On October 9, 2025, the ongoing debate over the shape and fairness of American democracy took center stage in Wisconsin, as Law Forward, a non-profit legal advocacy group, filed a pivotal brief with the state’s Supreme Court. The brief followed a challenge—originally launched in June by Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy (WBLD) and a group of individual voters—accusing the state’s congressional map of being an unconstitutional anti-competitive gerrymander. The plaintiffs aren’t just seeking a technical fix; they’re calling for a fundamental change in how political power is distributed in Wisconsin, a state long known for its razor-thin electoral margins but whose congressional districts tell a very different story.
"What we’re trying to do is have the maps redrawn in a competitive way in Wisconsin so that they’re free and fair," explained John Florsheim, president of WBLD, in comments reported by local media. Florsheim and his organization argue that the current district lines—drawn after the 2010 census by both Democratic and Republican officials—don’t reflect the state’s true political character. Despite Wisconsin’s reputation as a purple state, the congressional delegation is overwhelmingly Republican: seven of the eight districts are decided by margins of 30 points or more, and the state is represented as 75% Republican in Congress, according to Florsheim.
These numbers are striking, especially in a place where statewide races are often decided by a handful of votes. The plaintiffs argue that this isn’t just a matter of partisan advantage, but a deeper structural problem that undermines democracy itself. Their case marks the first time in Wisconsin—and one of the few times nationally—that congressional districts have been challenged specifically on the grounds of anti-competitive gerrymandering.
To understand what’s at stake, it’s important to distinguish between anti-competitive and partisan gerrymandering. While partisan gerrymandering aims to benefit one political party over another, anti-competitive gerrymandering suppresses electoral competition more broadly. As Bryna Godar, a staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School, told reporters, "It benefits incumbents and gives voters less of a say in the election. You see this happen where you have districts that are not particularly competitive compared to what you would have under a neutral map." In other words, the maps are drawn not just to favor one team, but to minimize the risk of any real contest at all.
The implications are profound. When districts are drawn to be non-competitive, voters can feel that their voices don’t matter; incumbents become entrenched, and the incentive for politicians to respond to the needs of their constituents diminishes. As Florsheim put it, "We want districts that represent the true will of the voters. Voters should be able to pick their elected officials–elected officials shouldn’t be able to pick their voters."
The legal process being pursued is also noteworthy. The plaintiffs are asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to appoint a three-judge panel of circuit court judges to hear the case—a procedure authorized by state statute but rarely used. According to Godar, this panel process was invoked during the 2011 reapportionment but never actually enacted, as the case was dismissed before it could proceed. The plaintiffs argue that the complexity and significance of redistricting cases warrant this special judicial approach, which mirrors procedures used in federal courts for similar disputes.
This legal battle in Wisconsin comes at a time when concerns about the health of democracy are echoing across the country—and even beyond the realm of redistricting. On October 14, 2025, as the Wisconsin case was making headlines, a major webinar titled "How AI and Surveillance Capitalism are Undermining Democracy" was scheduled to take place online. Organized by the Center for Law and Global Affairs and the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, the event brings together leading thinkers to examine the ways in which new technologies are shaping the democratic process.
The keynote speaker for the event is the Director of the Center for Technological Responsibility, Reimagination, and Redesign at Brown University, who previously served as Assistant Director for Science and Justice in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. This expert is no stranger to the intersection of technology and democracy, having co-authored the influential "Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights." The webinar, which is also supported by the Future Security Initiative—a partnership between Arizona State University and New America, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank—aims to explore the risks posed by artificial intelligence and surveillance capitalism to democratic institutions.
While the Wisconsin lawsuit and the webinar may seem like separate stories, they are united by a common thread: the struggle to ensure that democracy remains vibrant, responsive, and fair in the face of evolving challenges. Whether it’s the drawing of electoral maps that lock in political power or the rise of technologies that can manipulate public opinion and erode privacy, the core question is the same: Who really holds the power in a democracy, and how can that power be made accountable to the people?
The fact that the Wisconsin case is one of the few in the nation to challenge districts on anti-competitive, rather than strictly partisan, grounds is significant. It suggests a growing awareness that democracy is threatened not just by overt partisanship, but by any system—technological or political—that insulates those in power from meaningful competition. As Godar noted, the current system "gives voters less of a say in the election," a sentiment that resonates far beyond Wisconsin’s borders.
At the same time, the focus on AI and surveillance capitalism in the national conversation highlights the ways in which technology can amplify or undermine democratic values. The "Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights"—referenced by the webinar’s speaker—lays out principles designed to protect individuals from the potential harms of automated systems, including discrimination, lack of transparency, and loss of agency. These issues are not abstract; they affect how information is disseminated, how campaigns are run, and ultimately, how citizens engage with their government.
Both the legal challenge in Wisconsin and the national dialogue on technology and democracy underscore the need for vigilance and innovation in protecting the core values of representative government. As Florsheim and his colleagues push for maps that "represent the true will of the voters," and as experts warn of the dangers posed by unchecked technological power, the message is clear: Democracy requires constant attention, adaptation, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.
Whether in the courts or in the digital sphere, the fight for fair representation and genuine competition continues. The outcome in Wisconsin may set a precedent for other states, while the ongoing debate about AI and surveillance will shape the contours of democracy for years to come. For now, the eyes of the nation—and perhaps the world—are watching closely.
