Wisconsin Constitution
Article IV - Legislative
Section 3 - Apportionment.

Universal Citation: WI Const art IV § 3
[As amended Nov. 1910, Nov. 1962, and Nov. 1982] 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. [1907 J.R. 30, 1909 J.R. 55, 1909 c. 478, vote Nov. 1910; 1959 J.R. 30, 1961 J.R. 32, vote Nov. 1962; 1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982]

Institutional populations, as well as other populations that may include persons disenfranchised for some reason, may not be disregarded for redistricting purposes. 70 Atty. Gen. 80.

When drawing state and local legislative districts, jurisdictions are permitted to deviate somewhat from perfect population equality to accommodate traditional districting objectives, among them: preserving the integrity of political subdivisions, maintaining communities of interest, and creating geographic compactness. When the maximum population deviation between the largest and smallest district is less than 10 percent, a state or local legislative map presumptively complies with the one-person, one-vote rule. The equal protection clause does not mandate use of the voter-eligible population. It is plainly permissible for jurisdictions to measure equalization by the total population of state and local legislative districts. Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1120, 194 L. Ed. 2d 291 (2016).

Those attacking a state-approved plan must show that it is more probable than not that a population deviation from absolute equality of districts of less than 10 percent reflects the predominance of illegitimate reapportionment factors rather than the legitimate considerations. Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1301, 194 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2016).

To show standing in cases involving allegations of partisan gerrymandering, a plaintiff must prove an invasion of a legally protected interest that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. The plaintiffs in this case claimed a constitutional right not to be placed in legislative districts deliberately designed to waste their votes. To the extent a plaintiff's alleged harm is the dilution of his or her vote, that injury is district specific and arises from the particular composition of a voter's own district, which causes the voter's vote to carry less weight than it would carry in another, hypothetical district. This disadvantage to the voter as an individual, therefore, results from the boundaries of the particular district in which the voter resides, and the remedy that is proper and sufficient lies in the revision of the boundaries of the individual's own district. Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 201 L. Ed. 2d 313 (2018).

Disclaimer: This Constitution may not be the most recent version. Wisconsin may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.