two groups of Wisconsin voters (the Clarke Petitioners2

    2  The Clarke Petitioners are Rebecca Clarke, Ruben Anthony,
Terry Dawson, Dana Glasstein, Ann Groves-Lloyd, Carl Hujet,
Jerry Iverson, Tia Johnson, Angie Kirst, Selika Lawton, Fabian
Maldonado, Annemarie McClellan, James McNett, Brittany Muriello,
Ela Joosten (Pari) Schils, Nathaniel Slack, Mary Smith-Johnson,
Denise (Dee) Sweet, and Gabrielle Young.

                                       3
and Wright Petitioners3), the Governor, and a group of state

senators4   (collectively,      Petitioners),     argue      that   the   current

districts    are      non-contiguous,      and    therefore         violate     the

Wisconsin Constitution.        Petitioners ask us to enjoin their use

in future elections and to order the adoption of remedial maps.

Additionally, they ask us to issue a writ quo warranto declaring

the November 2022 state senate elections unlawful, and to order

special elections for these offices that would otherwise not be

on the ballot until November 2026.                The Legislature, several
senators    elected    in   2022,5   and   a   group    of   Wisconsin    voters6

(collectively,     Respondents)7      argue      that    the    current       state

     3 The Wright Petitioners are Nathan Atkinson, Stephen Joseph
Wright, Gary Krenz, Sara J. Hamilton, Jean-Luc Thiffeault,
Somesh Jha, Joanne Kane, and Leah Dudley, several of whom
participated in the Johnson litigation.     See Johnson v. Wis.
Elections Comm'n, 2021 WI 87, 399 Wis. 2d 623, 967 N.W.2d 469
("Johnson I"); Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 14, 400
Wis. 2d 26, 971 N.W.2d 402 ("Johnson II"); Johnson v. Wis.
Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 19, 401 Wis. 2d 198, 972 N.W.2d 559
("Johnson III").   After we denied their petition for leave to
commence an original action, see Wright v. Wis. Elections
Comm'n, 2023 WI 71, 409 Wis. 2d 417, 995 N.W.2d 771, they
subsequently filed a motion to intervene in this case, which the
Court granted.
     4 They   are   Senators          Carpenter,        Larson,       Spreitzer,
Hesselbein, and Smith.
     5 They are Senators Cabral-Guevara, Hutton, Jacque, Jagler,
James, Kapenga, LeMahieu, Marklein, Nass, Quinn, Tomczyk, and
Wanggaard.
     6 Four of these voters——Billie Johnson, Eric O'Keefe, Ed
Perkins, and Ronald Zahn——were petitioners in Johnson.      They
intervened in this case along with Chris Goebel, Robert Jensen,
Ruth Elmer, Ruth Streck, and Terry Moulton, who were not parties
to Johnson.
     7 One  of   the  named   Respondents,  Wisconsin                  Elections
Commission, takes no position on the issues presented.

                                       4
legislative districts comply with the Wisconsin Constitution's

contiguity       requirements.          Respondents          also     contend    that

Petitioners' claims are barred by various defenses, and that the

relief the Petitioners seek is otherwise unavailable.

       ¶3      We hold that the contiguity requirements in Article

IV, Sections 4 and 5 mean what they say:                       Wisconsin's state

legislative districts must be composed of physically adjoining

territory.        The constitutional text and our precedent support

this       common-sense   interpretation      of    contiguity.        Because    the
current state legislative districts contain separate, detached

territory and therefore violate the constitution's contiguity

requirements, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from

using the current legislative maps in future elections.8                     We also

reject each of Respondents' defenses.                 We decline, however, to

issue a writ quo warranto invalidating the results of the 2022

state senate elections.

       ¶4      Because    we   enjoin   the        current    state     legislative

district maps from future use, remedial maps must be drawn prior

to     the    2024   elections.     The    legislature          has    the   primary

authority and responsibility to draw new legislative maps.                        See
Wis. Const. art. IV, § 3.          Accordingly, we urge the legislature

to     pass     legislation    creating    new       maps     that     satisfy   all

requirements of state and federal law.                We are mindful, however,

that the legislature may decline to pass legislation creating

      Because we determine that non-contiguous districts violate
       8

the constitution, we need not address Petitioners' alternative
argument that the process by which the current state legislative
districts were adopted violated the Wisconsin Constitution's
separation-of-powers doctrine. Md. Arms Ltd. P'ship v. Connell,
2010 WI 64, ¶48, 326 Wis. 2d 300, 786 N.W.2d 15 ("Issues that
are not dispositive need not be addressed." (citation omitted)).
                                5
new maps, or that the governor may exercise his veto power.

Consequently, to ensure maps are adopted in time for the 2024

election, we will proceed toward adopting remedial maps unless

and until new maps are enacted through the legislative process.

At the conclusion of this opinion, we set forth the process and

relevant considerations that will guide the court in adopting

new      state     legislative        districts——and         safeguard         the

constitutional rights of all Wisconsin voters.

                               I.     BACKGROUND

       ¶5   Following    the   2020    census,     the    legislature      passed

legislation creating new state legislative district maps, the

governor vetoed the legislation, and the legislature did not

attempt to override his veto.           Because the legislature and the

governor reached an impasse, the 2011 maps remained in effect,

even though they no longer complied with the Wisconsin or United

States Constitutions due to population shifts.

       ¶6   Billie Johnson and other Wisconsin voters asked this

court to redraw the unconstitutional 2011 maps.                  See Johnson v.

Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2021 WI 87, ¶2, 399 Wis. 2d 623, 967

N.W.2d 469 ("Johnson I").        In that case, we first confirmed that

the 2011 maps no longer complied with the state and federal

requirement that districts be equally populated.                 See id.    Next,

we    identified   the   principles     that   would     guide   the   court   in

adopting new maps, including the proposition that remedial maps

"'should reflect the least change' necessary for the maps to

comport with relevant legal requirements."                 Id., ¶72 (quoting
Wright v. City of Albany, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1228, 1237 (M.D. Ga.

2003)).     We then invited the parties to submit proposed state

                                        6
legislative maps for our review.                    See id., ¶87 (Hagedorn, J.,

concurring).        Of the proposed maps, we adopted the Governor's.

See    Johnson    v.   Wis.     Elections        Comm'n,     2022   WI     14,      ¶52,    400

Wis. 2d 626, 971 N.W.2d 402 ("Johnson II").                         The United States

Supreme Court summarily reversed that decision, holding that the

Governor's       proposed       legislative          maps     violated         the        Equal

Protection       Clause    of    the    Fourteenth          Amendment      because         they

increased     the      number     of    majority-Black             districts         in     the

Milwaukee area without sufficient justification.                         Wis. Legis. v.

Wis.    Elections      Comm'n,    595       U.S.    398,     403,    406    (2022)         (per

curiam).     On remand, we adopted the legislative maps proposed by

the Legislature.          See Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI

19, ¶3, 401 Wis. 2d 198, 972 N.W.2d 559 ("Johnson III").

       ¶7   In this case, the Clarke Petitioners filed a petition

for leave to commence an original action challenging the maps

adopted in Johnson III, arguing that they:                         (1) are an extreme

partisan    gerrymander;        (2)    do    not    comply     with      the     contiguity

requirements contained in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 of the

Wisconsin Constitution; and (3) were created via a process that

violated the separation of powers.                    We granted leave in part,

allowing Petitioners' contiguity and separation-of-powers claims

to    proceed,    while    declining        to     review    the    issue      of    extreme

partisan     gerrymandering.                 We      explained        that          although

Petitioners' extreme-partisan-gerrymandering claim presented an

important and unresolved legal question, we declined to address

it due to the need for extensive fact-finding.                             See Clarke v.
Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 70, 409 Wis. 2d 372, 995 N.W.2d

779.

                                             7
      ¶8   After    granting   the   petition    in     part,   we   permitted

several parties to intervene.        We ordered the parties to provide

briefing on the following four questions:

      1.) Do the existing state legislative maps violate the
      contiguity requirements contained in Article IV,
      Sections 4 and 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution?

      2.) Did the adoption of the existing state legislative
      maps violate the Wisconsin Constitution's separation
      of powers?

      3.) If the court rules that Wisconsin's existing state
      legislative maps violate the Wisconsin Constitution
      for either or both of these reasons and the
      legislature and the governor then fail to adopt state
      legislative maps that comply with the Wisconsin
      Constitution, what standards should guide the court in
      imposing a remedy for the constitutional violation(s)?

      4.) What fact-finding, if any, will be required if the
      court determines there is a constitutional violation
      based on the contiguity clauses and/or the separation-
      of-powers doctrine and the court is required to craft
      a remedy for the violation?   If fact-finding will be
      required, what process should be used to resolve
      questions of fact?

Id.    After all parties submitted initial briefs, Respondents

filed a motion to dismiss, asserting various defenses.                    Oral

argument was held on November 21, 2023.
      ¶9   In this opinion, we first address whether the existing

state legislative districts violate the Wisconsin Constitution's

contiguity requirements.       We determine that a substantial number

of districts do so.         Next, we turn to Respondents' motion to

dismiss and the defenses asserted therein.                 Because none of

Respondents' proffered defenses apply here, we deny Respondents'

motion to dismiss.      Finally, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections
Commission   from   using    the   maps   in   future    elections,    and   we

                                     8
explain the process and relevant considerations that will guide

the court in adopting remedial maps.
                                   II.    CONTIGUITY

       ¶10   We   begin     by    determining           the    meaning     of    "contiguous

territory"      set   out   in     Article        IV,    Sections     4    and    5    of   the

Wisconsin Constitution.            To do so, we examine the constitutional

text,     our     precedent        interpreting               that   text,       and     other

jurisdictions' interpretations of similar provisions.                                 Next, we

apply    that     meaning    to    the    current         legislative          districts    to
determine        whether     the        districts         violate         the     contiguity

requirements.         We conclude that the current legislative maps

contain      districts      that        are       not    composed         of     "contiguous

territory" and therefore violate the Wisconsin Constitution.

                                         A.   Text

       ¶11   We start our analysis with Article IV, Section 4 of

the Wisconsin Constitution, which sets the ground rules for how

Wisconsin Assembly members are elected and how their districts

are to be established.            That section reads in full as follows:

       The   members  of  the  assembly  shall  be   chosen
       biennially, by single districts, on the Tuesday
       succeeding the first Monday of November in even-
       numbered years, 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.
Wis.    Const.    art.     IV,    § 4    (emphasis        added).          The    underlined

portion of Section 4 imposes three separate requirements for

establishing assembly districts.                    The districts must: (1) "be
bounded by county, precinct, town or ward lines;" (2) "consist

                                              9
of contiguous territory;" and (3) "be in as compact form as

practicable."

       ¶12    Article IV, Section 5 sets out rules for how senators

are elected and how their districts are established:

       The senators shall be elected by single districts of
       convenient contiguous territory, at the same time and
       in the same manner as members of the assembly are
       required to be chosen; and no assembly district shall
       be divided in the formation of a senate district. The
       senate districts shall be numbered in the regular
       series, and the senators shall be chosen alternately
       from the odd and even-numbered districts for the term
       of 4 years.
Wis.   Const.           art.    IV,   § 5   (emphasis         added).      The   underlined

portion      of     Section       5   imposes         three    requirements      on   senate

districts.          The senate districts must (1) be "single districts;"

(2) be "of convenient contiguous territory;" and (3) not divide

any assembly districts.

       ¶13        Sections 4 and 5 both impose a contiguity requirement

on districts——specifically, assembly and senate districts must

consist of "contiguous territory."                         Given the language in the

constitution, the question before us is straightforward.                               When

legislative districts are composed of separate, detached parts,

do they consist of "contiguous territory"?                               We conclude that

they do not.

       ¶14    Much of the Wisconsin Constitution is set out in broad

terms,       the        interpretation      of        which   may   lead    to   difficult

questions and require a complex balancing of interests.                                  For

instance,          at    what     point     does       a   search   or     seizure    become

unreasonable?             See Wis. Const. art. I, § 11.                 What does it mean
for a person to be "entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for

all injuries"?                 See Wis. Const. art. I, § 9.                 Or even, how
                                                 10
compact does a district have to be in order to be in "as compact

form as practicable"?           See Wis. Const. art. IV, § 4.

       ¶15   In    other    places,     however,       our       constitution    imposes

specific requirements whose meaning is immediately apparent from

the words themselves.           For instance, assembly elections must be

held "on the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday in November in

even-numbered years."           See Wis. Const. art. IV, § 4.              And judges

must have been licensed to practice law for "5 years immediately

prior to appointment."          See Wis. Const. art. VII, § 24.
       ¶16        The contiguous territory requirement fits squarely

into the latter category.               It is immediately apparent, using

practically any dictionary, that contiguous means "touching" or

"in    actual      contact."        See,      e.g.,    Contiguous,       Black's       Law

Dictionary, (11th ed. 2019) ("Touching at a point or along a

boundary."); Contiguous, Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989)

("touching,       in   actual    contact,       next   in     space;    meeting    at    a

common   boundary,         bordering,      adjoining");          Contiguous,     Merriam

Webster Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) ("being in actual contact:

touching along a boundary or at a point").                          These definitions

make   clear      that     contiguous      territory        is    territory     that    is
touching, or in actual contact.                 In other words, a district must

be physically intact such that a person could travel from one

point in the district to any other point in the district without

crossing     district      lines.       See     Bernard      Grofman,    Criteria      for

Districting: A Social Science Perspective, 33 UCLA L. Rev. 77,

84 (1985) ("A district may be defined as contiguous if every
part of the district is reachable from every other part without

crossing the district boundary.").

                                           11
      ¶17     We find additional support for this understanding of

contiguity         in        historical     definitions             and        early    Wisconsin

districting practices.                In examining historical definitions of

the   word    "contiguous,"            we   see       that       the     definition       has   not

changed     since       the     Wisconsin        Constitution            was    adopted.        See

Contiguous,         A    Dictionary         of        the       English        Language    (1756)

("meeting      so       as    to   touch;     bordering            upon    each        other;   not

separate"); Contiguous, An American Dictionary of the English

Language (1828) ("touching: meeting or joining at the surface or
border").          Turning to early districting practices, the first

state     legislative           districts,        set           forth     in     the     Wisconsin

Constitution, were all physically contiguous.                                  See Wis. Const.

art. XIV, § 12 (1848).                Additionally, the constitution specified

that if existing towns were split or new towns were created, the

districts had to remain physically intact.                               See id.        In short,

historical         definitions        and     practices           related        to    contiguity

bolster      our    conclusion         that      contiguity             does    indeed    require

"touching," or "actual contact."

      ¶18     Respondents          assert     that          a    district       with    separate,

detached     territory          can   still       be    contiguous——so            long     as   the
detached territory is a "municipal island"9 and the main body of

      9Municipal islands are portions of a municipality separated
from the main body of the municipality.    Municipal islands are
created via annexation, either because a municipality has
annexed the island, or because a municipality has annexed
territory in such a way as to isolate a portion of another
municipality. No party disputes that municipal islands created
by annexation are themselves permissible.     This court said as
much in Town of Blooming Grove v. City of Madison, 275 Wis. 342,
347-48 81 N.W.2d 721 (1957), when it held that the City of
Madison was not prohibited from annexing portions of the Town of
Blooming Grove in such a way that separated unincorporated
portions of Blooming Grove from one another.

                                                 12
the municipality is located elsewhere in the district.                                        The

Legislature refers to this as "political contiguity."                                  Adopting

the concept of political contiguity would essentially require us

to   read     an    exception       into       the       contiguity      requirements——that

district territory must be physically touching, except when the

territory is a detached section of a municipality located in the

same district.

       ¶19    We decline to read a political contiguity exception

into Article IV's contiguity requirements.                            The text contains no
such    exception.          Both    Section          4    and    Section    5    include      the

discrete requirement that districts be composed of contiguous

territory.          There     are    no    exceptions            to    contiguity       in     the

constitution's        text,    either          overt      or    fairly    implied.          True,

assembly      districts       must     also          be    "in    as     compact       form    as

practicable"        and    "bounded       by    county,         precinct,       town   or     ward

lines," but the existence of additional requirements does not

constrain      or    limit     the     separate            requirement      that       district

territory be contiguous.

       ¶20    Contiguity is binary:                  territory is either contiguous

(touching, in contact) or it is not (separate, detached).                                      See
Johnson v. State, 366 S.W.3d 11, 24, 30 (Mo. 2012) (en banc)

(describing contiguity as "an absolute standard that either is

satisfied or not satisfied by the challenged map" because it is

"free    of    any        phrase    that        could       broaden       the     meaning      of

'contiguous.'").           In this respect, the contiguity requirements

are unlike, for example, the provision of Article IV, Section 4
that requires districts be "in as compact form as practicable."

                                                13
Contiguity is not required only when it is practicable——it is a

constitutional imperative for all districts.

                                 B.     Precedent

       ¶21     This straightforward understanding of contiguity has

been twice confirmed by this court: first in Chicago & Northwest

Railway Co. v. Town of Oconto, 50 Wis. 189, 196, 6 N.W. 607

(1880), and then twelve years later in State ex rel. Lamb v.

Cunningham, 83 Wis. 90, 148, 53 N.W. 35 (1892).                 In Oconto, we

determined         that    "separate,     detached"     territory    was   not
contiguous:

       To so construe the constitution as to [allow towns to]
       be composed of separate, detached, and non-contiguous
       territory, would most unquestionably restrict the
       sovereign power of the legislature in the organization
       of   assembly  districts  'consisting   of  contiguous
       territory, and bounded by county, precinct, town, or
       ward lines.' Article 4, § 4, Const.10
50 Wis. at 196.           In Lamb, we addressed the question of district

contiguity head on, stating that Article IV, Section 4 "requires

that        each   assembly    district       must   consist   of   contiguous

territory; that is to say, it cannot be made up of two or more

pieces of detached territory."                Lamb, 83 Wis. at 148. Simply

put, this court understood the contiguity requirement to mean

just what it says:            Districts must be made up of contiguous

       This court later clarified that Oconto's holding on town
       10

contiguity did not prohibit municipalities from annexing
territory in a way that created municipal islands, reasoning in
part that annexation of some areas within a town did not change
town boundaries, which stretched across both incorporated and
unincorporated areas.    Thus, all parts of the town remained
contiguous. Town of Blooming Grove v. City of Madison, 275 Wis.
342, 346-47, 81 N.W.2d 721 (1957).     Blooming Grove expressly
declined to address the impact of town contiguity on legislative
districts, and did not revise our underlying definition of
contiguity itself. Id. at 346-48.

                                         14
territory——i.e., territory that is not separate or detached, but

physically touching.

       ¶22    Respondents argue that this court's Johnson decisions

support      their    position——that      the    contiguity    requirements    are

satisfied even when a district includes detached territory, so

long as that territory is a municipal island.                  The following is

the full extent of our municipal island analysis in Johnson I:

       Article IV, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution
       further commands assembly districts be "contiguous,"
       which generally means 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
       (1892).   If annexation by municipalities creates a
       municipal "island," however, the district containing
       detached portions of the municipality is legally
       contiguous even if the area around the island is part
       of a different district.     Prosser v. Elections Bd.,
       793 F. Supp. 859, 866 (W.D. Wis. 1992).
Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶36.                We twice repeated our cursory

treatment of contiguity in Johnson II and Johnson III.                         See

Johnson II, 400 Wis. 2d 626, ¶36; Johnson III, 401 Wis. 2d 198,

¶70.

       ¶23    We     take    a   moment   to     briefly   examine   Prosser    v.

Elections Board, 793 F. Supp. 859 (W.D. Wis. 1992), the source

of     Johnson     I's      proposition   that     districts   can   be   legally

contiguous if they include detached portions of a municipality.

In Prosser, a federal district court determined that lack of

contiguity in legislative maps was not "a serious demerit," and

noted    that      the   Wisconsin    Legislature      "treat[ed]    islands   as

contiguous with the cities or villages to which they belong."

Prosser, 793 F. Supp. at 866.             The Prosser court did not examine

                                          15
this court's precedent, but instead cited to two statutes,11 one

of   which        had    been   repealed   by   the     time   of    our       Johnson   I

decision.         Id.

       ¶24 Our reliance on Prosser was in error.                       To the extent

that        Johnson's      passing    statements        about       the        contiguity

requirements of Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 represent binding

precedent, we overrule them.               As a court, "we have repeatedly

recognized the importance of stare decisis to the rule of law."

State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, ¶19, 407 Wis. 2d 195, 990 N.W.2d
174.        But    one    situation   in   which   we    may    depart     from     stare

decisis is when a decision is "unsound in principle" because it

"misapplies        the    Wisconsin   Constitution."           State      v.    Roberson,

2019 WI 102, ¶51, 389 Wis. 2d 190, 935 N.W.2d 813.                             Johnson is

unsound in principle because it misapplied the constitution in

three ways.             First, Johnson failed to analyze the contiguity

requirements evident in the text of the constitution.                             Second,

Johnson did not attempt to square its view of contiguity with

the court's precedential decisions regarding the constitution's

contiguity requirements in Oconto or Lamb.                       Third, Johnson I

relied entirely upon Prosser12 which itself ignored the ordinary
meaning of the constitutional text and instead pointed to two

statutes, one of which had been repealed by the time of the

Johnson I decision.              Under these circumstances, we would "do

       Namely, Wis. Stat. §§ 4.001(3); 5.15(1)(b) (1991-92).
       11

Neither statute defines what the constitution requires, and in
any event, § 4.001(3) was repealed in 2011. 2011 Wis. Act 43.
§ 2.

       We note that "federal district court cases are not
       12

binding authority on this court."    State v. Wood, 2010 WI 17,
¶18, 323 Wis. 2d 321, 780 N.W.2d 63.

                                           16
more damage to the rule of law by obstinately refusing to admit

[our] error, thereby perpetuating injustice, than by" overruling

this    part    of    Johnson.           Roberson,    389    Wis. 2d 190,            ¶49.        We

therefore      hold     that,      notwithstanding          any     statements            to   the

contrary in Johnson, Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 mean what they

say——districts must be composed of contiguous territory; i.e.,

territory that is touching, not separate or detached.

                              C.    Persuasive Authority

       ¶25     Although       we     are      not     bound        by        other        states'
interpretations         of    district       contiguity       requirements,               we    are

persuaded      by     their    near-uniform          acceptance         that       "contiguous

territory"      does     indeed      mean    territory       that       is    touching,        not

separate or detached.13              See, e.g., Below v. Gardner, 963 A.2d

785, 792 (N.H. 2002) ("Courts generally agree that contiguous

territory is territory that touches, adjoins or is connected, as

distinguished          from    territory       that     is        separated          by     other

territory."); In re Legislative Districting of State, 475 A.2d

428,    437     (Md.    1982)       ("[C]ontiguous          territory         is     territory

touching,       adjoining          and    connected,        as     distinguished               from

territory separated by other territory."); Hickel v. Se. Conf.,
846    P.2d     38,     45    (Alaska       1992)     ("Contiguous            territory         is

       See Yunsieg P. Kim & Jowei Chen, Gerrymandered by
       13

Definition: The Distortion of "Traditional" Districting Criteria
and A Proposal for Their Empirical Redefinition, 2021 Wis. L.
Rev. 101, 167 (noting that 49 states have imposed contiguity
requirements on their legislative maps); Richard G. Niemi, The
Relationship Between Votes and Seats: The Ultimate Question in
Political Gerrymandering, 33 UCLA L. Rev. 185, 187 (1985) ("That
political districts should be contiguous——that all parts of a
district should be connected——is not likely to be important in
gerrymandering     cases     because    it     is     relatively
noncontroversial.").

                                              17
territory which is bordering or touching."); Sherill v. O'Brien,

81 N.E. 124, 131 (N.Y. 1907) ("The ordinary and plain meaning of

the words 'contiguous territory' is not territory nearby, in the

neighborhood or locality of, but territory touching, adjoining,

and    connected,      as    distinguished       from   territory   separated     by

other territory.").               This understanding of contiguous remains

the same even for states, like ours, that allow non-contiguous

municipal annexation.              See, e.g., Stephenson v. Bartlett, 582

S.E.2d 247, 254 (N.C. 2003) (upholding a lower court decision
holding that contiguity means sharing "a common boundary", even

though N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-58.1 allows for non-contiguous

municipal annexation).              Clearly, the holding of this court is

not novel.           We are simply giving effect to a constitutional

contiguity requirement as so many other courts have done.

       ¶26   The few contiguity-related issues that other courts

have genuinely grappled with               are edge cases that          arise when

district     territory        is     connected     only   by   water,      or   when

contiguity      is    technically      achieved,    but   barely    (for    example,

when territory is connected only at a single point).                       When edge

cases arise, courts still understand that parts of a district
may not be separated by other districts.                  See Wilkins v. West,

571    S.E.2d    100,       109     (Va.   2002)   (holding    a    district     was

contiguous over water, while noting that "clearly, a district

that contained two sections completely severed by another land

mass    would        not    meet    this    constitutional     requirement       [of

contiguity].").            In other words, the existence of edge cases
does not justify abandoning the requirement that territory must

                                           18
indeed be touching to be contiguous.                 To clarify matters for the

remedial process, we discuss these ancillary issues next.

        D.   Ancillary Issues: Water Contiguity and Touch-Point
                               Contiguity

      ¶27     Like many other states, Wisconsin's geography is such

that certain districts span bodies of water.14                     This does not, by

itself,      violate     the   contiguity        requirement.       A    district    can

still be contiguous if it contains territory with portions of

land separated by water.             See Johnson v. State, 366 S.W.3d at 31

(noting       that      "the      dictionary       definition       of    'territory'

references        a    geographic    area   without       regard    to    whether    the

portions of the land within the geographic area are split by

large rivers or other bodies of water.").                   This understanding of

water contiguity is common in states that include or border

bodies of water.           See, e.g., Wilkins, 571 S.E.2d at 109 ("[N]o

one     disputes        that   the    geography      and     population      of     this

Commonwealth necessitate that some electoral districts include

water, and that land masses separated by water may nevertheless

satisfy the contiguity requirement in certain circumstances.");
Hickel, 846 P.2d at 45 ("Absolute contiguity of land masses is

impossible        in    Alaska,    considering      her    numerous      archipelagos.

Accordingly, a contiguous district may contain some amount of

open sea."); Parella v. Montalbano, 899 A.2d 1226, 1255 (R.I.

2006)      ("In   the    instant     matter,     while    the   districts     are    not

contiguous on land, this Court finds that the districts are

       For instance, Madeline Island in Ashland County does not
      14

have sufficient population to constitute its own district, so
any district that includes it will have to span across a portion
of Lake Superior.

                                            19
contiguous on the basis of shore-to-shore contiguity.").                   As in

these states, the fact that a district's territory includes land

separated by water will not, by itself, defeat the contiguity

requirements in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5.

       ¶28   In addition to water-contiguity, we must also address

the issue of "touch-point contiguity."               Touch-point contiguity

occurs when territory is contiguous only because it is joined at

a single point.        Some states allow touch-point contiguity, and

some do not.        Compare Stephenson, 582 S.E.2d at 254 (affirming a
trial court's finding that "a district whose parts are 'held

together' by the mathematical concept of 'point contiguity' does

not meet the . . . criteria for contiguity."), with In re 1983

Legislative Apportionment of House, Senate, & Cong. Districts,

469 A.2d 819, 831 (Me. 1983) (holding that a district that was

contiguous only at a single point "approach[ed] the limits of

what    is   constitutionally        permissible,"     but   still   met     the

contiguity requirement).

       ¶29   For our purposes, since territory that touches at a

single point is indeed touching, touch-point contiguity alone

does not violate the contiguity requirement.                 Although touch-
point contiguity can be a "sign that traditional districting

criteria     were    compromised,"    Covington   v.   North   Carolina,     316

F.R.D. 117, 141 (M.D.N.C. 2016), aff'd, 581 U.S. 1015 (2017)

(citing Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 636 (1993)), such concerns

are better addressed by examining redistricting criteria as a

                                       20
whole rather than complicating the otherwise simple contiguity

requirement.15

                   E.     The Current Maps' Non-Contiguity

     ¶30    Having      determined     that    "contiguous      territory"     means

that the territory must be actually touching, we now turn to the

current    legislative        maps.     We    examine   the    current     maps   and

conclude     that       the     non-contiguous      districts        violate      the

requirements set out in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 of the

Wisconsin Constitution.
     ¶31    None     of       the   parties    disputes       that   the    current

legislative    maps       contain     districts    with   discrete       pieces   of

territory that are not in actual contact with the rest of the

district.     We again look at the example of Assembly District 47

which plainly includes separate, detached parts:

     15A district with only touch-point contiguity may not be as
compact as reasonably practicable, for example. See Wis. Const.
art. IV, §§ 4-5.

                                         21
    ¶32   Assembly district 53 in the Oshkosh area is another

such example, with multiple separate, detached parts:

                               22
Assembly district 68 in the Eau Claire area (in yellow below) is

another:

                               23
    ¶33    Many senate districts also contain separate, detached

parts.     District 22 in the Racine area, shown in orange and

purple below, is one example:

District   27,   shown   in   orange,    purple,   and   green   below,   is

another:

                                    24
       ¶34    In total, at least 50 assembly districts and at least

20 senate districts include separate, detached parts.                                   That is

to say, a majority of the districts in both the assembly and the

senate   do    not     consist       of    "contiguous           territory"          within   the

meaning of Article IV, Section 4, nor are they "of convenient

contiguous territory" within the meaning of Article IV, Section

5.     Therefore,       we    hold       that    the        non-contiguous          legislative

districts violate the Wisconsin Constitution.

       ¶35    We would be remiss to end our discussion on contiguity
without emphasizing that contiguity is "not just a gracenote in

the score of democracy; it is crucial, both practically and

theoretically."         Daniel D. Polsby & Robert D. Popper, The Third

Criterion:      Compactness          as     a        Procedural       Safeguard          Against

Partisan Gerrymandering, 9 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 301, 330 (1991).

The contiguity requirement (along with compactness) helps make

for    districts       that        are    more        geographically               cohesive——and

therefore more likely to reflect a reasonably homogeneous slate

of interests than districts with scattered pockets of isolated

communities.       Additionally, drafters of contiguity requirements

have viewed contiguity as no mere technical requirement, but as
an    important       tool    to     constrain             districting        practices       they

consider undesirable.              See Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___,

139 S. Ct. 2484, 2495 (2019) (noting that the Apportionment Act

of    1842    required       contiguity         "in        an   attempt       to    forbid    the

practice of the gerrymander"); Pearson v. Koster, 359 S.W.3d 35,

38    (Mo.    2012)     (stating         that        the    purpose      of     a    contiguity
requirement was "to guard, as far as practicable, under the

system of representation adopted, against a legislative evil,

                                                25
commonly known as the gerrymander" (citation omitted)); Hickel,

846 P.2d at 45 ("[T]he requirements of contiguity, compactness

and socio-economic integration were incorporated by the framers

of the reapportionment provisions to prevent gerrymandering").

We decline to chip away at such a consequential districting

requirement      by     approving     an        exception      not     found     in    our

constitution's text.

                                III.       DEFENSES

      ¶36   Having determined that the non-contiguous legislative

districts violate the Wisconsin Constitution, we now turn to

Respondents' motion to dismiss and explain why none of their

proffered     defenses     preclude        us     from       holding     in    favor     of

Petitioners on the merits.

      ¶37   In     their   motion      to       dismiss       and    other      briefing,

Respondents maintain that Petitioners lack standing to challenge

the contiguity of the current legislative districts, and that

their claims are barred by laches, preclusion, and estoppel.

Additionally,         Respondents     contend         that      this     case     is    an

impermissible      collateral       attack       on   this     court's    judgment       in

Johnson III, and that, as a result, neither the declaratory nor

the   injunctive       relief   Petitioners           seek    is    available.16         We

conclude    that      Respondents'     defenses        do     not    apply,     and    that

       Respondents also make a brief argument that adjudicating
      16

this case in Petitioners' favor will violate Respondents' due
process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. These arguments are underdeveloped, and as
such, we do not address them.   See Casanova v. Polsky, 2023 WI
19, ¶44, 406 Wis. 2d 247, 986 N.W.2d 780 ("[W]e need not address
underdeveloped arguments.").

                                           26
declaratory and injunctive relief are available.           Accordingly,

we deny the motion to dismiss.17

                              A.    Standing

     ¶38   At the outset, we deny Respondents' motion to dismiss

for lack of standing.     The Governor indisputably has standing,

and that is all that is required for this case to proceed.

     ¶39   Respondents   do   not   argue   that   the   Governor   lacks

standing, nor could they.     Our cases make clear that "the state,

acting either through the Governor or the Attorney General, may

challenge the constitutionality of a state reapportionment plan

as a violation of state constitutional rights of the citizens."

State ex rel. Reynolds v. Zimmerman, 22 Wis. 2d 544, 552, 126

N.W.2d 551 (1964) (emphasis added).18          Importantly, as long as

     17The Clarke and Wright Petitioners assert that the motion
to dismiss is procedurally improper because the rules governing
original actions do not permit it, see Wis. Stat. § (Rule)
809.70, and because we implicitly rejected these arguments when
we granted in part leave to commence this original action.
Since we reject Respondents' arguments on the merits, we need
not address the procedural propriety of the motion.
     18 State ex rel. Reynolds v. Zimmerman, 22 Wis. 2d 544, 126
N.W.2d 551 (1964) involved a challenge based on equal
population, but it supported its proposition that the governor
had standing by pointing to cases in which the executive branch
challenged maps on other state constitutional grounds, including
contiguity. Id. at 552 n.3 (citing State ex rel. Att'y Gen. v.
Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440, 51 N.W. 724 (1892)). Therefore, it is
difficult to see why Reynolds' holding would be limited to equal
population   challenges,  particularly  given   Reynolds'  broad
language referring to "violation[s] of state constitutional
rights of the citizens." Id. at 552.

                                    27
one of the Petitioners has standing, this case may proceed.19

See City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg, 112 Wis. 2d 224, 232,

332 N.W.2d 782 (1983) ("Having determined that one party has

standing to maintain this action, we next turn to the merits.");

see also Chi. Joe's Tea Room, LLC v. Vill. of Broadview, 894

F.3d 807, 813 (7th Cir. 2018) ("As long as there is at least one

individual       plaintiff    who   has   demonstrated    standing      to   assert

these rights as his own, a court need not consider whether the

other plaintiffs . . . have standing to maintain the suit."
(quoting Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1070 (7th Cir. 2009))

(quotation marks omitted)).               Accordingly, we need not address

Respondents' standing arguments further.

  B.        Laches, Issue Preclusion, Claim Preclusion, and Judicial
                                  Estoppel

       ¶40     For a myriad of reasons, Respondents have failed to

demonstrate that Petitioners' claims are barred by laches, issue

preclusion, claim preclusion, or judicial estoppel.

                                    1.    Laches

       ¶41     Laches is an affirmative defense that applies when the

failure to promptly bring a claim prejudices the party defending

against       that   claim.     See   Wis.     Small   Bus.   United,    Inc.    v.

Brennan, 2020 WI 69, ¶12, 393 Wis. 2d 308, 946 N.W.2d 101.                        A

laches defense has three elements:                 "(1) a party unreasonably

delays in bringing a claim; (2) a second party lacks knowledge

       The fact that the Governor is an intervenor-petitioner is
       19

immaterial.    When a party intervenes, they become "a full
participant in the proceedings, having all the same rights as
all other parties to the action."     Democratic Nat'l Comm. v.
Bostelmann, 2020 WI 80, ¶9, 394 Wis. 2d 33, 949 N.W.2d 423.

                                          28
that the first party would raise that claim; and (3) the second

party is prejudiced by the delay."                      Id. (citing State ex rel.

Wren    v.    Richardson,         2019   WI    110,    ¶15,    389    Wis. 2d 516,       936

N.W.2d 587).

       ¶42     Respondents have failed to demonstrate two necessary

elements of laches: unreasonable delay and prejudice.                              Taking

unreasonable delay first, this case was filed less than a year-

and-a-half      after        Johnson     III    adopted       the    state   legislative

district maps at issue in this case.                    Johnson III was decided on
April    15,    2022,    the      last   possible       day    for    districts     to   be

established prior to the 2022 fall elections.                         See Johnson III,

401 Wis. 2d 198, ¶138 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring)

(explaining that "Wisconsin law authorizes candidates to begin

circulating nomination papers for [the fall] primary on April

15.").       Petitioners ran out of time and could not obtain relief

prior to the 2022 elections.                   As a result, Petitioners decided

to request relief in time for the 2024 elections——the soonest

elections for which relief could be granted. Given the timing of

legislative elections, filing this case in August of 2023 is not

unreasonable delay.               See also State ex rel. Lopez-Quintero v.
Dittmann,      2019     WI    58,    ¶28       387    Wis. 2d 50,      928   N.W.2d      480

("'[T]he overriding responsibility of [the Supreme] Court is to

the Constitution of the United States' and of this court, to the

Wisconsin Constitution as well, 'no matter how late it may be

that    a    violation       of    the   Constitution         is    found    to   exist.'"

(quoting Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 165 (1957))).
       ¶43     As for prejudice, Respondents have not demonstrated

any relevant prejudice stemming from Petitioners' delay.                                 The

                                               29
only    harms     Respondents     cite   are     litigation    costs    (both    in

Johnson and in this case) and vague assertions about disruption

to the status quo.          But litigation costs alone cannot constitute

prejudice for laches purposes, and any disruption to the current

state legislative districts is necessary to serve the public's

interest     in    having    districts    that    comply   with   each    of    the

requirements of the Wisconsin Constitution.                See, e.g., Goodman

v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 606 F.2d 800, 808 (8th Cir. 1979)

(rejecting the argument that "the cost of litigation . . . by
itself could constitute prejudice within the contemplation of a

laches defense.").          Accordingly, we hold that laches does not

apply.20

                             2.   Issue Preclusion

       ¶44   Issue    preclusion    is    an   equitable      defense   that    "is

designed to limit the relitigation of issues that have been

actually litigated in a previous action."                  Dostal v. Strand,

2023 WI 6, ¶22, 405 Wis. 2d 572, 984 N.W.2d 382 (quoting Aldrich

v. LIRC, 2012 WI 53, ¶88, 341 Wis. 2d 36, 814 N.W.2d 433).                       In

an issue preclusion analysis, we determine:                   (1) whether issue

preclusion can be applied as a matter of law, and (2) if so,

whether applying issue preclusion would be "fundamentally fair."

Id., ¶23.         Issue preclusion can be applied as a matter of law

       We also note that this case is distinguishable from Trump
       20

v. Biden, 2020 WI 91, Wis. 2d 629, 951 N.W.2d 568, where we were
asked to overturn the results of a legally conducted election,
and we held that several of the claims failed under the doctrine
of laches.     Here we are asked to determine whether state
legislative maps are constitutional, and because we determine
they are not, we establish a process going forward so that
constitutional maps are adopted in time for the next election.

                                         30
when    a    factual      or     legal     issue       was     "actually       litigated       and

determined in the prior proceeding by a valid judgment in a

previous action" and "the determination was essential to the

judgment."         Id., ¶24; see also N. States Power Co. v. Bugher,

189 Wis. 2d 541, 550-51, 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995).

       ¶45    Issue preclusion does not bar Petitioners' contiguity

claims       because       contiguity          was      not     actually         litigated      in

Johnson.21         In Johnson, all agreed that the state legislative

districts         enacted        in     2011     were         unconstitutional           due    to
population         shifts      that     occurred        prior       to   the     2020     census.

Johnson      I,    Wis. 2d 623,         ¶2.       The    sole       claim   in    Johnson       was

malapportionment.              Of import, none of the parties argued that

either      the    2011     state       legislative          districts      or    any     of   the

parties'          proposed       remedial         district           maps      violated        the

constitution's           contiguity        requirements.                 Indeed,     in     their

briefing, the Johnson parties scarcely mentioned contiguity at

all.         As    discussed          above,     when        the    parties       did     mention

contiguity, they primarily cited Prosser, 793 F. Supp. at 866, a

non-binding            federal        district        court        decision,       which       said

(contrary         to    this     court's       prior     precedent),           the      Wisconsin

       Since we determine that issue preclusion cannot be
       21

applied because Petitioners' contiguity claim was not actually
litigated, we do not reach the second question of whether the
application of issue preclusion is "fundamentally fair."   See
Dostal v. Strand, 2023 WI 6, ¶23, 405 Wis. 2d 572, 984 N.W.2d
382.

                                                 31
constitution    does     not    require    "literal    contiguity."22    Under

these circumstances, we hold that no party in Johnson "actually

litigated"     whether    the     current      state   legislative   districts

satisfy Article IV, Sections 4 and 5's contiguity requirements.23

Therefore, issue preclusion does not apply in this case.

    22 Moreover, before we decided Johnson I, we ordered the
parties to submit a joint stipulation of facts and law. In that
joint stipulation, the parties agreed that "[c]ontiguity for
state assembly districts is satisfied when a district boundary
follows municipal boundaries.   Municipal 'islands' are legally
contiguous with the municipality to which the 'island' belongs."
This further underscores the fact that no party in Johnson
actually litigated the issue of contiguity.    See also City of
Sheboygan v. Nytsch, 2006 WI App 191, ¶12, 296 Wis. 2d 73, 722
N.W.2d 626 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 cmt.
e (1982)) (explaining an issue is not actually litigated for
issue-preclusion purposes when the issue is resolved by
stipulation of the parties), vacated in part on other grounds
2008 WI 64, ¶5, 310 Wis. 2d 337, 750 N.W.2d 475.        Such an
agreement also undermines Respondents' argument that judicial
estoppel should bar the Petitioners' contiguity claim, as will
be explained later.
    23 Even if contiguity were actually litigated, the Clarke
Petitioners (and several of the Wright Petitioners) were not
parties in Johnson, nor do they have a "sufficient identity of
interest" with any of the Johnson parties to preclude them from
litigating the issue here.   See Paige K.B. ex rel. Peterson v.
Steven G.B., 226 Wis. 2d 210, 223, 594 N.W.2d 370 (1999).    The
United States Supreme Court has emphasized that applying "issue
preclusion to nonparties" raises due process issues and "runs up
against the 'deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should
have his [or her] own day in court.'"    Taylor v. Sturgell, 553
U.S. 880, 892-93 (2008) (quoting Richards v. Jefferson County,
517 U.S. 793, 798 (1996)). Respondents' only argument regarding
the Clarke Petitioners is that they have sufficient identity of
interest with the parties in Johnson since some of the Clarke
Petitioners' attorneys represented other parties in Johnson.
But the identity of the lawyers hired by the Clarke Petitioners
is irrelevant to whether the Clarke Petitioners' due process
rights were protected.   See Taylor, 553 U.S. at 892-93.   Thus,
our decisions in Johnson cannot preclude the Clarke Petitioners
from raising the contiguity issue here.

                                          32
                                 3.    Claim Preclusion

    ¶46        We     also     reject        Respondents'      argument     that      the

Governor's      and     the    Wright    Petitioners'       contiguity     claims     are

barred    by    claim       preclusion.        Unlike   issue     preclusion,       which

applies only to issues that were actually litigated in a prior

proceeding,         claim     preclusion       prevents     relitigation       of    "all

matters 'which were litigated or which might have been litigated

in the former proceedings.'"                 Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43,

¶19, 279 Wis. 2d 520, 694 N.W.2d 879 (quoting Sopha v. Owens-

Corning Fiberglas Corp., 230 Wis. 2d 212, 233, 601 N.W.2d 627

(1999)).            Claim    preclusion       has   three      requirements:        "(1)

identity between the parties or their privies in the prior and

present suits; (2) prior litigation resulted in a final judgment

on the merits by a court with jurisdiction; and (3) identity of

the causes of action in the two suits."                        Sopha, 230 Wis.2d at

233-34.

    ¶47        Claim preclusion does not apply to the Governor's or

the Wright Petitioners' claims because this case and Johnson

involve    different          causes    of   action.      In    determining     whether

causes of action are identical for claim-preclusion purposes,

Wisconsin      applies        the     "transactional      approach,"      which     views

claims "in factual terms and coterminous with the transaction,

rather than in terms of legal theories."                          Fed. Nat'l Mortg.

Ass'n v. Thompson, 2018 WI 57, ¶¶33-34, 381 Wis. 2d 609, 912

N.W.2d 364.          Put another way, we look to whether there is a

shared set of operative facts at issue in the two proceedings,

not whether the two cases involved similar or related legal
theories.       See id., ¶34.

                                              33
      ¶48   Applying the transactional approach, we conclude that

the   causes     of   action     in   Johnson     and    here      are   fundamentally

different.       Johnson involved claims regarding the legislatively

enacted        2011      state        legislative         maps        which        became

unconstitutionally         malapportioned           after       the      2020   census.

Everyone       agreed     that        the    maps       were     unconstitutionally

malapportioned.         The operative facts in Johnson thus concerned

only the 2011 maps and the 2020 census results.                          In this case,

by contrast, the Governor and the Wright Petitioners argue that
the Johnson remedy was unconstitutional on grounds not raised in

Johnson.     None of the apportionment facts underlying Johnson are

relevant    to    that   remedy       question;     only       the    maps   the   court

adopted     at    the    conclusion         of   that       case      are    pertinent.

Therefore, the judgment in Johnson does not preclude either the

Governor's or Wright Petitioners' contiguity claims.24

                            4.    Judicial Estoppel

      ¶49   Respondents also contend that the Governor and Wright

Petitioners are judicially estopped from asserting contiguity

       Additionally, because claim preclusion requires "identity
      24

between the parties or their privies in the prior and present
suits," it cannot apply to Wright Petitioners Atkinson, Kane,
and Dudley, who were not parties in Johnson.      Kruckenberg v.
Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶21, 279 Wis. 2d 520, 694 N.W.2d 879.
Although the Legislature argues that these individuals may be
precluded based on their "identity of interest" with the other
Wright   Petitioners,  the    case they   cite  involves   issue
preclusion, not claim preclusion.        See Paige K.B., 226
Wis. 2d at 226. In the claim-preclusion context, privity or an
"absolute identity of interest," such as successorship-in-
interest, is required. Pasko v. City of Milwaukee, 2002 WI 33,
¶18, 252 Wis. 2d 1, 643 N.W.2d 72. Because Respondents have not
established such a relationship, claim preclusion cannot be
applied to these individuals.

                                            34
arguments    inconsistent       with       those    asserted        in   Johnson.         See

Mrozek v. Intra Fin. Corp., 2005 WI 73, ¶22, 281 Wis. 2d 448,

699   N.W.2d 54       ("Judicial       estoppel        precludes         a    party      from

asserting     one     position        in     a     legal       proceeding         and    then

subsequently asserting an inconsistent position.").                               There are

three requirements for applying judicial estoppel:                                "(1) the

later position must be clearly inconsistent with the earlier

position; (2) the facts at issue should be the same in both

cases; and (3) the party to be estopped must have convinced the
first court to adopt its position."                  Salveson v. Douglas County,

2001 WI 100, ¶38, 245 Wis. 2d 497, 630 N.W.2d 182.                                Even when

all   of    these    elements    are       met,    the      court    applies       judicial

estoppel at its discretion.                See State v. Harrison, 2020 WI 35,

¶21, 391 Wis. 2d 161, 942 N.W.2d 310.                    Because judicial estoppel

is meant to prevent "cold manipulation and not unthinking or

confused blunder, it has never been applied where plaintiff's

assertions     were    based     on     fraud,      inadvertence,            or   mistake."

State v. Petty, 201           Wis. 2d 337, 347, 548 N.W.2d 817                          (1996)

(citing State v. Fleming, 181 Wis. 2d 546, 558, 510 N.W.2d 837

(Ct. App. 1993)).
      ¶50    We     decline     to    exercise        our      discretion         to    apply

judicial estoppel here.              Even assuming the elements of judicial

estoppel were met, there are compelling public policy reasons

why   this   court     should    not       exercise      its    discretion        to    apply

estoppel in this case.               As for the Governor, "[a]s a general

rule the doctrine of estoppel will not be applied against the
public, the United States government, or the state governments,

where the application of that doctrine would encroach upon the

                                            35
sovereignty          of    the    government        and      interfere    with   the   proper

discharge of governmental duties."                           Park Bldg. Corp. v. Indus.

Comm'n, 9 Wis. 2d 78, 88, 100 N.W.2d 571 (1960) (quoting P.H.

Vartanian, Comment Note, Applicability of Doctrine of Estoppel

Against       Government         and    its    Governmental         Agencies,    1   A.L.R.2d

338,        340-41        (1948)).            Additionally,         given    the     parties'

stipulation           in     Johnson,         it        is    difficult     to      view   any

inconsistency in position as "cold manipulation" which judicial

estoppel seeks to deter.                       Instead any inconsistency is more
easily explained as "inadvertence" or "mistake," which does not

merit judicial estoppel.                 Given our past case law on contiguity,

as well as the primacy of our constitution, preventing parties

from litigating this issue would not serve the goals of this

doctrine.       Therefore, we decline to apply judicial estoppel.

                                 C.    Availability of Relief

       ¶51 Respondents contend that this case should be dismissed

because it is an impermissible collateral attack on this court's

judgment in          Johnson III.              According to the Respondents, the

relief Petitioners seek is unavailable as a result.

       ¶52     This argument comes in two parts.                       First, Respondents

argue that a declaratory judgment is unavailable because the

Declaratory Judgments Act, Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (2021-22),25 does

not    allow         the    court       to     declare        its   own     prior    judgment

       All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are
       25

to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise indicated.

                                                   36
unconstitutional.26         Second, Respondents assert that in order to

challenge this court's judgment in Johnson III, Petitioners must

either:     (a) demonstrate that the judgment was either issued

without jurisdiction or procured by fraud; or (b) move to reopen

or modify the judgment under Wis. Stat. § 806.07.                  Respondents

urge that since Petitioners have done neither, the judgment in

Johnson III may not be disturbed.

     ¶53    Respondents first argue that declaratory judgment is

unavailable under the Declaratory Judgments Act.                   Respondents
point to Wis. Stat. § 806.04(2), which provides that courts may

issue declarations resolving "any question of construction or

validity    arising    under"    a   "deed,   will,   written     contract,   or

other writings constituting a contract" or "a statute, municipal

ordinance, contract or franchise."             Because prior judgments of

this court are absent from this list, Respondents reason that we

cannot     declare    the    state   legislative      districts    adopted    in

Johnson III unconstitutional.          But Respondents ignore Wis. Stat.

§ 806.04(1) and (5), which together make clear that we "have

power to declare rights, status and other legal relations" and

that sub. (2) "does not limit or restrict the exercise of" that

     26In a single sentence in both its opening brief and motion
to   dismiss,   the   Legislature  additionally    asserts  that
declaratory relief is unavailable because Petitioners have not
complied with Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11), which requires that "all
persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest
which would be affected by the declaration."    This argument is
underdeveloped.   The Legislature cites no authority suggesting
that dismissal is the proper remedy for failing to comply with
§ 806.04(11) and, in any event, the prevailing parties in
Johnson are parties to this case.    Accordingly, we decline to
address this argument further. See Casanova v. Polsky, 2023 WI
19, ¶44, 406 Wis. 2d 247, 986 N.W.2d 780 ("[W]e need not address
underdeveloped arguments.").

                                       37
general power.              See § 806.04(5) (emphasis added).                     For this

reason, the non-exhaustive list in § 806.04(2) does not prohibit

the     court    from       issuing   the     declaratory         relief      Petitioners

request.

      ¶54   Respondents' assertion that injunctive relief is not

available in this case is similarly unavailing.                              The argument

that injunctive relief is available only by "reopening" Johnson

and modifying its injunction under Wis. Stat. § 806.07 flies in

the face of decades of practice in redistricting cases.                                  The
court-ordered redistricting plan adopted by the federal court in

Prosser, 793 F. Supp. 859, was enjoined by the federal court in

Baumgart    v.    Wendelberger,        Nos.       01-C-0121,      02-C-0366,      2002    WL

34127471, at *8 (E.D. Wis. May 30, 2002).                         And Johnson itself

enjoined the use of a court-ordered plan adopted by the federal

courts in Baldus v. Members of Wis. Gov't Accountability Bd.,

862 F. Supp. 2d 860 (E.D. Wis. 2012).                      Yet neither the Johnson

nor Baumgart courts "reopened" these prior cases or modified the

injunctions issued in them.                Instead, those courts simply issued

their     own    injunctions,         superseding          the    previously        issued

injunctions.
      ¶55   In    summary,       we   determine         that    none    of   Respondents'

defenses preclude us from deciding this case on the merits.                               We

now turn to remedy.

                                      IV.    REMEDY

      ¶56   As    we    declared      above,       the    current      legislative    maps

contain districts that violate Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 of
the     Wisconsin      Constitution.              At    least    50    of    99   assembly

districts       and    at    least    20    of     33    senate       districts    contain

                                             38
territory completely disconnected from the rest of the district.

Given this pervasiveness, a remedy modifying the boundaries of

the non-contiguous districts will cause a ripple effect across

other areas of the state as populations are shifted throughout.

Consequently,       it    is      necessary      to    enjoin       the    use    of     the

legislative maps as a whole, rather than only the non-contiguous

districts.         We     therefore        enjoin      the     Wisconsin         Elections

Commission from using the current legislative maps in all future

elections.       Accordingly, remedial legislative district maps must
be adopted.       We recognize that next year's legislative elections

are fast-approaching, and that remedial maps must be adopted in

time for the fall primary in August 2024.                          With that in mind,

the following section first describes the role of the court in

the remedial process.             Second, we articulate the principles the

court    will    follow     when    adopting        remedial       maps.        Third,    we

explain    why    the     court    is     denying      Petitioners'        quo    warranto

claim.    We conclude with the next steps in the remedial process.

                  A.     This Court's Role in Redistricting

    ¶57     It is essential to emphasize that the legislature, not

this court, has the primary authority and responsibility for
drawing    assembly      and     senate    districts.          Jensen      v.    Wisconsin

Elections Board, 2002 WI 13, ¶6, 249 Wis. 2d 706 (citing Wis.

Const.    art.    IV,    § 3).      Therefore,         when   an    existing      plan    is

declared        unconstitutional,          it     is     "appropriate,            whenever

practicable,       to     afford     a     reasonable         opportunity        for     the

legislature to meet constitutional requirements by adopting a
substitute       measure."         Wise    v.    Lipscomb,      437    U.S.      535,    540

(1978).     There may be exceptions to this general rule, but we

                                            39
decline Petitioners' request to apply one here.                                    Should the

legislative process produce a map that remedies the contiguity

issues discussed above, there would be no need for this court to

adopt remedial maps.

       ¶58    We remain cognizant, however, of the possibility that

the legislative process may not result in remedial maps.                                        In

such   an     instance,         it    is    this       court's    role       to   adopt    valid

remedial      maps.        Zimmerman,        22        Wis. 2d at      571    ("[W]e      do    not

abdicate      our       power    to    draft       and     execute       a    final    plan     of
apportionment which conforms to the requirements of art. IV,

Wis. Const., should the other arms of our state government be

unable to resolve their differences and adopt a valid plan.").

The United States Supreme Court has specifically recognized the

ability      of     a     state       judiciary          to     remedy       unconstitutional

legislative districts by crafting new remedial maps.                                   Growe v.

Emison,      507     U.S.       25,    33    (1993)           ("[S]tate      courts     have      a

significant role in redistricting.                        'The power of the judiciary

of a State to require valid reapportionment or to formulate a

valid redistricting plan has not only been recognized by this

Court but appropriate action by the States in such cases has
been specifically encouraged.'" (quoting Scott v. Germano, 381

U.S.   407,    409       (1965))).          And    this       court    has    exercised        such

authority in the past when faced with unconstitutional maps.

See,   e.g.,        Zimmerman,        22    Wis. 2d at          571;     Johnson      III,      401

Wis. 2d 198, ¶73.           If the legislative process does not result in

remedial legislative maps, then it will be the job of this court
to adopt remedial maps.

                                                  40
       ¶59    It is important (though perhaps obvious) to note that

although we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission's use of

the present maps because they contain districts that are non-

contiguous,       this       court        must        consider        other     districting

requirements, in addition to contiguity, when adopting remedial

maps.    Just as a court fashioning a remedy in an apportionment

challenge must ensure that remedial maps comply with state and

federal law, so too must this court in remedying a different

constitutional violation.
       ¶60    Before laying out the principles this court will use

in    adopting    remedial        maps,     we       pause     to    address    the     "least

change" approach articulated by this court in Johnson I.                                   The

parties differ over the extent to which this court should rely

on    least    change    in    our       evaluation           of    remedial    maps.      In

Respondents' view, least change should not just serve as one

principle among others, but as the predominant principle driving

the    court's    process     in     adopting          new    maps.        Petitioners,    by

contrast, offer various rationales for why least change should

not be applied at all.               For the reasons set forth below, this

court   will     not    consider         least       change    when       adopting   remedial
maps.

       ¶61    At first glance, the concept of least change might

appear simple.         At its most basic level, it is the idea that our

remedial maps "'should reflect the least change'" from the prior

maps    "necessary       .    .      .     to        comport       with     relevant     legal

requirements."          See Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶72 (quoting
Wright, 306 F. Supp. 2d at 1237).                        But as this court learned

during the Johnson litigation, what appeared simple in theory

                                                41
was far more complicated in reality.                       The fundamental problem in

Johnson was the inability of this court to agree upon the actual

meaning of "least change" in practice.                            Some members of the

court argued that least change simply meant "core retention——a

measure of voters who remain in their prior districts."                               Johnson

II, 400 Wis. 2d 626, ¶7 (explaining that core retention is "the

best    metric    of    least     change").               Others,    who    had    initially

endorsed the least-change approach, insisted that core retention

was "a previously unknown[] judicial test" and an "extra-legal
criterion,"      and    that    least     change          actually        meant   minimizing

population deviations or splits of local government units.                                  See

id., ¶¶67, 74-75 (Ziegler, C.J., dissenting); id., ¶211 (Rebecca

Grassl Bradley, J., dissenting).                      Because no majority of the

court agreed on what least change actually meant, the concept

amounted to little more than an unclear assortment of possible

redistricting      metrics.         The    Johnson          majority        opinions    never

fully    enumerated       these    metrics           or    explained       their    relative

importance,       let   alone     defined        a    least-change          approach    in    a

coherent way.       See Johnson III, 401 Wis. 2d 198, ¶¶71-72.

       ¶62   Additionally,        least     change          did     not    fit     easily    or
consistently       into     the     balance          of     other     requirements          and

considerations essential to the mapmaking process.                                As will be

discussed     below,      we      must    consider           numerous       constitutional

requirements when adopting remedial maps.                            We cannot allow a

judicially-created metric, not derived from the constitutional

text, to supersede the constitution.                        Conceivably, least change
(if    actually    agreed      upon)     could        be    relevant        to    traditional

districting criteria, commonly considered in redistricting but

                                            42
not constitutionally or statutorily mandated.                             See infra, ¶68.

In   that    instance,         least       change     would    be     secondary          to    the

constitutional       requirements           and     balanced       with     other       factors,

such as "preserving communities of interest."                             However, Johnson

I did not adopt a cabined approach to least change.                                     Instead,

Johnson I declared that the overarching approach to adopting

remedial     maps     was       for    them     to    "reflect        the       least     change

necessary"        from    the      previous         maps.      See        Johnson       I,     399

Wis. 2d 623, ¶72.
       ¶63   As     illustrated        across        the     course       of     the     Johnson

litigation, "least change" is unworkable in practice.                                  As such,

we overrule any portions of Johnson I, Johnson II, and Johnson

III that mandate a least change approach.                          See Johnson Controls,

Inc.   v.    Emps.       Ins.    of    Wausau,        2003    WI     108,       ¶¶98-99,       264

Wis. 2d 60, 665 N.W.2d 257 (explaining that the unworkability of

a decision is one justification for departing from precedent).

It is impractical and unfeasible to apply a standard that (1) is

based on fundamentals that never garnered consensus, and (2) is

in tension with established districting requirements.                                   Here we

must first focus on established districting requirements set out
in state and federal law, and only then on other districting

criteria.          With     that      in    mind,     we     set    out        the     following

principles    that        will     guide      the    court's       process       in     adopting

remedial maps.

                          B.     Redistricting Principles

       ¶64   The    following         principles       will    guide       our       process    in
adopting remedial legislative maps.                         First, the remedial maps

must comply with population equality requirements.                                    State and

                                               43
federal      law    require     a     state's     population       to    be    distributed

equally        amongst        legislative         districts       with        only     minor

deviations.        Wis. Const. art. IV, § 3; Zimmerman, 22 Wis. 2d at

555-56; U.S. Const. amend XIV; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533,

577-79 (1964).         When it comes to population equality, courts are

held to a higher standard than state legislatures as we have a

"judicial duty to 'achieve the goal of population equality with

little more than de minimis variation.'"                         Connor v. Finch, 431

U.S. 407, 420 (1977) (quoting Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 26-
27 (1975)); see Wis. State AFL-CIO v. Elections Bd., 543 F.

Supp. 630, 637 (E.D. Wis. 1982) (allowing a deviation of 1.74%

for    assembly      districts);       Prosser,      793    F.    Supp.       at   866,     870

(formulating a map with a total deviation of 0.52% and noting

that "[b]elow 1 percent, there are no legally or politically

relevant degrees of perfection"); Baumgart, 2002 WL 34127471, at

*7    (1.48%      deviation     for    assembly     districts);         Baldus,       849    F.

Supp. 2d at 851 (0.62% deviation for senate districts and 0.76%

for assembly districts); Johnson II, 400 Wis. 2d 626, ¶36 (1.20%

for senate districts and 1.88% for assembly districts); Johnson

III, 401 Wis. 2d 198, ¶61 (0.57% deviation for senate districts
and 0.76% deviation for assembly districts).

       ¶65     Second, districts must meet the basic requirements set

out    in    Article     IV    of    the   Wisconsin       Constitution.             Assembly

districts must be (a) bounded by county, precinct, town or ward

lines;      (b)    composed     of    contiguous     territory;         and    (c)     in   as

compact form as practicable.                Wis. Const. art. IV, § 4.                  Senate
districts must be composed of "convenient contiguous territory."

Wis.    Const.      art.      IV,    § 5    Additionally,          districts         must   be

                                             44
single-member districts that meet the numbering and nesting27

requirements set out in Article IV, Sections 2, 4, and 5.

    ¶66     The   contiguity   requirement      for    assembly    and    senate

districts was discussed at length above.               To reiterate, for a

district to be composed of contiguous territory, its territory

must be touching such that one could travel from one point in

the district to any other point in the district without crossing

district lines.       As to the "bounded" requirement, this court

considers the extent to which assembly districts split counties,
towns, and wards28 (particularly towns and wards as the smaller

political    subdivisions),    although    we   no    longer    interpret     the

requirement to entirely prohibit any splitting of the enumerated

political subdivisions, as we once did.                 See Johnson I, 399

Wis. 2d 623, ¶35; AFL-CIO, 543 F. Supp. 630, 635-36 (E.D. Wis.

1982);   Baumgart,    2002    WL   34127471,    at    *3.      Compactness     is

generally defined as "closely united in territory," see AFL-CIO

543 F. Supp. at 634, although this court has never adopted a

particular     measure   of    compactness.           See   Johnson      I,   399

Wis. 2d 23, ¶37.

    ¶67     Third, remedial maps must comply with all applicable
federal law.      In addition to the population equality requirement

    27 Assembly districts must be "nested" within a senate
district——that is, "no assembly district shall be divided in the
formation of a senate district."     Wis. Const. art. IV, § 5.
Additionally, Wis. Stat. § 4.001 requires that there be "33
senate districts, each composed of 3 assembly districts."
    28 The "bounded" requirement also refers to precincts, but
"the precinct of the constitution disappeared when the uniform
system of town and county government prescribed by the
constitution (article 4, § 23) became fully operative."
Cunningham, 81 Wis. at 520 (Lyon, C.J., concurring).

                                      45
discussed      above,     maps       must       comply       with    the    Equal       Protection

Clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.                                See Wis. Legislature

v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 595 U.S. 398, 401 (2022) (explaining

that    race-conscious          districting             is    permitted          by     the   Equal

Protection Clause only if strict scrutiny is satisfied).

       ¶68     Fourth,    the     court          will    consider          other       traditional

districting criteria not specifically outlined in the Wisconsin

or United States Constitution, but still commonly considered by

courts tasked with formulating maps.                            These other traditional
districting         criteria     include         reducing           municipal         splits29    and

preserving communities of interest.                          See AFL-CIO, 543 F. Supp.

at 636 (comparing the number of municipal splits across maps);

Baldus, 849 F. Supp. 2d at 856-57 (considering whether district

lines       were    disruptive       to     a    community          of    interest).          These

criteria will not supersede constitutionally mandated criteria,

such as equal population requirements, but may be considered

when evaluating submitted maps.                         AFL-CIO, 543 F. Supp. at 636

(considering the number of municipal splits, but acknowledging

that    "the       splitting    of    municipal          boundaries         is     necessary      to

adhere to the one person, one vote, principle.").
       ¶69     Fifth,     we     will           consider        partisan           impact        when

evaluating         remedial    maps.             When    granting          the     petition      for

original action that commenced this case, we declined to hear

       Municipalities include towns, cities, and villages.
       29

Although Article IV, Section 4's "bounded by" requirement refers
to towns, it does not refer to city or village boundaries, or
"municipal" boundaries in general.    As such, consideration of
municipal splits does not derive from our constitution.
Nonetheless, this court has still considered the number of
municipal splits when evaluating maps.     See Johnson III, 401
Wis. 2d 198, ¶69.

                                                 46
the issue of whether extreme partisan gerrymandering violates

the Wisconsin Constitution.                    As such, we do not decide whether a

party may challenge an enacted map on those grounds.

       ¶70     However,          that       does     not    mean    that        we   will    ignore

partisan       impact        in       adopting          remedial        maps.         Unlike       the

legislative          and    executive          branches,          which      are     political      by

nature, this court must remain politically neutral.                                     We do not

have free license to enact maps that privilege one political

party over another.               Our political neutrality must be maintained
regardless       of    whether          a     case      involves        an   extreme     partisan

gerrymandering challenge.                    As we have stated, "judges should not

select    a    plan        that       seeks    partisan       advantage——that            seeks      to

change the ground rules so that one party can do better than it

would do under a plan drawn up by persons having no political

agenda——even if they would not be entitled to invalidate an

enacted       plan    that        did    so."           Jensen,      249      Wis. 2d 706,         ¶12

(quoting Prosser, 793 F. Supp. at 867).                             Other courts have held

the same.       See Baumgart, 2002 WL 34127471, at *3 (also quoting

Prosser, 793 F. Supp at 867); Burling v. Chandler, 804 A.2d 471,

483 (N.H. 2002) (devising its own redistricting plan because
"[e]ach plan ha[d] calculated partisan political consequences");

Peterson v. Borst, 786 N.E.2d 668, 673 (Ind. 2003) ("Whatever

role     politics          may    legitimately             play    in     the      decisions       and

maneuverings of the legislative and executive branches, if those

branches cannot reach a political resolution and the dispute

spills    over       into        an    Indiana       court,       the     resolution        must    be
judicial, not political."); Maestas v. Hall, 274 P.3d 66, 76

(N.M. 2012) ("A court's adoption of a plan that represents one

                                                   47
political    party's       idea     of   how    district    boundaries      should   be

drawn does not conform to the principle of judicial independence

and neutrality.").

    ¶71     It bears repeating that courts can, and should, hold

themselves       to    a    different         standard     than    the    legislature

regarding the partisanship of remedial maps.                       As a politically

neutral and independent institution, we will take care to avoid

selecting    remedial        maps    designed       to   advantage    one   political

party over another.          Importantly, however, it is not possible to
remain neutral and independent by failing to consider partisan

impact entirely.           As the Supreme Court recognized in Gaffney v.

Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 753 (1973), "this politically mindless

approach may produce, whether intended or not, the most grossly

gerrymandered         results."          As     such,      partisan      impact   will

necessarily be one of many factors we will consider in adopting

remedial legislative maps, and like the traditional districting

criteria discussed above, consideration of partisan impact will

not supersede constitutionally mandated criteria such as equal

apportionment or contiguity.

                      C.   Petitioners' Quo Warranto Claim
    ¶72     Before we explain the process by which the court will

adopt remedial maps, we turn to the Petitioners' request for us

to order special elections in 2024 for senators in odd-numbered

districts who would otherwise not be up for reelection until

2026.     The Petitioners ground this request in a request for a

writ quo warranto, arguing that state senators have "usurp[ed],
intrud[ed] into or unlawfully [held] or exercise[d] any public

office"    and    therefore       should       be   "excluded     from   the   office"

                                           48
because       they     took     office       in        unconstitutionally            configured

districts.       Wis. Stat. §§ 784.04(1)a; 784.13.

       ¶73    As a preliminary matter, quo warranto actions may be

brought by private individuals under Wis. Stat. § 784.04, but

the    action    must    be     in    the    name         of    the   state.        Wis.     Stat.

§ 784.04(2);          Boerschinger          v.        Elkay      Enterprises,        Inc.,      26

Wis. 2d 102, 110, 132 N.W.2d 258 (1965).                              The Petitioners have

not brought a quo warranto action in the name of the state;

therefore, Wis. Stat. § 784.04 does not provide us the authority
to determine whether any party has a right to hold office, much

less    to     order     any     special           elections.               Boerschinger,       26

Wis. 2d at        110     ("In        quo         warranto            brought       under      the

statute . . . the action must be in the name of the state.").

       ¶74    Although the quo warranto statute does not apply in

this   case,     we    acknowledge          that      a     party's     right   to     a    public

office can also be determined in a declaratory judgment action

when the right "is only ancillary to the principal cause of

action in the complaint."                   See id. at 114.                  However, as the

Petitioners           acknowledge,           courts            tasked       with      remedying

unconstitutional         maps    in    Wisconsin               have   not    ordered       special
elections as a remedy.               Nor are special elections the standard

remedy elsewhere.             See North Carolina v. Covington, 581 U.S.

486,    488     (2017)    (noting       that          the      Supreme      Court    has     never

addressed whether a special election may be a proper remedy for

an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and reversing a federal

district court that ordered special elections without adequately
weighing the interests at stake).                         We decline to implement such

a drastic remedy here.

                                                 49
                                  D.    Remedial Process

      ¶75     The process by which the court will adopt remedial

maps will be set out in an order issued concurrently with this

opinion.       In    broad     strokes,         all      parties         will   be     given   the

opportunity to submit remedial legislative district maps to the

court, along with expert evidence and an explanation of how

their maps comport with the principles laid out in this opinion.

The court will appoint one or more consultants who will aid in

evaluating the remedial maps.                   Parties will have the opportunity
to respond to each other, and to the consultant's report.

      ¶76     We set out this process in order to afford all parties

a   chance    to    be     heard,       while    bearing         in      mind   the    need    for

expediency         given     that        next        year's          elections        are     fast-

approaching.        We begin our process now instead of waiting to see

whether the legislative process results in new maps.                                    In other

words, both the legislative process (should there be one) and

our process will            proceed concurrently.                     This will allow          the

court   to    adopt        remedial         legislative         maps       in   time    for    the

upcoming elections if legislation creating remedial maps is not

enacted.
                                       V.    CONCLUSION

      ¶77     Article       IV,     Sections         4    and        5     of   the    Wisconsin

Constitution mean what they say:                         state legislative districts

must be composed of "contiguous territory."                                At least 50 of 99

assembly     districts       and       at    least       20     of    33    senate     districts

violate      this    mandate,          rendering         them    unconstitutional.              We
therefore enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using

the current maps in all future elections.                                  As such, remedial

                                                50
maps   must    be   adopted   prior    to    the   2024   elections.      We   are

hopeful    that      the   legislative        process     will    produce      new

legislative district maps.          However, should that fail to happen,

this   court   is   prepared   to     adopt   remedial     maps   based   on   the

criteria, process, and dates set forth in this opinion and the

concurrent order.

       By the Court.—Rights declared.

                                        51
                                                                No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

       ¶78       ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.               (dissenting).       This

deal       was    sealed   on   election       night.     Four        justices    remap

Wisconsin even though this constitutional responsibility is to

occur every ten years, after a census, by the other two branches

of government.1        The public understands this.2             Nonetheless, four

justices impose their will on the entire Assembly and half of

the Senate, all of whom are up for election in 2024.                             Almost

every      legislator      in   the   state     will    need    to     respond,    with

lightning speed, to the newly minted maps, deciding if they can

or want to run, and scrambling to find new candidates for new

districts.3        All of this remains unknown until the court of four,

and its hired "consultants," reveal the answer.                         The parties'

dilatory behavior in bringing this suit at this time should not

       The Legislature exercises its constitutional authority to
       1

redistrict per Wis. Const. art. IV, § 3 ("At its first session
after each enumeration made by the authority of the United
States, the legislature shall apportion and district anew the
members of the senate and assembly, according to the number of
inhabitants.").    The Governor exercises his constitutional
authority to either sign the legislature's maps into law or veto
them per Wis. Const. art. V, § 10(2)a.

       See Marquette Law School Poll: Oct. 26-Nov.2, 2023,
       2

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/
MLSP76Toplines.html#E8:_SCOWIS_map_case   (51%    of   registered
voters surveyed want to "keep [current] maps in place").

       Neither citizens nor legislators will know if they will
       3

have the same representation or constituency, whether the
legislator still lives in the district they once represented,
whether legislators will be pitted against one another in newly
combined districts or whether the district even resembles its
former   self.     We  will   not   know   implications of  dual
representation   for  citizens    who  may   have   new and  old
representation, as they may have just elected their senator
under the existing maps.

                                           1
                                                                     No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

be rewarded by the court's granting of such an extreme remedy,

along such a constrained timeline.                     Big change is ahead.              The

new   majority     seems    to     assume       that    their    job        is   to   remedy

"rigged" maps which cause an "inability to achieve a Democratic

majority in the state legislature."4                   These departures from the

judicial    role   are     terribly       dangerous       to    our        constitutional,

judicial framework.         No longer is the judicial branch the least

dangerous in Wisconsin.            See The Federalist No. 78, (Alexander

Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).

      ¶79   Redistricting was just decided by this court in the

Johnson     litigation.5           This     court        was     saddled         with   the

responsibility      to     adopt     maps       because        the     legislative      and

executive branches were at an impasse, and absent court action,

      4Pet. to Take Juris. of Original Action, at 8; Aug. 2,
2023,             https://acefiling.wicourts.gov/document/eFiled/
2023AP001399/687203
      5The phrase "Johnson litigation" (and "Johnson") throughout
this dissent refers to the redistricting original action,
Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2021AP1450-OA,
which this court decided during the 2021-22 term.     See Johnson
v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2021 WI 87, 399 Wis. 2d 623, 967
N.W.2d 469 ("Johnson I"); Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2022
WI 14, 400 Wis. 2d 626, 971 N.W.2d 402 ("Johnson II"), summarily
rev'd sub nom. Wis. Legislature v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 595
U.S. 398, 142 S Ct. 1245 (2022) (per curiam); and Johnson v.
Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 19, 401 Wis. 2d 198, 972
N.W.2d 559 ("Johnson III").

                                            2
                                                                    No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

there would be a constitutional crisis.6                       Johnson v. Wisconsin

Elections      Comm'n,        2021    WI     87,     ¶68,     399    Wis. 2d 623,        967

N.W.2d 469 ("Johnson I").                  As a result of Johnson, there are

census-responsive maps in place.                     Nonetheless, the four robe-

wearers grab power and fast-track this partisan call to remap

Wisconsin.        Giving preferential treatment to a case that should

have been denied, smacks of judicial activism on steroids.                               The

court of four takes a wrecking ball to the law, making no room,

nor   having      any    need,      for    longstanding     practices,          procedures,

traditions, the law, or even their co-equal fellow branches of

government.         Their activism damages the judiciary as a whole.

Regrettably, I must dissent.

      ¶80   The court of four's outcome-based, end-justifies-the-

means     judicial       activist         approach    conflates       the      balance    of

governmental        power     the    people       separated    into       three    separate

branches,      to       but   one:    the     judiciary.            Such       power-hungry

activism     is     dangerous        to     our    constitutional          framework     and

undermines     the      judiciary.          When     four   members       of    this   court
"throw off constraints, revise the rules of decision, and set

      6Clarke presents none of the time constraints this court
faced in Johnson I, where "judicial action [became] appropriate
to   prevent  a   constitutional  crisis."    Johnson   I,  399
Wis. 2d 623, ¶68. Nonetheless, the court of four rushes ahead,
making every attempt to evade judicial review, crafting the
selection of only one, not both petitions for original action,
and only two, not all, issues having no need for traditional
practice and procedure.    See Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm'n,
2023 WI 70, 409 Wis. 2d 372, 995 N.W.2d 779 (granting petition
for original action, but only with respect to issues 4 and 5);
Wright v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 71, 409 Wis. 2d 417,
995 N.W.2d 771 (denying petition for leave to commence original
action).

                                              3
                                                              No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

the   law    on   a   new   course,"   it     is   prudent   for    all   of    us   to

"question whether that power has been exercised judiciously" or

whether it is instead an exercise in judicial activism.7                         Today

is the latest in a series of power grabs by this new rogue court

of four, creating a pattern of illicit power aggregation which

disrupts, if not destroys, stability in the law.

      ¶81     This pattern of conduct is entrenched even further to

achieve particular political outcomes regardless of principles

fundamental to the constitution and the law.                  The court of four

accepted and now begin to decide a procedurally and legally

flawed original action in order to "take a fresh look at the

gerrymandering question"8 over maps one of them has repeatedly

called      "absolutely,     positively       rigged."9      What   other      settled

areas of law might be next?             Without all four members of this

court acting in lockstep, there could be no such overreach and

disrespect for the law.          To be clear, it is sheer will, not the

law, which drives the decision of Justices Ann Walsh Bradley,

Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky, and Janet Protasiewicz.                      They may

      7Diane S. Sykes, Reflections on the                     Wisconsin        Supreme
Court, 89 Marq. L. Rev. 723, 725-26 (2006).
      8Jessie Opoien and Jack Kelly, Protasiewicz would "enjoy
taking a fresh look" at Wisconsin voting Maps, The Cap Times
(Mar.     2,     2023),     https://captimes.com/news/government/
protasiewicz-would-enjoy-taking-a-fresh-look-at-wisconsin-
voting-maps/article_d07fbe12-79e6-5c78-a702-3de7b444b332.html
      9Paul Fanlund, Supreme Court election is a chance to beat
the far right at its long game, The Cap Times (Jan. 13, 2023),
https://captimes.com/opinion/paul-fanlund/opinion-supreme-court-
election-is-a-chance-to-beat-the-far-right-at-its-
long/article_af9b5d76-a584-54ad-9226-7c9d7a806d12.html.

                                          4
                                                                    No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

please a particular constituency, but it is at great cost to the

judicial institution.            Any one of the four could change the

trajectory     set,    with    the    courage         to    change     their    seemingly

preordained vote.       But instead, each fall in line, and, like the

past, allow pure will, instead of the law, to drive and guide

the outcomes they invent.

       ¶82    Unfortunately, this latest unlawful power grab is not

an outlier, but is further evidence of a bold, agenda-driven

pattern of conduct.           To set the stage, recall that these four

members of the court came out swinging, when they secretly and

unilaterally      planned      and        dispensed         with     court     practices,

procedures, traditions, and norms.10                        Preordained and planned

even before day one of the new justice's term on August 1, 2023,

but unknown to the other members of the court, the four acted to

aggregate     power,   meeting       in    secret      as    a     "super-legislature."

They    met   behind    closed    doors,         at   a     rogue,     unscheduled       and

illegitimate      meeting,        over       the       protestations           of      their

colleagues,      in    violation      of        longstanding         court     rules    and
procedures.      Even before day one of the newest justice's term,

and before the court term started in September, they met, in

secret, to carry out their plan, only known to them, to dispense

with over 40 years of court-defined precedent.                            They even took

the unprecedented action to strip the constitutional power of

the chief justice, which had been understood for decades of

chief justices and different court membership, instead usurping

       Press Release, Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler
       10

(Aug. 4, 2023), https://www.wispolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/
2023/08/230804SCOWIS.pdf

                                            5
                                                              No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

that role through an administrative committee.                      For nearly four

decades and five chief justices, every member of the court had

respected   the   power     the    people      of   Wisconsin      constitutionally

vested in the chief justice to administrate the court system.11

      ¶83   Not   content    with     taking        over    the    chief    justice's

power, they secretly pre-planned the firing of, for admittedly

no reason, then-Director of State Courts Randy Koschnick before

the   official    court     term    had       begun   and    before     our    newest

justice's term began on August 1.12                 The court of four presumed

to hire a sitting circuit court judge, Audrey Skwierawski, as

the Interim Director of State Courts even though that decision

violated    the   public     trust     doctrine        as    set    forth     in   the

       It is noteworthy that for the first time in 26 years,
      11

since 1996, our court released to the public all of its opinions
from the 2022-23 term by June 30, 2023. In addition, the court
did not have a backlog of cases entering into the 2023-24 term.
      12This was another shameful incident in this raw judicial
power pattern, as Justice Jill Karofsky made it known before
Justice Protasiewicz was even sworn in that the yet-to-be-
officially-formed court of four would fire Director Koschnick.
Molly Beck and Daniel Bice, New Liberal Majority on State
Supreme Court fires Director of State Court System, Milwaukee
Journal         Sentinel          (Aug.         1,         2023),
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/01/new-
majority-on-supreme-court-to-fire-director-of-state-court-
system/70502650007/

                                          6
                                                            No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

constitution, statutes, and case law.13            Judge Audrey Skwierawski

was   recently   permanently     hired     as    Director    of    State     Courts

despite these significant issues.14             The court should have hired

a fully qualified candidate who did not have any of these legal

impediments.

      ¶84   But wait:      there's more.        Also in an underhanded and

unprecedented manner, these four members of the court met in

secret,     before   the    court   term    began,     conniving       and     then

implementing a plan to eliminate the court of its longstanding

       See Wis. Const. art. VII, § 10(1) ("No . . . judge of any
      13

court of record shall hold any other office of public trust,
except a judicial office, during the term for which elected.");
Wis. Stat. § 757.02(2) ("The judge of any court of record in
this state shall be ineligible to hold any office of public
trust, except a judicial office, during the term for which he or
she was elected or appointed."); see also Wagner v. Milwaukee
Cnty. Election Comm'n, 2003 WI 103, ¶2, 263 Wis. 2d 709, 666
N.W.2d 816 (holding that the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits a
judge or justice from holding a non-judicial position of public
trust during the entire term for which he or she was originally
elected).

       I requested to see and have input on the contents of the
      14

press release hiring Judge Skwierawski as the Director before
its release.      However, the court of four issued it on
December 14, 2023, without that occurring.    Interestingly, they
use the words "transparency and accountability" in the press
release, but those words must mean something else to them. See
"The Supreme Court of Wisconsin announces Judge Audrey K.
Skwierawski as the next Director of State Courts" (Dec. 14,
2023),    https://www.wicourts.gov/news/view.jsp?id=1604#:~:text=
MADISON%2C%20Wis.,is%20effective%20December%2031%2C%202023.

     In addition, aside from the public trust doctrine's
constitutional and statutory roadblocks to her serving as
Director, Judge Skwierawski is supposed to be on the bench, in
Milwaukee, serving the citizens as a duly elected, full-time
judicial officer. The court could have hired a fully qualified
candidate who did not have any of these impediments.

                                      7
                                                                    No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

practices and procedures in violation of the existing internal

operating procedures and rules.                 The four conjured up new rules

and   procedures      that    are    designed         to   ensure    complete      control

over, and no speed bumps to, their preferences.

      ¶85     We all know that the Johnson litigation definitively

decided all issues, including contiguity.                     Nonetheless, the four

eagerly received this original action which the parties filed to

coincide with Justice Protasiewicz's swearing in, ensuring that

she   would    sit    in   judgment.15          And    because      the     four   had   met

previously to attempt to grab all the power they could find,

this case was set to be fast-tracked and skip to the front of

the line.

      ¶86     The court of four conduct themselves in a manner that

lacks accountability and transparency.                     They exhibit a striking

pattern of disrespect for their colleagues, court practices and

procedures,     the    law,    and    the   constitution.                 They   upend   the

      15The majority opinion fails to mention or even acknowledge
this glaring fact, that this petition was intentionally brought
the day after the court composition changed.        Why is this?
Steve Schuster, Lawsuit to challenge Wisconsin's legislative
maps   to    be  filed,  Wis.   Law  Journal   (Apr.    6,   2023),
https://wislawjournal.com/2023/04/06/lawsuit-to-challenge-
wisconsins-legislative-maps-to-be-filed/ ("A Madison-based law
firm is planning to challenge the state's gerrymandered
legislative maps . . . . The lawsuit will be filed after
Justice-elect Janet Protasiewicz is sworn in on Aug. 1, Nicole
Safar,    executive  director  of   Madison-based   Law    Forward,
said . . . ."); see also Jack Kelly, Liberal law firm to argue
gerrymandering violates Wisconsin Constitution, The Cap Times
(Apr. 6, 2023), https://captimes.com/news/government/liberal-
law-firm-to-arguegerrymandering-violates-wisconsin-
constitution/article_2dfb9757-6d2d-58ba-9461- 10b3d20d5f00.html.

                                            8
                                                                     No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

constitutional call for a court of seven, not a court of four.16

Historically, our court of seven has always met at agreed upon

dates     and   times,       with       ample       notice   of     the    issues     to    be

discussed,      and    the    opportunity           to   hear      respective,      knowing,

positions,      only     then       reaching         determinations.            Traditions,

practices,      procedures,         and    constitutional           mandates     were      long

respected over many decades.                 Regardless of the fact that these

have been time-honored through many variations and machinations

of court membership, and over a span of five chief justices,

four rogue members of the court nonetheless brazenly seized all

the power they can find.                  Power at any cost is the new normal

for this crew.         So, in true form to the new court of four, the

law will not stand in the way of what they wish to accomplish.

     ¶87    This      original       action,         filed    to    coincide     with      the

change in court membership,17 requests this court to remedy an

"inability      to     achieve      a     Democratic         majority      in   the     state

legislature" which in turn, "harms their ability to see laws and

     16Wis. Const. art. VII, § 4(1) ("The supreme court shall
have 7 members. . . .").
     17Steve    Schuster,   Lawsuit  to   challenge    Wisconsin's
legislative maps to be filed, Wis. Law Journal (Apr. 6, 2023),
https://wislawjournal.com/2023/04/06/lawsuit-to-challenge-
wisconsins-legislative-maps-to-be-filed/ ("A Madison-based law
firm is planning to challenge the state's gerrymandered
legislative maps . . . . The lawsuit will be filed after
Justice-elect Janet Protasiewicz is sworn in on Aug. 1, Nicole
Safar,   executive   director   of  Madison-based   Law   Forward,
said . . . ."); see also Jack Kelly, Liberal law firm to argue
gerrymandering violates Wisconsin Constitution, The Cap Times
(Apr. 6, 2023), https://captimes.com/news/government/liberal-
law-firm-to-arguegerrymandering-violates-wisconsin-
constitution/article_2dfb9757-6d2d-58ba-9461- 10b3d20d5f00.html.

                                                9
                                                          No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

policies they favor enacted."18                As much as the majority and

others     like     to   call   this   case    "redistricting,"    it   is   not.

Redistricting occurs once every ten years and that fact was just

conclusively decided.19          They know contiguous maps, responsive to

the census, were fully litigated in Johnson.                    The people of

Wisconsin,        through   their      constitution,   placed     the   partisan

officeholders——the legislature, with oversight by the governor——

in   charge    of    the    partisan    process   of   redistricting.20       The

constitution does not call for maps to be redrawn every time a

      18   Pet. to Take Juris. of Original Action supra note 4, at
8.

       Wis. Const. art. IV, § 3 ("At its first session after
      19

each enumeration made by the authority of the United States, the
legislature shall apportion and district anew the members of the
senate and assembly, according to the number of inhabitants.");
see also State ex rel. Smith v. Zimmerman, 266 Wis. 307, 312, 63
N.W.2d   52  (1954)   ("It  is   now  settled   that  without  a
constitutional change permitting it no more than one legislative
apportionment between two federal [censuses].")

       The legislature exercises its constitutional authority to
      20

redistrict per Wis. Const. art. IV, § 3, and the governor
exercises his constitutional authority to either sign the
legislature's maps into law or veto them per Wis. Const. art. V,
§ 10(2)a.

                                          10
                                                                     No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

new   justice      is     elected.21        This     court    of     four    abandons         its

judicial     responsibility          and     instead        reimagines        the       law   to

achieve an outcome.

      ¶88    More       specifically,        just    last     year    in     Johnson,         the

court determined, and all agreed, that the maps complied with

the     contiguity        requirement.        "Contiguity       for        state    assembly

districts     is    satisfied       when     a     district    boundary       follows         the

municipal       boundaries.                Municipal        'islands'        are        legally

contiguous with the municipality to which the 'island' belongs."

Joint      Stip.     of     Facts      &     Law,      at     ¶20     (Nov.        4,     2021)

https://acefiling.wicourts.gov/document/uploaded/2021AP001450/45

0892.       Even    the    parties     now       arguing     that    the    maps    are       not

contiguous recognize that the contiguity requirement has been

deemed satisfied not only in the maps the parties submitted in

      21As the new court of four knows, this court just
conclusively addressed redistricting in the Johnson litigation,
observing   that  "[t]he  Wisconsin   Constitution's  'textually
demonstrable constitutional commitment' to confer the duty of
redistricting on the state legislature evidences the non-
justiciability of partisan gerrymandering claims" under Article
IV, Section 3.   Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶51 (quoting Baker
v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962)).      It is only natural——in
fact, it is inevitable——that a partisan body engaging in a
partisan process will reach a result that is in some measure
partisan. See Whitford v. Gill, 218 F. Supp. 3d 837, 939 (W.D.
Wis. 2016) (Griesbach, J., dissenting) ("[P]artisan intent is
not illegal, but is simply the consequence of assigning the task
of redistricting to the political branches of government."),
rev'd sub nom., Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1916
(2018).

                                              11
                                                                    No.     2023AP1399-OA.akz

the    Johnson       litigation,      but    also      in   the   maps     the    state   has

relied on for the last 60 to 70 years.22

       ¶89        Moreover, every person who wished to have a say or

participate in the Johnson litigation was welcome to do so and

did.        No one sought reconsideration of the Johnson litigation

while it was within their power to do so.                         Johnson went all the

way to the United States Supreme Court and back.                                 Some of the

litigants now were part of the Johnson litigation, some chose

not to engage.             But the law imposes consequences for those who

choose to sit out of litigation entirely, and for those who

stipulate to or do not make an argument in litigation.                              Finality

of litigation does not endow one with the authority to wait to

see what happens in that litigation cycle, forego timely filing

a motion for reconsideration, and then bring arguments years

after       the    fact,    with    the    only       intervening    change       being   the

court's composition.               Four members of this court choose to not

let     pesky       parameters      like         finality    or     other     foundational

judicial principles, or even the constitution, stand in the way
of     the        predetermined      political          outcome      which        they    seem

preordained to deliver.               Given the new court of four's conduct

so far, we can expect more such judicial mischief in the future.

On    their       watch,    Wisconsin       is    poised    to    become     a    litigation

nightmare.         What is next?

       Oral argument in Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, No.
       22

2023AP1399-OA, held Nov. 21, 2023, available on WisconsinEye
https://wiseye.org/2023/11/21/wisconsin-supreme-court-rebecca-
clarke-v-wisconsin-elections-commission/ (Rebuttal arguments of
Attorneys Sam Hirsch and Mark Gaber at 2:53:00 and 3:01,
respectively.)

                                                 12
                                                               No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

       ¶90    The processes normally required in litigation before

the supreme court seem nothing more than window dressing in this

case.       Briefing and oral argument occurred, but the conclusion

seemed preordained.           It seems all that is left are the words to

be written in a fast-tracked, handpicked case wherein the issues

were    chosen    in    an     effort    to     evade    any   judicial     review.23

Apparently process is now unimportant to the court of four.24

       ¶91    It is the parties who are required to develop the

facts and a full record for the court to review.                       We are not a

factfinding court.            One would think that the very justices who

previously       believed       factfinding        critically         important     in

Johnson,25 would pause, and allow factfinding to occur by the

parties      instead    of     handpicking       their     hired      "consultants."

Factfinding      in    this    case     should   occur    utilizing      traditional

process, as there are no time constraints which would otherwise

drive the need for a legal determination by original action.

       Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 70, 409
       23

Wis. 2d 372, 995 N.W.2d 779 (granting petition for original
action, but only with respect to issues 4 and 5); Wright v. Wis.
Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 71, 409 Wis. 2d 417, 995 N.W.2d 771
(denying petition for leave to commence original action).

       Recently, members of the majority declined to hear "hot"
       24

issues because process was important.   But now, members of the
majority decide to hear "hot" issues because process is not
important.   Have they changed their position on process?   See
Doe 1 v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., 2022 WI 65, ¶39, 403
Wis. 2d 369, 976 N.W.2d 584 ("Litigation rules and processes
matter to the rule of law just as much as rendering ultimate
decisions based on the law."); see also Trump v. Biden, 2020 WI
91, 394 Wis. 2d 629, 951 N.W.2d 568.

       Johnson
       25              III,     401     Wis. 2d 198,      ¶161       (Karofsky,    J.,
dissenting).

                                           13
                                                          No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

Particularly for something as important as "redistricting," why

be afraid of developing a full record and considering all legal

principles subjecting the decision to further review?                   What of

the fact that the citizens of Wisconsin and the litigants are

forced, by judicial fiat, to have out-of-state, not stipulated

to, unreviewable "consultants" who are seemingly unaccountable

to anyone but the court of four.             In fact, the idea of hiring

"consultant     map    drawers"     was    sprung   on    counsel     at    oral

arguments.    The court of four has now hired these "consultants"

who will presumably affect the outcome of the case.                  We have no

idea what, if any, parameters exist to guide the "consultants,"

the litigants, or the court.           Will they have free reign to do

whatever they see fit, to achieve the requested remedy of making

the   state   legislature    more     Democratic?        Deference    to   these

"consultants"    and    a   hidden,    unreviewable      process     smacks   of

outcome-based decision making.            What gives them that authority?

They rely on no statutes to give them that authority.26                    It is

       What
      26       are   the    parameters   of   the   consultant's
responsibilities, and under what constitutional or statutory
authority do they operate?       Are they and their decisions
reviewable and subject to cross-examination, as court-appointed
expert witnesses are?    Wis. Stat. § 907.06.     Can they make
findings of fact and conclusions of law as referees can?    Wis.
Stat. § 805.06(5)(a).     Additionally, the majority fails to
answer, in either its order appointing these "consultants" or
its majority opinion, how the parties are to consider and
implement the majority's newly contrived "partisan impact"
factor in their proposed maps.      How will these "consultants"
measure "partisan impact" in the parties' proposed maps, or
their own submissions? It is hard to say, given the majority's
painstaking efforts to avoid providing any such clarity or
methodology.   The majority cites no statutory authority these
"consultants" are appointed under, because none exists: this
court does not hire third-party "consultants" to assist it in
decision making.   Wis. Stat. § 751.09 ("In actions where the
                                14
                                                                           No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

not normal process for our court to hire experts to present new

evidence and influence decision making with information outside

the record.         The "consultants" unchecked by the parties, will

most certainly influence, if not decide, the outcome of this

litigation.         The parties do not stipulate to proceeding with

this forced factfinding map drawing method.                                  Is the procedure

the    court      imposes      on     the    litigants              even    constitutional         as

applied?       Reaching for evidence outside of the record is highly

unusual.       The court should not require it here.                              Yet, the court

of    four    imposes     its     will      to    rush         to    an    outcome.        This    is

completely        unnecessary         and        violative            of    every       notion     of

traditional factfinding, fairness and judicial decision making.

The constitution certainly does not call for "consultants" to

redistrict anew; instead the constitution vests that power in

the legislative branch as approved by the executive branch.                                        In

fact,       the    constitution             makes         no        room    for        unreviewable

"consultants"        to     be      arbiters      of       the       state's      maps.      These

consultants sure do seem like hand-picked cover for the court of
four's       decision     to     throw      out     "rigged          maps"       and    remedy    the

parties'      "inability         to   achieve         a   Democratic         majority       in    the

state legislature."27

supreme court has taken original jurisdiction, the court may
refer issues of fact or damages to a circuit court or referee
for determination.")   See also Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley's
dissent to order appointing Dr. Bernard Grofman and Dr. Jonathan
Cervas as court "consultants," Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm'n,
No. 2023AP1399-OA, unpublished order at 5-7 (Wis. Dec. 22, 2023)
(Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissenting).
       27   Pet. to Take Juris. of Original Action supra note 4, at
8.

                                                 15
                                                                         No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

      ¶92       Turning to the text and content of this opinion, fully

joined by all four, it clearly lacks in legal discourse and

analysis that should accompany such an important determination.

The opinion is a sea change in the law.                              While a picture may

generally be worth a thousand words, pictures do not replace the

need to properly conduct the required legal analysis.                                   Yet, the

new rogue court of four continues its pattern of being quick to

engage      in       partisan      political      power         grabs,     while       short      on

respecting legal traditions, practices, procedures, and the law.

It   is   the        law,   not    personal     preference,          that      should       be   the

judicial lodestar.                In short, the opinion is sorely lacking in

sound jurisprudential analysis.

      ¶93       More    specifically,         this        original    action       is    wrongly

taken     and    decided        for    a   host      of    heretofore          understood        and

respected legally-binding tenets.                         However, the court of four

glosses right over them.

               For starters, this original action fails as it amounts

                to     nothing        more     than        an    untimely         motion         for
                reconsideration of this court's decision in Johnson,

                which is now time-barred.                 Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.64.

               The proponents of this case and the majority fail to

                meaningfully          address        stare      decisis.          This       legal

                principle demands a "respect for prior decisions" such

                as     this     court's      decisions          throughout       the     Johnson

                litigation        "[as]      fundamental        to   the       rule    of    law."

                Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Emps. Ins. of Wausau, 2003
                WI 108, ¶94, 264 Wis. 2d 60, 665 N.W.2d 257.

                                                16
                                                               No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

            It overlooks that parties such as the Governor and the

             Citizen Mathematicians and Scientists28 are judicially

             estopped from advancing different positions now from

             the    positions     they   took    in     the   Johnson   litigation.

             State v. Petty, 201 Wis. 2d 337, 347, 548 N.W.2d 817

             (1996) (citing Coconate v. Schwanz, 165 Wis. 2d 226,

             231, 477 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1991)) ("[A] party [is

             precluded] from asserting [one] position in a legal

             proceeding      and     then        subsequently        asserting        an

             inconsistent position.").

            Similarly, laches bars these claims, as "equity aids

             the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights."

             Kenosha Cnty. v. Town of Paris, 148 Wis. 2d 175, 188,

             434 N.W.2d 801 (Ct. App. 1988).

            The majority's analysis turns a blind eye to the fact

             that "[i]n order to have standing to sue, a party must

             have    a    personal       stake     in    the    outcome       of     the

             controversy," a personal stake not met by those who do
             not    reside   in    these    alleged      municipal      islands     and

             especially      for     those       who     merely      border        these

             "municipal islands" of which more than a third contain

             zero residents.       City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg,

    28 Gary Krenz, Sarah J. Hamilton, Stephen Joseph Wright,
Jean-Luc Thiffeault, and Somesh Jha were labeled the "Citizen
Mathematicians and Scientists" in the Johnson litigation. They
are each intervenors-petitioners in this case.     For ease of
reference,   I   refer   to   them   collectively as   "Citizen
Mathematicians and Scientists" in this writing.

                                          17
                                                                  No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

              112 Wis. 2d 224, 228, 332 N.W.2d 782 (1983) (emphasis

              added).

             And, this case is barred by claim and issue preclusion

              principles,        which     "are      designed           to   limit      the

              relitigation       of      issues     that     have        been     actually

              litigated in a previous action," Aldrich v. LIRC, 2012

              WI    53,   ¶88,    341     Wis. 2d 36,       814     N.W.2d 433,         and

              "extends to all claims that either were or could have

              been asserted in the previous litigation."                        Dostal v.

              Strand,     2023     WI     6,      ¶24,     405     Wis. 2d 572,         984

              N.W.2d 382.

     ¶94      But the court of four gives little consideration to

that jurisprudence.         Instead of letting the law get in the way,

they proceed to the task at hand:                  to redraw the "rigged" maps

and remedy an "inability to achieve a Democratic majority in the

state legislature."29

     ¶95      To be clear, this case is nothing more than a now

time-barred motion to reconsider Johnson.30                       An honest look at
the plain law would require that this petition be dismissed.

Instead,      the   creative     legal     machinations          engaged     in    by   the

masters of this lawsuit, emboldened and encouraged by the new

court of four, requires mind-boggling contortion of the law to

     29   Pet. to Take Juris. of Original Action supra note 4, at
8.
     30Wis.   Stat.   (Rule)   § 809.64   ("A  party   may  seek
reconsideration of the judgment or opinion of the supreme court
by filing a motion under s. 809.14 for reconsideration within 20
days after the date of the decision of the supreme court.")

                                           18
                                                       No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

achieve    a    particular   political    outcome.       Sadly,     judicial

activism is once again alive and well in Wisconsin, creating

great instability.

     ¶96   In    addition,   the   demanding   legal   analysis    of   stare

decisis is completely absent from the majority opinion.                 Stare

decisis, the requirement to follow legal precedent, means this

case ends before it even starts, since the Johnson litigation

already declared what the law is.         This petition is a political

quest masquerading as a legal query, filed to coincide with the

seating of the parties' "judge of choice" and not coincidently,

filed the day after she assumed the bench.31                 Judge shopping

should be verboten to all.          Allowing this sham experiment to

continue under a nebulous guise of "fairness," should be beneath

my colleagues.32     In any court, but especially a court of last

resort, sound legal principles, including stare decisis, should

     31Steve    Schuster,   Lawsuit  to   Challenge    Wisconsin's
Legislative Maps to Be Filed, Wis. L.J. (Apr. 6, 2023),
https://wislawjournal.com/2023/04/06/lawsuit-to-challenge-
wisconsins-legislative-maps-to-be-filed/ ("A Madison-based law
firm is planning to challenge the state's gerrymandered
legislative maps . . . . The lawsuit will be filed after
Justice-elect Janet Protasiewicz is sworn in on Aug. 1, Nicole
Safar,   executive   director   of  Madison-based   Law   Forward,
said . . . ."); see also Jack Kelly, Liberal Law Firm to Argue
Gerrymandering Violates Wisconsin Constitution, The Cap Times
(Apr. 6, 2023), https://captimes.com/news/government/liberal-
law-firm-to-arguegerrymandering-violates-wisconsin-
constitution/article_2dfb9757-6d2d-58ba-9461- 10b3d20d5f00.html.
     32Wis. Stat. § 757.02(1) ("I. . . . do solemnly swear that
I will support the constitution of the United States and the
constitution of the state of Wisconsin; that I will administer
justice without respect to persons and will faithfully and
impartially discharge the duties of said office to the best of
my ability. So help me God.") (emphasis added).

                                     19
                                                             No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

prevail over political and personal preferences, even when one

might not like the results.                 Numerous jurisprudential tenets

require that this matter now be deemed improvidently granted, as

application of the law so clearly dictates that this original

action never should have been granted in the first instance.33

It fails legal scrutiny.            Any remedy which this court might now

conjure up to justify this preordained outcome is devoid of

legal merit.

     ¶97        In no small measure, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, the

most senior member of the court, knows better than to join this

judicial mischief.           She used to respect the doctrine of stare

decisis.34       And, if the shoe were on the other foot——much like

when some on the court previously tried to usurp the role of

Chief     Justice    Abrahamson——she       would    be   raucously    objecting.35

Then,     she    declared    that   this    court   should    "call    a   spade   a

spade. . . . This       is     about   personal      ambition,      politics    and

     33Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 70,                             409
Wis. 2d 372, 995 N.W.2d 779 (order granting petition                            for
original action) (Ziegler, C.J., dissenting).
     34See Mayo v. Wis. Injured Patients & Fams. Comp. Fund,
2018 WI 78, ¶110, 383 Wis. 2d 1, 914 N.W.2d 678 (Ann Walsh
Bradley, J., dissenting) ("The decision to overturn a prior case
must not be undertaken merely because the composition of the
court has changed."); Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Empr's Ins. of
Wausau, 2003 WI 108, ¶94, 264 Wis. 2d 60, 665 N.W.2d 257 ("Stare
decisis is fundamental to the rule of law. Indeed, this court
follows the doctrine of stare decisis scrupulously because of
our abiding respect for the rule of law.")
     35In 1998, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley was convinced that the
creation of an administrative committee, which would take over
the role of the chief justice, was unconstitutional.         She
threatened to sue her colleagues over the matter. What changed?
Shirley Abrahamson is no longer the chief justice.

                                           20
                                                             No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

pettiness. . . . [The four] justices are interested in toppling

the chief."36       Her fondness for sound legal principles like stare

decisis seems to vary depending on whether she is the majority

or the minority.

       ¶98   Justice        Ann   Walsh    Bradley's    former     colleague,    now

federal Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, reminded us all of

the inherent institutional and reputational dangers the court

faced when it previously departed from its constitutional role.

History teaches us that when the balance of power on the court

shifted for the 2004-2005 court term, making then a new majority

consisting of Ann Walsh Bradley and three others, the newly

constituted court majority of four, issued a series of blatantly

activist decisions.               See Diane S. Sykes,       Reflections on the

Wisconsin Supreme Court, 89 Marq. L. Rev. 723 (2006).                      In one of

many such activist-driven decisions from that new majority, she

and three others appeared to yield to political pressure and

abrogated its barely two year-old decision in Panzer v. Doyle,

2004    WI   52,    271     Wis. 2d 295,    680   N.W.2d 666,      with    Dairyland
Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 2006 WI 107, 295 Wis. 2d 1, 719

N.W.2d 408.        Similarly, though the court a year prior had upheld

noneconomic        damage    caps    for   medical     malpractice    in    personal

injury cases in Maurin v. Hall, 2004 WI 100, 274 Wis. 2d 28, 682

N.W.2d 866, the new court abruptly changed course and undermined

the notion of judicial deference to legislative policy choices

       Statement of Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, printed in, Cary
       36

Segall, Justice Lay Bare Problems with Abrahamson; Four Upset
They're Left Out of Decisions, Wis. State Journal (Feb. 14,
1999).

                                           21
                                                                      No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

in Ferdon, justifying their unprecedented move by declaring that

"a statute may be constitutionally valid when enacted but may

become      constitutionally           invalid     because       of     changes      in    the

conditions        to    which    the     statute      applies."             Ferdon   v.   Wis.

Patients Comp. Fund, 2005 WI 125, ¶114, 284 Wis. 2d 573, 701

N.W.2d 440.            In yet another instance, the court expanded its

supervisory role beyond the permissible bounds of saying what

the   law    is,       to   endow    themselves       with   a   "broad        authority    to

mandate      desirable          policy       ostensibly      related           to    judicial

proceedings" in the vein of the executive branch, which then

"extend[ed] far beyond the litigants in [that] specific case."37

The activism that took over that new court majority's decision-

making coursed through virtually every area of the law:                                civil,

criminal, juvenile, and even rule-making.                        Throughout that time,

members      of    the      court      lay    aside     their     robes        of    judicial

independence to affix their campaign pins of judicial activism

and tipped the scales of the court's independent decision making

power in their favor.               Here we go again.
      ¶99    Will this redistricting original action be the first

in a series of outcome-based legal decisions of the new court of

four?      In the 2004-2005 term, when Justice Ann Walsh Bradley was

       Rick Esenberg, A Court Unbound? The Recent Jurisprudence
      37

of the Wisconsin Supreme Court 10 (Federalist Society White
Paper          Mar.           2007),          https://fedsoc-cms-
public.s3.amazonaws.com/update/pdf/IhZ6cE38iAto3CRWgllVqKrbM9j2I
kM6y7zNZE56.pdf.

                                              22
                                                                No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

then in the new majority,38 the court "signaled a dramatic shift

in [their] jurisprudence."            Sykes, supra ¶98 at 725.                With Ann

Walsh      Bradley     in   tow,   that   iteration   of    the       court   of   four

throughout the 2004-2005 term and beyond, "depart[ed] from some

familiar and long-accepted principles that normally operate as

constraints       on    the    court's     use   of   power"          including    such

principles as "the presumption that statutes are constitutional,

judicial deference to legislative policy choices, respect for

precedent and authoritative sources of legal interpretation, and

the     prudential      institutional      caution    that       counsels      against

imposing       broad-brush     judicial     solutions      to    difficult        social

problems."       Sykes, supra ¶98 at 725-26.                The 2004-2005 court

majority proceeded to make a mockery of the law, throwing wide

open the door of judicial activism in cases that ranged from

criminal law to civil law to torts to juvenile to rulemaking and

everything in between.             As Judge Sykes recounts in her Hallows

lecture39 reflecting on the court's activist missteps from that

term, that court of four:

              "rewrote the rational basis test for evaluating
               challenges to state statutes under the Wisconsin
               Constitution, striking down the statutory limit
               on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice
               cases;[40]

       The new majority consisted of Shirley Abrahamson, Ann
      38

Walsh Bradley, N. Patrick Crooks, and Louis Butler (who filled
the vacancy created by Diane Sykes' appointment to the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals.)

       Case summary excerpts taken from Sykes, Reflections on
      39

the Wisconsin Supreme Court, supra note 7.

       Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 2005 WI 125, 284
      40

Wis. 2d 573, 701 N.W.2d 440.
                                          23
                                                                No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

            eliminated the individual causation requirement
             for   tort    liability   in  lawsuits   against
             manufacturers of lead-paint pigment, expanding
             "risk contribution" theory, a form of collective
             industry liability;[41]

            expanded the scope of the exclusionary rule under
             the state constitution to require suppression of
             physical evidence obtained as a result of law
             enforcement's  failure   to   administer  Miranda
             warnings;[42]

            declared a common police identification procedure
             inherently    suggestive   and     the      resulting
             identification evidence generally inadmissible in
             criminal    prosecutions    under       the     state
             constitution's due process clause; [43] and

            invoked its supervisory authority over the state
             court system to impose a new rule on law
             enforcement    that   all    juvenile    custodial
             interrogations be electronically recorded."[44]
Sykes, supra ¶98 at 725.

    ¶100 Most of our current court composition knows about the

historic missteps of that court, second-hand.                         But Justice Ann

Walsh Bradley knows about it first-hand, as she was one of the

then court of four.          She has the benefit of having been a

justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for about three decades,

    41 Thomas     v.   Mallett,    2005       WI   129,   285    Wis. 2d 236,       701
N.W.2d 523.
    42 State     v.    Knapp,     2005        WI   127,    285        N.W.2d 86,    700
N.W.2d 899.
    43 State     v.    Dubose,    2005    WI       126,   285    Wis. 2d 143,       699
N.W.2d 582.
    44 State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, 283 Wis. 2d 145, 699
N.W.2d 110.

                                         24
                                                                     No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

since 1995, and a member of the bench for nearly 40 years.45

Past error should counsel her to depart from lending her name to

the activism embraced by the new majority.

       ¶101 Instead, all of Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's years of

collective      judicial        experience         takes    the    majority    right    back

full-circle to the 2004-2005 court and its penchant for judicial

activism.       Any one of the current court of four could refrain

from    lending       her    vote       to   the    exploration      of    such   judicial

mischief.       The 2004-2005 court term became irrevocably branded,

which       should    serve        as    a   cautionary      tale     against     justices

engaging in judicial activism.                      Activism is destructive to the

institution          of   the      court,      whether      to     achieve    liberal    or

conservative outcomes.                  That is the point.         The court's role is

only    to    declare       what    the      law    is.46    The    Johnson     litigation

declared what the law is.

       ¶102 Does anyone wonder how Wisconsin became a nationwide

hotbed for political spending, a record holder for the most

       For added perspective, at the time Ann Walsh Bradley
       45

first started serving as a judge, her three other colleagues
were not even lawyers yet: Justice Rebecca Dallet was in high
school, Justice Jill Karofsky was just starting out as a
freshman at Duke University, and Justice Janet Protasiewicz was
wrapping up her undergraduate studies at U.W.-Milwaukee.

       In doing so, as United States Supreme Court Chief Justice
       46

John Roberts reminds us, "[j]udges are [to be] like umpires.
Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. . . . ."
Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr.
to be Chief Justice of the United States: Hearing Before the S.
Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 56 (Sept. 12, 2005).

                                               25
                                                        No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

expensive judicial campaign in our nation's history?47                Is this

the new norm?    The state Democratic Party chair has already said

that "[t]he stakes [of Ann Walsh Bradley's upcoming campaign]

will be enormous," and that "[a]s a party, [Democrats will] be

just about ready to do anything to avoid returning to a 'rogue

court'."48   Ann   Walsh   Bradley    once   upon   a    time    found    this

problematic.49   She claimed to "have [had] a vision for our court

system where political parties [do not] hav[e] undue input" on

judicial races, as she "strongly believe[d] political parties

should stay out of judicial races."50        Time will tell whether Ann

Walsh Bradley will change her position on that as well.

     ¶103 The majority leaves behind fundamental judicial tenets

giving no deference to longstanding legal parameters.                    These

     47Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Cost Record $51 Million,
Wisconsin     Democracy     Campaign     (July     18,     2023),
https://www.wisdc.org/news/press-releases/139-press-release-
2023/7390-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-cost-record-51m.
     48Steven Walters, Schimel Could Be Potent Supreme Court
Candidate,      Urban     Milwaukee      (Dec.     4,      2023),
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2023/12/04/the-state-of-politics-
schimel-could-be-potent-supreme-court-candidate
     49Quote of Ann Walsh Bradley, Wisconsin Public Television,
Candidate   Debate,  Mar.   27,  2015,  https://ballotpedia.org/
Wisconsin_Supreme_Court_elections,_2015   ("This    has    never
happened before in the state of Wisconsin to this degree that a
political party would be inserted into a nonpartisan race.
Political parties have agendas and we can't have courts with
agendas because that undermines the public's trust in the people
in our decisions.")
     50Scott Bauer, Supreme Court candidates spar over partisan
influences,   Green   Bay   Press  Gazette   (Mar.   24,   2015),
https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/politics/2015/03
/24/supreme-court-candidates-partisan-influences/70405490/

                                 26
                                                                 No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

four members of the court exhibit a continuing and escalating

pattern of power-starved behavior which amounts to an exercise

of sheer raw power accumulation, at any cost.                           This original

action is their latest power grab.                      Power-aggregation of this

nature is often "clad, so to speak, in sheep's clothing," in

hopes that others will not recognize the danger they are in

until it is too late.              Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 699

(1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting).                  The court of four hopes that

their innocuously clad actions can escape immediate detection as

usually    "the   potential      of    the       asserted      principle      to    effect

important    change   in     the      equilibrium         of   power    [between        the

branches] is not immediately evident," so it "must be discerned

by a careful and perceptive analysis.                    But this wolf comes as a

wolf."      Id.   (Scalia,      J.,    dissenting).            The     four     justices'

evident lack of regard for fundamental sound judicial principles

requires me to vociferously dissent.

                                            I

     ¶104 The legislative power, per the Wisconsin Constitution,
is vested in the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

Wis. Const. art. IV, § 1 ("The legislative power shall be vested

in a senate and assembly.")                 This grant of legislative power

includes    the   power    to      carry         out    redistricting.          Per     the

Wisconsin   Constitution,       it     is    the       legislature,     following       the

United States census, who shall "apportion and district anew the

members of the senate and the assembly, according to the number

of   inhabitants."    Wis.       Const.          art.    IV,    §3.        It      is   the
legislature, not the judiciary, who is responsible for creating

                                            27
                                                                    No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

maps    which     comply    with     the    limited      expressed          apportionment

guidelines      under      both    the   federal       and    state       constitutions.

Under     normally        functioning       political             process,       when     the

legislature       "redistricts       anew"      every        10     years    and     passes

compliant maps, those maps take effect upon being signed into

law by the governor or when the governor's veto of those maps is

overridden.       Wis. Const. art. V, § 10(2)a.

       ¶105 As    a    political     process         delegated      to    the     political

branches, redistricting was not, and is not, the responsibility

of the courts.            The court's responsibility as an                       impartial,

apolitical branch is to declare what the law is.                          See Marbury v.

Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (emphasis added) ("It

is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department

to say what the law is."); see also Wis. Justice Initiative v.

Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 38, ¶18, 407 Wis. 2d 87, 990

N.W.2d    122     ("The     main    power       we    have        been    given     in    the

constitution is the judicial power, which by necessity means the

power to interpret the law in appropriate cases.").                               Thus, the
apolitical judicial branch normally has no role to play in this

political process.

       ¶106 But       sometimes     that     traditional            political       process

fails.    Where    that     political      process       fails,      and     there       is   a

constitutional crisis such that there are no compliant maps in

place with which to conduct state elections, then the judiciary

does     have    an     important——albeit            limited——role          to    play        in

providing a judicial remedy to solve the issue.

                                           28
                                                                          No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

       ¶107 Such was the unappealing situation we found ourselves

in   during     the   Johnson         redistricting               litigation      cycle.          The

majority's      discussion           of    our       expansive       Johnson      redistricting

history    was     underdeveloped.                    Their       framing,      all     two    scant

paragraphs       of   it,   combined             with       their     assertion         that    this

court's    treatment        of       the        issue       of    contiguity       was    somehow

"cursory",      majority      op.         at    ¶22,       conveniently         lacks    important

context and pertinent details on how this court——which included

three    current      members        of        the    majority——definitively              answered

these     and      all      redistricting                  questions       multiple            times,

conclusively, throughout our Johnson litigation these last two

years.

       ¶108 Following the 2020 census, Wisconsin voters filed a

petition for an original action in this court claiming the then-

existing       congressional              and         state       legislative         maps       were

malapportioned        under          the       state        and    federal       constitutions,

requiring that new maps be drawn.                          See State ex rel. Reynolds v.

Zimmerman, 22 Wis. 2d 544, 556, 126 N.W.2d 551 (1964) (finding
"the    principle     of    per       capita          equality      of    representation"         in

Article    IV,    Section        3    of        the       Wisconsin      Constitution).           We

granted the petition.                 Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, No.

2021AP1450-OA, unpublished order (Sept. 22, 2021).                                 The majority

seems     to    overlook      the          inconvenient            fact    that       during     the

resulting litigation, this court liberally permitted parties to

intervene, and then "grant[ed] intervention to all parties that

sought it."       Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 14, ¶2,
400 Wis. 2d 626, 971 N.W.2d 402 ("Johnson II"), summarily rev'd

                                                     29
                                                                    No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

sub nom., Wis. Legislature v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 595 U.S.

398, 142 S. Ct. 1245 (2022) (per curiam).                         These intervenors are

listed below.51        This original action commenced an "odyssey" that

brought this court face-to-face with every issue and claim the

parties       could    garner      in    support       of    their     proposed     maps——

including the contiguity issue raised here.                        See Johnson v. Wis.

Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 19, 401 Wis. 2d 198, 972 N.W.2d 559

(Karofsky, J., dissenting) ("Johnson III").

                                    A.     Johnson I

       ¶109 It        is   worth        remembering         how     this    most    recent

redistricting challenge came to the court.                           In Johnson I, we

laid the groundwork for how we would proceed with the unenviable

task    of    settling     the   inter-branch          dispute      over    redistricting

maps.       Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623.                That year, "[t]he political

process       failed . . . ,       necessitating         our      involvement."        Id.,

¶19.        Called upon to remedy this failure so a map would be in

place for the upcoming election, this court resolved to remedy

the existing malapportionment by selecting a map submitted to us
by   the     parties.       Johnson       II,    400    Wis. 2d 626,         ¶6.       This

approach sought to preserve our role as an independent judiciary

free of the political thicket.                   "[N]othing in the constitution

vests this court with the power of the legislature to enact new

       Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, Voces de la
       51

Frontera, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Cindy Fallona,
Lauren Stephenson, Rebecca Alwin, Congressman Glenn Grothman,
Congressman Mike Gallagher, Congressman Bryan Steil, Congressman
Tom Tiffany, Congressman Scott Fitzgerald, Lisa Hunter, Jacob
Zabel, Jennifer Oh, John Persa, Geraldine Schertz, Kathleen
Qualheim, Gary Krenz, Sarah J. Hamilton, Stephen Joseph Wright,
Jean-Luc Thiffeault, and Somesh Jha.

                                            30
                                                                          No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

maps.     Our role in redistricting remains a purely judicial one,

which limits us to declaring what the law is and affording the

parties     a     remedy        for        its     violation."              Johnson          I,     399

Wis. 2d 623,       ¶3.          We    therefore             proceeded,     seeing          our    only

permissible            task          as          "ensuring        the           maps         satisfy

all . . . constitutional                  and     statutory       requirements";             not     to

adjudicate       "[c]laims           of    political          unfairness        in     the       maps[,

which] present political questions, not legal ones."                                       Id., ¶4.

After all, "[t]he job of the judiciary is to decide cases based

on the law."       Id., ¶82 (Hagedorn, J., concurring).

      ¶110 This court            began by stating the obvious:                               the map

selected        must     comply           with     state       law,       but     also       federal

constitutional and statutory requirements.                            Id., ¶¶24-27.               These

include     the        Equal     Protection             Clause's          one-person-one-vote

requirement,           the     prohibition             on     multimember         congressional

districts       under    2     U.S.C.       § 2c,       and    the    Voting         Rights       Act's

("VRA's") prohibition of "the denial or abridgment of the right

to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language
minority group."             Id.; see Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 577

(1964) ("[T]he 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

practicable."); 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (establishing the framework

for     so-called        vote        dilution       claims).              Like       the     federal

constitution, we recognized that Article IV, Section 3 of the

Wisconsin Constitution also imposes a one-person-one-vote rule,
requiring        reapportionment                 "according          to     the        number        of

                                                  31
                                                                         No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

inhabitants"      in    new    districts.             Johnson       I,    399    Wis. 2d 623,

¶¶28-38 (confirming that this interpretation comports with the

constitution's original meaning).

       ¶111 The      parties       further       asked      this        court    to     consider

partisan fairness in selecting a new map.                          This ask ran headlong

into our role as an apolitical branch whose sole purpose is to

resolve    legal       disputes.          See     Wis.       Justice       Initiative,        407

Wis. 2d 38,      ¶18    ("The      main    power       we    have       been    given    in   the

constitution is the judicial power, which by necessity means the

power to interpret the law in appropriate cases.").                                   We do not

resolve partisan power politics.                     We resolve parties' rights and

responsibilities under the law by "focus[ing] on the language of

the adopted text and historical evidence" of its meaning.                                  State

v. Halverson, 2021 WI 7, ¶22, 395 Wis. 2d 385, 953 N.W.2d 847.

Some questions, while they may be intriguing, nonetheless lie

outside the legal boundaries of what courts can answer.

       ¶112 The        majority       calls          partisan           gerrymandering         an

"important     and     unresolved         legal      question,"          majority     op.,    ¶7,
that    they   declined       to   take     up    in    the    petition         for     original

action over concerns of the extensive factfinding required.                                   See

Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 70, 409 Wis. 2d 372,

995    N.W.2d 779.           But   this     court          answered       the    question      of

partisan gerrymandering in Johnson I, when this court concluded

the Wisconsin Constitution has nothing to say about partisan

gerrymandering,        and    therefore         it    is    not     a    justiciable       legal

claim this court can resolve.                    Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶81
(lead    op.).       Partisan       gerrymandering            is    "[t]he       practice      of

                                             32
                                                                      No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

dividing a geographical area into electoral districts, often of

highly irregular shape, to give one political party an unfair

advantage     by        diluting       the      opposition's          voting        strength."

Gerrymandering, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).                                       This

begs   the    question:         "Diluted         relative       to     what       benchmark?"

Gonzalez     v.    Aurora,           535   F.3d       594,     598     (7th       Cir.      2008)

(recognizing       that        VRA     vote-dilution          claims        beg     the       same

question).              That         benchmark         is     proportional            partisan

representation——"the political theory that a party should win a

percentage of seats, on a statewide basis, that is roughly equal

to   the   percentage          of    votes      it    receives."            Johnson      I,    399

Wis. 2d 623,       ¶42.         We    recognized        that       nothing     in     the     law

authorizes this court to grant parties relief based on whether a

particular      map     achieves       proportional          partisan       representation.

"The   people     have     never      consented        to    the     Wisconsin      judiciary

deciding what constitutes a 'fair' partisan divide; seizing such

power would encroach on the constitutional prerogatives of the

political branches."            Id., ¶45.            Seats in a representative body
must be earned via the political process.                            That is what makes

the political branches accountable to the people.                                 "It hardly

follows from the principle that each person must have an equal

say in the election of representatives that a person is entitled

to have his political party achieve representation in some way

commensurate       to    its    share      of    statewide         support."          Id.,     ¶42

(quoting Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2484,

2501 (2019)).

                                                33
                                                                      No.      2023AP1399-OA.akz

       ¶113 Not only did this court conclude partisan fairness is

a   political        question      assigned       to    the    legislature,              but   our

searching review of the Wisconsin Constitution revealed nothing

setting      forth    any     cognizable      right      to    partisan          fairness      in

redistricting.          We    concluded,      "[n]othing           supports         the    notion

that Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution was

originally understood——or has ever been interpreted——to regulate

partisanship in redistricting."52                      Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623,

¶58.        "Likewise,       Article   I,     Sections        3[53]      and     4[54]    of   the

Wisconsin Constitution do not inform redistricting challenges"

because      "[n]othing       about    the    shape      of    a      district       infringes

anyone's      ability    to       speak,    publish,      assemble,            or   petition."

Id., ¶¶59-60.          We further said finding a legal standard for

partisan      fairness       in   Article    I,    Section         22,      which    provides,

       "All people are born equally free and independent, and
       52

have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments
are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed." Wis. Const. art. I, § 1.

       "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his
       53

sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge
the liberty of speech or of the press.          In all criminal
prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in
evidence, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter
charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives
and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the
jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."
Wis. Const. art. I, § 3.

       "The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to
       54

consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or
any department thereof, shall never be abridged."   Wis. Const.
art. I, § 4.

                                             34
                                                                No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

"[t]he blessings of a free government can only be maintained by

a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality

and   virtue,    and        by   frequent         recurrence          to   fundamental

principles,"    and    to    "fabricate       a   legal   standard         of   partisan

fairness . . . would         represent    anything        but     'moderation'        or

'temperance[.]'"       Id., ¶62.     Whatever operative effect Section

22 may have, it cannot constitute an open invitation to the

judiciary to rewrite duly enacted law by imposing our subjective

policy preferences in the name of "justice."                Id.        Instead,

      Article IV, Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Wisconsin
      Constitution express a series of discrete requirements
      governing redistricting. These are the only Wisconsin
      constitutional limits we have ever recognized on the
      legislature's discretion to redistrict. The last time
      we    implemented   a    judicial    remedy  for    an
      unconstitutional redistricting plan, we acknowledged
      Article IV as the exclusive repository of state
      constitutional limits on redistricting:

          [T]he Wisconsin constitution itself provides
          a standard of reapportionment "meet for
          judicial judgment."    The legislature shall
          reapportion "according to the number of
          inhabitants" subject to some geographical
          and political unit limitations in execution
          of this standard.   We need not descend into
          the "thicket" to fashion standards whole-
          cloth.
Id., ¶63 (quoting Zimmerman, 22 Wis. 2d at 562 (alterations in

original).

      ¶114 Finally, rejecting the Johnson I dissent's assertion

that the task of adopting remedial maps required this court to

                                         35
                                                                        No.      2023AP1399-OA.akz

rule    as     a     partisan         actor,55      we     adopted        "[a]     least-change

approach[,          which]      is        the     most     consistent,           neutral,        and

appropriate use of our limited judicial power to remedy the

constitutional violations in this case."                               Id., ¶85 (Hagedorn,

J., concurring); see also id., ¶¶69-72.                                Least change, as a

framework          this     court      put       forward     throughout            the    Johnson

litigation,         properly         reflects      the     limited      role      the    judicial

branch plays in redistricting, as it is the legislature, not the

judiciary,          which       is     granted          constitutional           authority           to

redistrict.          Least change remains the law.                      Until today.            Now,

the    majority,          citing     to    nothing,        declares       instead        that    the

standard       this       court      implemented         barely      two      years      ago     "is

unworkable in practice," majority op., ¶63, simply so that they

can overrule it, and move this institution down the darkened

path of outcome-based judicial activism.

                                       B.       Johnson II

       ¶115 Having made clear the ground rules in Johnson I, this

court       proceeded      to     select        remedial    maps     in    Johnson        II,    400
Wis. 2d 626.          To repeat, we decided the proper way for this

court to select remedial maps is to "implement judicial remedies

only    to    the     extent       necessary       to     remedy     the      violation         of   a

justiciable         and    cognizable           right    found    in    the      United    States

Constitution, the VRA, or Article IV, Sections 3, 4, or 5 of the

       The Johnson I dissent incorrectly interpreted the
       55

majority's "least change" approach as "inherently political" in
its determination to limit the judiciary's role in a political
process granted to the legislature and the governor. Johnson I,
399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶¶88-89 (Dallet, J., dissenting).

                                                  36
                                                                 No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

Wisconsin Constitution."           Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶81 (lead

op.).    As the judiciary, we cannot "consider the partisan makeup

of districts because it does not implicate any justiciable or

cognizable right," and we implement "the least-change approach

to remedying any constitutional or statutory infirmities in the

existing maps because the constitution precludes the judiciary

from    interfering         with   the     lawful      policy     choices         of    the

legislature."        Id.    Instead of requesting a hearing or a referee

to    engage   in    factfinding,        the    parties   agreed       to   proceed      on

stipulated facts and expert reports.                      Parties, including the

Governor,      Senate      Democrats,      and      Citizen   Mathematicians            and

Scientists, stipulated at the outset of the Johnson litigation

that    Article      IV's     contiguity        requirement      is     satisfied        by

municipal      islands,      and    these       islands    are     constitutionally

permissible.        Joint Stip. of Facts & Law, supra ¶88 ("Contiguity

for    state   assembly       districts        is   satisfied     when      a     district

boundary follows the municipal boundaries.                    Municipal 'islands'

are    legally      contiguous     with    the      municipality       to    which      the
'island' belongs.")

       ¶116 Applying this framework to the maps, a majority of the

court first concluded that the Governor's proposed congressional

map "best follow[ed] our directive to make the least changes

from existing congressional district boundaries while complying

with all relevant state and federal laws."                         Johnson II, 400

Wis. 2d 626, ¶25.           A majority of the court accordingly adopted

Democratic     Governor      Evers'      proposed     congressional         map    as   the
remedial map.         Id.     Curiously, no challenge is made to that

                                           37
                                                                         No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

Democratically       drawn     map       which       was    chosen        with       the    "least

change" methodology.           Could it be that it already achieves the

desired partisan outcome?

      ¶117 In selecting the proper remedial maps for the state

legislature, however, a majority of this court initially went

astray.        The   Johnson        II     majority        adopted            Governor      Evers'

proposed       legislative       maps——"which              carve[d]            seven       Assembly

districts with populations that [were] curiously at almost exact

51%     African-American         populations"——based                     on     an     erroneous

application of Section 2 of the VRA and the Equal Protection

Clause.     Id., ¶72 (Ziegler, C.J., dissenting).                               A majority of

this court misunderstood and misapplied VRA § 2 in creating a

race-based      remedy    in     the       absence         of       a    VRA     violation        or

wrong:    creating    such     an    untethered            race-based           remedy      out   of

thin air, as a majority of the court had done, is in fact,

unconstitutional.

      ¶118 "A State may not use race as the predominant factor in

drawing    district      lines      unless       it    has      a       compelling         reason."
Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 291 (2017).                                    If there is no

compelling      reason,    using         race    as    the      predominant            factor     in

drawing district lines creates an unjustified, unconstitutional

racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).                         The United States Supreme

Court    has    specified      three       elements,         known        as     the       "Gingles

preconditions,"       which         must        be    established               in     order      to

demonstrate a VRA § 2 violation necessitating the creation of an
additional minority opportunity district:

                                            38
                                                                        No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

      (1) the racial group must be "sufficiently large and
      geographically compact to constitute a majority in a
      single-member district"; (2) the group must be
      "politically cohesive"; and (3) the white majority
      must "vot[e] sufficiently as a bloc to enable
      it . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred
      candidate."
League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 425

(2006)     (quoting     Thornburg      v.        Gingles,         478     U.S.       30,    50-51

(1986)).      "If all three Gingles requirements are established,

the   statutory    text    directs         us       to    consider      the        'totality   of

circumstances' to determine whether members of a racial group

have less opportunity than do other members of the electorate."

Id. at 425-26.         Section 2 further provides, though "[t]he extent

to    which     members        of      a        protected           class           have     been

elected . . . may         be     considered,"              "nothing           in     [VRA    § 2]

establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected

in numbers equal to their proportion in the population."                                       52

U.S.C.     § 10301(b).           Unless         "each        of     the       three        Gingles

prerequisites is established, 'there neither has been a wrong

nor can be a remedy.'"            Cooper, 581 U.S. at 306 (quoting Growe

v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 41 (1993)).                       The Supreme Court therefore
"insist[s]    on   a    strong      basis       in       evidence    of       the    harm   being

remedied" under the VRA in order to survive strict scrutiny.

Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 922 (1995); accord Shaw, 509

U.S. at 653 ("[R]acial bloc voting and minority-group political

cohesion    [the   requirements        of       a    VRA     redistricting           violation]

never can be assumed, but specifically must be proved in each

case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes
minority voting strength in violation of § 2.").                               "[T]he purpose

                                            39
                                                                       No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

of strict scrutiny is to 'smoke out' illegitimate uses of race

by   assuring     that        the    legislative          body    is    pursuing       a    goal

important enough to warrant use of a highly suspect tool."                                   City

of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co,, 488 U.S. 469, 493 (1989).

      ¶119 The        Johnson       II    majority        improperly         concluded       that

Democratic Governor Evers' racial gerrymander was proper, even

though    it    did     not    meet      this    minimum     threshold         necessary       to

survive strict scrutiny.                 Johnson II, 400 Wis. 2d 626, ¶¶47, 50

("[W]e     cannot       say    for       certain     on    this    record       that        seven

majority-Black assembly districts are required by the VRA.                                   But

based on our assessment of the totality of the circumstances and

given the discretion afforded states implementing the Act, we

conclude the Governor's configuration is permissible.").                                      The

majority's violation of the law was sufficient cause for the

United States Supreme Court, three weeks after the Johnson II

majority       selected       the    Governor's       maps,       to    take    the        rarely

invoked        action         of     summarily        reversing          the     majority's

                                                40
                                                          No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

interpretation    of    the   VRA56   and   the   Equal   Protection    Clause,

while leaving the rest of the analysis intact.               Wis. Legislature

v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 595 U.S. 398, 142 S. Ct. 1245 (2022)

(per curiam).     The Supreme Court determined that the majority of

this    court   had    "failed   to   answer"     "whether      a   race-neutral

alternative that did not add a seventh majority-black district

would deny black voters' equal political opportunity" in trying

to determine whether there was a VRA violation which justified

       First, the United States Supreme Court determined that
       56

the Johnson II majority mistook the VRA § 2 as requiring the
creation of as many majority opportunity districts as possible,
thus "embracing just the sort of uncritical majority-minority
district maximization that [the Supreme Court] ha[s] expressly
rejected." Wis. Legislature v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 595 U.S.
398, 142 S. Ct. 1245, 1249 (2022) (per curiam) (citing Johnson
v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1017 (1994) ("Failure to maximize
cannot be the measure of § 2.")).       The Johnson II majority
improperly took Cooper's "leeway" language as indicating that
"it had to conclude only that the VRA might support race-based
districting——not that the statute required it." Id.; Cooper v.
Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 306 (2017).    The Supreme Court explained
that its "precedent instructs otherwise"; "that 'leeway' does
not allow a State to adopt a racial gerrymander that the State
does not, at the time of imposition 'judg[e] necessary under a
proper interpretation of the VRA.'"     Wis. Legislature, 142 S.
Ct. at 1250 (quoting Cooper, 581 U.S. at 306).

     Second, the Court observed that the Johnson II majority's
"analysis of Gingles' preconditions fell short of [the Court's]
standards" by "improperly rel[ying] on generalizations to reach
the conclusion that the preconditions were satisfied" "[r]ather
than carefully evaluating evidence at the district level." Id.
In fact, the "sole piece of cited record evidence came from an
intervenor who argued that the Governor's map violated the VRA."
Id. at 1250 n.2.

     Finally, the Supreme Court faulted the Johnson II majority
for "improperly reduc[ing] Gingles' totality-of-circumstances
analysis to a single factor" and "focus[ing] exclusively on
proportionality," an approach the Court previously rejected as
contrary to the VRA's language. Id. at 1250.

                                       41
                                                                   No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

the Governor's racially gerrymandered maps.                         Wis. Legislature,

142 S. Ct. at 1250-51.

     ¶120 The Supreme Court's repudiation of this court was only

the third time that this court has ever been summarily reversed.

The first was about 73 years ago, and the second being about 55

years ago.57       As a result of that rare repudiation, the court was

required     to    revisit     state      legislative       maps    for     the    upcoming

election, but congressional maps selected by the court majority

were left intact.

                                     C.   Johnson III

     ¶121 We finally brought this line of cases to an end——or so

we thought!——and settled this issue in Johnson III on remand

from the Supreme Court's summary reversal.                          Johnson III, 401

Wis. 2d 198.        It is worth repeating that any map this court

could     select   as    a    judicial      remedy    had    to    first        comply   with

federal constitutional and statutory requirements, including the

VRA, Equal Protection Clause, one-person-one-vote requirement,

and the Wisconsin Constitution, and then had to align with the
court's "least change approach" adopted in Johnson I.                              The maps

also had to comply with state law.                    All parties were free to,

and invited to, submit maps for                    our consideration which met

these foundational compliance requirements.                       Among the five maps

submitted to us, we ultimately selected the Legislature's maps

because,     of    the   maps    submitted,        these     maps        were    "the    only

legally     compliant        maps"    and   were     thus   "the     best,       and     only,

     57Plankinton Packing Co. v. Wis. Emp. Rels. Bd., 338 U.S.
953 (1950); Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519 (1968).

                                             42
                                                           No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

viable proposal."           Johnson III, 401 Wis. 2d 198, ¶22.               These

court-selected        remedial         maps——the     Democratic      Governor's

congressional map and the Republican Legislature's state senate

and assembly maps——were then used to conduct the state's 2022

elections and remained in place and in effect until this most

recent collateral attack on the court's judgment in Johnson III.

Notably, all parties agreed, and the court concluded, that the

selected maps complied with contiguity.

                                         II

      ¶122 The majority's decision to hear this present case and

now overrule its own less than two-year-old decision following a

change in court membership is a resurrection of the contempt

voiced by the Johnson III dissenters following the United States

Supreme Court's summary reversal.              The Johnson III dissenters

demonstrated     an    open      and     notorious    disregard      for    their

fundamental    duty    to    neutrally     apply    the   law.    "Rather     than

admitting [their] error" the Johnson III dissenters "launche[d]

an indignant attack on this nation's highest court," echoing
arguments from Justice Sotomayor's dissent to the per curiam and

chastising     this    court     for     applying    binding     Supreme    Court

precedents that the dissenters felt were "gaslighting."                    Johnson

III, 401 Wis. 2d 198, ¶¶137-39 & n.33 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley,

J.,   concurring);     id.,    ¶175     (Karofsky,   J.,   dissenting).        Not

content with the outcome of the Johnson litigation, the majority

hopes that having a fourth "kick at the cat," provides them with

the predetermined outcome they desire——both state and federal
all democratic maps.

                                         43
                                                                  No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

      ¶123 This original action comes camouflaged as something

other than what it is:              a motion for reconsideration of this

court's    decision     in    Johnson      III,       a   procedurally     problematic

avenue these parties cannot avail themselves of as it is now

time-barred.       Wis. Stat.           § (Rule) 809.64 ("A party may seek

reconsideration of the judgment or opinion of the supreme court

by filing a motion under s. 809.14 for reconsideration within 20

days after the date of the decision of the supreme court.").

All other legal bases and procedural mechanisms for this court

to reexamine these maps once again are likewise barred.                                Yet

here we are.

      ¶124 This case, along with all the factual disputes and

legal issues it presents, or could even possibly present, have

already been thoroughly litigated at the highest courts of this

state and the nation.             The parties are precluded from bringing

new   claims   now     over       the    same    maps     this    court   has    already

rendered judgment on.              Accordingly, this court should not be

reexamining      the   congressional            or    state     legislative     maps    we
imposed as a judicial remedy less than two years ago under the

guise of seeking district "contiguity" or avoiding violation of

the principle of "separation of powers."

      ¶125 The new court majority's handling of this case strikes

a   resounding    blow       at    the    root       of   our    shared   foundational

judicial principles and duties.                 We should never have taken this

case.     This court should not have engaged in a vaunted show of

judicial window dressing in pretending that the outcome of this
case was not already predetermined from the outset.                             There is

                                            44
                                                                No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

only one way the majority can justify its extraordinary steps

taken in flagrant defiance of our precedent, our law, and our

nation's highest court:           raw judicial power.

    ¶126 This       case     should        be    dismissed        as    improvidently

granted.      Be that as it may, this court cannot now address

issues which these parties had a prior opportunity to raise,

decided not to, and now seek to raise before Johnson III is even

cold, and do so in an unnecessarily constrained timeframe that

runs up against our 2024 election cycle.                    Justice, due process,

and the court system's reliance on finality of judgments, demand

this case's dismissal and its arguments precluded under stare

decisis, standing, judicial estoppel,                  issue preclusion, claim

preclusion,    laches,      and    due     process.         Unlike      the    majority

opinion, I will address them in detail.

                              A.     Stare Decisis

    ¶127 These       four     members           of   the    court       fundamentally

undermine    this   essential        legal      principle    in       their   quest   to

deliver a predetermined outcome to their constituents.
    ¶128 The doctrine of stare decisis inhibits the majority's

exercise of raw judicial power in seeking to overrule a case so

recently decided.       We do not formulaically adhere to, or quickly

dispense with, stare decisis simply as a means for avoiding hard

questions.      Stare      decisis    is     not     judicial     window      dressing.

Rather, stare decisis is a foundational concept in our legal

system because "respect for prior decisions is fundamental to

the rule of law."        Johnson Controls, Inc., 264 Wis. 2d 60, ¶94.
Stare decisis "ensures the integrity of the judicial system by

                                           45
                                                                        No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

developing consistency in legal principles and establishing that

cases are grounded in the law, not in the will of individual

members of the court."              State v. Roberson, 2019 WI 102, ¶97, 389

Wis. 2d 190, 935 N.W.2d 813 (Dallet, J., dissenting).                                       "This

court follows the doctrine of stare decisis scrupulously because

of our abiding respect for the rule of law."                                  Hinrichs v. DOW

Chemical Co., 2020 WI 2, 389 Wis. 2d 669, 937 N.W.2d 37 (quoting

Johnson Controls, Inc., 264 Wis. 2d 60, ¶94).                                "That is why we

require    a    special       justification              in   order      to     overturn     our

precedent."      State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, ¶19, 407 Wis. 2d 195,

990 N.W.2d 174.          A mere change in the composition of the court

does not rise to the high level of the "special justification"

standard    required         to    overturn      a       prior    case.         Mayo   v.    Wis.

Injured    Patients      &    Fams.      Comp.       Fund,       2018   WI     78,   ¶110,    383

Wis. 2d 1, 914 N.W.2d 678 (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., dissenting)

("The decision to overturn a prior case must not be undertaken

merely because the composition of the court has changed.")

     ¶129 Adherence to stare decisis is essential because there
is   no        finality           in     judgement            "[w]hen          constitutional

interpretation is open to revision in every case, [as] 'deciding

cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary

and unpredictable results.'"                Citizens Util. Bd. v. Klauser, 194

Wis. 2d 484,      513,       534       N.W.2d    608      (1995)        (Abrahamson,        C.J.,

dissenting)      (quoting          Appeal        of       Concerned           Corporators      of

Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 525 A.2d 671, 701 (N.H. 1987) (Souter, J.,

dissenting)).         Departing           from       a    prior    decision——decided           so
recently and affecting the same set of facts——erodes "public

                                                46
                                                              No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

faith in the judiciary as a source of impersonal and reasoned

judgments."       Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375,

403 (1970).

      ¶130 From the start of this Johnson litigation cycle, the

relevant parties, including the Governor, Senate Democrats, and

the Citizen Mathematicians and Scientists, agreed and this court

determined that "municipal islands" are "legally contiguous even

if the area around the island is part of a different district."

Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶36; see also Joint Stip. of Facts &

Law   supra    ¶88    ("Contiguity         for   state   assembly    districts    is

satisfied      when      a    district     boundary      follows    the   municipal

boundaries.       Municipal 'islands' are legally contiguous with the

municipality to which the 'island' belongs.")                       And they have

been, for years.58            That holding was reiterated by this court

again in Johnson II and yet again in Johnson III when we adopted

proposed      remedial       maps——including      remedial    maps    proposed    by

parties     who    now       argue   for    a    different    interpretation      of

contiguity——which contained municipal islands.                      These holdings
on contiguity, which three members of the current majority did

not take fault with in their dissents, were in line with the

court's understanding of contiguity, as reflected in the maps

that existed since the 1950s or 1960s, according to counsel,

previous 50 years of law on the topic, the parties own agreement

       Oral argument in Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, No.
      58

2023AP1399-OA, held Nov. 21, 2023, available on WisconsinEye
https://wiseye.org/2023/11/21/wisconsin-supreme-court-rebecca-
clarke-v-wisconsin-elections-commission/ (Rebuttal arguments of
Attorneys Sam Hirsch and Mark Gaber at 2:53:00 and 3:01,
respectively.)

                                            47
                                                                     No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

that   the   maps    are    contiguous,       and    the       court's        reliance   on

Prosser v. Elections Bd., 793 F. Supp. 859, 866 (W.D. Wis. 1992)

(per curiam) ("Since the distance between town and island is

slight, we do not think the failure of the legislative plan to

achieve literal contiguity a serious demerit; and we note that

it has been the practice of the Wisconsin legislature to treat

islands as contiguous with the cities or villages to which they

belong.").

       ¶131 The court's determination that municipal islands were

constitutionally permissible in Johnson I was essential to the

court's provision of a remedy, so the allegation that these

repeated     holdings      and    determinations       were           dicta    or   simply

"cursory" comments is farcical.               Majority. op., ¶¶22-23.                 Using

a dicta allegation as an "end run around stare decisis" in this

present case "undermines our common law tradition of fidelity to

precedent."       Est. of Genrich v. OHIC Ins. Co., 2009 WI 67, ¶85,

318    Wis. 2d 553,        769    N.W.2d 481        (Ann       Walsh       Bradley,      J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part); State v. Picotte,
2003 WI 42, ¶61, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381.

       ¶132 The     majority      dismisses     50     years          of    precedent,    a

federal    court    determination       in    Prosser,         and    three     successive

binding determinations by this court in Johnson I, II, and III

in order to do away with a necessary stare decisis analysis

which does not trend in their favor.                 As an analysis shows, this

contiguity     precedent         did   not    demand       a     literal       physically

touching definition.         Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶36; see also
Prosser, 793 F. Supp. at 866 ("Since the distance between town

                                         48
                                                                    No.       2023AP1399-OA.akz

and   island    is      slight,    we    do     not    think     the      failure          of    the

legislative       plan     to     achieve       literal        contiguity            a     serious

demerit;    and    we    note     that    it    has     been    the      practice          of    the

Wisconsin legislature to treat islands as contiguous with the

cities or villages to which they belong.").                         The court then, as

the   court    should      now    be,     was      "not    persuaded . . . that                  the

Wisconsin Constitution requires literal contiguity."                                 Id.     Stare

decisis, as a principle, does not require the court to "retain

constitutional interpretations that were objectively wrong when

made."     Koschkee v. Taylor, 2019 WI 76, ¶8 n.5, 387 Wis. 2d 552,

929   N.W.2d 600.          But    "objectively          wrong"      is    a    high        bar    to

overcome, one which is not overcome here, as there is simply no

reason for overruling Johnson I and Johnson III that would not

also counsel overruling any other case.

      ¶133 The law demands a stare decisis analysis.                                      That is

notably    absent       from    the    majority       opinion.           The    court's          new

composition does not dispense with the need for such analysis,

and the opinion they put forward does not satisfy the "special
justification"       bar    required      to       overturn     a   precedential             case.

See   Mayo,       383     Wis. 2d 1,        ¶110       (Ann      Walsh         Bradley,          J.,

dissenting) ("The decision to overturn a prior case must not be

undertaken     merely      because       the       composition      of      the      court       has

changed.")

      ¶134 Given        that     the    court's       membership       is      all       that    has

changed, it lends credence to the fact that overruling a case so

recently       decided——in             violation          of     foundational                legal
principles——is       little       more    than      the    majority's          impermissible

                                              49
                                                                    No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

exercise of raw judicial power for activist means.                              Fidelity to

stare decisis and the rule of law impedes these activist means.

                                    B.      Standing

       ¶135 The majority donates barely a paragraph to dispel of a

rather      glaring     issue——whether            the    parties         even       have    the

requisite      standing      necessary       to     bring       their     claims.          The

majority's retreat to a position of "we need not address" the

arguments that we find potentially problematic is unsurprising,

yet    disappointing.         The   issue      of   standing        is    not       so   easily

dispensed with as the majority opinion suggests.                              Majority op.,

¶¶38-39.       Standing may actually prove to be rather problematic

to them.

       ¶136 Standing         in     Wisconsin           is     "not       a     matter       of

jurisdiction, but of sound judicial policy."                          Friends of Black

River       Forest    v.     Kohler        Company,          2022   WI 52,          ¶17,    402

Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342; Wis. Bankers Ass'n Inc. v. Mut.

Sav.    &    Loan    Ass'n    of    Wis.,     96    Wis. 2d 438,              444   n.1,    291

N.W.2d 869 (1980); State ex rel. First Nat'l Bank of Wisconsin
Rapids v. M & I Peoples Bank of Coloma, 95 Wis. 2d 303, 308 n.5,

290 N.W.2d 321 (1980).              "[T]he Wisconsin standing analysis is

conceptually similar to the federal analysis."                            Waste Mgmt. of

Wis., Inc. v. DNR, 144 Wis. 2d 499, 509, 424 N.W.2d 685 (1988).

With this approach, the court asks, "Does the challenged action

cause the petitioner injury in fact?"                           And "is the interest

allegedly injured arguably within the zone of interests to be

protected      or     regulated       by     the    statute         or    constitutional
guarantee in         question?"       Friends of Black River Forest, 402

                                             50
                                                                      No.       2023AP1399-OA.akz

Wis. 2d 587, ¶18 (citing Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. v. Camp,

397   U.S.    150,      153    (1970)).           "'Standing'       is      a    concept       that

restricts access to judicial remedy to those who have suffered

some injury because of something that someone else has either

done or not done."               Krier v. Vilione, 2009 WI 45, ¶20, 317

Wis. 2d 288, 766 N.W.2d 517 (quoting Three T's Trucking v. Kost,

2007 WI App 158, ¶16, 303 Wis. 2d 681, 736 N.W.2d 239).                                          "In

order to have standing to sue, a party must have a personal

stake in the outcome of the controversy."                       Madison v. Fitchburg,

112 Wis. 2d at 228 (emphasis added); see also Mast v. Olsen, 89

Wis. 2d 12,         16,       278     N.W.2d 205            (1979);       Tri-State             Home

Improvement       Co.     Inc.       v.     LIRC,      111    Wis. 2d 103,           113,        330

N.W.2d 186 (1983); Moedern v. McGinnis, 70 Wis. 2d 1056, 1064,

236 N.W.2d 240 (1975).                Being harmed "without more, does not

automatically confer standing."                   Krier, 317 Wis. 2d 288, ¶20.

      ¶137 Standing analysis can vary "depending on the nature of

the claim asserted."            Chenequa Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Village

of    Hartland,      2004      WI     App    144,      ¶13,    275       Wis. 2d 533,            685
N.W.2d 573.         In dealing with redistricting claims however, the

United States Supreme Court has determined that residents cannot

allege    harms       "result[ing]           from      the     boundaries"           of        other

residents'     districts,           but     the   harms      allegedly          suffered       must

emanate      from    the       boundaries         of    the    particular           resident's

"particular district":              they must be "district specific" harms

suffered.     Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1930

(2018).      If a harm is found, "the remedy that is proper and
sufficient     lies       in    the       revision     of     the    boundaries           of    the

                                              51
                                                            No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

individual's      own    district,"     a    remedy     "does    not     necessarily

require restructuring all of the State's legislative districts."

Id. at 1930-31.

      ¶138 Petitioners' assertion that they have standing because

the allegedly non-contiguous districts render a "less responsive

and less representative" legislature, and they are thus harmed

by    legislators       who   have    "difficulty       advancing        constituent

interests" in fragmented districts, cannot advance a cognizable

injury which this court can remedy.               Many of the petitioners do

not live in the municipal islands in question, let alone the

supposedly    non-contiguous         districts     surrounding      them.59        For

these parties who do not live in these scrutinized districts,

the Supreme Court outlined in Sinkfield v. Kelley that they also

cannot allege a harm or present a cognizable injury on the basis

of    residing     in     districts     which      merely       border       allegedly

unconstitutional districts.            Sinkfield v. Kelley, 531 U.S. 28,

30-31 (2000) (per curiam).           The majority seems to have misplaced

these pertinent facts somewhere along the way, and has not had
the good fortune to stumble back over them.                        Parties cannot

assert a generalized grievance when they themselves do not live

in,   nor   are   directly     harmed       by,   the   presence       of    municipal

islands which have been in place for over 50 years.                         In many of

       Only some of the petitioners allege to live in a district
      59

with a municipal island, and none articulate a concrete
injury: two petitioners live in districts with islands of zero
residents, three petitioners live in districts with islands of
one to four residents, and the remaining petitioners and Citizen
Mathematicians and Scientists don't claim to live in districts
with municipal islands.

                                        52
                                                                        No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

the   districts        of    which      they    complain,        the    "islands"             can   be

absorbed     into      the    existing         district     so    not     to       require      much

judicial map drawing at all.

      ¶139 The majority also fails to advance a compelling answer

for how the petitioners' alleged initial harm, that they are

unable     "to      achieve         a   Democratic         majority           in        the    state

legislature,"          is     the       fault        of    municipal          islands          which

overwhelmingly contain zero to 20 residents.60                                Nor is it clear

why this court, in order to remedy that far-fetched alleged

harm, must toss statewide maps it adopted as a judicial remedy

just last year.             The majority's lack of methodology leaves the

public and members of the legislature in limbo.                                 Majority op.,

¶3.    The majority plays the game without letting anyone else

know the rules.

      ¶140 Connections between the alleged harm and the extreme

remedy initially sought are strained to the point of breaking.

Perhaps the majority recognizes this, as they duck any and all

discussion or analysis of                 Gill v. Whitford.                   Gill       helpfully
limits     alleged     harms     to      what    parties        can    show        is    "district

specific,"       not    "result[ing]            from      the    boundaries"             of    other

people's districts, and would, if harms were nonetheless found,

limit remedy to "revision of the boundaries of the individual's

own district" instead of "requir[ing] restructuring all of the

State's legislative districts."                      Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1930-31.

       In briefing and oral argument, the parties identified 211
      60

"municipal islands," of which approximately 33% have zero
residents, more than 80% have less than 20 residents, and a mere
5% of these contain 100 or more residents.

                                                53
                                                            No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

Parties alleging generalized grievances lack standing to demand

the extreme statewide remedy they seek.

    ¶141 While this court has previously recognized that the

Governor    has   standing     to   bring    a    redistricting        challenge    on

behalf of the state's citizens,61 a point the majority clings to,

the Governor had his day in court and agreed the maps were

contiguous.       The majority fails to wrestle with the very real

reality of what happens when the Governor——who they argue has

the clearest claim to standing——was a party in the previous

judicial proceedings and is precluded for a host of reasons from

bringing these claims now.            Evidently then, the rest of this

hastily    erected   house     of   cards     starts   to   crumble,       and     the

majority would then be forced to address the numerous standing

issues of the remainder of the parties.                 But it fails to even

begin this analysis.

    ¶142 Stated differently, if the one party who may have the

clearest    claim    to   standing,         the   Governor,       is    nonetheless

estopped and precluded from relitigating claims this court has
already addressed, then the others are left without a leg to

stand on.     Nothing plus nothing is still nothing, unless your

judges do not require that the parties have standing in order to

wholesale redraw only the maps that do not lean Democratic.

                          C.    Judicial Estoppel

    61 "[The] state, acting . . . through the Governor . . . ,
may challenge the constitutionality of a state reapportionment
plan as a violation of state constitutional rights of the
citizens." State ex rel. Reynolds v. Zimmerman, 22 Wis. 2d 544,
552, 126 N.W.2d 551 (1964).

                                       54
                                                                          No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

       ¶143 Judicial estoppel is a preclusion principle "intended

to protect the judiciary as an institution from the perversion

of judicial machinery[.]"                     Petty, 201 Wis. 2d at 346 (quoting

Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 690 F.2d 595, 599 (6th Cir.

1982)).     Simply, judicial estoppel "protect[s] [courts] against

a litigant playing 'fast and loose with the courts' by asserting

inconsistent positions" at different stages of the litigation

cycle.     State v. Fleming, 181 Wis. 2d 546, 557, 510 N.W.2d 837

(1993) (quoting Yanez v. United States, 989 F.2d 323, 326 (9th

Cir.     1993)).           Thus,    a        party   is      judicially         estopped    from

"asserting       a     position          in     a      legal     proceeding           and   then

subsequently asserting an inconsistent position."                                     Petty, 201

Wis. 2d at 347; see also State v. Mendez, 157 Wis. 2d 289, 294,

459 N.W.2d 578, 580 (Ct. App. 1990); Coconate, 165 Wis. 2d at

231.      "[T]he      doctrine          is    not    reducible       to     a   pat    formula."

Petty,     201     Wis. 2d         at    348.          But     the    analysis         conducted

"recognize[s] certain boundaries,"                        Levinson v. United States,

969 F.2d 260, 264-65 (7th Cir. 1992), including whether (1) the
party's later position is clearly inconsistent with the earlier

position; (2) whether the facts at issue are the same in both

cases; and (3) whether the party to be estopped convinced the

first court to adopt its position.                        State v. Harrison, 2020 WI

35, ¶27, 391 Wis. 2d 161, 942 N.W.2d 310.

       ¶144 In       the     Johnson         litigation,        the       parties'      "earlier

position"    was      that     Article          IV's      contiguity        requirement      was

satisfied without requiring literal physical contiguity.                                    Both
Governor    Evers      and    the       Citizen      Mathematicians             and   Scientists

                                                55
                                                                  No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

stipulated that municipal islands are legally contiguous with

the    municipality        to   which    the      "island"    belongs,     so       literal

contiguity was essentially not required.                     Joint Stip. of Facts &

Law supra ¶88; see Prosser, 793 F. Supp. at 866 (three-judge

panel). And that made sense.                So the court concluded municipal

islands     were     thus       allowable      within     the     understanding        and

precedent of contiguity.            According to counsel at oral argument,

Wisconsin has utilized faulty, "non-contiguous" maps since the

1950s or 1960s.62          The Governor had no quarrel with this, as just

last year he proposed remedial maps containing the municipal

islands     which    he     now    decries.          He   now     argues       in   direct

opposition to the argument then made.                     He now avers that our

constitution requires literal physical contiguity and municipal

islands are not allowable.               Why the change of heart?               A change

in the court.        The facts at issue between the earlier round of

Johnson litigation and this current round of litigation are the

same, satisfying the second element.

       ¶145 The     Governor       and      the    Citizen      Mathematicians          and
Scientists     persuaded          the    court      to    adopt     a     position       on

contiguity, as evidenced in their initial briefing in Johnson.

These parties also stipulated to contiguity.                            Joint Stip. of

Facts & Law supra ¶88 ("Contiguity for state assembly districts

is    satisfied     when    a    district      boundary      follows     the    municipal

       Oral argument in Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, No.
       62

2023AP1399-OA, held Nov. 21, 2023, available on WisconsinEye
https://wiseye.org/2023/11/21/wisconsin-supreme-court-rebecca-
clarke-v-wisconsin-elections-commission/ (Rebuttal arguments of
Attorneys Sam Hirsch and Mark Gaber at 2:53:00 and 3:01,
respectively.)

                                            56
                                                                             No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

boundaries.          Municipal 'islands' are legally contiguous with the

municipality          to    which     the    'island'            belongs.")          The     Governor

proposed maps in Johnson that contained what he now argues is

noncontiguous             territory,        yet        he        then    argued        it     was     a

constitutionally compliant map.63                        This court initially adopted

his   maps      in        Johnson    II     on    the       grounds      of       their     purported

constitutional             compliance.           These        facts      collectively            beggar

belief then that the court was not "convinced" by the parties to

adopt      a   position       on    contiguity          one      way    or    the     other.        The

parties convinced this court to adopt their positions related to

contiguity           in     Johnson       and     now       attempt          to    convince        this

differently constituted court to adopt their changed position.

      ¶146 Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine which is a

matter of discretion.               That fact should not give the court pause

when that analysis is overlaid on the facts of the case before

us now.         Even where courts have hesitated to exercise their

judicial        discretion          in     invoking         this        doctrine,         they     have

nonetheless recognized that such hesitancy arises in cases where
courts are "more uncertain . . . that the two judicial actions

concern        the    same    factual       issues          or    positions,"         as    judicial

estoppel       "should       be     used    only       when       the    positions         taken    are

clearly inconsistent."                   Harrison v. LIRC, 187 Wis. 2d 491, 497-

       See, generally, State v. English-Lancaster, 2002 WI App
      63

74, 252 Wis. 2d 388, 642 N.W.2d 627; see also Cnty. of Milwaukee
v. Edwards S., 2001 WI App 169, 247 Wis. 2d 87, 633 N.W.2d 241
(concluding when a party asks the court for something, and the
court provides it, the party cannot later argue that the very
thing they requested was unlawful.)

                                                  57
                                                                       No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

98,   523    N.W.2d 138      (Ct.      App.        1994).         Petitioners64        advanced

positions        here    which       are     clearly          inconsistent       with     their

positions advanced in Johnson I and II.                              Hesitation to invoke

judicial      estoppel      is       not     necessary.               These     parties     are

judicially estopped from launching this unprincipled attack on

the court's prior decisions in the Johnson litigation.                                  And, as

referenced earlier in this dissent's section on standing, supra

section II B., the fact that the Governor can be judicially

estopped from bringing this claim directs the court majority

back to the foundational——and in this instance, foundationally

problematic——issue         of     addressing           the    other    parties'        severely

weakened assertions of standing to bring these claims in the

first place.

                                D.    Issue Preclusion

      ¶147 Any      trial       lawyer      or        judge    knows    that     parties     in

litigation        often     stipulate            to      certain      elements      of     that

litigation.        And when they do, those stipulations are largely

accepted by the court, and not necessarily analyzed to the same
extent      as    the     remaining         live         issues      before      the     court.

Stipulations often streamline litigation and allow resources to

be devoted to the crux of the case.                        Quite obviously then, when

all parties agree on an issue, that matter may not receive the

same precise detailed scrutiny and analysis as the matters that

are   fully       at      issue      and         being       fully     litigated        without

stipulation.            Contiguity         was    agreed       upon    and     concluded     in

Johnson.

      64   Governor Evers and Citizen Mathematicians and Scientists.

                                                 58
                                                                 No.      2023AP1399-OA.akz

       ¶148 Were     this        problematic        original    action         to    somehow

survive the numerous procedural issues already facing it, it

would still not hold up under an issue and claim preclusion

analysis.     The doctrine of issue preclusion, previously known as

collateral estoppel, clearly bars the parties from relitigating

what   was    already      decided      in    the    Johnson     litigation.              "The

doctrine     of    issue    preclusion . . . is          designed         to    limit     the

relitigation of issues that have been actually litigated in a

previous action."          Aldrich, 341 Wis. 2d 36, ¶88.                   The focus of

the analysis is on whether a particular issue——that is, the

application of law to a given set of facts——was decided in a

previous     case.         See     N.   States       Power     Co.   v.     Bugher,        189

Wis. 2d 541, 550-51, 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995).                          "[T]he rights of

persons      not    parties        to   the       original      litigation          may    be

implicated . . . ."         Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶57, 279

Wis. 2d 520, 694 N.W.2d 879.

       ¶149 "In the first step of the analysis, we must determine

whether the issue or fact was actually litigated and determined
in the prior proceeding by a valid judgment in a previous action

and whether the determination was essential to the judgment."

Dostal, 405 Wis. 2d 572, ¶24.                "An issue is 'actually litigated'

when it is 'properly raised, by the pleadings or otherwise, and

is submitted for determination, and is determined.'"                                Id.; see

also Randall v. Felt, 2002 WI App 157, ¶9, 256 Wis. 2d 563, 647

N.W.2d 373 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 cmt.

d (1980)).         If the issue is properly raised and thus actually
litigated, then a court conducts a fundamental fairness analysis

                                             59
                                                                       No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

based on the facts of the case, to see if applying the doctrine

of    issue    preclusion         comports       with      principles        of    fundamental

fairness.          Est. of Rille v. Physicians Ins. Co., 2007 WI 36,

¶38, 300 Wis. 2d 1, 728 N.W.2d 693; see also Mozrek v. Intra

Fin. Corp, 2005 WI 73, ¶17, 281 Wis. 2d 448, 699 N.W.2d 54.

       ¶150 Contiguity was actually litigated and determined in a

prior proceeding.              The assertion that an essential element of

the    Johnson      litigation          which    parties      stipulated          to,    was   not

"actually litigated," struggles to find basis in the law.                                      The

majority      cites       to     the    Restatement        (Second)     of     Judgments       to

bolster their claim.65                 The parties' stipulation was, "Contiguity

for    state       assembly       districts        is    satisfied      when       a    district

boundary follows the municipal boundaries.                            Municipal 'islands'

are    legally       contiguous          with    the     municipality         to    which      the

'island' belongs."             Joint Stip. of Facts & Law supra ¶88.

       ¶151 The parties' stipulation and conclusions of the court

in Johnson end the analysis.                     In Johnson this court asked the

parties       to     address       in      their        briefing      the    constitutional
parameters         that    the    court     should       be   bound    by    in     drawing     or

appointing constitutionally compliant maps.                           The parties did so.

This    court,       as    the     parties       did,     determined         that       municipal

islands        were        constitutionally               permissible             within       the

understanding         of    contiguity:          the      parties     drew        and    proposed

remedial maps containing municipal islands, arguing that their

maps    containing         these       islands     satisfied       contiguity,           and   the

       "An issue is not actually litigated if . . . it is the
       65

subject of a stipulation between the parties."     Restatement
(Second) of Judgments 27 cmt. e (1982).

                                                60
                                                      No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

court   accepted   three   times   that   municipal   islands     satisfied

contiguity in Johnson I, II, and III.         The court's decision in

the Johnson litigation was central to the judgment.              The issue

of contiguity was thus "properly raised" by the parties and

"actually litigated."

    ¶152 Parties' stipulations in litigation are an everyday

occurrence, and they are relied upon.           The court should not

upend this commonplace understanding.

    ¶153 Though a court "may permit or deny the application of

the doctrine of issue preclusion on the basis of fundamental

fairness," no recognized factors counsel against the doctrine's

application.     Est. of Rille, 300 Wis. 2d 1, ¶60.            We consider

five factors for determining whether issue preclusion should be

applied:

    1)     Could the party against whom preclusion is sought
           have obtained review of the judgment as a matter of
           law;

    2)     Is the question one of law that involves two
           distinct claims or intervening contextual shifts in
           the law;

    3)     Do significant differences in the quality or
           extensiveness of proceedings between the two courts
           warrant relitigation of the issue;

    4)     Have the burdens of persuasion shifted such that
           the party seeking preclusion had a lower burden of
           persuasion in the first trial than in the second;
           and

    5)     Are matters of public policy and individual
           circumstances involved that would render the
           application   of   collateral    estoppel    to   be
           fundamentally    unfair,    including     inadequate
           opportunity or incentive to obtain a full and fair
           adjudication in the initial action?

                                    61
                                                                         No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

Id., ¶61.        None of these factors are applicable to this case.

The    Governor       and      the    Citizen        Mathematicians            and    Scientists

obtained      review        when      this    court        addressed         redistricting       in

Johnson.       We "granted intervention to all parties that sought

it."        Johnson      II,    400    Wis. 2d 626,           ¶2.       As     for    the    second

factor, nothing has changed.                    We are looking at the same maps

and    the    same    sort      of    claims.             There   has    not    even     been   an

intervening change in the law, merely an intervening change in

the court's membership.                   Despite requests by Alabama for the

Supreme       Court      to      significantly             rework       its     voting       rights

jurisprudence, the Court recently reaffirmed the very same VRA

framework we applied in Johnson.                           See Allen v. Milligan, 599

U.S. 1, 143 S. Ct. 1487 (2023).

       ¶154 The parties have insisted on bringing these claims as

original actions and                 decline to go the route of                       traditional

factfinding.         This court may use factfinding procedures such as

referees in actions where it has taken original jurisdiction.66

This court cannot delegate to this referee the judicial power
vested solely in them by the Wisconsin Constitution, however.

Universal Processing Servs. v. Cir. Ct. of Milwaukee Cnty., 2017

WI    26,    ¶36,    374       Wis. 2d 26,          892    N.W.2d 267.          Nor     is    there

anything in the permissive language of this statute enabling

this    court       to     force      parties         to     utilize      such        factfinding

procedures now after the fact.                       If the parties now have issues

or complaints with the quality of this court's proceedings in

the    Johnson       cases,        they      have    only     themselves         to    blame    in

       66   Wis. Stat. § 751.09.

                                                62
                                                                          No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

foregoing the routine factfinding process.                                The opportunity to

address contiguity was in Johnson or via a possible motion for

reconsideration.                At      any       measure,         this   court      is   not    a

factfinding tribunal.                 The parties have decided to bring this

case     as    an     original             action       and     forego      the     traditional

factfinding processes.                  So, it is this court's loss that we do

not have a record before us to otherwise help inform on our

decision.

       ¶155 Finally,              the         fifth          factor       counsels        against

relitigation.         Redistricting is a process that, under our state

constitution, is only supposed to occur once every decade.                                    Wis.

Const.      art.     IV,        § 3     ("At       its       first     session      after     each

enumeration made by the authority of the United States, the

legislature shall apportion and district anew the members of the

senate and assembly, according to the number of inhabitants.").

"It    is     now    settled          that        without      a     constitutional         change

permitting it no more than one legislative apportionment between

two federal [censuses]."                    State ex rel. Smith v. Zimmerman, 266
Wis. 307, 312, 63 N.W.2d 52 (1954).                                 "No doubt, one of the

objections      of        the     constitutional              provision     was     to    prevent

juggling with apportionments."                      State ex rel. Hicks v. Stevens,

112    Wis.    170,        180,       88    N.W.        48    (1901).       Reopening       these

previously resolved issues wreaks havoc on judicial finality and

distorts      our    constitutional               policy      of     ensuring     that    settled

legislative         and    congressional            maps      remain      that    way.       Issue

preclusion      effectively                bars    the       Governor      and     the    Citizen

                                                   63
                                                              No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

Mathematicians      and     Scientists     from    undermining       these       settled

principles.

    ¶156 This original action involves the same maps, the same

redistricting processes, many of the same parties, and already-

addressed claims.           This court reviewed the proposed maps for

compliance with federal and state constitutional law, as well as

compliance    with    this     court's        limited   judicial         role    (least

change), ultimately selecting the Legislature's maps on those

grounds.     Johnson III, 401 Wis. 2d 198, ¶¶60-73.                 Now, after the

litigation cycle has run its course, these parties, the Governor

and the Citizen Mathematicians and Scientists, are dissatisfied

with the outcome and want to make claims and raise issues which

we have already decided and are now precluded.                  Issue preclusion

effectively bars their attempt to do so.                While the outcome may

not have been what these parties wanted, they must nonetheless

live with the court's decision.

    ¶157 As     a    side    note,   the      parties   attempted        to     backdoor

considerations        of       "partisan          fairness"         or        "partisan
gerrymandering" back into the court's analysis by                         way of at

least initially confining it to the remedy phase.                        The majority

continues that ill-fated venture of taking up an issue that both

this court and the United States Supreme Court have determined

is non-justiciable,67 by attempting to wrap it up in the perhaps

more pleasant euphemism of "partisan impact," which the majority

"will consider. . . . when evaluating remedial maps."                         Majority.

    67 See Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623; Rucho v. Common Cause,
588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019).

                                         64
                                                               No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

op., ¶69.           Never mind figuring out how exactly the majority

plans to go about evaluating "partisan impact" or determining

how much "partisan impact" is permissible and how much is too

much.     They provide no measurable standard for calculating it.

Apparently then, it is for them to know, and for us to find out!

"The fact that the majority imposes its own unique and undefined

standard further demonstrates that it exercises its will rather

than its judgment."              Hawkins v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2020 WI

75,     ¶49,        393   Wis. 2d 629,       948    N.W.2d 877        (Ziegler,    J.,

dissenting).

       ¶158 Why backdoor an issue that they did not think merited

full consideration as they refused to take it up in the petition

for original action?              Perhaps because in going about it this

way, members of the majority hope to evade appellate review.

Perhaps because with this issue, members of the majority are

more wary of stare decisis.                The majority knows that this court

has already directly addressed the issue at length.                         We already

considered and settled the issue of partisan gerrymandering as
related        to     these      maps,     determining      that      the    Wisconsin

Constitution has nothing to say about partisan gerrymandering or

partisan fairness, and therefore it is not a justiciable legal

claim which this court can resolve.                 Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623.

This    court,       in   line    with   the     United    States    Supreme    Court,

determined          previously      that     "[t]he       Wisconsin     Constitution

contains 'no plausible grant of authority' to the judiciary to

determine whether maps are fair to the major parties . . . ."
Id., ¶52 (quoting Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2507).                          Finally, this

                                            65
                                                                     No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

court recognized that nothing in the law authorizes this court

to    grant    parties      relief    based         on     whether   a     particular    map

achieves proportional partisan representation.                             Johnson I, 399

Wis. 2d 623,         ¶45    ("The    people         have    never    consented      to   the

Wisconsin judiciary deciding what constitutes a 'fair' partisan

divide.").         So, if this court were to get involved in this

discussion, it would violate the separation of powers principle

these       parties   are     concerned        with       by    "encroach[ing]      on   the

constitutional prerogative of the political branches."                            Id.

       ¶159 As explained above, Johnson I thoroughly examined the

question      of   whether     the    Wisconsin          Constitution        prohibits   the

legislature        from    engaging       in   partisan         gerrymandering.          Id.,

¶¶39–63.        We explained that partisan fairness is a political

question constitutionally assigned to the legislature, and that

no provision of our state constitution forbids the legislature

from    gerrymandering         to    produce         a    partisan      advantage.       Id.

Again, this court is not a political body empowered to resolve

political disputes: it is a judicial body empowered to resolve
legal disputes.            Wis. Justice Initiative, 407 Wis. 2d 87, ¶¶68-

69 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring).                             It is inevitable

that a partisan body, such as the legislature, would reach a

result that is in some measure, partisan.                        See Whitford v. Gill,

218    F.    Supp.    3d    837,    939    (W.D.         Wis.   2016)      (Griesbach,   J.,

dissenting) ("[P]artisan intent is not illegal, but is simply

the consequence of assigning the task of redistricting to the

political branches of government.") rev'd sub nom., Whitford v.
Gill, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018).

                                               66
                                                                    No.     2023AP1399-OA.akz

    ¶160 The majority's reliance on foreign case law fares no

better    in    propping       up     their   attempt       to   relitigate        partisan

fairness outside of the pesky limitations of "least change."

Foreign cases are not binding on this court.                           Additionally, the

United States Supreme Court concluded in Rucho that "judicial

review   of     partisan       gerrymandering        does     not      meet   th[e]     basic

requirements"         that     judicial       action      "must        be     governed    by

standard,      by     rule,"    and    must    be    "'principled,          rational,     and

based upon reasoned distinctions' found in the Constitution or

laws"    so    partisan      gerrymandering         claims       are    non-justiciable.

Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2507.                    The parties rush right past the

clear directive in Rucho and fail to cite to or even address its

influence over the various federal cases they cite.

    ¶161 This court must not allow a non-justiciable, political

question       like    partisan       fairness      to   be    camouflaged        into   the

majority's decision.                The majority declines to put forward a

measurable standard by which this court is supposed to define or

determine        "partisan           impact,"        demonstrating             that      they
"exercise[]. . . . [their] will rather than [their] judgment."

Hawkins, 393 Wis. 2d 629, ¶49 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).                                Their

standard-deficient             approach       evokes        recollections          of    the

"eyeballing" tests from bygone legal eras encapsulated in "we'll

know it when we see it" terminology.68                        This court has already

    68 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart,
J., concurring) ("I shall not today attempt further to define
the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that
shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in
intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it. . . .").

                                              67
                                                                    No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

addressed the issues of partisan gerrymandering and political

fairness, as well as contiguity.                    Issue preclusion bars us now

from   allowing     these      relevant      parties       to     relitigate      what      has

already been litigated.

                               E.    Claim Preclusion

       ¶162 The     Governor        and     the     Citizen        Mathematicians           and

Scientists       raise    an    issue     which      was     decided       in     Johnson——

contiguity——and raised an issue which was not decided in Johnson

——separation       of    powers.        Regardless,         the    doctrine       of    claim

preclusion bars both claims from being brought now.                             See Dostal,

405 Wis. 2d 572, ¶24 ("[C]laim preclusion . . . extends to all

claims    that    either    were     or     could    have       been    asserted       in   the

previous litigation.").

       Three elements must be present for an earlier action
       to bar a subsequent action: "(1) an identity between
       the parties or their privies in the prior and present
       suits; (2) an identity between the causes of action in
       the two suits; and, (3) a final judgment on the merits
       in a court of competent jurisdiction."
Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. Thompson, 2018 WI 57, ¶31, 381

Wis. 2d 609, 912 N.W.2d 364 (quoting N. State Power Co., 189

Wis. 2d    at     551).        "A   final    judgment       is     conclusive       in      all

subsequent actions between the same parties [or their privies]

as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been

litigated    in    the    former     proceedings."              Lindas     v.    Cady,      183

Wis. 2d 547, 558, 515 N.W.2d 458 (1994) (quoting Depratt v. West

Bend   Mutual      Ins.    Co.,     113     Wis. 2d 306          310,     334    N.W.2d 883

(1983)).

                                             68
                                                                       No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

       ¶163 The first element of claim preclusion is easily met.

Both the Governor and the Citizen Mathematicians and Scientists

were parties to the initial Johnson litigation.

       ¶164 In    order     to    satisfy         the    remaining           second     element

necessary for claim preclusion to apply, Wisconsin has adopted a

"transactional       approach"         from        the        Second         Restatement      of

Judgments    to    inform    when      there       is    an     "identity          between    the

causes of action in the two suits."                       N. States Power Co., 189

Wis. 2d     at    551,    553-55;      see        also    Restatement              (Second)   of

Judgments § 24 (1982).            Simply, "if both suits arise from the

same     transaction,       incident,         or        factual      situation,          [claim

preclusion] generally will bar the second suit."                                     N. States

Power Co., 189 Wis. 2d at 554.                     "The concept of a transaction

connotes a common nucleus of operative facts."                            Kruckenberg, 279

Wis. 2d 520, ¶26.         "It is irrelevant that 'the legal theories,

remedies sought, and evidence used may be different between the

first and second actions.'"             Menard v. Liteway Lighting Prods.,

2005 WI 98, ¶32, 282 Wis. 2d 582, 698 N.W.2d 738; see also N.
States    Power    Co.,     189     Wis.      2d    at        555   ("[T]he          number    of

substantive theories that may be available to the plaintiff is

immaterial——if       they        all    arise            from       the       same      factual

underpinnings.").         To determine whether claims arise from one

transaction,      the     court     "consider[s]           whether           the    facts     are

related in time, space, origin, or motivation."                                    Menard, 282

Wis. 2d 582, ¶30 (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24

cmt. B (1982)).

                                             69
                                                                       No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

      ¶165 The majority contends that these causes of action are

"fundamentally different."                Majority op., ¶48.                 In this current

case, there is far more than a "common nucleus of operative

facts," Kruckenberg, 279 Wis. 2d 520, ¶26, connecting the prior

and current actions, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of

the second element of claim preclusion.                           We have the Governor

and   the     Citizen        Mathematicians            and   Scientists,          which     are

identical to the parties from our Johnson litigation.                                     These

parties brought claims and advanced legal theories "arising from

the same transaction and factual situations" as those this court

already addressed in Johnson I and Johnson III.                               These parties'

claims are based on the same maps, which are rooted in the same

"factual situations" previously addressed by this court.                                    The

causes   of    action       are    related      in     time,      as    this     most   recent

petition      was    filed    a     little      over     a   year       after    this     court

concluded this line of litigation involving these legislative

maps in Johnson III, and less than two years since this court

initiated      this     line       of     litigation         in        Johnson     I.       The
motivations,        declaring       the    current       maps        unconstitutional        on

various grounds, remains the same.                       While the remedies sought

and some of the legal theories advanced in the subsequent action

differ   from       those    of    the    prior      action,      that        discrepancy    is

immaterial      as     "they        all      arise       from        the       same     factual

underpinnings":        this       court's       adoption        of      the    Legislature's

redistricting maps.            N. States Power Co., 189 Wis. 2d at 555.

The   common        thread     running       through         this       line     of     Johnson
litigation      connects          them    all     to     this     "common        nucleus     of

                                             70
                                                               No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

operative facts."          The second element of claim preclusion is

satisfied.

    ¶166 The doctrine of "claim preclusion . . . extends to all

claims   that     either   were    or    could    have    been   asserted       in    the

previous     litigation."          See      Dostal,      405   Wis. 2d 572,          ¶24.

Contiguity      was     already    raised,       addressed,      and      decided     on

previously by a court of competent jurisdiction:                          this court.

See Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623; Johnson III, 401 Wis. 2d 198.

Claim    preclusion        forbids       the     Governor      and     the      Citizen

Mathematicians and Scientists from relitigating the question of

contiguity.       Additionally, though they were free to do so, these

parties failed to present their additional separation of powers

claim or advance their additional legal theories in our prior

Johnson litigation cycle.               Following this court's decision in

Johnson III,       claims which could have been, but for whatever

reason were not raised (separation of powers) are now barred, as

this court's final judgement "is conclusive in all subsequent

actions between the same parties as to all matters which were
litigated    or    which   might     have      been   litigated      in   the   former

proceedings."         Lindas, 183 Wis. 2d at 558 (quoting Depratt, 113

Wis. 2d at 310).        While claim preclusion bars this separation of

powers argument from being brought now, this argument seemed

destined to be relegated to an honorable mention in a footnote

anyway; perhaps the result of an over-eager party grasping at

baseless straws emanating from a disgruntled dissenter to this

court's decision in Johnson III.

                                          71
                                                             No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

      ¶167 If the majority's logic holds true, and contiguity was

not   properly    raised     and    actually       litigated,      then     there   is

nothing stopping any party from waiting this litigation round

out   and    in   similar    fashion,          waiting    until    next     year    and

litigating    other     issues     or   points      which   the    court     did    not

address here.      Could parties raise the remaining issues which

the majority declined to take up in the Clarke petition for

original    action,69    since     they    have     not   been    fully     litigated

either?     What about those similarly raised in Wright which this

court declined to take up?                The resulting application of the

majority's logic should be enough to condemn it.

                                   F.     Laches

      ¶168 Where      were   these        parties    throughout       the     Johnson

redistricting litigation?           Just over two years ago in Johnson,

under a different court composition, we liberally and freely

"granted intervention to all parties that sought it."                         Johnson

II, 400 Wis. 2d 626, ¶2.           Nothing prevented any of the previous

or new parties to this case from presenting their claims, along
with everyone else, when it was appropriate to do so in Johnson.

Some of these parties, like the Clarke petitioners, for whatever

reason, chose not to accept the open invitation to participate

       The three remaining issues which the court declined to
      69

take up all center around whether the state legislative
redistricting plans proposed by the legislature and judicially
imposed by this court in Johnson III are "extreme partisan
gerrymanders"   implicating various  Wisconsin  constitutional
provisions and protections.

                                          72
                                                               No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

at   the   time    this   court    addressed     these     issues     in    Johnson.70

While we should tackle issues that remain to be decided and not

abdicate    our    responsibility,        we   should    not   relitigate      issues

that were just decided.            The fact that these parties chose not

to participate, or at best made no effort to do so, should not

necessitate the court to now reward that unexplainable dilatory

behavior and encourage litigants to play the same "wait and see"

game.

      ¶169 "Laches is founded on the notion that equity aids the

vigilant,    and    not    those    who    sleep   on     their      rights    to   the

detriment of the opposing party . . . ."                  State ex rel. Wren v.

Richardson, 2019 WI 110, ¶14, 389 Wis. 2d 516, 936 N.W.2d 587;

see also Town of Paris, 148 Wis. 2d at 188 ("[E]quity aids the

vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights."); 27A Am. Jur.

2d Equity § 108 (2023).            At its core, laches is "an equitable

defense designed to bar relief when a claimant's failure to

promptly bring a claim causes prejudice to the party having to

defend against that claim."            Wis. Small Business United, Inc. v.
Brennan,    2020    WI    69,   ¶11,    393    Wis. 2d 308,       946      N.W.2d 101.

Courts may apply laches where (1) a party unreasonably delays in

bringing a claim; (2) a second party lacks knowledge that the

first party would raise that claim; and (3) the second party is

prejudiced by that delay.              Id., ¶12.        Laches, as an equitable

       The Clarke petitioners were not parties in the Johnson
      70

litigation. However, many of the same law firms and lawyers who
represented parties previously in the Johnson litigation are now
continuing their redistricting litigation fight through new
representation of the Clarke petitioners, including Law Forward,
Inc.; Stafford Rosenbaum LLP; and the Campaign Legal Center.

                                          73
                                                   No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

bar, is "designed to bar relief when a claimant's failure to

promptly bring a claim causes prejudice to the party having to

defend against that claim."        Id. (quoting Sawyer v. Midelfort,

227 Wis. 2d 124, 159, 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999)).

     ¶170 This court had a different composition two years ago,

but that fact alone cannot be why these parties chose not to

actively participate in that litigation at that time.               To the

dispassionate   observer,   such    contortions   of   the    law   appear

questionable and should come with consequences.              Surprisingly,

the parties are forthright enough to tell us themselves that

this is in fact their reason for bringing this claim now——after

waiting two years in alleged ongoing state of harm——to ensure

that this case coincided with the changed composition of the

court.71   It defies reason for parties to sit out litigation,

obtain the benefit of seeing how arguments are presented, and

then with that benefit of hindsight, bring their now modified

claims over the same issues, with the same legal representation,

at their leisure, years later.          It further defies reason that
given those same facts, and the fact that the respondents would

not have had knowledge of the parties bringing new claims over

the same maps a year later, that the parties can now demand that

     71Steve    Schuster,   Lawsuit  to   challenge    Wisconsin's
legislative maps to be filed, Wis. Law Journal (Apr. 6, 2023),
https://wislawjournal.com/2023/04/06/lawsuit-to-challenge-
wisconsins-legislative-maps-to-be-filed/ ("A Madison-based law
firm is planning to challenge the state's gerrymandered
legislative maps . . . . The lawsuit will be filed after
Justice-elect Janet Protasiewicz is sworn in on Aug. 1, Nicole
Safar,   executive   director   of  Madison-based   Law   Forward,
said . . . .").

                                   74
                                                                    No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

this    court    provide    them    an    extraordinary            remedy       (overturning

decades     of      precedent       and        the     votes        of      millions         of

Wisconsinites), and do so in a constrained timeframe of mere

months before another round of elections gets underway.                                    Such

unnecessary fast tracking due to the parties' own inexplicable

delay     may    rightfully       raise    questions          of    intrusion         on   the

opposing party's rights to fully litigate the claims presented.

       ¶171 There     was     unreasonable           delay       and      prejudice        here

because    "unreasonable      delay       in    laches      is     based        not   on   what

litigants know, but what they might have known with the exercise

of     reasonable     diligence."              Wren,     389        Wis. 2d 516,           ¶20.

Additionally,       "[w]hat   amounts          to    prejudice . . . depends               upon

the facts and circumstances of each case, but it is generally

held to be anything that places the party in a less favorable

position."       Id., ¶32.         Respondents could not have known that

parties which brought claims in Johnson would bring claims again

after     the    result     did     not    go       their     way:        nor     could     the

respondents       have      known     that          parties        which        could      have
participated in Johnson but chose not to, would bring modified

claims after the fact.            Rather, respondents as well as millions

of Wisconsinites relied on the court's judicially imposed maps

to conduct the 2022 elections.

       ¶172 If ever a case was foreclosed by laches, this is that

case.      A laches analysis essentially asks, "whether a party

delayed without good reason," and then beyond that, whether that

party's delay "prejudiced the party seeking to defend against
that claim."        Brennan, 393 Wis. 2d 308, ¶11; see also Wren, 389

                                           75
                                                                       No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

Wis. 2d 516, ¶14.             When correctly applied, laches forbids the

court     from    addressing      issues       the     court     has    already     decided.

This present case is unlike our prior election-related cases

where laches was at issue, because in those cases, the court

shirked its responsibility to consider and address live issues

the court had not already decided, but were issues that would

recur and be left uncertain for future elections.72                            See Trump v.

Biden,     2020    WI    91,    ¶107,    394      Wis. 2d 629,          951     N.W.2d     568

(Ziegler, J., dissenting) ("Once again, in an all too familiar

pattern,         four      members      of        this     court         abdicate        their

responsibility to [declare what the law is]."); Hawkins, 393

Wis. 2d 629, ¶32 (Ziegler, J., dissenting); Trump v. Evers, No.

2020AP1971-OA,          unpublished      order       (Wis.     Dec.      3.    2020);     Wis.

Voters    Alliance       v.    Wis.   Elections        Comm'n,     No.        2020AP1930-OA,

unpublished        order      (Wis.     Dec.      4,     2020)     (Roggensack,          C.J.,

dissenting).        Choosing rather to kick the can down the road to

some indeterminate time in the unknown future for anyone but

     72The majority misrepresents what happened in Trump v.
Biden, focusing on the remedy rather than the issues. Majority
op., ¶43 n.20.     Trump v. Biden was not singularly about a
requested remedy, of this court "overturn[ing] the results of
[an] election."     Id.   Rather, Trump v. Biden posed four
election-related issues which, absent this court declaring what
the law is, would be left uncertain for future elections;
namely, "[a]bsentee ballots lacking a separate application;
absentee envelopes that are missing or have a defective witness
address;   indefinitely  confined   voters/faulty  advice  from
election officials; and ballots cast at Madison's Democracy in
the Park/ballot drop boxes."   Trump v. Biden, 394 Wis. 2d 629,
¶114 (Ziegler, J., dissenting). To say that the Trump v. Biden
case was limited to a decision regarding one remedy lacks an
understanding about the many issues that were ripe for legal
analysis and should have been decided regardless of the
requested remedy.

                                             76
                                                               No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

that current court majority to have to deal with, is not a

proper application of laches.                   Here though, we have already

decided    the    case    and     its      issues       throughout      the    Johnson

litigation.      This is not a live, undecided issue.                    There is no

constitutional crisis whereby absent a court decision there are

no existing maps.

      ¶173 The     parties      present     no    compelling    reason        why   they

should have been allowed to "sit on their hands" and prejudice

the opposing party in not bringing their claims at the time that

the door to such claims was open.                       The majority echoes the

questionable assertions of counsel at oral argument, that they

could not participate in Johnson because they "ran out of time"

to do so.        Majority op., ¶42.              Surely, both counsel and the

majority are familiar with the existence of varied deadlines

which    constrain     parties'       actions     and     reactions    throughout      a

litigation cycle.         Additionally, the majority appears to make

the   mistake     of   starting       to   toll     the    laches     clock    at    the

conclusion of Johnson III, instead of where it properly should
start:    at    Johnson    I,    when      this    court     invited     parties     to

participate and granted intervention to those who sought it.

Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶6.                 These contortions around laches

to reach a pre-determined outcome make a mockery of our legal

system    and    prejudice      the   opposing      party     who    relies    on   the

finality of this court's decision.                This court should not reward

such behavior.         Laches applies, and laches bars these untimely

claims.
                                 G.    Due Process

                                           77
                                                            No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

       ¶174 Not only has the majority ignored procedural and legal

principles which would bar consideration of this case, but it

hides from the law concerning due process,73 contributing a mere

two sentences to the important issue.                 They relegate litigants'

fundamental due process rights to hopeful inconspicuousness in a

footnote.74      What's the rush?        Why hide from the issue?

       ¶175 The foundational legal principle that "no [wo]man can

be a judge in [her] own case" is essential to maintaining a

fair,       independent,      and   impartial    judiciary.          Williams     v.

Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1, 8—9 (2016).                 An independent judiciary

protects "[t]he Constitution and the rights of individuals from

the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing

men,    or    the   influence       of   particular    conjectures,       sometimes

disseminate among the people themselves."                  The Federalist No.

78, at 469 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).

It instills public confidence in the fairness of the judicial

process and system, and in the judiciary's role "as apolitical

and neutral arbiters of the law."               Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623,
¶72.        In contrast, it is the legislature's duty to write the

law,    and    "until   the    legislature     changes   the   law   it    is   [the

court's] duty to construe the law as we find it."                    Fredricks v.

       The United States Constitution provides that no state may
       73

"deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

       "Respondents also make a brief argument that adjudicating
       74

this case in Petitioners' favor will violate Respondents' due
process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. These arguments are underdeveloped, and as
such, we do not address them." Majority op., ¶37 n.16.

                                          78
                                                                       No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

Kohler Co., 4 Wis. 2d 519, 525-26, 91 N.W.2d 93 (1958); see also

State v. Doxtater, 47 Wis. 278, 288, 2 N.W. 439 (1879) ("It is

our duty to expound and execute the law as we find it . . . .").

These principles are not only fundamental to our governmental

system, but they protect a litigant's constitutional right to

due process of law.              This right to due process includes the

right to have one's day in court and to have one's case heard by

a neutral arbiter, as "[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a

basic requirement of due process."                        In re Murchison, 349 U.S.

133, 136 (1955).           "The operation of the due process clause in

the   realm   of      judicial       impartiality,             then,    is     primarily       to

protect the individual's right to a fair trial."                                     People v.

Freeman, 222 P.3d 177, 181 (Cal. 2010).                              A justice violates

litigants'    constitutional          rights         to   due       process    if     there    is

"objective proof of actual bias" or "a serious risk of actual

bias."   State v. Herrmann, 2015 WI 84, ¶113, 364 Wis. 2d 336,

867 N.W.2d 772 (Ziegler, J., concurring) (citing Caperton v.

A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 883-84 (2009)).
      ¶176 In Caperton, the United States Supreme Court concluded

that a justice was disqualified from hearing an appeal because

his   sitting       as     a    judicial    officer            on    the      case     violated

litigants'      due       process    rights.              In    a    very      fact-specific

decision, the Supreme Court reversed the state supreme court

because a recently elected justice failed to recuse himself when

the   justice       had    an    "unconstitutional              potential        for       bias."

Caperton,     556     U.S.      at   882.        A    future         litigant        had    spent
significant funds ensuring the judge's election, including the

                                            79
                                                                      No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

statutory     minimum        $1,000      to     his   campaign        committee,         another

nearly $2.5 million to a political organization supporting the

candidate, and another over $500,000 on independent expenditures

to support the candidate.                 Id. at 873.           This future potential

litigant's       $3    million       contribution        was    "more       than   the     total

amount spent by all other [] supporters and three times the

amount   spent        by   [the    candidate's]         own    committee.          Id.       The

contributor had a case that would most certainly be heard by the

newly elected justice.                 In other words, that contributor made

sure that candidate would decide his case.                         The Court concluded

that his sitting on a case that would come to him shortly after

his   election,        was    a   due    process      violation        because      "under     a

realistic     appraisal           of    psychological           tendencies         and     human

weakness,' the interest 'poses such a risk of actual bias or

prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee

of due process is to be adequately implemented.'"                             Id. at 883-84

(quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)).

      ¶177 The crux of Caperton is that a due process violation
occurs when a party who would like that judicial officer to hear

their    case,    essentially           picks    that    judicial       officer      to     hear

their case, by funding that judge's election, and knowing that

the   newly   minted         judge     will     surely    sit    in    judgment      of    that

interested party's case in the near future.                            "Approximately 11

months after [the judge] won the election, and shortly before

A.T. Massey filed its petition for appeal, Caperton moved to

disqualify [the judge] in the particular case that was pending
the entire election . . . ."                    Miller v. Carroll, 2020 WI 56,

                                                80
                                                                No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

¶70, 392 Wis. 2d 49, 944 N.W.2d 542 (Ziegler, J., concurring).

The   judge       denied   the    motion   nearly      six   months    later,   eight

months before the appeal was filed.                  Caperton, 556 U.S. at 874.

      Based on the relative size of [the] contribution in
      comparison to the total amount of money contributed to
      the campaign; the total amount spent in the election;
      the apparent effect such contribution had on the
      outcome of the election; and the temporal relationship
      between the contribution, the election, and the
      pendency of the case, the Supreme Court concluded
      there was a serious, objective risk of the [the
      justice]'s actual bias in sitting on that particular
      case . . . .
State      v.     Allen,   2010    WI   10,     ¶268,     322    Wis. 2d 372,      778

N.W.2d 863 (per curiam) (Ziegler, J., concurring).                      The facts of

Caperton were so extreme75 that the Supreme Court found that "due

process require[d] recusal" as "the probability of actual bias

[rose] to an unconstitutional level."                     Caperton, 556 U.S. at

872, 887.

      ¶178 Reviewing the facts of Caperton versus the facts of

Clarke, it is clear that due process deserves more than a two-

sentence consideration.            In Caperton, the interested party knew
that whoever "won the[] election would most certainly be on the

court      when    it   decided    whether      to    sustain   or    overturn"    the

court's verdict against him but that case did not arise for 11

months.         Miller v. Carroll, 392 Wis. 2d 49, ¶70 (Ziegler, J.,

concurring) (citing Caperton, 556 U.S. at 872).                         With Clarke,

       "Caperton involved extreme and extraordinary facts which
      75

the Supreme Court recognized in its majority opinion no less
than a dozen times."   State v. Herrmann, 2015 WI 84, ¶128, 364
Wis. 2d 336, 867 N.W.2d 772 (Ziegler, J., concurring) (citing
State v. Allen, 2010 WI 10, ¶261, 322 Wis. 2d 372, 778 N.W.2d
863 (per curiam) (Ziegler, J., concurring)).

                                           81
                                                             No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

the   interested     parties    filed      this    case     directly       with   the

Wisconsin Supreme Court just after its candidate was sworn in.

With Caperton, the interested party knew the state's highest

court would consider his pending case on appeal, so he supported

the candidate he wanted to have sit in judgment of his case.

With Clarke, the interested parties supported their candidate so

she would be sitting on their future redistricting case.                           In

Caperton, the interested party donated or spent $3 million to

help elect his candidate of choice.               In Clarke, the interested

parties    donated   at    least    $10    million,    in    a     record-breaking

election, to elect their judge who spoke freely of her thoughts

on    redistricting.76         In   Caperton,      the      interested       party's

"outsized" donation was "more than the total amount spent by all

other[] supporters and three times the amount spent by the [the

candidate's] own committee."          Caperton, 556 U.S. at 873.                  With

Clarke,    nearly    $60    million        was    spent,77       ranking     Justice

Protasiewicz's campaign as the most expensive judicial campaign

       WisPolitics tracks $56 million in spending on Wisconsin
      76

Supreme Court race (July 19, 2023), https://www.wispolitics.com/
2023/wispolitics-tracks-56-million-in-spending-on-wisconsin-
supreme-court-race/; see also Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Cost
Record $51 Million, Wis. Democracy Campaign (Mar. 29, 2023),
https://www.wisdc.org/news/press-releases/139-press-release-
2023/7351-protasiewicz-received-2-of-every-3-from-democratic-
party.

       Id., https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/wispolitics-tracks-
      77

56-million-in-spending-on-wisconsin-supreme-court-race/.

                                          82
                                                              No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

in United States history.78          In Caperton, the interested parties'

chosen judicial candidate won with 53.3% of the vote.79                             In

Clarke, the interested parties' chosen judicial candidate won

with 55.5% of the vote.80           In Caperton, the petitioner moved to

disqualify      the    recently    elected     justice      before    bringing     his

appeal, but the newly elected judge denied the motion to recuse

six months later.           Caperton, 556 U.S. at 874-75.              With Clarke,

members    of   the    Wisconsin     Legislature     filed     a    recusal   motion

against Justice Protasiewicz, but she, also a recently elected

justice, denied their recusal motion.                Clarke v. Wis. Elections

Comm'n, 2023 WI 66, ¶5, 409 Wis. 2d 249, 995 N.W.2d 735.

     ¶179 The         parties     interested    in    Justice        Protasiewicz's

election are intricately involved with, and beneficiaries of,

the case they filed directly before her in this original action

right after she was sworn in.            Their timing of selecting her as

     78 This campaign's spending is five times higher than the
previous state record ($10 million for the 2020 Wisconsin
Supreme Court race) and more than three times higher than the
national record spent on a judicial race ($15 million on a 2004
Illinois race).    See Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Cost Record
$51   Million,   Wis.  Democracy   Campaign   (July  18,   2023),
https://www.wisdc.org/news/press-releases/139-press-release-
2023/7390-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-cost-record-51m.
     79   Caperton     v.   A.T.   Massey    Coal    Co.,    556     U.S.   868,   873
(2009).
     80Liberal   judge   Janet  Protasiewicz   won   a  seat   on
Wisconsin's state Supreme Court, flipping the body's ideological
majority,    Politico    (last   updated    Nov.    26,    2023),
https://www.politico.com/2023-election/results/wisconsin/
supreme-court/

                                        83
                                                                   No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

their judge and then bringing this petition is irrefutable.81

Now,    the   four      members    of     the     court    have    fast-tracked          this

litigation, bypassing and rushing the traditional court steps,

processes, and the law.

       ¶180 To     be     clear,        Justice     Protasiewicz          was     not     shy

expressing     her      personal       viewpoint    during       her     campaign.        For

example,      at   a    candidate       forum     hosted    by    WisPolitics,          then-

candidate      Protasiewicz        indicated       that     she    entered        the   race

because she "could not sit back and watch extreme right-wing

partisans     hijack      our    Supreme     Court"       and    remarked,      "let's     be

clear here, the maps are rigged . . . bottom line, absolutely,

positively     rigged.          They    do   not   reflect       the     people    of   this

state."82     Then-candidate Protasiewicz went on to criticize this

court's "least change approach" to redistricting, saying that it

"might sound good for some people, [but] I see no basis for it

in the constitution, no basis in case law.                        Basically, what the

       Steve
       81       Schuster,   Lawsuit  to   challenge    Wisconsin's
legislative maps to be filed, Wis. Law Journal (Apr. 6, 2023),
https://wislawjournal.com/2023/04/06/lawsuit-to-challenge-
wisconsins-legislative-maps-to-be-filed/ ("A Madison-based law
firm is planning to challenge the state's gerrymandered
legislative maps . . . . The lawsuit will be filed after
Justice-elect Janet Protasiewicz is sworn in on Aug. 1, Nicole
Safar,   executive   director   of  Madison-based   Law   Forward,
said . . . ."); see also Jack Kelly, Liberal law firm to argue
gerrymandering violates Wisconsin Constitution, The Cap Times
(Apr. 6, 2023), https://captimes.com/news/government/liberal-
law-firm-to-arguegerrymandering-violates-wisconsin-
constitution/article_2dfb9757-6d2d-58ba-9461- 10b3d20d5f00.html.

       Paul Fanlund, Supreme Court election is a chance to beat
       82

the far right at its long game, The Cap Times (Jan. 13, 2023),
https://captimes.com/opinion/paul-fanlund/opinion-supreme-court-
election-is-a-chance-to-beat-the-far-right-at-its-
long/article_af9b5d76-a584-54ad-9226-7c9d7a806d12.html.

                                             84
                                                                    No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

least-change approach has done, it has taken . . . meaningful

votes away from people in larger communities in Dane County and

Milwaukee         County."83              From     the      outset,        then-candidate

Protasiewicz indicated what she, as a presumed future member of

the court, would do:                remove least change as an "unworkable"

governing        standard    in    order     to   clear     the    way     for    the     newly

constituted court to redraw the maps.                     Even more directly, then-

candidate        Protasiewicz        celebrated          via    her       Facebook        page,

Politico's        highlighting      of     the    Wisconsin       Supreme      Court      race,

exclaiming        "POLITICO       says    that    our    race     could      challenge     the

court's narrow 4-3 conservative majority and have ramifications

over future redistricting decisions in Wisconsin.                                Judge Janet

Protasiewicz        (@Janet       for     Justice)       Facebook,       (Jan.     9,     2023)

(emphasis added) https://www.facebook.com/JanetforJustice.                                  Her

colleague,         Justice        Rebecca         Dallet,       campaigned             invoking

tremendous out-of-state support, and when at a Democratic-hosted

California fundraiser she said, "I know that [California] values

are   our    Wisconsin       values       that    we've     lost    along        the    way."84
Justice     Protasiewicz,          also    having       received      much    out-of-state

support, has remarked, "I would anticipate that at some point,

we'll be looking at those maps" and that she "would anticipate

that [she] would enjoy taking a fresh look at the gerrymandering

      83   Id.

       Patrick Marley, Court candidate Rebecca Dallet rells San
      84

Francisco crowd "your values are our Wisconsin values,"
Milwaukee     Journal      Sentinel     (Mar.      21,     2018),
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/21/court-
candidate-rebecca-dallet-tells-san-francisco-crowd-your-values-
our-wisconsin-values/445869002/.

                                             85
                                                   No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

question."85   The parties even said that this case would be filed

once the new justice was sworn in.      And it was.86

     ¶181 A person, including a justice, has the right to free

speech    as   protected   under   both    our   federal     and   state

     85Jessie Opoien and Jack Kelly, Protasiewicz would "enjoy
taking a fresh look" at Wisconsin voting Maps, The Cap Times
(Mar.     2,     2023),     https://captimes.com/news/government/
protasiewicz-would-enjoy-taking-a-fresh-look-at-wisconsin-
voting-maps/article_d07fbe12-79e6-5c78-a702-3de7b444b332.html.
     86While then-candidate Protasiewicz did then say, "I can't
ever tell you what I am going to do on a particular case, but I
can tell you my values and common sense tells that it's wrong,"
can you un-ring the bell? Id.

                                   86
                                                        No.   2023AP1399-OA.akz

constitutions.87       But, that free speech may affect whether that

justice may sit on a case.88

       ¶182 Due Process does not reward the petitioners' "judge

shopping,"       as   "'[j]udge   shopping'    has   always    been   taboo."

Allen, 322 Wis. 2d 372, ¶262 (Ziegler, J., concurring).                    "In

Caperton, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that basic tenet when it

concluded that a litigant's efforts to "choose[] the judge,"

through directing a justice's election campaign and thus placing

that justice on that contributing party's pending case did not

pass        constitutional   muster."         Id.,   ¶262     (Ziegler,    J.,

       U.S.
       87     Const.   amend.   I   ("Congress shall  make   no
law. . . . abridging the freedom of speech."); Wis. Const. art.
I, § 3 ("Every person may freely speak, write, and publish his
sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge
the liberty of speech or of the press.")

       The Supreme Court's decision in Republican Party of
       88

Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 788 (2002) (holding that a
restriction on an announcement by a candidate for judicial
office of his or her views on disputed legal and political
issues during a campaign violates the First Amendment), is not
incompatible with the Court's decision in Caperton.          Put
together, these cases address issues that while complementary,
are yet distinct.   In White, the Court was more concerned with
the First Amendment claims and concerns of the judicial
candidate.   In Caperton, the Court was more concerned with the
due process claims and concerns of the litigant.         Neither
invalidates the other; rather, when contextually read together,
both cases shed some light on the careful balancing act that
courts are routinely engaged in. In the case before us, we must
conduct the unenviable yet necessary act of balancing a judicial
candidate's right to freedom of speech against a claimant's
fundamental right to due process and having his or her claim
heard before a neutral arbiter.     The constitutional right to
speak freely is not without its limits. It must yield to
Wisconsin claimants' constitutional rights to due process before
an impartial tribunal.

                                        87
                                                                  No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

concurring)          (citation        omitted).                 Judges          with      an

"unconstitutional         potential     for      bias"    are    required       to     recuse

themselves to preserve litigants' due process rights.                            Caperton,

556 U.S. at 881.           Even before Caperton, "if a justice should

have    been    disqualified            from      considering           the     case     and

nevertheless    participates,         the      decision     is    void."         State     v.

Henley, 2011 WI 67, ¶45 n.5, 338 Wis. 2d 610, 802 N.W.2d 175

(Abrahamson,     C.J.,       Ann      Walsh       Bradley        and      Crooks,       JJ.,

dissenting) (citing         State v. Am. TV & Appliance of Madison,

Inc., 151 Wis. 2d 175, 179, 443 N.W.2d 662 (1989)); see also

Caperton, 556 U.S. 868.               That determination is even clearer

post-Caperton.

       ¶183 We don't know whether Caperton will be reviewed by the

Supreme Court.        But if not, it seems a new bar has been set.

                                 III.    CONCLUSION

       ¶184 This original action should never have been accepted.

It is nothing more than a motion for reconsideration, which is

time-barred; ignores stare decisis, standing, judicial estoppel,
issue preclusion, claim preclusion, and laches.                               Not only is

this    a   fundamentally        legally         flawed     proceeding         for     these

preceding listed reasons, but it also raises serious questions

regarding Caperton and whether this proceeding is a violation of

litigants'     due    process      rights.         What's       next?         Pre-selected

"consultants" who will decide the fate of Wisconsin voters even

though the Wisconsin Supreme Court already decided these issues

conclusively         in    the     Johnson        litigation?                 Will     these
"consultants" be endowed with the authority to reach all factual

                                            88
                                                      No.    2023AP1399-OA.akz

and legal conclusions necessary to draw the maps, while evading

review and the constitutional protections due the parties?                 The

four rogue members of the court have upended judicial practices,

procedures, and norms, as well as legal practices, procedures,

and   precedent,    yielding   only     to   sheer   will    to   create     a

particularized     outcome     which     will    please      a    particular

constituency.      At a minimum, this is harmful to the judicial

branch and the institution as a whole.          I dissent.

                                   89
                                                                   No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

       ¶185 REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.                   (dissenting).          Riding a

Trojan horse named Contiguity, the majority breaches the lines

of    demarcation       separating    the       judiciary       from     the    political

branches in order to transfer power from one political party to

another.     Alexander Hamilton forewarned us that "liberty can

have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have

everything    to    fear    from    its     union      with   either     of    the     other

departments."       The Federalist No. 78, at 523 (J. Cooke ed.,

1961).     With its first opinion as an openly progressive faction,

the    members     of    the   majority         shed    their    robes,        usurp     the

prerogatives of the legislature, and deliver the spoils to their

preferred political party.            These handmaidens of the Democratic

Party trample the rule of law, dishonor the institution of the

judiciary, and undermine democracy.

       ¶186 The    outcome     in    this    case      was    preordained       with     the

April 2023 election of a candidate who ran on a platform of

"taking a fresh look"1 at the "rigged" maps.2                      As promised just

       Jessie Opoien & Jack Kelly, Protasiewicz Would 'Enjoy
       1

Taking a Fresh Look' at Wisconsin Voting Maps, The Cap Times
(Mar.                          2,                          2023),
https://captimes.com/news/government/protasiewicz-would-enjoy-
taking-a-fresh-look-at-wisconsin-voting-maps/article_d07fbe12-
79e6-5c78-a702-3de7b444b332.html.

       Corrinne Hess, Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidate Janet
       2

Protasiewicz   Assails  State's   Election   Maps  as   'Rigged',
Milwaukee       J.      Sentinel       (Jan.      9,       2023),
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/09/wisconsi
n-supreme-court-candidate-protasiewicz-assails-election-
maps/69790966007/.

                                            1
                                                                  No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

two days after Protasiewicz's election,3 petitioners filed this

case only one day after she joined the court.                            The majority

chooses contiguity as a convenient conduit by which to toss the

legislative maps adopted by this court in 2022 as a remedy for

malapportionment,    but     any    issue      grounded    in     state     law    would

suffice in order to insulate the majority's activism from review

by the United States Supreme Court.              The majority's machinations

do not shield it from the Court vindicating the respondents' due

process    rights,   however.           See    Appendix    A.           Litigants    are

constitutionally entitled to have their cases heard by a fair

and   impartial   tribunal,        an   issue    of     primary     importance      the

majority absurdly dismisses as "underdeveloped."                        Majority op.,

¶37 n.16.      The parties fully briefed the due process claim,

which     Protasiewicz     unilaterally        rejected.          Clarke      v.    Wis.

Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 66, 995 N.W.2d 735.                     While this court

is powerless to override her recusal decision,4 the United States

Supreme Court is not.

      ¶187 The    majority's        treatment      of     the     remaining        issue
sophomorically           parrots         the          petitioners'            briefing

and undermines the rule of law.                  The Wisconsin Constitution

requires assembly districts "to consist of contiguous territory"

      3Jack Kelly, Liberal Law Firm to Argue Gerrymandering
Violates Wisconsin Constitution, The Cap Times (Apr. 6, 2023),
https://captimes.com/news/government/liberal-law-firm-to-
arguegerrymandering-violates-wisconsin-
constitution/article_2dfb9757-6d2d-58ba-9461- 10b3d20d5f00.html.

      4State v. Henley, 2011 WI 67, 338 Wis. 2d 610, 802 N.W.2d
175 (per curium).

                                         2
                                                             No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

and senate districts "of convenient contiguous territory."                    Wis.

Const. art. IV, §§ 4-5.           For fifty years, maps drawn by both

Republican     and     Democratic      legislative    majorities       contained

districts with detached territory.                State and federal courts

uniformly declared such districts to be "legally contiguous even

if the area around the island is part of a different district."

Johnson   v.    Wis.     Elections      Comm'n,    2021     WI 87,    ¶36,     399

Wis. 2d 623, 967 N.W.2d 469 (Johnson I); Prosser v. Elections

Bd., 793 F. Supp. 859, 866 (W.D. Wis. 1992).                  Just last year,

three members of the majority in this very case adopted maps

containing districts with detached territory.                 Johnson v. Wis.

Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 14, ¶¶34-36, 400 Wis. 2d 626, 971

N.W.2d 402 (Johnson II), rev'd sub nom. Wis. Legislature v. Wis.

Elections Comm'n, 595 U.S. 398 (2022) (per curiam).                  This well-

established      legal       conclusion      having    become        politically

inconvenient, the same three justices now deem the existence of

such districts "striking."          Majority op., ¶1.        If this creative

constitutional       "problem"   were   so   glaringly    obvious,     then    the
attorneys who neglected to raise the issue over the last five

decades committed malpractice, and the federal and state judges

who adopted maps with districts containing detached territory

should resign for incompetency.

    ¶188 No     one     is   fooled,    however.      The    members     of    the

majority refashion the law to achieve their political agenda.

The precedent they set (if anything remains of the principle)

devastates the rule of law.          The Wisconsin Constitution commands
redistricting to occur once every ten years.                 Wis. Const. art.

                                        3
                                                                     No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

IV, § 3.        Both state and federal courts have always respected

"the command in the Wisconsin Constitution not to re-district

more than once each 10 years."                    Baldus v. Members of Wis. Gov't

Accountability Bd., 849 F. Supp. 2d 840, 859 (E.D. Wis. 2012)

(citing    State    ex   rel.     Smith       v.    Zimmerman,    266      Wis.    307,   63

N.W.2d 52 (1954)).

      ¶189 The majority's machinations in this case open the door

to redistricting every time court membership changes.                             A supreme

court election in 2025 could mean Clarke is overturned, Johnson

is restored, and new maps adopted.                        In 2026 or 2027, Johnson

could be overturned (again), Clarke resurrected, and new maps

adopted.     This cycle could repeat itself in 2028.                        And in 2029.

And in 2030.

      ¶190 Although the majority endorses repeated kicks at the

redistricting cat, this is not normal in redistricting, or any

other sort of case.             The majority rewrites history to suggest

otherwise.       As but one example, the majority claims "Johnson

itself enjoined the use of a court-ordered plan adopted by the
federal    courts       [sic]    in        Baldus    v.    Members    of     Wis.     Gov't

Accountability      Bd.,    862       F.    Supp.    2d    860   (E.D.     Wis.     2012)."

Majority op., ¶54.         The majority disingenuously ignores the fact

that this court's actions in Johnson occurred ten years after

Baldus    and    only    after     the       2020    census      rendered     the     prior

decade's maps malapportioned.                 See Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623,

¶4.   After the federal court in Baldus identified a violation of

federal law——shortly after the legislature enacted the maps——the
federal court (there was only one) decided it "will not tread

                                              4
                                                                        No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

into the black water of re-drawing the redistricting boundaries

itself.     Instead, as discussed above, the Court will allow the

Legislature to sort out the redistricting maps' infirmities on

its own."        Baldus, 849 F. Supp. 2d at 861 (internal citation

omitted). The federal court in Baldus ultimately ordered "that

the    redistricting      plans      adopted       pursuant       to    Act    43    for   all

Assembly Districts and Senate Districts, with the exception of

Assembly Districts 8 and 9 to the extent noted above, shall

remain unchanged."          Baldus 862 F. Supp. 2d at 863.                          A "slight

adjustment"       to     two     assembly          districts       hardly        transforms

legislatively-enacted           plans       into   court-developed            ones    as   the

majority misleadingly insinuates.                   Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623,

¶4 (citing Baldus, 862 F. Supp. 2d at 863).

       ¶191 Upon completion of the 2020 census, the governor vetoed

the redistricting plans passed by the legislature, so the court

in Johnson enjoined the 2011 legislative maps that had become

unconstitutionally         malapportioned           due     to    population          shifts.

Political impasse left the judiciary as the only branch able to
act.     There is absolutely no precedent for a supreme court to

enjoin its own remedy one year later.                      Perhaps if the majority

focused    on    studying      the    law    rather       than    rushing      to    set   its

political       machinations     on     a    ridiculous      fast       track,      it   would

avoid such embarrassing errors.

       ¶192 When the people shift political power to a different

party,    they    vote   for     changes      in    the    law.         The   constitution

limits the judicial power, however, to declaring what the law
is.      The    majority       elevates      its    political          desires      over   the

                                              5
                                                                 No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

structural separation of powers on which the preservation of our

republic depends.            The majority imperils freedom and opens the

door to judicial tyranny.             I dissent.5

             I.     JOHNSON I RESOLVED THE CONTIGUITY QUESTION

      ¶193 Riddled with non sequiturs, heavy on hypocrisy, and

laden with law review citations but light on actual law, the

majority opinion presents a misleading caricature of the court's

decision in Johnson I, necessitating an overview of what that

opinion actually says.              Just twenty months ago, this court used

its       limited        remedial     powers     to     reapportion     Wisconsin's

legislative districts in order to bring them into compliance

with the constitutional guarantee of equality in representation.

See   Johnson       v.    Wis.   Elections      Comm'n,   2022   WI 19,    ¶73,   401

Wis. 2d 198, 972 N.W.2d 559 (Johnson III).                    The inability of the

legislature and the governor to agree on new legislative maps

after the 2020 census necessitated the court's involvement in

redistricting.              Johnson    I,      399    Wis. 2d 623,     ¶¶17-18,    68

("Judicial          action       becomes        appropriate      to     prevent     a
constitutional crisis.").             The 2011 legislative maps——enacted by

      5The majority punts on the petitioners' nonsensical
separation of powers argument, which was inspired by the
rhetorical bluster of a dissenting justice unhappy with the
court's decision. See Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI
19, ¶187, 401 Wis. 2d 198, 972 N.W.2d 559 (Johnson III)
(Karofsky, J., dissenting).    While dissents may embellish for
rhetorical effect, their "silly extravagances" should not
migrate into an official court opinion.       See Obergefell v.
Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 719 (2015) (Scalia, J., dissenting).   If
the separation of powers argument had any legal merit, it is
inexplicable why the majority doesn't embrace it. Three-fourths
of the justices comprising today's majority already did, in
Johnson III.

                                            6
                                                                 No.      23AP1399-OA.rgb

the legislature, signed into law by the governor, and upheld by

a    federal   court     (with    a    slight   adjustment)——had           become     non-

compliant      "with    the     constitutional       requirement          of   an    equal

number of citizens in each legislative district, due to shifts

in population across the state."                Id., ¶4.       This court allowed

every interested party to participate in Johnson, granting every

motion for intervention.              See Johnson II, 400 Wis. 2d 626, ¶2.

       ¶194 Every party in Johnson stipulated before we decided

Johnson I that the contiguity requirements under Article IV,

Sections 4 and 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution permit municipal

islands detached from their assigned districts.                   See Joint Stip.

of     Facts   and     Law,    Johnson     v.   Wis.    Elections         Comm'n,      No.

2021AP1450, at 15 (Nov. 4, 2021).                   We agreed.        Johnson I, 399

Wis. 2d 623, ¶36.             So did the dissenters.            See id., ¶¶88-115

(Dallet, J., dissenting).              Every party——including the Governor——

submitted      maps    containing       municipal    islands.         A    majority     in

Johnson II,6 selected the Governor's proposed legislative maps,

municipal      islands    and     all;    three     justices     in       this      current
majority blessed those maps as constitutional.7                  400 Wis. 2d 626,

¶36.

       Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 14, ¶8, 400 Wis.
       6

2d 626, 971 N.W.2d 402 (Johnson II), rev'd sub nom. Wis.
Legislature v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 595 U.S. 398 (2022) (per
curiam).    The United States Supreme Court summarily reversed
Johnson II because the majority in that case improperly applied
the constitutional guarantee of equal protection in its
selection of the Governor's maps, which sorted voters based on
race without constitutionally permissible justification. Wis.
Legislature, 595 U.S. at 406.

       For example, Assembly Districts 3, 5, 26, 46, and 96 in
       7

the Governor's proposed maps contain detached municipal islands.
                                           7
                                                                 No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

      ¶195 The majority in this case misrepresents the Johnson I

court's holding on contiguity, misleadingly asserting the court

"failed to analyze the contiguity requirements evident in the

text of the constitution" and "did not attempt to square its

view of contiguity with" our past cases, such as State ex rel.

Lamb v. Cunningham.           Majority op., ¶24.         Quoting Lamb in Johnson

I, the court acknowledged constitutional contiguity "generally

means a district 'cannot be made up of two or more pieces of

detached territory.'"              399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶36 (quoting State ex

rel. Lamb v. Cunningham, 83 Wis. 90, 148, 53 N.W. 35 (1892)).

We   continued,      "[i]f        annexation    by    municipalities     creates    a

municipal 'island,' however, the district containing detached

portions of the municipality is legally contiguous even if the

area around the island is part of a different district."                           Id.

(citing Prosser, 793 F. Supp. at 866).

      ¶196 After the court decided Johnson I, the Governor, or

any other petitioner who participated in the case, could have

filed a motion for reconsideration8 on contiguity, asking the
court     to    correct     the   allegedly     flagrant    constitutional     error

somehow        repeatedly    overlooked        by    countless   lawyers,    federal

judges,9 and justices of this court for five decades.10                        To no

      8   Wis. S. Ct. IOP, IV, J. (Aug. 4, 2023).
      9In 1992, a panel of three federal judges declared that the
Wisconsin Constitution did not require "literal contiguity"
because "it has been the practice of the Wisconsin legislature
to treat islands as contiguous with the cities or villages to
which they belong." Prosser v. Elections Bd., 793 F. Supp. 859,
866 (W.D. Wis. 1992).

                                           8
                                                                    No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

one's surprise, they instead waited for the Clarke petitioners

to file this suit immediately after the makeup of the court

changed, courtesy of an election bought and paid for by the

Democratic Party of Wisconsin.11

       ¶197 "Legal opinions are important . . . for the reasons

they give, not the result they announce[.]                          . . . An opinion

that gets the reasons wrong gets everything wrong . . . ."

Antonin Scalia, The Dissenting Opinion, 1994 J. Sup. Ct. Hist.

33, 33 (1994).              An apt description of the majority opinion.

Although the majority purports to interpret our constitution, it

fails to follow our judicial methodology——or any methodology at

all.        See Wis. Just. Initiative, Inc. v. Wis. Elections Comm'n,

2023    WI     38,    407   Wis.   2d    87,       990   N.W.2d   122     (originalism).

Unbounded by methodological discipline, the majority opinion is

devoid of an intellectual foundation and without integrity.

       ¶198 The        majority    misuses         dictionaries      to    declare    the

constitutional         contiguity       requirements        "mean   what     they    say."

Majority op., ¶3.             Although the words "contiguous territory"
come from our original constitution of 1848, the majority relies

most heavily on modern dictionaries, considering contemporaneous

dictionaries and practices from the founding of the state mere

"support."           Id., ¶17.     It is elementary that words don't have

       It appears that at least since the 1970s, Wisconsin's
       10

legislative maps, whether drawn by the legislature or adopted by
a court, have contained municipal islands.

       See WisPolitics Tracks $56 Million in Spending on
       11

Wisconsin Supreme Court Race, WisPolitics (July 19, 2023),
https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/wispolitics-tracks-56-million-
in-spending-on-wisconsin-supreme-court-race/.

                                               9
                                                                No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

meaning on their own; their meaning comes from the context in

which they are used.         See Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425

(1918) (citing Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60 (1916) ("A

word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin

of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content

according    to   the   circumstances       and   the   time    in    which    it   is

used.").     The    majority's   reliance         on   modern    dictionaries       is

misplaced.

       ¶199 The majority resorts to verifiable fibs, maintaining

that    "using     practically   any    dictionary"         "contiguous         means

'touching' or 'in actual contact.'"               Majority op., ¶16.          That is

patently untrue, and the majority knows it.                      The respondents

cited    a   litany     of   contemporaneous            dictionaries       defining

contiguous to mean "near" or "close" to, but not necessarily

touching:

       Nathan Bailey, An Universal Etymological English
       Dictionary (1775) (Contiguous:    "that touches, or is
       next; very near, close, adjoining"); Samuel Johnson &
       John Walker, A Dictionary of the English Language 153
       (1828) (Contiguity:     "Actual contact; nearness of
       situation"; Contiguousness: "Close connection"); John
       Ogilvie & Charles Annandale, The Imperial Dictionary
       of the English Language 571 (1885) (Contiguity:
       "Actual contact of bodies; a touching; nearness of
       situation or place; a linking together, as a series of
       objects; a continuity."; Contiguous:         "Touching;
       meeting or joining at the surface or border; close
       together; neighbouring; bordering or adjoining");
       Contiguity, Black's Law Dictionary (1st ed. 1891) ("In
       close proximity; in actual close contact."); James
       A.H. Murray, A New English Dictionary on Historical
       Principles 903 (1893) (Contiguity:     "loosely. Close
       proximity,   without   actual   contact";   Contiguous:
       "loosely.   Neighbouring, situated in close proximity
       (though not in contact)"); Robert Hunter & Charles
       Morris, Universal Dictionary of the English Language
                                       10
                                                                  No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

       1238 (1897) (Contiguity:    "Ordinary language:   (1)
       Contact with, or (more loosely) immediate proximity
       to, nearness in place"; Contiguous:         "Ordinary
       language:   1. Meeting so as to touch; adjoining,
       touching, close together, connected.   . . . 2. Used
       more loosely in the sense of neighbouring, close,
       near.").
It is intellectually dishonest to pretend these definitions do

not exist and that the respondents never provided them.                              The

majority also neglects to mention that this court has recognized

the    term    "contiguous"       is    often    used    to    mean    near,   but   not

necessarily touching.             N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty., 145

Wis.    288,    291,     130     N.W.     246,   248     (1911)       ("'Adjacent'    is

sometimes      used    for     touching    on    or    bounded    by;    but   strictly

speaking it signifies, near to but not touching; contiguous is

probably sometimes also used in the former sense and sometimes

and more properly in the latter, while 'adjoining' is really the

proper term for in contact with, though each of such words is

occasionally used in a perverted way.                        It will be found that

they    have    been    construed        variously      by    courts     according     to

circumstances."); Hennessy v. Douglas Cnty., 99 Wis. 129, 136-

37,    74     N.W.     983     (1898)     ("'Adjacent'        signifies,       in    this
connection,      'lying      near,      close    to,    or    contiguous,      but    not

actually touching.'").

       ¶200 The       majority's        misuse    of    dictionaries       betrays      a

profound misunderstanding of how these resources are used in

legal analysis.         A dictionary is not a talisman that a judge can

invoke to provide the definitive meaning of a term used in a

statute or constitution.                It is merely a tool among several a
judge may use to understand a text's meaning.                            Care must be

                                           11
                                                                     No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

taken for a number of reasons.                    Dictionaries "define the core

meanings of a term" but often omit "the periphery."                               Antonin

Scalia & Brian A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of

Legal Texts 418 (2012).             Dictionaries also often omit typical,

ordinary       uses    of     terms,   or        list     the     order    of    possible

definitions differently and for different reasons.                               Ellen P.

Aprill, The Law of the Word: Dictionary Shopping in the Supreme

Court, 30 Ariz. State L.J. 275, 298 (1998).                       Because words often

have    more    than    one     meaning,     context       matters     a   great      deal.

Dictionaries cannot tell you what, in context, a word means.                              A

dictionary is merely a "museum of words."                       Frank H. Easterbrook,

Text,   History,       and    Structure     in    Statutory       Interpretation,        17

Harv.    J.L.    &     Pub.    Pol'y   61,       67     (1994).      Accordingly,        "a

comparative weighing of dictionaries is often necessary" when

they    are     employed.          Scalia         &     Garner,     supra,       at    417.

Dictionaries cannot communicate what words mean in a specific

context.

       ¶201 The majority does not seem to recognize the limits of
dictionaries, or the importance of acknowledging and weighing

different definitions.           The majority resorts to fabrication with

its obviously false claim that all dictionaries define the term

"contiguous" the way the majority prefers.                      The remarkable power

to   declare     something      unconstitutional——and              forever      remove   it

from democratic decision making——should be exercised carefully

and with humility.            The majority's drive-by dictionary citations

exhibit a slipshod analysis.

                                            12
                                                                        No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

       ¶202 The majority's lack of intellectual foundation is on

full    display     with        its   asymmetrical           treatment        of    cases    and

dictionaries.       For reasons left unexplained, the majority treats

dictionaries contemporaneous to the constitution's ratification

as less authoritative than modern dictionaries.                               Majority op.,

¶¶16-17.         But      the     majority          treats     older      cases      as     more

authoritative       than        recent    cases.           See   id.,     ¶¶21-23.           The

majority     does   not      even     attempt       to   square     the    circle.          This

inconsistency       reveals       the    majority        is   not   searching         for    the

constitution's meaning, but carefully cherry-picking sources to

feign support for its preferred outcome.

       ¶203 True       to    form,       the     majority        mischaracterizes            the

respondents' contiguity argument.                        The majority contends that

respondents claim "a district with separate, detached territory"

is contiguous provided it is a municipal island and "the main

body of the municipality is located elsewhere in the district."

Id.,    ¶18.        But     the       respondents'         actual      argument       on     the

contiguity        requirement            doesn't         resemble       the         majority's
retelling.

       ¶204 The respondents argue the term "contiguous territory"

in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution

allows for the use of existing municipal boundaries to form a

single district.            For example, if town and city boundaries are

used to form an assembly district, as long as the town and city

share    a     border,      or    are     near      each      other,    the        "contiguous

territory" requirement is met, even if the city or town has
municipal islands.

                                               13
                                                                   No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

      ¶205 Central         to    respondents'       interpretation,            the     term

"territory" in the phrase "contiguous territory" refers to the

various government entities (like towns and wards) that are used

to create an assembly or senate district.                         See State ex rel.

Reynolds v. Zimmerman, 23 Wis. 2d 606, 128 N.W.2d 16 (1964) (per

curium) (requiring "individual senate districts [to] consist[ ]

of contiguous assembly districts").                     Under respondents' theory,

an   assembly      district      contains       "detached       territory"      if,    for

example, it includes a town that does not touch, or is not near,

any other government entity used to form the assembly district.

Accordingly,       respondents          believe         their    interpretation          is

consistent      with     Lamb's       statement    that     an    assembly      district

"cannot be made up of two or more pieces of detached territory."

Lamb, 83 Wis. at 148.                Contrary to the majority's recasting of

respondents' argument, respondents do not believe that "detached

territory    can       still    be    contiguous——so       long    as    the    detached

territory    is    a     'municipal      island[    ].'"         Majority      op.,    ¶18.

Respondents reject the idea that municipal islands are "detached
territory" in the context of the contiguity requirement.

      ¶206 Based on its own mischaracterization of respondents'

argument,    the       majority        claims     the     respondents'        contiguity

interpretation         "would        essentially    require        us    to     read     an

exception    into        the     contiguity        requirements——that           district

territory must be physically touching, except when the territory

is a detached section of a municipality located in the same

district."         Id.         And    because    "the     text    contains      no     such
exception," the court rejects the respondents' argument.                               Id.,

                                           14
                                                                    No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

¶19.     This is sophistry.           The respondents never even suggested

the "district['s]           territory" must be touching.                  Nor did      the

respondents       ask   the      majority    to    create   an     exception     to    the

constitution's commands.              Instead, the respondents provided an

interpretation of "contiguous territory" the majority finds too

difficult       to   refute.         In    response,      the    majority      tilts    at

windmills——pretending the respondents made an argument that is

easier    for    the    majority      to    dismiss.        After     completing       its

exercise in deception, the majority simply assumes——without any

analysis    whatsoever——that          the     word     "territory"    refers     to    the

land comprising a district.

       ¶207 Glossing        over    these     glaring     analytical      errors,      the

majority obliges its political benefactor, seizing the exclusive

constitutional roles of the legislature and the governor in the

redistricting        process,      and     anointing      itself     an   all-powerful

committee    of      four   to     supplant      the   political     choices     of    the

coordinate      branches      with    its     subjective        notions   of    what   is

"fair."     Such "accumulation of all powers legislative, executive
and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many,

and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly

be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."                        The Federalist

No. 47, supra, at 324 (Madison).

  II. THE CONSTITUTION CONSTRAINS THIS COURT FROM OVERSTEPPING
    ITS AUTHORITY AND INVADING THE POLITICAL BRANCHES' DOMAIN
       ¶208 If the current maps were unconstitutional, the only

proper exercise of this court's power would be a remedy that
respects the legislature's and the governor's constitutionally

prescribed roles in the redistricting process.                        If the members
                                            15
                                                                 No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

of the majority were acting as a court rather than a super

legislature of four, they would modify the maps only to the

extent necessary to comply with the law.                   Specifically, if the

majority wished to remedy only detached municipal islands, as it

professes, it would adopt the respondents' proposal and redraw

only    those     districts       containing    detached      territory.          The

majority    refuses   to     do   so,   with    nothing    more     than    a   single

sentence explanation in which the majority says a more modest

remedy would "cause a ripple effect across other areas of the

state" so new maps are "necessary."                  Majority op., ¶56.           The

majority    offers    zero     support    for    this     conclusory        assertion

because none exists.           The majority instead dispenses with the

existing maps in order to confer an advantage on its preferred

political party with new ones.

       ¶209 The     majority       abandons      the      court's       least-change

approach adopted in Johnson I in order to fashion legislative

maps that "intrude upon the constitutional prerogatives of the

political branches and unsettle the constitutional allocation of
power."     399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶64.              The least-change approach in

Johnson I guaranteed the court would ground any reapportionment

decisions in the law alone, leaving the political decisions of

redistricting to the political branches where they belong.                        Id.,

¶71.       The    majority's       decision     to     discard    the      judicially

restrained methodology of Johnson I unveils its motivation to

redraw the legislative maps for the benefit of Democratic state

legislative candidates.           By design, the majority's transparently
political approach will reallocate political power in Wisconsin

                                         16
                                                                No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

via a draconian remedy, under the guise of a constitutional

"error"    easily    rectified      by    modest    modifications      to    existing

maps.

    ¶210 The majority misrepresents the least-change approach

as "an unclear assortment of possible redistricting metrics,"

majority    op.,     ¶61,    a    hypocritical      stance     for    justices     who

replace    it     with   a   "partisan      impact"    factor     bereft     of    any

definition.       The majority misleads the public to disguise what

it is actually doing:            abandoning the law and giving itself free

reign to shift political power from Republicans to Democrats.

In overruling the following holding, the majority rejects the

notion that it should confine its actions to the powers the

people gave the judiciary:                "Because the judiciary lacks the

lawmaking power constitutionally conferred on the legislature,

we will limit our remedy to achieving compliance with the law

rather than imposing policy choices."                  Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d

623, ¶72; accord id., ¶85 (Hagedorn, J., concurring) ("A least-

change approach is the most consistent, neutral, and appropriate
use of our limited judicial power to remedy the constitutional

violations in this case").

    ¶211 The majority professes to overrule Johnson I's least-

change     approach      because     it    is      supposedly    "unworkable           in

practice."      Majority op., ¶63.             The voters of Wisconsin should

remember    that    four     justices     have     confessed    an    inability        to

conform their official actions to the law.                It should be neither

"impracticable" nor "unfeasible," id., for any jurist to set
aside    policy    preferences      and    instead    apply     the   law.        As    a

                                          17
                                                                        No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

barrier to judges basing their decisions on political leanings,

the    least-change            approach     is       only     "impracticable"                and

"unfeasible"       for     justices       who     wish       to    act        as     a   super

legislature, as the members of the majority do in this case.                                   A

majority may dismantle that barrier but the judicial oath of

office remains.

       ¶212 As the respondents proposed, any contiguity violation

could be remedied by simply dissolving municipal islands into

their surrounding assembly districts.                       The majority dismisses

the idea without explaining why the maps must instead be redrawn

in their entirety.             To say the quiet part out loud, confining

the court's remedy to districts with municipal islands would

deprive the majority of its desired political                             outcome.           Its

overreach flouts not only Johnson I but also black-letter law

limiting the judiciary's remedial powers.

       ¶213 "The    remedial       powers       of    an    equity       court        must   be

adequate to the task, but they are not unlimited."                                 Whitcomb v.

Chavis,    403   U.S.     124,     161    (1971).          Under       this    longstanding
principle of judicial restraint, the remedy in this case——as in

all cases——should be tailored to the actual violation.                                   If a

district    contains       unconstitutionally              noncontiguous            territory,

then   dissolving        the    detached    territory         into      its        surrounding

district represents the most logical and adequate remedy.                                 This

more    modest     remedy       would     minimize     disruption             to     Wisconsin

voters.      The    majority's          drastic      remedy       of    overhauling          the

entirety of the legislative maps will maximize it.

                                           18
                                                                 No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

      ¶214 A      district-by-district          remedy      rather     than       a    full

redrawing    of    the       legislative    maps    would     follow     the      federal

approach to redistricting cases the majority once professed to

revere.     Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶88 (Dallet, J. dissenting)

("[T]he     federal          courts . . . are       best      suited         to       handle

redistricting cases.").            In Gill v. Whitford, the United States

Supreme Court considered whether voters had federal standing to

challenge the entirety of the 2011 Wisconsin state legislative

maps as an unfair partisan gerrymander.                     585 U.S. ___, 138 S.

Ct. 1916, 1929-30 (2018).               Without deciding the merits of the

voters' partisan gerrymandering claims, the Court said if a harm

were found it "does not necessarily require restructuring all of

the State's legislative districts."                Id. at 1931.         This holding

relied on the following principle:                 A "remedy must of course be

limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that

the plaintiff has established."                 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

357   (1996).            A    court's      modifications       of      an     otherwise

constitutional      map      should   be   confined      to   those     necessary        to
remedy the constitutional violations.                Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S.

37, 42-43 (1982).

      ¶215 The     parties       identified      approximately         200    municipal

islands surrounded by another assembly district in violation of

the majority's crabbed reading of the contiguity requirement in

Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution.                              The

vast majority of these districts contain few people; many are

uninhabited.       The majority opinion does not address these facts
and instead emphasizes a few districts it believes are the most

                                           19
                                                                            No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

egregious        to     justify       the       unwarranted            redrawing           of     the

legislative       maps    in   their       entirety.              Majority        op.,    ¶¶31-33.

Less than five percent of the roughly 200 municipal islands have

more    than    100     people.        The      court       could      easily       satisfy       the

majority's       new     definition        of     contiguity           by    dissolving          each

municipal island into its surrounding district.                                Some tinkering

would have to be done to bring the maps into compliance with the

one-person, one-vote principle, but this remedy would stop short

of   wading     into     the   political          morass       of    redrawing           maps    from

scratch.       The majority shuns a modest remedy because it would

foreclose      consideration          of    the      partisan        "impact"           factor    the

majority       buries    at    the    end       of    its      opinion       but     which       will

dominate the entire process going forward.

 III.    PARTISAN FAIRNESS IS NOT A JUDICIALLY MANAGEABLE STANDARD

       ¶216 Buried        at   the     end       of      its      opinion,        the     majority

identifies        "partisan          impact"          as       the      fifth           and      last

"redistricting          principle"         it     will      consider         in    reallocating

political       power    in    this    state.              Id.,     ¶69.          Its    placement
disguises the primacy this factor will have in the majority's

schemes.        The     majority      neglects         to      offer    a    single       measure,

metric, standard, or criterion by which it will gauge "partisan

impact."        Most     convenient        for       the    majority's        endgame,          there

aren't any, lending the majority unfettered license to design

remedial       maps      fulfilling         the       majority's            purely       political

objectives.           See Harper v. Hall, 881 S.E.2d 156, ¶124 (2023)

(Newby,    J.,    dissenting),         opinion         withdrawn        and       superseded       on
reh'g, 886 S.E.2d 393 (2023) ("By intentionally stating vague

                                                20
                                                                    No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

standards, it ensures that four members of this Court alone

understand       what      redistricting          plan        is      constitutionally

compliant.").

    ¶217 In considering "partisan impact," the majority acts

without       authority.          Unlike        other    state          constitutions,12

"[n]othing in the Wisconsin Constitution authorizes this court

to recast itself as a redistricting commission in order 'to make

[its]    own    political    judgment       about       how    much       representation

particular      political    parties       deserve——based          on     the    votes   of

their supporters——and to rearrange the challenged districts to

achieve that end.'"          Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶45 (quoting

Rucho    v.    Common   Cause,    588   U.S.      ___,   139       S. Ct.       2484,   2499

(2019)).       "The people have never consented to the Wisconsin

judiciary deciding what constitutes a 'fair' partisan divide;

seizing       such   power   would      encroach         on    the        constitutional

prerogatives of the political branches."                  Id., ¶45 (citing Vieth

v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 291 (2004) (plurality opinion)).

    ¶218 The         majority's    decision       to     consider         the    "partisan
impact" of proposed maps lacks any legal foundation, enabling

the majority to engage in a purely political exercise.                              As the

court explained in Johnson I, the "lack of standards by which to

    12 See Fla. Const. art. III, § 21(a) ("No apportionment plan
or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor
a political party or an incumbent[.]"); Ohio Const. art. XI, § 6
(prohibiting    redistricting   commission   from   creating   a
legislative district plan that favors or disfavors a political
party); Mo. Const. art. III, § 3 ("Districts shall be designed
in a manner that        achieves both partisan fairness and,
secondarily,   competitiveness.");   Colo.  Const.  art.   V,  §
48.1(3)(a) (directing the redistricting commission to "maximize
the number of politically competitive districts").

                                           21
                                                                        No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

judge partisan fairness is obvious from even a cursory review of

partisan gerrymandering jurisprudence."                         399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶41.

Accordingly, courts "'have no license to reallocate political

power    between      the    two    major     political         parties,'       because        'no

legal standards [exist] to limit and direct [our] decisions.'"

Id., ¶52 (quoting Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2507).

       ¶219 The       majority       says     it    will        "take     care      to     avoid

selecting      remedial      maps     designed       to    advantage          one   political

party    over    another,"         but    provides     no       guiding       principles       to

govern its actions.            Majority op., ¶71.                 The majority doesn't

offer any limiting principles because there aren't any.                                   By its

nature, redistricting involves political decisions entrusted to

the legislative branch.                  Despite its unconvincing attempts to

shroud its "partisan impact" lodestar with empty invocations of

judicial      neutrality       and       impartiality,          adjudicating        "partisan

impact" unavoidably "recast[s] this court as a policymaking body

rather than a law-declaring one."                     Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623,

¶52.
       ¶220 The majority says it won't select a map "designed to

advantage       one    political          party     over    another"          or    one     that

"privilege[s] one political party over another."                              Majority op.,

¶¶70-71.         Words      like     "advantage"          and    "privilege"         imply      a

baseline of fairness, but the court never defines it.                               It can't;

no     law    says    what     an        "unfair"    political          advantage         in    a

legislative map looks like.                 And what about third parties?                      The

majority will marginalize and exclude minority interests if it
fails    to     bestow      proportional          representation        on     every       minor

                                             22
                                                                         No.     23AP1399-OA.rgb

party;       after       all,    the     constitution         does    not      privilege      the

dominant parties.               The novice map drawers in the majority would

then discover what "unworkable in practice," id., ¶63, really

means.

        ¶221 The          United       States     Supreme       Court       comprehensively

described          the        impossibility           of     judicially          defining       or

identifying            what     constitutes        politically          "fair"        maps,     an

irrefutable point we echoed in                        Johnson I.         399 Wis. 2d 623,

¶¶40-41.          In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court documented the

presence          of     partisanship        in       the     drawing       of    legislative

districts——by            the     political        branches——dating             back     to     the

founding      of       our    nation.      139     S.      Ct. at    2494-95.         There     is

nothing       surprising         about     it;    the       legislative        and    executive

branches are, well, political.                    The judiciary is not supposed to

be.13        In        declaring    such     claims         nonjusticiable,          the     Court

highlighted two of its prior cases,14 in which it attempted to

define what constitutes an unfair partisan apportionment.                                      Id.

at   2497-98.             In     doing    so,     it       reiterated    Justice           Anthony
Kennedy's         earlier       admonition       that      judicial   standards        must     be

"'clear, manageable, and politically neutral.'"                                  Id. at 2498

(quoting Vieth, 541 U.S. at 308-09 (Kennedy, J., concurring in

       See Williams-Yulee v. Fla. Bar, 575 U.S. 433, 437 (2015)
        13

("Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench
by way of the ballot.").

       In both of those cases, the United States Supreme Court
        14

did not reach a majority and the number of separate writings
reveal the utter confusion over what judicial standard to apply
when judges are tasked with determining what level of
partisanship is "fair."     See Davis v Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109
(1986); Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004).

                                                 23
                                                                        No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

the judgment)).          Because the Court was unable to identify any

legal standards by which to adjudicate partisan fairness, it

determined       such       claims        involve        nonjusticiable            political

questions "beyond the competence of the federal courts."                                Id. at

2500.      The     majority      in      this    case        believes    it    possesses      a

judicial ability the United States Supreme Court somehow lacks.

What extraordinary hubris.

     ¶222 In successfully convincing the majority to consider

partisan fairness, petitioners point to the difference between

the statewide percentage of votes received by Democrats compared

to the number of Democrats in the state legislature.                                     Their

argument     presumes     that      an    individual          voter     who    votes    for   a

Democrat at the top of the ticket will automatically support a

Democratic state legislative candidate.                        Voters do not, however,

blindly cast their ballots for one party.                        Whitford v. Gill, 218

F.   Supp.    3d     837,     936        (W.D.        Wis.     2016)    (Griesbach,        J.,

dissenting), vacated, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) ("Party affiliation

is not set in stone or in a voter's genes[.]").                                A variety of
factors influence electoral choices.                         See Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at

2503.      Partisan      preferences            can    change     rapidly       and     social

science    cannot    reliably         predict        voters'     future       choices    among

candidates.        Id.    Political identification is not an immutable

                                                24
                                                                       No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

characteristic; election results in Wisconsin reveal recurring

shifts in party preferences and loyalties.15

       ¶223 What the majority calls "partisan impact" will mean

proportional       representation.              See     id.     at     2499       ("Partisan

gerrymandering          claims    invariably          sound     in      a     desire     for

proportional       representation.").            Proportionality             is    far   from

politically neutral and is incompatible with the constitution,

which requires single-member legislative districts.                           Wis. Const.

art.    IV,   §§   4–5.      Requiring      single-member             districts      renders

proportionality          impossible        because        single-member             district

elections     unavoidably        produce    disproportionate             results.         See

Whitford, 218 F. Supp. 3d at 950 (Griesbach, J., dissenting)

("Another     reason      proportionality         is      not     a     right      is    that

disproportionality is built in, and in fact even assumed, in

winner-take-all systems of voting.").                     Proportionality is also

in tension with our state constitution "because Article IV of

the Wisconsin Constitution specifies requirements that favor the

preservation       of     communities       of        interest,        irrespective        of
individual partisan alignment."                  Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623,

¶47.    The majority attacks our representative form of government

by introducing the extra-constitutional criterion of "partisan

impact."

       Craig Gilbert, What 30 Years of Voting History Tells Us
       15

about Wisconsin's Shifting Suburban Vote, Milwaukee J. Sentinel,
May                           10,                           2023,
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/analysis/2023/05/10
/how-the-2024-presidential-race-in-wisconsin-hinges-on-suburban-
trends/70179579007/.

                                           25
                                                             No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

    ¶224 Perfect political symmetry between the statewide vote

and the composition of the legislature is unattainable because

of the geographic distribution of the state's voters.                        While

Wisconsin has had close statewide races over the prior decade,

the concentration of voters differs dramatically among urban,

suburban, and rural areas of the state.                   For example, in the

2020 presidential election, Dane County and Milwaukee County,

the two largest counties by total votes, cast approximately 35

percent of the total statewide votes for Joe Biden.16                     Waukesha

and Brown County17 accounted for only 14 percent of the total

statewide    votes   for    Donald   Trump.        Increasingly,      the    large

percentage    of   Democratic     votes     from   Dane   County    has     been   a

determining    factor      in   otherwise    close   statewide      elections.18

Republican statewide candidates receive support from more rural

and less densely populated counties throughout the state.                     This

    16 President Biden received 1,630,866 total votes in
Wisconsin in 2020 and Dane County recorded 260,121 votes for
Biden and Milwaukee County recorded 317,527 votes for Biden.
2020 Wisconsin Election Results, N.Y. Times, (Accessed Nov. 30,
2023),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/resu
lts-wisconsin.html.
    17 These two counties were chosen for comparison because
their voters cast the two highest number of ballots for Donald
Trump.   Of the 1,610,184 total votes Donald Trump received in
Wisconsin in 2020, Waukesha County recorded 159,649 votes and
Brown County recorded 75,871 votes. Id.
    18 Ruth Conniff, How Dane County is Making Wisconsin Less
Red,           Isthmus,          Dec.          3,           2022,
https://isthmus.com/opinion/opinion/how-dane-county-is-making-
wisconsin-less-red/.

                                      26
                                                               No.     23AP1399-OA.rgb

political     reality19    illustrates       why    the    statewide     vote   is   a

flawed indicator of what the makeup of the state legislature

"should" be.       Even if representative proportionality were an

attainable goal, the constitution gives the judiciary, the only

non-partisan branch of state government, no role to play in such

political calculations.

    ¶225 Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a former

state    legislator,      recognized    the    unsound      premises     underlying

proportional representation, which the majority fails to grasp

in its quest to enforce partisan "fairness":

    This preference for proportionality is in serious
    tension with essential features of state legislative
    elections.    Districting itself represents a middle
    ground between winner-take-all statewide elections and
    proportional representation for political parties. If
    there    is    a    constitutional    preference    for
    proportionality, the legitimacy of districting itself
    is called into question: the voting strength of less
    evenly   distributed    groups   will   invariably   be
    diminished by districting as compared to at-large
    proportional systems for electing representatives.
    Moreover, one implication of the districting system is
    that voters cast votes for candidates in their
    districts, not for a statewide slate of legislative
    candidates put forward by the parties.    Consequently,
    efforts to determine party voting strength presuppose
    a norm that does not exist——statewide elections for
    representatives along party lines.
Davis    v.   Bandemer,    478   U.S.   109,       159    (1986)   (O'Connor,     J.,

concurring in the judgment) (emphasis added).                      Justice Antonin

Scalia explained that the federal Constitution, like ours, does

    19 "Democrats have often been concentrated in cities while
Republicans have often been concentrated in suburbs and
sometimes rural areas." Vieth, 541 U.S. at 359 (2004) (Breyer,
J., dissenting).

                                        27
                                                                          No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

not      guarantee         "equal     representation              in       government              to

equivalently sized groups.                  It nowhere says that farmers or

urban dwellers, Christian fundamentalists or Jews, Republicans

or Democrats, must be accorded political strength proportionate

to their numbers."          Vieth, 541 U.S. at 288.

       ¶226 By shoehorning consideration of "partisan impact" into

the remedial phase of this litigation, the majority strikes a

blow     against     our     republican       form        of     government.                Forcing

legislative representation reflecting the statewide strength of

a political party on citizens in less populated areas of the

state     overrides        their     choice        of     candidates        without           their

consent.           "Proportional           party         representation               is     simply

incompatible       with      the     constitutionally             prescribed               form    of

representative government chosen by the people of Wisconsin."

Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶50.

       ¶227 The majority says it must consider "partisan impact"

in redrawing the state's legislative maps in order to remain

politically "neutral and independent."                         Majority op., ¶71.                  If
that "sounds contradictory," Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶112

(Dallet,    J.,    dissenting),        that's       because        it     is.          The    court

concedes     its     decision       does    not         derive    from          the    Wisconsin

Constitution       or    any   other       law.          And   the      gerrymander-claim-

versus-judicial-remedy distinction, which "appears at first to

be an escape hatch" for the majority is "upon reflection, a trap

door."       Nathaniel         Persily,       In        Defense      of    Foxes           Guarding

Henhouses:    The       Case   for    Judicial           Acquiescence           to    Incumbent-
Protecting Gerrymanders, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 649, 673 (2002).                                       The

                                             28
                                                                   No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

majority's fixation on "partisan impact" might, intentionally or

unintentionally, run afoul of the Voting Rights Act.                         52 U.S.C.

§ 10301.      Historically, a preoccupation with "fair maps" has

come at the expense of communities of color.                       Johnson III, 401

Wis. 2d 198, ¶¶96-104 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring).

By    injecting    "partisan        impact"    into       the     calculation,       the

majority     transforms       itself   into    a     legislative         body    making

political and policy decisions.                A pledge to be "neutral and

independent" cannot be fulfilled when the majority appropriates

the   political     tasks      of    redistricting         that     belong      to   the

political branches.

      ¶228 Since the majority recognizes its focus on partisan

fairness is untethered to law, it must explain, in a politically

neutral    way,    why   judicial      neutrality         does    not    require     the

consideration of countless other factors.                  The majority's choice

to    consider      "partisan        impact"       is      imbued        with    policy

determinations necessitating overtly political choices.                         Opening

the   door    to   judicial      policymaking        in    this     manner      invites
interest     groups      of    every    kind    to        demand     "fairness"       in

representation on any basis whatsoever:                     sex, religion, age,

socioeconomic status, gender identity, etc.                        As a matter of

policy, why wouldn't the majority ensure that farmers, union

members, property owners, renters, small business owners, and

hunters have representation in proportion to their numbers?                          See

Vieth, 541 U.S. at 288; Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶57 (citing

Larry Alexander & Saikrishna B. Prakash, Tempest in an Empty
Teapot: Why the Constitution Does Not Regulate Gerrymandering,

                                        29
                                                                           No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

50    Wm.     &    Mary     L.     Rev.      1,     21-22      (2008))     (noting       that    if

proportionality            for     partisan         affiliation       is     required,        every

group, including gun owners and vegetarians, has a valid claim

to     proportional          representation              in    the    legislature        because

"[n]othing         distinguishes            partisan      affiliation        from      hundreds——

perhaps thousands——of other variables").                              Is it acceptable to

increase partisan fairness at the expense of the ability of

Evangelical Christians to elect their preferred candidates?                                     Why

does     the       majority        prioritize            partisan     fairness         over     the

interests of the elderly?                    The answer is obvious; the majority's

decision is deeply partisan.                      So much for judicial neutrality.

       ¶229 "A government of laws means a government of rules."

Morrison          v.    Olson,     487      U.S.       654,    733   (1988)       (Scalia,      J.,

dissenting).             The majority replaces rules with whim, preferring

its     own       malleable       notions         of     fairness     over       constitutional

commands,         in     order    to    engineer         districts     more      favorable      for

Democratic state legislative candidates.                             The majority succumbs

to     the    temptation          of       results      at    the    expense      of    its     own
legitimacy.              Robert    H.       Bork,      The    Tempting     of     America:      The

Political Seduction of the Law 2 (1990).

        IV.       LACHES AND JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL SHOULD BAR THIS CASE

       ¶230 Redistricting                  is      the        quintessential           "political

thicket."              See Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 556 (1946)

(plurality opinion).               We should not decide such cases unless, as

in 2021, we must.                In this case, we need not enter the thicket.

Unlike       the       majority,       I    would       not    address     the     merits.        A
collateral attack on a supreme court judgment, disguised as an

                                                   30
                                                                              No.       23AP1399-OA.rgb

original         action     petition,       would       ordinarily           be    dismissed       upon

arrival.          Allowing petitioners' stale claims to proceed makes a

mockery          of   our     judicial      system,          politicizes          the    court,    and

incentivizes           litigants       to     sit       on    manufactured           redistricting

claims in the hopes that a later, more favorable makeup of the

court will accept their arguments.                            The doctrines of laches and

judicial         estoppel      exist     to      prevent       such     manipulation          of   the

judicial system.

                                            A.    Laches

       ¶231 Two days after Protasiewicz's election, one of the six

law firms representing the petitioners announced its plan "to

challenge the state's voting maps based on the assertion that

partisan         gerrymandering          violates        the        Wisconsin       Constitution,"

although         at    that    point     the      lawyers       were        "still       putting   the

pieces       together         about      what      we        think     the        most    successful

arguments will be."20              It is hard to imagine a more fitting case

for the application of laches than a tardy litigant calling to

collect on judicial campaign trail promises.                                      To preserve its
institutional           legitimacy,         the     court       should       have        applied   the

doctrine and dismissed this action.

       ¶232 The doctrine of laches bars relief "when a claimant's

failure to promptly bring a claim causes prejudice to the party

having to defend against that claim."                               Wis. Small Bus. United,

Inc.        v.    Brennan,        2020      WI 69,       ¶11,         393     Wis. 2d 308,         946

N.W.2d 101            (citation    omitted).                 This    affirmative,           equitable

       20   Kelly, supra note 3.

                                                  31
                                                                              No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

defense ensures that "'equity aids the vigilant, and not those

who    sleep    on    their         rights      to    the     detriment       of     the    opposing

party.'"        State ex rel. Wren v. Richardson, 2019 WI 110, ¶14,

389 Wis. 2d 516, 936 N.W.2d 587 (quoting 27A Am. Jur. 2d Equity

§ 108).      "Application of laches is within the court's discretion

upon     a   showing           by    the       party        raising     the     claim       of    [1]

unreasonable delay, [2] lack of knowledge the claim would be

raised, and [3] prejudice."                         Trump v. Biden, 2020 WI 91, ¶10,

394     Wis. 2d 629,           951       N.W.2d 568          (citation        omitted).           The

doctrine       of    laches         is   of    particular          importance        in    election-

related disputes.              Id., ¶11.

       ¶233 All three elements of laches exist in this case.                                      The

constitution limits redistricting to occur once every ten years,

after     the       federal         census,      and       the      constitution          gives   the

legislature         the    power         of     reapportionment.               Only        political

stalemate triggers court involvement.                            See Wis. Const. art. IV,

§ 3; Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶18; Baldus, 849 F. Supp. 2d at

859    (citing       Zimmerman,          266     Wis.       307)     (noting        the    Wisconsin
Constitution's "command" "not to re-district more than once each

10    years.").           We    should        not     indulge       litigants        who    sat   out

Johnson——or          worse      yet,          were        parties     in   Johnson——and           who

strategically conjure legal claims that could have been made

more than two years ago.                       "The doctrine of laches is derived

from the maxim that those who sleep on their rights, lose them."

Chattanoga Mfg., Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 301 F.3d 789, 792 (7th Cir.

2002).

                                                     32
                                                                  No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

     ¶234 As       a   preliminary      matter,        the    doctrine     of     laches

applies    to    redistricting       claims,      as     well    as     requests     for

injunctive      relief,    notwithstanding        an     alleged        ongoing    harm.

Petitioners contend laches does not apply in this case because

an   alleged     harm——constitutionally         noncontiguous            districts——is

ongoing    and     they   are    requesting       prospective         relief.        The

majority appears to agree.           See majority op., ¶43 n.20.                  But as

one court explained, an ongoing-violation theory "is contrary to

well settled reapportionment and laches case law."                             Fouts v.

Harris, 88 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 1999), aff'd sub

nom. Chandler v. Harris, 529 U.S. 1084 (2000) (citation omitted)

(barring     claim      that    districts      were      racially       gerrymandered

contrary to the United States Constitution with the doctrine of

laches); see also White v. Daniel, 909 F.2d 99 (4th Cir. 1990)

(applying laches to bar redistricting claim under Section 2 of

the Voting Rights Act of 1965); Sanders v. Dooly County, 245

F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2001) (applying laches to deny request for

injunctive      relief    related    to    a   districting        plan     containing
racially gerrymandered districts violating the Equal Protection

Clause); Knox v. Milwaukee Cnty. Bd. of Elections Comm'rs, 581

F. Supp. 399 (E.D. Wis. 1984) (applying laches to deny request

to enjoin implementation of a Milwaukee reapportionment plan,

which plaintiffs claimed violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights

Act of 1965); Mac Govern v. Connolly, 637 F. Supp. 111 (D. Mass.

1986) (applying laches to bar injunctive relief for plaintiffs

claiming     the       state    legislative       maps        where      not      equally
apportioned      under    the   Equal     Protection         Clause);     Chestnut     v.

                                          33
                                                                        No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

Merrill, 377 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (N.D. Ala. 2019) (applying laches

to deny injunctive relief under Section 2 of the Voting Rights

Act of 1965 against challenged districts).                            Wisconsin precedent

accords with federal cases.                This court has approved the use of

laches    to    deny       prospective      injunctive           relief,      even    against

government actors seeking to vindicate public rights.                                   Forest

Cnty. v. Goode, 219 Wis. 2d 654, 681-84, 579 N.W.2d 715 (1998)

(stating that laches should be considered by the circuit court

when     deciding       whether      to    issue     an    injunction          against      one

violating a zoning ordinance).                    The doctrine of laches applies

to    claims    for     prospective       relief,     even       in    the    redistricting

context.

                              1.     Unreasonable Delay

       ¶235 The       first    element      of     laches    concerns          whether      the

petitioners          "unreasonably        delayed"    in     bringing         their    claim.

Trump, 394 Wis. 2d 629, ¶13.                 "What constitutes an unreasonable

delay varies and 'depends on the facts of a particular case.'"

Id.    (quoting        Brennan,      393     Wis.     2d     308,       ¶14).         Because
redistricting cases require the court to enter the political

thicket,       and    in    light    of    the     disruption          another      round    of

redistricting may cause, this requirement has extra force in

redistricting         cases    and    analogous       contexts.               See    id.,    ¶30

("Parties bringing election-related claims have a special duty

to bring their claims in a timely manner.").                             This element is

met.

       ¶236 The       Wisconsin      legislature          last    enacted        legislative
maps in 2011 and those maps contained municipal islands.                                    2011

                                             34
                                                                           No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

Wis. Act 44; 2011 Wis. Act 43.                          None of the petitioners argued

the    maps       were     unconstitutional             for    containing         noncontiguous

territory within one or more districts.                               The maps created in

2011 became unconstitutionally malapportioned due to population

shifts identified following the census of 2020.                               Johnson I, 399

Wis. 2d 623, ¶16.                 Four voters filed an original action with

this        court,        seeking        a     mandatory           injunction         to    remedy

malapportionment.                 Id.,       ¶5.         We    invited     any        prospective

intervenor to move to participate in Johnson and granted every

motion to intervene.               Johnson II, 400 Wis. 2d 626, ¶2.                        Many of

the parties in this case——the Governor and all but two of the

Atkinson intervenor-petitioners21——participated in Johnson.                                    They

did     not       argue     the     2011       maps      contained       unconstitutionally

noncontiguous districts nor did they propose the definition of

contiguity advanced and adopted in this case.                                     In fact, the

petitioners          who     participated               in    Johnson      stipulated          that

municipal          islands        are        constitutionally          contiguous.             The

petitioners who participated in both cases could have raised the
contiguity issue in Johnson.                        They didn't.           They could have

moved       the     court     for       reconsideration            after     we       issued   our

decision.           They didn't.             To wait nearly two years after our

decision       in    Johnson        I    addressed           the   meaning       of    contiguous

territory constitutes unreasonable delay, even setting aside the

admitted gamesmanship of the litigants.

       ¶237 The majority starts the unreasonable-delay clock after

Johnson III was decided and insists the Clarke petitioners did

       21   The two newcomers are Nathan Atkinson and Leah Dudley.

                                                   35
                                                                      No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

not immediately raise the contiguity issue after Johnson III

because petitioners "could not obtain relief prior to the 2022

elections."         Majority op., ¶42.             But the majority presupposes

something prevented the Clarke petitioners from participating in

the Johnson litigation.              Nothing did.          The petitioners who sat

out Johnson have never explained why they did not participate in

Johnson, even when given the opportunity to explain themselves

at    oral    argument.       Nor    did     they       show   they    were   reasonably

unaware of the contiguity issue at that time.                          "[U]nreasonable

delay in laches is based not on what litigants know, but what

they might have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence.

This underlying constructive knowledge requirement arises from

the general rule that 'ignorance of one's legal rights is not a

reasonable excuse in a laches case.'"                      Wren, 389 Wis. 2d 516,

¶20 (quoting 27A Am. Jur. 2d Equity § 138) (emphasis added).

Everyone       knows       this     action        was    brought       promptly       after

Protasiewicz joined the court because the petitioners knew she

and    the     three       dissenters      in      Johnson       would      welcome    any
opportunity to redraw the maps they viewed as "rigged."                            Laches

bars such tactics.           See Knox, 581 F. Supp. at 403-04                    (finding

unreasonable delay when the plaintiffs were given opportunities

to participate in the districting process, voice their concerns,

and even submit alternative plans, but chose not to).

       ¶238 If waiting to file this original action until August

2,    2023,   one    day    after    Protasiewicz's            investiture,     were   not

blatant enough, the law firm representing the petitioners said
the quiet part out loud two days after Protasiewicz won her

                                             36
                                                       No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

election, promising to file a gerrymandering claim and admitting

the firm would not have brought any claim if Protasiewicz had

lost the election.22       Contrary to the majority's telling, the

petitioners did not just wait until "August of 2023" to bring

their claims, majority op., ¶42; they waited until the day after

the composition of the court changed——a fact so embarrassing the

majority never acknowledges it.            Such gamesmanship and delay

would not be rewarded by a court with integrity.             Trump v. Biden

conveyed the court's expectation for parties to act diligently

when bringing election-related claims.          Relaxing the rule when

the petitioners seek partisan advantage on behalf of Democrats

signals that different standards apply to Republicans.              Putting

a partisan thumb on the scales of justice calls into question

the court's legitimacy.

                          2.   Lack of Knowledge

      ¶239 The   second    element    of    laches   asks     whether    the

respondents lacked knowledge that the petitioners would bring

the    contiguity   claim.        Brennan,     393   Wis. 2d 308,       ¶18.
Respondents assert they were unaware the petitioners would bring

the contiguity claim.      Nothing in the record suggests otherwise.

The petitioners who did participate in Johnson all stipulated

that municipal islands were constitutionally contiguous.                 The

       Kelly, supra note 3 ("When asked if she and her
      22

colleagues would be discussing a potential legal challenge if
Protasiewicz hadn't won on Tuesday, Safar said, 'There wouldn't
be an opportunity to have a fair argument, I don't think, under
Justice Kelly.'").     This undermines——to put it mildly——the
believability of counsel's statement at oral argument that
petitioners would have filed this original action even if
Protasiewicz had lost the election.

                                     37
                                                                      No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

second element is met.             See id. (holding the second element of

laches is met if respondent "had no advance knowledge or warning

of [the] particular claim").23

                                   3.     Prejudice

      ¶240 The     third    and     final      element      of    laches         requires   a

showing of prejudice, which means "'anything that places the

party in a less favorable position.'"                      Trump, 394 Wis. 2d 629,

¶24   (quoting     Wren,    389     Wis.       2d   516,    ¶32).           In    a   context

analogous to redistricting, this court has considered prejudice

to third parties.          See id., ¶¶25-27 (considering prejudice to

voters     in   election-related         context);      id.,      ¶125      (Ziegler,    J.,

dissenting) (noting the majority focused "on the prejudice to

third      parties").           Other    courts      have        likewise        considered

prejudice to third parties in redistricting cases.                               White, 909

F.2d at 103-04 (considering the prejudicial effect judicially

mandated redistricting would have on voters not party to the

suit); Chestnut, 377 F. Supp. 3d at 1317 (similar); Fouts, 88 F.

Supp. 2d at 1354 (similar); see Sanders, 245 F.3d at 1291.                               The
third element of laches is met.

      ¶241 The respondents assert they spent considerable time

and   resources     in    the    Johnson       litigation        to   ensure      Wisconsin

voters would have constitutionally permissible maps for future

elections.         This    court        also    spent      considerable           time   and

       Although the respondents meet the second element of
      23

laches, it does not always apply because the requirement
"focuses on the ability of the asserting party to mitigate any
resulting prejudice when notice is provided.    But this may not
be possible in all types of claims."       Trump v. Biden, 2020
WI 91, ¶23 n.10, 394 Wis. 2d 629, 951 N.W.2d 568.

                                           38
                                                                       No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

resources on Johnson.               Petitioners seek to wipe out all of the

work done in Johnson——and the majority obliges.                                   This is an

accepted form of prejudice to respondents.                           See Wren, 389 Wis.

2d 516, ¶33 (noting economic prejudice is a cognizable form of

prejudice for purposes of laches); 27A Am. Jur. 2d Equity § 144

(footnotes       omitted)      ("Prejudice       may    also     be     invoked      by     the

expenditure of time and the effort that the plaintiff's delayed

claim would defeat.").

      ¶242 Because the majority errs by starting the clock at the

end of Johnson III, the majority fails to find any prejudice

against the respondents.              The respondents do not claim the costs

of litigating         this suit       cause them prejudice.                  Instead, the

respondents claim that wiping away all of the money, time, and

effort devoted to Johnson is prejudicial.                       Contrary to what the

majority asserts, prejudice in the form of wasted money, time,

and     effort    on     an        action   already      concluded           distinguishes

respondents'      claim       of    prejudice    from     the    case        on    which    the

majority relies, which states that costs incurred in litigating
a current suit are not prejudicial.                     Majority op., ¶43 (citing

Goodman v. McDonnell Douglass Corp., 606 F.2d 800, 808 (8th Cir.

1979)).         The    prejudice       to   respondents         is    especially          acute

because all of the petitioners were either parties in Johnson or

could    have    been.        The     contiguity       challenge       could       have    been

resolved    in    that    case.        It   is   extremely       prejudicial          to   the

respondents for the petitioners to sit out litigation they were

invited to join, "'gamble on the outcome'" of the litigation,
"'and then challenge it when dissatisfied with the results.'"

                                            39
                                                                       No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

See Trump, 394 Wis. 2d 629, ¶11 (quoting 29 C.J.S. Elections §

459 (2020)).          But the majority doesn't care about that kind of

unfairness.

       ¶243 Respondents are not the only ones to suffer prejudice

as a result of the majority entertaining the petitioners' claim.

The petitioners waited until after the maps adopted in Johnson

had been used and after voters and legislators became accustomed

to    their     new    districts.          Both     voters       and    legislators        are

prejudiced by this suit because many legislators have developed

relationships with their constituents.                       Redrawing the maps so

soon    after    Johnson,         and    after    elections      have    occurred       under

those maps, risks severe voter confusion——a well-recognized form

of prejudice in the redistricting context.                             E.g., White, 909

F.2d at 104 ("We believe that two reapportionments within a

short period of two years would greatly prejudice the County and

its    citizens       by   creating       instability      and    dislocation         in   the

electoral system and by imposing great financial and logistical

burdens.");       Chestnut,         377    F.     Supp.    3d     at     1317    ("[W]hile
congressional          races       are     better     funded       and       more      highly

publicized, the court remains unconvinced that a more publicized

election      will     necessarily        educate    voters      on     where   the     newly

drawn district lines lay."); see also 27A Am. Jur. 2d Equity §

144    (Prejudice          "may     further       arise     from       delayed        actions

challenging elections or election procedures, due to confusion

to voters . . . .").

       ¶244 The majority            unconvincingly attempts to dismiss the
prejudice       to     voters       engendered        by     redrawing          the     state

                                             40
                                                                 No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

legislative    maps.     First,      the    majority       minimizes      this    well-

recognized form of prejudice as merely "vague assertions about

disruption to the status quo."              Majority op., ¶43.           Second, the

majority insists that "any disruption . . . is necessary to

serve the public's interest in having districts that comply with

each of the requirements of the Wisconsin Constitution."                             Id.,

¶43.    The majority's dismissiveness perfunctorily discounts the

prejudice to confused voters.          The majority surely did not apply

this logic in Trump v. Biden.                   In that case, the petitioners

sought the invalidation of several thousands of ballots because

they were cast unlawfully or were otherwise invalid.                           394 Wis.

2d 629, ¶1.        The court held laches barred the petitioners from

bringing their claims.         Id., ¶3.           The court held that voters

would be prejudiced if their ballots were struck.                      Id., ¶¶24-28.

The court did not disregard prejudice to voters simply because

the public also has an interest in elections being conducted in

accordance    with    state   law.         It    would    be    one    thing    if   the

majority     acknowledged     this    prejudice           and   then,     using      its
discretion, decided not to apply laches because it thinks other

interests outweigh the prejudice to confused voters.                             But to

pretend no prejudice exists, because concluding otherwise would

thwart the majority's political agenda, is shameful.

       ¶245 This     court    has    applied        the     laches      doctrine      in

election-related disputes specifically when the relief sought

"would be an extraordinary step for this court to take."                         Trump,

394 Wis. 2d 629, ¶31.          The petitioners in this case seek the
extraordinary remedy of tossing the legislative maps in their

                                       41
                                                                     No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

entirety     and    upending        the    political        balance       of     the   state

legislature      just   months       before       the   2024      elections,       yet    the

majority entertains a claim that could have been brought in

Johnson    I.      Petitioners       waited       until     the    court's       membership

changed with the hope of achieving a more favorable outcome.                              An

impartial    application       of    this     court's       recent    laches       doctrine

would bar the petitioners' claims.

                                    4. Discretion

       ¶246 Even though all of the elements of laches are met, it

remains within our discretion to apply the doctrine.                              Wren, 389

Wis. 2d 516, ¶15 (citing State ex rel. Washington v. State, 2012

WI App 74, ¶26, 343 Wis. 2d 434, 819 N.W.2d 305).                              Applying the

doctrine    of     laches     is    the    only    "appropriate           and    equitable"

decision in this case.              Id.     The constitution does not permit

redistricting to be a yearly affair.                        It is a fundamentally

political process in which this court acted in Johnson only to

avoid a constitutional crisis.                Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶68

("Judicial         action      becomes        appropriate            to         prevent     a
constitutional       crisis.").           Absent    political        impasse,      for    the

sake of our institutional legitimacy                      and out of respect for

roles the constitution assigns to the political branches, we

keep    ourselves       out    of     the     process.            Failure         to   bring

redistricting       claims     promptly       poses     a   great     danger       "to    the

entire administration of justice."                  Trump, 394 Wis. 2d 629, ¶30.

Entertaining political claims delayed until the seating of a

justice who had prejudged the existing maps as "rigged" poses a
great danger to the integrity of this court.                       The majority could

                                            42
                                                                 No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

have its integrity by properly applying the doctrine of laches

but   instead    forges      ahead     to    the    detriment    of     this     court's

institutional legitimacy.

                              B.   Judicial Estoppel

      ¶247 The doctrine of judicial estoppel bars the Governor

and the Atkinson petitioner-intervenors who participated in the

Johnson     litigation24        from        arguing     municipal       islands      are

unconstitutionally noncontiguous.                   "The equitable doctrine of

judicial     estoppel . . . is          intended        to    protect     against      a

litigant playing fast and loose with the courts . . . .                              The

doctrine precludes a party from asserting a position in a legal

proceeding      and   then     subsequently         asserting     an     inconsistent

position."      State v. Petty, 201 Wis. 2d 337, 347, 548 N.W.2d 817

(1996)     (internal        quotation       marks      and    citations     omitted).

Judicial estoppel applies if:               (1) the party's later position is

inconsistent with its earlier position; (2) the facts at issue

are the same in both cases; and (3) the party convinced the

first court to adopt its position.                    Id. at 348 (quoted source
omitted).

      ¶248 Both       the    Governor        and      the    Atkinson     petitioner-

intervenors deny taking a position in this case at odds with

their position in           Johnson and further claim the court never

adopted     their     initial      position.           The    facts     betray     their

duplicity.

       Stephen Wright, Gary Krenz, Sarah Hamilton,
      24                                                                       Jean-Luc
Thiffeault, and Somesh Jha all participated in Johnson.

                                            43
                                                              No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

     ¶249 The      Governor      and     Atkinson       petitioner-intervenors

contend     they    never     argued         that     municipal     islands     are

constitutionally contiguous in Johnson.                   This is false.        The

Atkinson    petitioner-intervenors,           then    identifying    as   "Citizen

Mathematicians and Scientists," argued for the permissibility of

municipal islands in Johnson I.25             Both the Governor and Atkinson

petitioner-intervenors        stipulated       that    municipal     islands    are

constitutionally        contiguous.26        The     stipulation    verifies    the

parties' position that municipal islands are constitutional.27

Having     lost    in    Johnson,      the     Governor     and     the   Atkinson

petitioner-intervenors         now      argue        municipal      islands     are

unconstitutional, the opposite of the position they advanced in

Johnson.    The court adopted their position in Johnson I, holding

     25"This 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); but cf. Prosser, 793 F. Supp. at 866
(holding that the Wisconsin Constitution does not require
'literal contiguity' where a town had annexed noncontiguous
'islands' and 'the distance between town and island is
slight')."   Br. Intervenors-Pet'rs Citizen Mathematicians and
Scientists, Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, No. 2021AP1450, at
22 (Oct. 25, 2021).
     26"Contiguity for state assembly districts is satisfied
when a district boundary follows the municipal boundaries.
Municipal 'islands' are legally contiguous with the municipality
to which the 'island' belongs.     Wis. Stat. §5.15(1)(b); Wis.
Stat. §4.001(2) (1972); see Prosser v. Election Bd., 793 F.
Supp. 859, 866 (W.D. Wis. 1992) (three-judge court)."      Joint
Stip. of Facts and Law, Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, No.
2021AP1450, at 15 (Nov. 4, 2021).
     27A stipulation, by definition, is an "agreement between
opposing    parties    concerning   some    relevant    point[.]"
Stipulation, Black's Law Dictionary 1712 (11th ed. 2019).

                                        44
                                                       No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

municipal islands are constitutional.         399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶36.      No

justice dissented on this point.          Shifting majorities in Johnson

II and Johnson III adopted maps with municipal islands.                 See

Johnson II, 400 Wis. 2d 626, ¶¶8-10; Johnson III, 401 Wis. 2d

198, ¶70.    No justice dissented on this point in either of those

decisions.    Notably, the court adopted the Governor's proposed

state legislative maps in Johnson II, municipal islands and all.

In his brief urging the court to adopt his legislative maps in

Johnson II, the Governor argued his maps were constitutionally

contiguous despite having municipal islands.28

     ¶250 The Governor contends the court was not convinced to

adopt his position because there was no adversarial briefing on

the issue of municipal islands in the Johnson litigation.               The

Governor, however, fails to cite any legal authority requiring

adversarial briefing on an issue before judicial estoppel may

apply.       Precedent    supports    its     application    even   absent

adversarial briefing.       E.g., Cnty. of Milwaukee v. Edward S.,

2001 WI App 169, ¶11, 247 Wis. 2d 87, 633 N.W.2d 241 (estopping
a litigant from arguing an adjournment was improper when the

parties stipulated to the adjournment).          Regardless, courts may

not blindly accept a stipulation of law; they have a duty to

independently determine what the law is.         "[W]e are not bound by

the parties' interpretation of the law or obligated to accept a

party's concession of law.      This court, not the parties, decides

questions of law."       State v. Carter, 2010 WI 77, ¶50, 327 Wis.

     28Gov. Tony Evers's Br. Support Proposed Maps, Johnson v.
Wis. Elections Comm'n, No. 2021AP1450, at 17 (Dec. 15, 2021).

                                     45
                                                                No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

2d 1, 785 N.W.2d 516.            Irrespective of the parties' stipulation

of   law,     this    court   was   duty-bound     to    satisfy      itself    that

remedial maps met the constitutional command of contiguity and

it did so, irrespective of the parties' shared position on the

issue.

       ¶251 The        Governor      fundamentally         misconstrues            the

requirement that the party to be estopped must have convinced

the earlier court to adopt its position.                       Applying judicial

estoppel does not require us to peer into the minds of judges to

ascertain whether a court was actually convinced of the party's

position.      The requirement merely means that the party estopped

needs to have "succeed[ed] in maintaining that position," Matter

of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting Davis v.

Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689 (1895)); or, stated differently, the

party is estopped if "the court maintains that [same] position."

State v. English-Lancaster, 2002 WI App 74, ¶19, 252 Wis. 2d

388, 642 N.W.2d 627 (citing State v. Gove, 148 Wis. 2d 936, 944,

437 N.W.2d 218 (1989)).             Stated conversely, "[a] party is not
bound to a position it unsuccessfully maintained."                        Matter of

Cassidy, 892 F.2d at 641; Olson v. Darlington Mut. Ins. Co.,

2006 WI App 204, ¶6, 296 Wis. 2d 716, 723 N.W.2d 713 ("Because

'a litigant is not forever bound to a losing argument,' there

must be an action of the court adopting a party's position to

give   rise    to     judicial    estoppel.").      If    the     estopped     party

advanced a position the court later adopted, the requirement is

met.     See English-Lancaster, 252 Wis. 2d 388, ¶22 (holding that
a    defendant       was   judicially   estopped        from    arguing     that    a

                                        46
                                                                         No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

cautionary       instruction       was      inadequate         because         it       was    the

defendant who asked for the cautionary instruction and accepted

the wording of the court's proposed instruction, calling it a

case of "classic judicial estoppel").                     The Governor and Atkinson

petitioner-intervenors          stipulated         that       municipal        islands          are

constitutional, and the court held as much in Johnson I.                                        399

Wis. 2d 623, ¶36.          The Governor proposed state legislative maps

containing municipal islands, and this court adopted them in

Johnson II.       400 Wis. 2d 626, ¶¶8-10.                The court clearly adopted

their position on contiguity in the Johnson litigation.

      ¶252 The Governor and the Atkinson petitioner-intervenors

do not advance their contiguity arguments in good faith.                                      Like

the     majority,    they      could      not      care       less   what       "contiguous

territory"       means    in   Article       IV,     Sections        4    and       5    of     the

Wisconsin Constitution.            Everyone understands their argument is

not based on a newfound concern for the court's fidelity to the

constitution.       It is merely an argument onto which the parties

have latched in order to smuggle a partisan "fairness" claim
through    the    court.        The      call     for     a    partisan        power          shift

permeates    their       briefs.       The      Atkinson       petitioner-intervenors

falsely deny asserting the contiguity of municipal islands in

Johnson and falsely claim they argued that municipal islands are

not   constitutionally         contiguous.           Not      only   did       the      Atkinson

petitioner-intervenors argue such islands are constitutional in

their     brief     in    Johnson      I,     they      also     stipulated             to      the

constitutionality of municipal islands.                       Judicial estoppel bars
such duplicity.          Petty, 201 Wis. 2d at 354 ("The doctrine looks

                                             47
                                                                           No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

toward     cold     manipulation,           not        an     unthinking          or   confused

blunder.").          The        Governor       and          the     Atkinson       petitioner-

intervenors       should    be     barred         by     the       doctrine       of   judicial

estoppel      from         arguing           that           municipal            islands       are

unconstitutional.

    ¶253 The majority does not contest that the elements of

judicial estoppel are met.                 See majority op., ¶50.                 Instead, the

majority    simply    "decline[s]            to    exercise         [its]        discretion     to

apply judicial estoppel here."                    Id.        In doing so, the majority

invokes "compelling public policy reasons."                          Id.

    ¶254 Harkening back to the monarchical principle that the

king can do no wrong,29 the majority privileges the Governor's

duplicity    because       he    is    a    government            actor.         See   id.      No

precedent     insulates         the     Governor            from    application         of    the

doctrine.         While    some       courts      have       been    reluctant         to    apply

judicial estoppel to government actors,30 this court has never

limited the doctrine to non-government actors.                             To bolster their

flawed argument, the Governor and the majority rely solely on
cases concerning equitable estoppel, and fail to cite a single

case involving judicial estoppel:                       Turkow v. DNR, 216 Wis. 2d

273, 576 N.W.2d 288 (Ct. App. 1998); DOR v. Moebius Printing

Co., 89 Wis. 2d 610, 279 N.W.2d 213 (1979); Vill. of Hobart v.

    29 See Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 2d 26, 33, 115
N.W.2d 618 (1962) (quoting Britten v. Eau Claire, 260 Wis. 382,
386, 51 N.W.2d 30 (1952)) (holding that the government does not
have common law immunity from tort suits for harms wrongfully
caused by it, noting that the doctrine was rooted "'in the
ancient and fallacious notion that the king can do no wrong'").
    30   See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 755-56 (2001).

                                              48
                                                                     No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

Brown Cnty., 2005 WI 78, 281 Wis. 2d 628, 698 N.W.2d 83; State

v. Chippewa Cable Co., 21 Wis. 2d 598, 124 N.W.2d 616 (1963);

Park Bldg. Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 9 Wis. 2d 78, 100 N.W.2d 571

(1960).       This court has hesitated to apply equitable estoppel

only when applying it would interfere with the state's exercise

of its police powers.              Vill. of Hobart, 281 Wis. 2d 628, ¶29

n.9.        But   hesitancy      does    not       translate    to    immunity.          The

Governor changed his position on the issue of contiguity to

benefit his political party, not the public interest.31                               There

has been no change in state public policy or material facts

since the Johnson litigation.                 Notably, some of the respondents

in this case are also government actors, and "each owes the

other a full measure of respect."                    New Hampshire v. Maine, 532

U.S.    742,      756    (2001).        The    Governor's       change      in     position

embodies political gamesmanship, and the majority's embrace of

it belies their hollow professions of neutrality.                           The Governor

"'make[s] a mockery out of justice,'" and the court should bar

him from doing so.           Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d
1061, 1066 (Fla. 2001).

       ¶255 The majority's feeble defense for declining to apply

judicial estoppel in this case is a procession of non sequiturs.

The    majority         posits   that    "[g]iven       our     past       case    law   on

contiguity,        as     well   as     the    primacy     of    our       constitution,

preventing parties from litigating this issue would not serve

the goals" of judicial estoppel.                   Majority op., ¶50.             It should

       Tony Evers was the Governor during the Johnson litigation
       31

and currently holds that office. There has not been a change in
officeholder to justify the Governor's flip-flop on the issue.

                                              49
                                                                             No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

be self-evident that neither our past cases on contiguity nor

the    primacy         of    the       constitution       have       anything       to    do    with

preventing the Governor and the Atkinson petitioner-intervenors

from re-litigating the issue of contiguity in order to protect

the court from assaults on its integrity.                             Petty, 201 Wis. 2d at

354.      The      majority            dismisses    the     judicial     estoppel         doctrine

because      "[g]iven            the    parties'       stipulation      in    Johnson,         it    is

difficult         to     view      any     inconsistency         in     position         as    'cold

manipulation' which judicial estoppel seeks to deter."                                    Majority

op., ¶50.         There is, however, no relationship between a party's

stipulation            to    a     legal        position       and     the     party's         later

manipulation of willing justices.                          In a footnote the majority

states       it    will          "explain"       why     the    stipulation          "undermines

Respondents'           argument         that    judicial       estoppel       should      bar       the

Petitioners' contiguity claim" "later."                               Id., ¶45 n.22.                The

majority, however, neglects to provide its promised explanation.

Regardless,            the       majority's        myopic      focus     on        the    parties'

stipulation misses the point.                      The Governor not only stipulated
that   municipal            islands       are    constitutionally         contiguous.               The

Governor          also       proposed          state     legislative         maps——containing

municipal islands——in Johnson II and argued that those maps were

constitutionally contiguous.                       The majority's non sequiturs and

narrow focus on the stipulation create a smoke screen to obscure

the    bad    faith         of    the    Governor       and    the    Atkinson       petitioner-

intervenors.             Because the majority yearns to redraw the state

legislative maps, it rebrands the petitioners' manipulations as
mere "mistakes."             Id., ¶50.

                                                   50
                                                                   No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

      ¶256 The Governor offers one final reason to not apply the

doctrine of judicial estoppel:              public policy.32          See May v. May,

2012 WI 35, ¶14, 339 Wis. 2d 626, 813 N.W.2d 179 ("If a trial

court's decision to apply estoppel would violate public policy,

a reviewing court must reverse that decision as an erroneous

exercise     of    discretion.").          Public    policy      interests        squarely

favor      estopping     the    Governor's       gamesmanship.           Because        this

second     round    of   redistricting       litigation       seeks      to   shift     the

balance     of    political      power,    this     court   should       be   a   bulwark

against such attacks on the integrity of our court system.                               The

majority's indulgence of the Governor's manipulation of the law

for     political        advantage        only      confirms      suspicions            that

redistricting       cases      are   nothing      more   than    exercises         of   raw

political        power   by     judicial    partisans.           Judicial         estoppel

developed as a doctrine to protect the judiciary's integrity——an

interest at its apex when this court enters                         the "'political

thicket' that judges 'ought not to enter.'"                      See Jensen v. Wis.

Elections Bd., 2002 WI 13, 249 Wis. 2d 706, 639 N.W.2d 537
(quoting Colegrove, 328 U.S. at 556).

      ¶257 In any ordinary case, the Governor and the Atkinson

petitioner-intervenors           would     be     barred    by    the     doctrine       of

judicial      estoppel        from   arguing      that     municipal      islands       are

unconstitutional.         Both previously argued that municipal islands

are constitutional.            The court accepted their argument, holding

       The majority similarly says there are "compelling public
      32

policy reasons why this court should not exercise its discretion
to apply estoppel in this case."       Majority op., ¶50.    The
majority fails to actually articulate any reasons.

                                           51
                                                                 No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

municipal    islands         are    constitutional.      The    Governor     and     the

Atkinson petitioner-intervenors made an about-face as soon as it

was advantageous to do so.                This is a textbook example of when

judicial estoppel applies.               Just like its selective application

of    laches,     the        majority     abuses   its    discretion,        applying

equitable doctrines against Republicans, Trump, 394 Wis. 2d 629,

but not Democrats.            The doctrine of judicial estoppel is meant

to protect the integrity of courts by prohibiting parties from

manipulating the judicial process.                 Petty, 201 Wis. 2d at 354

(stating that the "doctrine of judicial estoppel is designed to

combat" "manipulative perversion[s] of the judicial process").

The majority's rejection of the doctrine in this political case

betrays     its   lack        of    integrity    and   its     complicity     in     the

manipulation.33

                                    V.   STARE DECISIS

      ¶258 "To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is

indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and

precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in
every particular case that comes before them."                      The Federalist

No.   78,   supra,      at    529    (Hamilton).       Expounding      the   value    of

following prior precedent, the court recognizes this judicial

maxim "ensures that existing law will not be abandoned lightly.

       See Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 70, 995
      33

N.W.2d 779, 801-02 (Hagedorn, J., dissenting) (noting that the
court was "happy to oblige" the petitioners' requests, despite
their obvious partisan ambitions, going so far as to "dutifully
adopt[ ] an accelerated briefing and oral argument schedule" and
"change[ ] our internal writing deadline on original actions to
ensure this case would be fast-tracked").

                                            52
                                                                         No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

When existing law is open to revision in every case, deciding

cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary

and unpredictable results."                    Schultz v. Natwick, 2002 WI 125,

¶37,    257    Wis.    2d 19,       653     N.W.2d 266      (footnotes          and    internal

quotation marks omitted).                 The Johnson litigation concluded last

year.         The   constitution's             meaning     has    not    changed        in    the

interim——just the court's membership.

       ¶259 Two       members       of      the      majority      once        extolled        the

importance of stare decisis "'because it promotes evenhanded,

predictable,           and       consistent               development            of          legal

principles . . . and           contributes           to   the    actual        and    perceived

integrity      of     the   judicial        process.'"           Mayo    v.     Wis.    Injured

Patients & Fams. Comp. Fund, 2018 WI 78, ¶110, 383 Wis. 2d 1,

61, 914 N.W.2d 678, 707 (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., dissenting)

(quoting Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Emps. Ins. of Wausau, 2003 WI

108,    ¶95,    264    Wis.    2d     60,      665    N.W.2d     257    (2003)).         "Stare

decisis, the principle that courts must stand by things decided,

is fundamental to the rule of law."                       State v. Prado, 2021 WI 64,
¶67,     397        Wis. 2d 719,          960        N.W.2d 869         (Per     Ann         Walsh

Bradley, J.).         "We have repeatedly recognized the importance of

stare    decisis."            State       v.    Johnson,        2023    WI 39,        ¶19,     407

Wis. 2d 195, 90 N.W.2d 174 (Per Dallet, J.).                            Justice Ann Walsh

Bradley has specifically lamented, "[a] change in membership of

the court does not justify a departure from precedent."                                        St.

Croix Cnty. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs. v. Michael D., 2016 WI

35, ¶93, 368 Wis. 2d 170, 880 N.W.2d 107 (Abrahamson & Ann Walsh
Bradley, JJ., dissenting).                     Despite their lip service to the

                                                53
                                                                            No.    23AP1399-OA.rgb

doctrine     in    previous     cases,        the       justices      now     "throw[       ]   the

doctrine of stare decisis out the window" and retread paths this

court only just traveled.              Koschkee v. Taylor, 2019 WI 76, ¶62,

387   Wis.    2d    552,      929    N.W.2d           600    (Ann     Walsh       Bradley,      J.,

dissenting).

      ¶260 While       this    court        is    not       inexorably       bound     by    stare

decisis, respecting this well-established legal maxim "reduces

incentives for challenging settled precedents, saving parties

and courts the expense of endless relitigation."                                      Kimbel v.

Marvel Ent.,       LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 455 (2015).                             The doctrine's

preservation of stability and finality are especially important

in the context of redistricting.

      ¶261 Reopening          the    redistricting             door    and        rehearing     the

same arguments we addressed and resolved in the Johnson cases——

just two terms ago——feeds the perception that the majority will

discard      settled       cases      when            politically       advantageous            for

implementing the four justices' policy preferences.                                  Voters and

their    representatives            should       now        expect    their       districts      to
change    after     each   state       supreme          court    election          cycle.       The

majority sows confusion and disorder that will inexorably lead

to instability in the balance of power and conflict between the

political branches.

                                     VI.     CONCLUSION

      ¶262 "[T]here is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not

separated from the legislative and the executive," the French

philosopher Montesquieu warned.                       "Were     it     joined         with      the
legislative,       the     life       and        liberty       of     the     subject        would

                                                 54
                                                                               No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

be exposed         to     arbitrary         control;        for     the        judge       would    be

then        the     legislator."            Baron De Montesquieu, The Spirit of

Laws 152 (Thomas Nugent trans., Hafner Publishing Company 1949)

(1748).           The     majority      appoints           itself    as        a     redistricting

commission         to     impose      legislative          maps     it    deems          politically

"fair."           The    court      arrogates       unto    itself       the       power    to     make

purely political decisions——untethered to any law, and with no

lawful authority.              Democrats may cheer the majority's mission to

bestow       political         power    on    their        party,        but       the    majority's

abandonment of neutrality delegitimizes the institution.                                            See

Baker       v.    Carr,       369    U.S.    186,    267     (1962)        (Frankfurter,           J.,

dissenting)         ("The      Court's       authority . . . ultimately                    rests     on

sustained public confidence in its moral sanction.                                    Such feeling

must be nourished by the Court's complete detachment . . . from

political entanglements and by abstention from injecting itself

into the clash of political forces in political settlements.").

The majority crowns itself supreme over the governor and the

legislature,            but    the    people    never        gave    the           judiciary       such
authority.         An election never overrides the constitution.

       ¶263 "Do         Justice!"       counsel       for     the    Democratic             Senators

proclaimed as she concluded her oral argument before the court.

"[A]        [c]ourt-managed           version       of      the     French           Revolution,"34

however, is not the kind of justice this court is supposed to

dispense.         Hohri v. United States, 793 F.2d 304, 313 (D.C. Cir.

1986) (Bork, J., dissenting from denial of reh. en banc), rev'd,

       See Robert H. Bork, The Tempting
       34                                                                  of        America:       The
Political Seduction of the Law 207 (1990).

                                                55
                                               No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

482 U.S. 64 (1987)) ("[W]e administer justice according to law.

Justice in a larger sense, justice according to morality, is for

[the legislature] and the [governor] to administer . . . .").

The majority's diktat transforms the judiciary from the "least

dangerous"35 branch into one of the greatest threats to liberty

the people of Wisconsin have ever faced.

    35 The Federalist No. 78, at 522 (Alexander Hamilton) (J.
Cooke ed., 1961)

                               56
                                                        No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

                                 Appendix A

Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2023AP1399-OA, 2023 WI 70, 995
N.W.2d 779 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissenting).

                                     1
    No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

2
    No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

3
    No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

4
    No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

5
    No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

6
    No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

7
    No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

8
    No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

9
     No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

10
     No.   23AP1399-OA.rgb

11
                                                                      No.    2023AP1399.bh

      ¶264 BRIAN HAGEDORN, J.               (dissenting).       This is a sad turn

for   the    Wisconsin      Supreme    Court.          Today,       the     court   dives

headlong into politics, choosing to wield the power it has while

it    has   it.       Wisconsinites          searching        for    an     institution

unpolluted by partisan warfare will not find it here.

      ¶265 No matter how today's decision is sold, it can be

boiled down to this:          the court finds the tenuous legal hook it

was looking for to achieve its ultimate goal——the redistribution

of political power in Wisconsin.                Call it "promoting democracy"

or "ending gerrymandering" if you'd like; but this is good, old-

fashioned power politics.            The court puts its thumb on the scale

for one political party over another because four members of the

court believe the policy choices made in the last redistricting

law were harmful and must be undone.                  This decision is not the

product of neutral, principled judging.

      ¶266 The matter of legislative redistricting was thoroughly

litigated and resolved after the 2020 census.                             We adopted a

judicial remedy (new maps) and ordered that future elections be
conducted using these maps until the legislature and governor

enact new ones.        Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 19,

¶3, 401 Wis. 2d 198, 972 N.W.2d 559 (Johnson III).                          That remedy

remains     in   place,     and    under    Wisconsin    law,       is    final.      Now

various parties, new and old, want a mulligan.                           But litigation

doesn't work that way.             Were this case about almost any other

legal   matter,     the     answer    would     be   cut-and-dried.            We   would

unanimously       dismiss    the     case    and     reject    this       impermissible
collateral attack on a prior, final decision.

                                            1
                                                                               No.    2023AP1399.bh

       ¶267 So why are the ordinary methods of deciding cases now

thrown by the wayside?               Because a majority of the court imagines

it    has   some      moral    authority,         dignified        by    a     black       robe,   to

create "fair maps" through judicial decree.                             To be sure, one can

in good faith disagree with Johnson's holding that adhering as

closely     as     possible        to    the    last       maps    enacted         into     law——an

approach called "least change"——is the most appropriate use of

our remedial powers.               And the claim here that the constitution's

original     meaning        requires       the       territory          in   all      legislative

districts        to   be    physically          contiguous         is    probably          correct,

notwithstanding            decades        of      nearly          unquestioned              practice

otherwise.        But that does not give litigants a license to ignore

procedure and initiate a new case to try arguments they had

every opportunity to raise in the last action, but did not.

Procedural rules exist for a reason, and we should follow them.

As we have previously explained, "Litigation rules and processes

matter to the rule of law just as much as rendering ultimate

decisions based on the law.                     Ignoring the former to reach the
latter      portends          of    favoritism            to     certain       litigants           and

outcomes."        Doe 1 v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., 2022 WI 65, ¶39,

403 Wis. 2d 369, 976 N.W.2d 584.                     Indeed it does.

       ¶268 The        majority         heralds       a    new    approach           to     judicial

decision-making.            It abandons prior-stated principles regarding

finality     in       litigation,        standing,         stare        decisis,          and   other

normal restraints on judicial will——all in favor of expediency.

But    principles          adopted       when        convenient,         and     ignored        when
inconvenient, are not principles at all.                            It is precisely when

                                                 2
                                                                   No.    2023AP1399.bh

one's     principles      are     tested       and       costly——yet       are    kept

nonetheless——that        they    prove     themselves       truly      held.       The

unvarnished truth is that four of my colleagues deeply dislike

maps that give Republicans what they view as an inappropriate

partisan advantage.        Alas, when certain desired results are in

reach,    fidelity   to    prior    ideals         now   seems . . . a      bit   less

important than before.           No matter how pressing the problem may

seem, that is no excuse for abandoning the rules of judicial

process that make this institution a court of law.

    ¶269 The majority's outcome-focused decision-making in this

case will delight many.            A whole cottage industry of lawyers,

academics, and public policy groups searching for some way to

police partisan gerrymandering will celebrate.                      My colleagues

will be saluted by the media, honored by the professoriate, and

cheered    by    political      activists.           But   after    the     merriment

subsides, the sober reality will set in.                     Without legislative

resolution, Wisconsin Supreme Court races will be a perpetual

contest between political forces in search of political power,
who now know that four members of this court have assumed the

authority to bestow it.          A court that has long been accused of

partisanship will now be enmeshed in it, with no end in sight.

Rather    than    keep     our     role       in    redistricting        narrow    and

circumspect, the majority seizes vast new powers for itself.                        We

can only hope that this once great court will see better days in

the future.      I respectfully dissent.

                                          3
                                                                           No.    2023AP1399.bh

                I.    REDISTRICTING BACKGROUND——HOW WE GOT HERE

      ¶270 I         begin    by    answering       the     question       that     many    are

probably asking:             why is the Wisconsin Supreme Court involved in

drawing maps in the first place?                    The short story is as follows.

      ¶271 The Wisconsin Constitution requires the legislature to

draw new state legislative maps after the federal census every

ten     years.         Wis.       Const.     art.    IV,    § 3.        This      means    the

legislature must enact new maps into law, which requires the

governor's       signature         or   an    override     of     the   governor's        veto.

Wis. Const. art. V, § 10.                    In 2011, after the 2010 census, the

legislature did enact new maps into law.                          See 2011 Wis. Act 43

(state legislative maps); 2011 Wis. Act 44 (congressional maps).

Following the 2020 census, however, the governor and legislature

could     not    agree       on    district     lines      and,    thus,    no     maps    were

enacted.        Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2021 WI 87, ¶2, 399

Wis. 2d 623, 967 N.W.2d 469 (Johnson I).                        The 2011 maps remained

the law.

      ¶272 In 2021, this court entered the fray at the request of
a group of voters.                  Johnson, No. 2021AP1450-OA, Order (Wis.

Sept. 22, 2021).             Given the constitutional right of citizens to

proportionate representation following updated census numbers,1

we were asked to fill the void and adopt temporary maps (what I

will call "remedial maps") reflecting population changes.                                    We

invited almost anyone to participate in the litigation as a

party, including interest groups, voters, elected officials, the

      1See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 577 (1964); State ex
rel. Att'y Gen. v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440, 484, 51 N.W. 724
(1892).

                                                4
                                                                         No.   2023AP1399.bh

Governor, and the Legislature.                    Id.     Each party briefed us on

all relevant legal requirements, including contiguity.                              In the

end, we adopted remedial maps for use until either new maps are

enacted into law or a new census triggers the constitutional

duty to reapportion again.                  Johnson III, 401 Wis. 2d 198, ¶3.

To this day, the governor and legislature have not complied with

their constitutional obligation to enact new maps into law, so

the remedial maps remain in place.

       ¶273 It is important to understand that when a court draws

legislative maps, it is not making new law.                           When this court

adopted new maps two years ago, it only imposed a temporary

legal    remedy.         It    is     the    legislature's        responsibility         to

"district anew" through the legislative process.                               Wis. Const.

art. IV,    § 3.     The constitution does not contemplate courts

drawing maps in the ordinary course.                       Redistricting is, after

all, "an inherently political and legislative——not judicial——

task."     Jensen    v.       Wis.    Elections         Bd.,   2002   WI 13,     ¶10,   249

Wis. 2d 706, 639 N.W.2d 537.                  We step in if and only if the
political process fails.

       ¶274 In Johnson I, we concluded that remedial maps should

be based on the last maps enacted into law, and that they should

only    modify   what     is    necessary         to     remedy   any     constitutional

violations.        399     Wis. 2d 623,           ¶¶76-78.        This     respects     the

constitutional      role      of     the    political      branches      and    keeps   the

judiciary out of policymaking to the maximum amount possible.

Id.     Thus, our aim was to alter existing law only as necessary
to vindicate the constitutional rights at stake, and no more.

                                              5
                                                               No.    2023AP1399.bh

Additionally, we concluded that partisan outcomes would not and

should not guide our decision, and that partisan gerrymandering

is neither a cognizable nor justiciable legal claim under the

Wisconsin Constitution.            Id., ¶¶39-63.       We further agreed with

all the parties and held that when annexation creates municipal

islands,        "the   district    containing    detached    portions     of   the

municipality is legally contiguous even if the area around the

island is part of a different district."               Id., ¶36.

       ¶275 Now, a year and a half after the dust settled, the

petitioners come to us requesting a do-over.                They raise several

claims regarding the remedial maps we adopted in Johnson.                      But

in timing and substance, the petitioners have proven their goal

is to obtain new maps that give more political power in the

state legislature to Democratic Party candidates.2                   The majority

has the same goal, but sidestepped taking this issue directly

when       it    chose    not     to   hear     the    petitioners'      partisan

gerrymandering         claim.     Clarke   v.   Wis.   Elections     Comm'n,   No.

2023AP1399-OA, Order (Wis. Oct. 6, 2023).               Rather, the court has
chosen to shift the political balance of power indirectly by

tossing out the maps adopted barely two years ago and drawing

new ones more to its liking.

       ¶276 The court today rests its conclusion on the grounds

that maps must be physically contiguous.               Majority op., ¶¶3, 24.

       The petition alleges that the remedial maps we adopted in
       2

Johnson harmed the petitioners because they cannot "achieve a
Democratic majority in the state legislature."    Clarke v. Wis.
Elections Comm’n, 2023AP1399-OA, Petition at 8, ¶5 (Aug. 2,
2023).

                                           6
                                                             No.    2023AP1399.bh

The court also holds that it will not confine its remedy to

curing the purported unlawfulness, but will fashion new maps

from scratch.     Id., ¶56.       It sees itself as being empowered to

"district   anew,"    even    though       the    constitution     gives    that

responsibility to the legislature.               Wis. Const. art. IV, § 3.

Further, the court holds that political outcomes should, and

will,   guide   its   decision.3       Id.,      ¶¶69-71.    Each     of   these

overrules and departs from our decision in Johnson.

    ¶277 All in all, the court's opinion ignores inconvenient

facts and issues, mischaracterizes the relevant arguments, and

finds   dubious   grounds    on    which    to    achieve   its    politically

motivated goals.4      And to boot, the remedial process we now

embark on is hazy at best, and perfectly tailored for political

manipulation.     An odd recipe for "fair" maps.

    3  The majority also says that the petitioners' partisan
gerrymandering   claim  is   an   "unresolved  legal  question."
Majority op., ¶7. It is not.     Johnson did address it, because
we needed to address all relevant legal requirements necessary
to draw lawful maps. 2021 WI 87, ¶¶53-63, 399 Wis. 2d 623, 967
N.W.2d 469.   The majority here, like it does elsewhere, simply
ignores statements and holdings that do not support its goals——
now or in the future.
    4  Take, for example, the majority's conclusion that it is
"immediately apparent, using practically any dictionary, that
contiguous means 'touching' or 'in actual contact.'"    Majority
op., ¶16.   Seems simple enough.   But a cursory look under the
hood reveals quite a different picture.      As Justice Rebecca
Grassl Bradley explains, the respondents pointed us to heaps of
dictionaries defining contiguity as "very near" or "close" or
"adjoining."   Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley's dissent, ¶199.
Maybe those definitions do not comport with the original meaning
of the contiguity requirement.   But rather than face the issue
head-on, the majority ducks for cover.

                                       7
                                                                            No.      2023AP1399.bh

                       II.     THE MAJORITY'S PROCEDURAL ERRORS

       ¶278 The       majority        opinion         offers        only       a     perfunctory

analysis of the significant procedural objections that should

dispose of this case.

       ¶279 Among       them,       the    majority         falls     woefully         short    in

supporting its conclusion that the parties met the requirements

for    standing.        "Standing          is   the     foundational           principle       that

those who seek to invoke the court's power to remedy a wrong

must    face     a   harm     which    can      be    remedied      by     the      exercise     of

judicial power."            Teigen v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64,

¶160,     403        Wis. 2d 607,           976         N.W.2d 519         (Hagedorn,           J.,

concurring).          Courts do not have the power to "weigh in on

issues whenever the respective members of the bench find it

desirable."          Foley-Ciccantelli v. Bishop's Grove Condo. Ass'n,

Inc.,     2011       WI 36,       ¶131,      333      Wis. 2d 402,          797       N.W.2d 789

(Prosser, J., concurring).                 As three members of today's majority

have previously opined, "standing is important . . . because it

reins    in    unbridled       attempts         to    go    beyond       the       circumscribed
boundaries that define the proper role of courts."                                    Fabick v.

Evers, 2021 WI 28, ¶92, 396 Wis. 2d 231, 956 N.W.2d 856 (Ann

Walsh     Bradley,          J.,      dissenting);           see      also          Teigen,      403

Wis. 2d 607, ¶160 (Hagedorn, J., concurring) (standing "serves

as a vital check on unbounded judicial power").

       ¶280 So       what     is     the     harm       being     claimed          here?       The

petitioner-voters say they suffer the harm of a "less responsive

and     representative"            legislature          because      of     the       contiguity
deficiency.           That     is,    they        are      claiming       that      legislators

                                                8
                                                                        No.   2023AP1399.bh

representing              districts        with   municipal   islands     (the     detached

parts of a municipality) surrounded by another district are less

able to respond to the constituents residing in those islands.

Given that almost all of the challenged municipal islands have a

population smaller than the roster of the Milwaukee Brewers, and

that the citizens living in them are kept in the same district

as   the        rest      of   their       municipality,   this   alleged     harm   might

charitably           be    called      a    head-scratcher.       The   majority     surely

recognizes this, so it goes another route.                         It quotes State ex

rel. Reynolds v. Zimmerman for the proposition that the Governor

"may challenge the constitutionality of a state reapportionment

plan       as    a     violation       of    state    constitutional      rights    of   the

citizens."5            Majority op., ¶39.            Then, it argues that because the

Governor has standing, there's no need to consider the standing

problems of the other parties seeking relief.                       Id.

       ¶281 But relying on the Governor here does not work.                          Under

claim preclusion, and other equitable bars,6 the Governor cannot

       5   22 Wis. 2d 544, 552, 126 N.W.2d 551 (1964).

       My colleagues lay out a convincing case for judicial
       6

estoppel as well.     Chief Justice Ziegler's dissent, ¶¶143-46;
Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley's dissent, ¶¶247-57.      Judicial
estoppel generally precludes parties from convincing a court to
adopt a position in one case, only to take an inconsistent
position in a later case. See State v. Harrison, 2020 WI 35, ¶27,
391 Wis. 2d 161, 942 N.W.2d 310. The majority says the Governor's
changed position on contiguity arises from inadvertence or
mistake, but as Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley's dissent
explains, his "about-face" is a "textbook example of when
judicial estoppel applies."     Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley's
dissent, ¶257.

     In addition, the Governor and the petitioners deliberately
delayed bringing this case until August 2, 2023, the day after a
new justice joined the court.     Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley
                                9
                                                                   No.   2023AP1399.bh

litigate contiguity again and should be dismissed from the case.7

And it's not a close call.

      ¶282 The     Governor's         legal     positions     throughout             this

redistricting     litigation       saga       are   astonishing;         any        other

litigant in any other lawsuit would be promptly dismissed from

the case.      In Johnson, the Governor initially argued that the

constitution's      contiguity           requirement        mandated        physical

contiguity, just like the petitioners argue in this case.8                          Then,

the   Governor    changed      course    and    agreed     with    all    the       other

parties that keeping municipalities together did not violate the

contiguity requirement.9         We agreed and so held, and invited map

proposals   consistent      with        our    decision.          Johnson      I,     399

Wis. 2d 623,     ¶36;   id.,    ¶87     (Hagedorn,   J.,     concurring).             The

Governor then submitted proposed remedial maps with municipal

islands——the very thing the Governor now argues violates the

lays out a strong case that laches, which bars litigants from
sitting on their hands to the detriment of others, also
prohibits the relief being sought.    Justice Rebecca Grassl
Bradley's dissent, ¶¶231-46.
      7Claim preclusion also bars the Governor's separation-of-
powers claim because he could have argued in Johnson that
adopting the Legislature's proposed maps would be unlawful on
this basis.
      8In his initial brief in Johnson, he argued that contiguous
"means not 'made up of two or more pieces of detached
territory.'" Brief of Intervenor-Respondent Governor Tony Evers
at 6, No. 2021AP1450-OA (Oct. 25, 2021) (quoting another
source).
      9All parties eventually stipulated that municipal islands
"are legally contiguous with the municipality to which the
'island' belongs" and therefore do not affront Article IV's
contiguity requirement.      Johnson, No. 2021AP1450-OA, Joint
Stipulations of Law 15, ¶20 (Nov. 4, 2021).

                                         10
                                                                           No.    2023AP1399.bh

constitution!10             And    in    briefing         regarding       the       other    map

proposals, which also contained municipal islands, the Governor

never questioned their legality——even though he was invited to

address       any    and    all    legal     deficiencies         in     those      proposals.

Johnson, No. 2021AP1450-OA, Order (Wis. Nov. 17, 2021).

       ¶283 Yet the Governor now tells us that our judicial remedy

violates       the     constitution's          contiguity         requirement.              Lady

Justice may be blind, but she need not let a party pull the wool

over    her    eyes.        The    doctrine      of    claim      preclusion        exists    to

prevent this kind of gamesmanship.                        Parties cannot relitigate

"any     claim       that    arises      out     of      the     same    relevant       facts,

transactions or occurrences" underlying a final judgment on the

merits.        Teske v. Wilson Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 WI 62, ¶23, 387

Wis. 2d 213,         928    N.W.2d 555       (quoting          another    source).          This

applies to claims that were litigated, and to claims that could

have been litigated.               Id.      Claim preclusion is not concerned

simply      with     the    initial      cause      of    action,        but     rather,     the

"transaction or factual situation."                      Id., ¶31.        A "transaction"
involves      "a     natural      grouping     or     common      nucleus      of    operative

facts."        Id., ¶32.          When we ask "if the claims of an action

arise from a single transaction, we may consider whether the

facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation."                                     Id.

(quoting another source).

       ¶284 The        Governor's          flip-flopping           is      classic          claim

preclusion.         The Governor came before this court to litigate how

       https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1fPl8On9q8ZyTa6A
       10

1V3CJDzry3YR_pGNt&ll=43.04928877881408%2C-
89.34731737718982&z=12.

                                               11
                                                                       No.       2023AP1399.bh

to    remedy     malapportionment;         argued      that     contiguity             permits

municipal      islands;   submitted        maps      (that    this     court       initially

adopted) containing dozens of municipal islands; and now, in a

subsequent action, complains that this court's remedy violated

the constitution because its map contained municipal islands.

This argument was litigated in Johnson.                      And even if it wasn't,

it obviously could have been litigated.                        If the legislature's

proposed maps that we ultimately adopted violated the contiguity

requirements, the Governor could have said so.                         He did not; no

one   did.       The   Governor     is     barred     by     claim     preclusion           from

litigating the issues before us again.

      ¶285 Courts do not usually welcome Harvey Dent impressions

from litigants before them.               The majority, however, is just fine

with it.       It argues that claim preclusion does not apply because

the causes of action were different.                         Majority op., ¶¶47-48.

We're told that Johnson was about the 2011 maps, but this case

is about the maps we adopted in our Johnson decision.                              Different

maps,   different      facts,      they    say.       But     this    makes       no    sense.
Imagine how this would play out in a contract dispute.                                        If

parties    stipulate      to   a    breach      of   contract        but    litigate         the

contractual      remedies,      claim      preclusion         would        apply       to   the

remedial claims that were and could have been litigated.                                      A

party could not come back later, file a new case, and seek a

modified remedy because it made ill-advised arguments about the

contractual remedies the first time.                  So too here.

      ¶286 The     Johnson      litigation        arose      because       the    2011      maps
were no longer lawful.             The case was entirely about the legal

                                           12
                                                                        No.    2023AP1399.bh

and equitable principles that must govern remedial maps, and

which remedial maps should be adopted.                       The petition here is

nothing more than a continuation of Johnson.                      It simply seeks a

different remedy to address the ongoing unlawfulness of the last

maps enacted into law——those passed in 2011.                        Contrary to the

majority's     conclusion,     the    facts       here    are     part    of        the    same

common   nucleus      of   facts:      the      nature     and    substance           of   the

judicial    remedy    that    must    be   in     place    due     to    the        continued

unlawfulness of the 2011 maps.

    ¶287 If the majority is correct that the only transaction

in Johnson was the malapportionment problem with the 2011 maps,

then almost everything litigated in that case was part of a

different      transaction     that     apparently         could        not     have       been

litigated      in   any    preclusive      way.        The      Voting        Rights       Act?

Different transaction, despite a decision from the U.S. Supreme

Court    and    two    decisions      from      this      court    on         the    matter.

Political impact as a relevant consideration in remedial maps?

Different set of facts apparently, despite published decisions
from this court addressing the issue.                    If the majority is right

that we look only to the narrow legal argument made rather than

the factual situation, then everything that this court says and

decides in this case, other than the contiguity issue itself,

will lack preclusive effect.               That's absurd, of course.                       The

majority's attempt to get past claim preclusion by defining the

set of facts so narrowly disrupts the law and does not withstand

scrutiny.

                                           13
                                                                          No.    2023AP1399.bh

      ¶288 Given this, I do not see how the court can bypass the

voter standing problems by relying on the Governor's purported

authority to challenge a districting plan.                         Even if the Governor

has standing to litigate on behalf of Wisconsinites to ensure a

districting plan complies with the constitution, this does not

end the matter.         The question the majority must answer——but does

not——is whether the Governor has the right to litigate on behalf

of   Wisconsin     voters       over     and       over    again,     taking          different

positions each time, until he gets the result he wants.                                        The

ordinary application of claim preclusion prohibits the Governor

from relitigating the issues he either raised or could have

raised    during    the       last    litigation.           The    majority's          standing

decision——resting         on    a     party    that       should    be    dismissed——once

again looks like an outcome in search of a theory.

      ¶289 Next,        the    majority       ignores       the    impropriety            of   the

court issuing an injunction on our own injunction.                              The majority

enjoins     the    Wisconsin          Elections       Commission         from        using     the

legislative maps that we, just 20 months ago, mandated they use.
Majority op., ¶¶3, 77.               I've never seen anything quite like it.

The general rule is that judgments——and injunctions along with

them——are     final      and,        absent    fraud,       cannot       be     collaterally

attacked.     Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Nicole W., 2007

WI 30,    ¶28,    299    Wis. 2d 637,          728    N.W.2d 652.             This     case     is

exactly   that——an       impermissible          collateral         attack       on    a    prior,

final case.

      ¶290 The     majority's          response       is     that     courts          regularly
modify    prior       injunctions         in       redistricting          cases           without

                                              14
                                                                          No.    2023AP1399.bh

reopening old cases.             Majority op., ¶54.          This is true, but only

because there is an intervening event every ten years:                              the U.S.

Census.          And       following        completion       of     the     census,        the

constitution requires that population shifts be accounted for

afresh.     Wis. Const. art. IV, § 3.                  So when courts issue a new

injunction in new redistricting cases, they do so because the

law provides that every districting plan, whether adopted by a

court or the legislature, must be updated following the census.

Id.   That is not the case here.

      ¶291 The majority also zooms by the question of whether we

can even issue a declaratory judgment in the first place.                                    I

have serious doubts.                 The purpose of the Uniform Declaratory

Judgments       Act        is   to      resolve      uncertainty.               Wis.      Stat.

§ 806.04(12).          The Act evinces a strong preference for that

goal.     See     Wis.       Stat.    §§    806.04(5)      (the     enumerated         subject

matter upon which courts can declare rights can only be expanded

where   the   judgment          would      "remove   an   uncertainty");           806.04(6)

(courts may refuse to render declaratory judgments where the
judgment "would not terminate the uncertainty").                            These textual

clues     have        been      "universally          accepted       by         courts      and

commentators"         as    prohibiting       courts      from    issuing        declaratory

judgments       that        revisit        prior     adjudications——a            move      that

perpetuates uncertainty, rather than resolves it (as this case

exemplifies).              Oregonian       Publ'g     Co.,    LLC     v.        Waller,     293

P.3d 1046, 1052 (Or. Ct. App. 2012); see also Royal v. Royal,

271 S.E.2d 144, 145 (Ga. 1980) ("The Act does not authorize a
petitioner to brush aside previous judgments of the same court,

                                              15
                                                                         No.   2023AP1399.bh

and seek a determination of his rights as if they had never been

adjudicated.") (cleaned up); E.H. Schopler, Validity and effect

of former judgment or decree as proper subject for consideration

in declaratory action, 154 A.L.R. 740 (Originally published in

1945)    ("As   a     general    observation        from    the    cases,      it   may    be

stated that an action for a declaratory judgment cannot be used

as a subterfuge for the purpose of relitigating a question as to

which a former judgment is conclusive.").                          True to form, the

majority never wrestles with this.

                    III.      THE MAJORITY'S REMEDIAL ERRORS

      ¶292 The        majority       pushes        past     all     these      procedural

roadblocks      and    still     declares         the    maps     this    court     adopted

unconstitutional.          With remarkably little content, it then gives

the parties vague directions on what it wants for the new maps

it intends to adopt.

      ¶293 The        court     first      overturns       Johnson's       least     change

approach to redistricting.                 Majority op., ¶63.               The majority
then discards the policy choices the legislature made in passing

the 2011 districting law still on the books, and determines it

can and should draft a new law from scratch, consistent with its

own   policy    concerns.           The    majority       never    grapples       with    the

limited    remedial        powers    of     courts,       which    is    the    main     idea

animating the least change approach.                      That's because here, the

majority sees itself as a substitute legislature rather than a

court.      The     majority        does    not    try     to     fix    the   contiguity

                                             16
                                                       No.   2023AP1399.bh

problems; it uses its contiguity holding as an excuse to create

new maps reflecting its own policy and partisan concerns.

    ¶294 In   particular,    the   majority   says   "partisan      impact"

will guide its decision in selecting new remedial maps.                 But

what does this mean?       Should the maps maximize the number of

competitive   districts?      Should    the   maps   seek    to     achieve

something close to proportionate representation?11           Should the

maps pick some reasonable number of acceptable Republican and

Democratic-leaning seats in each legislative chamber?             I have no

idea, and neither do the parties.       The court nonetheless invites

the submission of maps motivated by partisan goals, just as the

petitioners hoped.     And with a certain amount of gusto, the

majority insists it is being neutral by openly seeking maps

aimed at tilting the partisan balance in the legislature.               The

court announces it does not have "free license to enact[12] maps

that privilege one political party over another," all the while

obliging the wishes of litigants who openly seek to privilege

one political party over another.       Majority op., ¶70.        The irony
could not be any thicker.

    ¶295 The court does not provide any meaningful guidance to

the parties on how to satisfy its "political impact" criteria.13

    11 For an excellent discussion of the problems with this
approach, see Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley's dissent, ¶¶223-
25.
    12 Courts do not enact anything, however.         The legislature,
in our constitutional order, enacts laws.
    13 This even though the petitioners urged us during oral
argument to give "clear instructions" regarding the criteria we
would use to evaluate proposals.

                                   17
                                                                         No.    2023AP1399.bh

No standards, no metrics, nothing.                         Instead, it appears the

majority wishes to hide behind two "consultants" who will make

recommendations on which maps are preferable.                        Those consultants

will    presumably       use    some     standards         to     make    this     kind     of

judgment,14 but the majority will not permit them to be subject

to    discovery    or      witness     examination.15            Like     the    great    and

powerful     Oz,     our    consultants           will    dispense       wisdom     without

allowing the parties to see and question what is really behind

the curtain.       And at the end of this, the consultants will offer

options     from   which       the   court    can        choose.     This       attempt    at

insulating the court from being transparent about its decisional

process is hiding in plain sight.

       ¶296 The      court       also     fails           to     interact        with     the

constitutional requirement that districts "be bounded by county,

precinct,     town    or    ward     lines."         Wis.       Const.    art.    IV,     § 4.

Currently, districts that are not physically contiguous are that

way    because     the     legislature       (and    courts)       have     attempted      to

comply with the requirement that counties, towns, and wards not

       One of the experts has already opined on how he thinks
       14

partisan fairness should be measured. Brief of Professors Gary
King, Bernard Grofman, et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Neither
Party, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548
U.S. 399 (2006), 2006 WL 53994.

       To the extent the consultants either pick which party's
       15

map is best or compose their own, they may be acting as court-
appointed experts. Our rules of evidence expressly give parties
the opportunity to depose and cross-examine court-appointed
experts.    Wis. Stat. § 907.06(1); see Martin v. Mabus, 700
F. Supp. 327, 331 (S.D. Miss. 1988) (permitting parties to
depose court-appointed expert who assisted court in drawing new
electoral maps).

                                             18
                                                                        No.   2023AP1399.bh

be    split——thus,         keeping     municipal            islands      in    the     same

legislative district as the rest of the municipality.                           The court

now     determines      that   strict       compliance          with     contiguity      is

required, but it ignores how that may be in tension with the

equally required constitutional command to keep county, town,

and ward lines sacrosanct.                 See State ex rel. Att'y Gen. v.

Cunningham,     81     Wis. 2d 440,        521,       51   N.W. 724     (1892).       While

absolute compliance with the "bounded by" clause is impossible

given the one-person, one-vote decisions of the United States

Supreme    Court,      a   return     to    a     more      exacting     constitutional

standard would likely prohibit running districts across county

lines, or breaking up towns or wards (of which municipalities

are   composed)       unless   necessary         to    comply    with    Supreme      Court

precedent.      This could conflict with strict physical contiguity.

      ¶297 In the past, the legislature and the courts permitted

some play in the joints, allowing deviation from strict physical

contiguity to keep towns and municipalities together.                                But in

demanding perfect adherence to physical contiguity, the court
once again pits the two requirements against each other.                               Will

we receive maps that accomplish physical contiguity, but do not

comply with the requirement that county lines not be crossed,

towns     not    be     broken       up,     and       ward     lines     (from       which

municipalities are constructed) not be split?                          If so, will the

court bless one constitutional infirmity to remedy the other?

In requiring strict physical contiguity, the majority may end up

picking and choosing which constitutional provisions to honor
based on which ones will serve its goals.

                                            19
                                                                  No.   2023AP1399.bh

                      IV.    WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

       ¶298 Although this litigation is not yet over, it is clear

to me that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is not well equipped to

undertake redistricting cases without a set of rules governing

the process.        In Jensen, this court recognized the need for

special procedures governing future redistricting cases.                          249

Wis. 2d 706, ¶20.          We received a rule petition seeking to do

exactly that prior to Johnson, but this court could not come to

an    agreement    about    what   such    a   process    would    look    like    or

whether we should have one.            I believed then, and am now fully

convinced, that some formalized process is desperately needed

before we are asked to do this again.

       ¶299 The problem with this and the Johnson case is that the

parties were and are largely concerned with serving their own

interests.        In Johnson, for example, we asked the parties to

propose    constitutionally        compliant    maps     that   made    the   fewest

changes from existing law.                Johnson I, 399 Wis. 2d 623, ¶87

(Hagedorn, J., concurring).           From my vantage point, none of the
parties followed our directive well.               Each submitted maps that

sought their own parochial and partisan interests, making many

unnecessary changes, while trying to stay somewhat close to the

prior maps.       In this case, I have no doubt we will see the same

kind of partisan maneuvering, which the court here explicitly

invites.     This is a mistake.

       ¶300 Having parties submit maps also leaves little space

for   factual     determinations     in    adjudicating     Voting      Rights    Act
issues.     While federal panels handling redistricting cases can

                                          20
                                                                    No.    2023AP1399.bh

take and receive evidence, manage discovery, and are otherwise

institutionally equipped to make factual findings, we have no

easy mechanism for resolving complicated factual questions.                         And

our   process     last   time    simply    did      not   account   for     the   fact-

intensive VRA adjudication the Supreme Court said was necessary.

See Wis. Legislature v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 595 U.S. 398,

403-04 (2022) (per curiam).               The majority in this case barely

mentions the VRA, but that doesn't mean it won't be a problem

down the line.       Whether the parties submit maps that are race-

neutral,    or    determine      the   VRA     requires      race-conscious        line

drawing, could pose a significant problem.                      The court gives no

instruction on how to handle this, and we have no mechanism in

place for resolving these disputes.

      ¶301 Perhaps a better approach in the future is for the

court to draw a politically agnostic and race-neutral base map

using the most recent maps enacted into law, and then allow the

parties to seek refinements.               No matter the approach, without

any kind of structure to govern a case that is plainly our
responsibility, this court is left to the whims of partisan

agendas.    This has not——and will not——serve us well.                      An orderly

and   predictable        process    may      also     incentivize         the   regular

enactment    of    new    maps     into    law      the   way    the      constitution

envisions, rather than litigating over every inch of political

power.

                                          21
                                                       No.   2023AP1399.bh

                            V.   CONCLUSION

    ¶302 In a politically charged world, the judiciary should

be a bulwark against the tribalism so prevalent among us.              We

should neutrally and consistently apply our rules of judicial

process, no matter where that leads us.             We should have no

favored litigants or preferred outcomes.      At the end of the day,

the majority acts not to vindicate some legal principle, but to

achieve   a   long   sought-after   goal:     the   redistribution     of

political power in the Wisconsin legislature.        Rather than start

with the law and see it through to the end, the court starts

with the goal and works backwards to justify it.             This is not

faithful judging, and I will have no part of it.       I dissent.

                                    22
    No.   2023AP1399.bh

1