In a year already marked by seismic shifts in judicial politics, Wisconsin and Texas have become battlegrounds for the future of congressional maps and the integrity of the judiciary. On December 5, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court set a historic precedent by appointing two separate three-judge panels to hear lawsuits challenging the state’s congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court handed Texas Republicans a victory, allowing the state’s controversial new congressional map to stand—at least for now—while legal battles continue. These developments, layered atop record-shattering campaign spending and renewed debates over judicial impartiality, are reshaping the landscape of American elections and the courts that oversee them.
In Wisconsin, the move to appoint three-judge panels is a first, enabled by a GOP-authored law from 2011 that had never before been used in this way. According to WisPolitics-State Affairs, this process was triggered by two lawsuits: one claiming the current congressional map is an anti-competitive gerrymander that shields incumbents from real competition, and another arguing the map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The Wisconsin Elections Commission has made it clear that any new maps must be finalized by March 2026, so candidates can begin circulating nomination papers in April—a tight timeline that adds urgency to the proceedings.
The stakes in Wisconsin couldn’t be higher. Republicans currently hold a 6-2 advantage in the state’s House delegation, a margin they hope to preserve in future sessions. GOP lawmakers and members of Congress are fighting to block the remapping effort, which could jeopardize the seats of Representatives Derrick Van Orden and Bryan Steil. Van Orden, a top Democratic target in the next election, didn’t mince words in his response to the court’s decision, posting on X, “These folks care about one thing: power.”
The appointment of the panels has not been without controversy. Conservative Justice Annette Ziegler accused her liberal colleagues of “hand picking circuit court judges to perform political maneuvering,” raising concerns that the process was designed to deliver a partisan advantage to Democrats. Five of the six judges chosen for the panels had publicly endorsed liberal Justice Susan Crawford before her successful run for the Supreme Court earlier in the year. The only exception, Judge Emily Lonergan, was appointed by Democratic Governor Tony Evers in 2019.
Justice Rebecca Bradley joined Ziegler in dissent, arguing that three-judge panels lack the constitutional authority to overturn Supreme Court decisions. “The text of the constitution is clear; this court’s decisions are final,” Ziegler wrote. “That should be the beginning and end of this case. The court should leave it in the hands of the People through their elected representatives to decide their maps.”
Despite these objections, the court’s liberal majority pressed forward, rejecting GOP arguments to dismiss the lawsuits and defending the appointment process. Justice Brian Hagedorn, often seen as a swing vote, sided with the liberals in finding the 2011 law applicable to both challenges, though he criticized the panel selection process as lacking randomness. “To be clear, I am not suggesting the judicial panel will fail to do its job with integrity and impartiality,” Hagedorn wrote. “But this approach is an odd choice in the face of a statute so clearly designed to deter litigants from selecting their preferred venue and judge.”
For reform advocates, the court’s willingness to hear these cases is a sign of hope. Attorney Doug Poland of Law Forward, one of the firms spearheading the anti-competitive gerrymander suit, praised the court for rejecting “efforts to stonewall our case by attorneys” for GOP lawmakers. Abha Khanna, a partner at Elias Law Group involved in a parallel lawsuit, called the appointment of the panels “a positive development” and pledged to continue the fight for fair maps before the 2026 midterm elections.
Wisconsin’s redistricting drama comes amid a broader reckoning over the influence of money in judicial politics. As reported by Wisconsin Watch, the 2025 Supreme Court campaign in the state shattered national records, with spending reaching an eye-popping $114.2 million—nearly 20 times the cost of the state’s first big-money judicial race in 2007. That figure doesn’t even include billionaire Elon Musk’s $30.3 million effort to distribute checks to conservative voters, a move that further fueled concerns about outside influence and transparency.
The roots of this spending explosion trace back to a series of policy shifts and legal decisions over the past two decades. In 2007, all seven Wisconsin Supreme Court justices—liberals and conservatives alike—signed a letter urging lawmakers to adopt public financing for judicial campaigns, warning that the court’s reputation was at risk. A public financing law was enacted in 2009 but repealed just two years later by a Republican-controlled legislature and Governor Scott Walker. Meanwhile, a 2010 decision by a 4-3 majority of justices adopted what Wisconsin Watch described as some of the most lax recusal rules in the nation, allowing justices to hear cases involving major campaign donors. This rule, largely written by a business group funding conservative campaigns, has fueled ongoing debates about judicial impartiality.
Advocates of reform argue that public financing and stronger recusal standards are essential to restoring trust in the judiciary. Yet, as the state’s campaign finance laws have loosened, outside groups and wealthy donors have poured ever-larger sums into judicial races. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, outside spending has exceeded candidate spending in 10 of the last 12 contested Supreme Court campaigns. The 2025 election saw party donations to candidates and independent expenditures reach new heights, with little sign of slowing down.
Texas, meanwhile, is embroiled in its own redistricting battle. On December 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas could use its new, GOP-friendly congressional map while legal challenges proceed. The new map, approved by the Texas Legislature and signed by Governor Greg Abbott in August, is engineered to give Republicans control of 30 of the state’s 38 congressional districts—up from 25 under the previous map. With the December 8 candidate filing deadline looming, the Supreme Court’s decision all but guarantees that the new lines will shape the 2026 midterm elections.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, declared that the map’s partisan advantage was “indisputable” but permissible, rejecting claims that the redistricting amounted to racial gerrymandering. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling “a win for Texas and every conservative who is tired of watching the left try to upend the political system with bogus lawsuits.” Texas Democrats, however, condemned the outcome, with House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu warning, “This is what the end of the Voting Rights Act looks like: courts that won’t protect minority communities even when the evidence is staring them in the face.”
Liberal justices on the Supreme Court, led by Justice Elena Kagan, dissented sharply. Kagan criticized the majority for reversing a lower court’s 160-page ruling “based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record,” arguing that the decision “disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.”
As Wisconsin and Texas navigate these high-stakes legal fights, the broader questions of judicial integrity, campaign finance, and the meaning of fair representation are front and center. With billions of dollars and the balance of political power hanging in the balance, the outcomes in these states could set precedents for the rest of the nation. For now, both states remain at the heart of the struggle over who draws the lines—and who gets to judge the fairness of the process.
