Brian Dake

The Supreme Court will once again wade into the world of partisan gerrymandering – that is, the practice of purposely drawing district lines to favor one party and put another at a disadvantage. The justices announced today that they will review Wisconsin’s appeal of the decision by a three-judge district court striking down, as the product of partisan gerrymandering, the redistricting map that the Republican-controlled legislature created after the 2010 census.

The lower court also ordered the state to create a new redistricting plan by the fall, but a deeply divided Supreme Court today put that order on hold. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, which is likely to come next year, will almost certainly be a major one that could affect redistricting efforts for decades to come.

When the Supreme Court last tried to take on the issue of partisan gerrymandering in 2004, the result was deeply unsatisfying for almost everyone involved. In a challenge to Pennsylvania’s redistricting plan, four justices – Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas – agreed that courts should never review partisan-gerrymandering claims, because it is too hard to come with a manageable test to determine when the role of politics in redistricting is too influential. Four other justices – Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer – believed that courts should be able to review partisan-gerrymandering claims. The key vote in the case came (as it so often does) from Justice Anthony Kennedy, who agreed that the Supreme Court should stay out of the Pennsylvania case but left open the door for courts to have a role in reviewing partisan-gerrymandering cases in the future if a workable standard could be found.

Thirteen years later, it appears that the justices are ready to try again. In its brief seeking review of the district court’s decision, Wisconsin complains about various aspects of the lower court’s ruling. It argues, for example, that the plaintiffs cannot challenge the map in its entirety, but instead need to go district by district, and that the plan cannot be a partisan gerrymander if it is also consistent with traditional redistricting principles. But the state is also playing for all the marbles. It observes that “wasteful and fruitless litigation” over partisan gerrymandering has continued over the past 13 years, and it maintains that because this “additional experience has failed to yield a ‘limited and precise’ standard” for evaluating partisan-gerrymandering claims, the Supreme Court should rule that such claims “are nonjusticiable.”

Wisconsin filed its request for review in March, but in May it also asked the justices to put the lower court’s order requiring new maps on hold until they can resolve the state’s appeal. In an order issued shortly after the justices left the bench this morning, the Supreme Court agreed to do so. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan indicated that they would have denied the state’s request. But the fact that the state could muster the five votes needed for the stay bodes poorly for the challengers, because one factor that the justices had to consider in making their decision was whether the state is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim.

No matter how the Supreme Court ultimately rules, its decision will be significant. If the justices were to hold that courts cannot review partisan-gerrymandering claims, their ruling could insulate redistricting maps from challenges, allowing the political party in power to extend its control for decades: The dominant party will be able to draw districts to maximize its chances of maintaining control of the state legislature, which will in turn allow it to draw the new map after the next census. On the other hand, a ruling that courts can evaluate partisan-gerrymandering claims could open the door to a flood of litigation challenging existing and future maps. Of course, this assumes that the Supreme Court rules on the merits of the case at all: Today’s announcement also indicated that the justices would put off a decision on whether the court has jurisdiction to review the case until they hear the merits of the case. Postponing the determination of whether the court has jurisdiction could prove to be just a formality, or it could provide a way for the justices to sidestep a ruling on the merits if the case proves too hard – only time will tell.

The case will likely be argued in November or December, with a decision to follow next year – perhaps only a few months before the 2018 elections, and less than two years before the 2020 census.

The state budget committee voted unanimously Thursday to reject Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to move about 250,000 state workers to a self-insurance system.

Under the proposed change, the state would pay employee medical bills directly through a third-party administrator instead of paying premiums to an insurance provider.

Lawmakers had previously signaled they planned to reject the move, arguing it’s too risky. Leaders of the finance committee reiterated that point Thursday.

“Our competitive marketplace is really a model for the nation, and we think with what’s happening nationally this is the wrong time for us to make major shifts in the marketplace,” said Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, co-chair of the budget committee.

The governor had linked $60 million in estimated savings to the proposed move to self-insurance. The budget committee identified $63.9 million in other savings.

Those changes include $22.7 million in negotiation savings, $25.8 million from the state insurance board’s reserve fund, and $15.4 million from increased usage of health plan tiers and plan design changes. They say they’ll achieve those by making changes to employee benefit plans and using money from the state insurance board’s reserve fund.

Committee co-chair Rep. John Nygren, R-Marinette, said those plan design changes will not result in state employees seeing premiums, co-pays or other expenses rise more than 10 percent in each of the 2018 and 2019 calendar years.

Joint Finance Committee Co-Chairman John Nygren (R-Marinette) told Newswatch 12 last week he sees three potential options to fix a billion-dollar shortfall: raising registration fees, raising the gas tax, or using toll roads.

Nygren says lawmakers have pushed off this issue for the last two budgets, so now’s the time to take action.

“I do think tolling, which is a true user fee–you can use other roads if you choose not to use the interstate system–could be an option,” Nygren said.

Toll roads wouldn’t be an immediate fix, because Wisconsin would need federal approval. Nygren thinks the system would be easy enough to install.

“It’s the direction we’re going and, as I said, it’s a true user fee,” Nygren said. “I know it’s not the old world of tolling with all the booths. You can do it nowadays with a transponder in your car.”

Gov. Scott Walker told reporters last week he’s not pushing for toll roads, telling the Associated Press that if he agreed to tolls, he would want the gas tax to drop. Meanwhile, Joint Finance Co-Chair Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) said Republicans aren’t unified in backing the toll idea.

“I don’t know that I ever met anybody who agrees with me on every single issue, right?” Nygren said. “I don’t care if they’re a constituent or they’re another elected official. We’re elected to bring different perspectives to the table.”

The Joint Finance Committee plans to meet Thursday, when Nygren hopes to focus more on transportation funding.

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) has submitted an application to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)  requesting an amendment to certain provisions of the Section 1115 Demonstration Waiver, known as the BadgerCare Reform Demonstration Waiver. The policy amendments, many of which are included in 2015 Wisconsin Act 55, are aimed at bolstering Governor Scott Walker’s efforts to help people move from government dependence to true independence.

“Wisconsin Works for Everyone is about helping people transition from public assistance into Wisconsin’s workforce, where they can build a solid financial foundation for themselves and their families,” Governor Walker said. “Unemployment is low, and the percentage of people working in Wisconsin is among the best in the nation. This application is a step in the right direction, and we’re continuing to build on Wisconsin’s legacy as a leader in welfare reform.”

The core changes in the waiver amendment application affect the childless adult population and include the following:

• Establishes monthly premiums and copayments for emergency department visits.
• Implements a work requirement that members work or participate in job skills training at least 80 hours every month.
• Limits benefits to 48 months, unless a member meets a work requirement.
• Rewards healthy behaviors by establishing lower premiums for members who make healthy choices.
• Requires members to be screened for drugs and if necessary, submit to a drug test. Those who test positive will be offered treatment so they can get healthy. Healthy workers help Wisconsin employers fill jobs that require passing a drug test.
• Expands access to treatment by creating a new residential substance use disorder treatment benefit to allow coverage of medically necessary residential substance use disorder treatment services for up to 90 days for all BadgerCare Plus and Medicaid members.

Once CMS receives the complete application, a 30-day federal public notice process begins along with a 45-day minimum federal decision-making period. During this time, DHS will work with CMS to finalize the details of the waiver. Once the changes to the waiver are approved by CMS, the effective date of the changes will be at least one year after approval to inform and work with members, providers, and partners, and to make system enhancements and implement the changes.

A “phishing” email is making the rounds, pretending to be from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, or DATCP. Officials there are warning consumers not to click on any links in the email.

The email says, “Wisconsin DATCP has sent you a PDF via Adobe® Cloud. Kindly read through and respond with the required details. Open in Adobe®.”

This message is not from DATCP. Do not click on the “Open in Adobe®” box or anything else in the email. The scammers may be trying to collect credit card information or personal data.

DATCP does not send emails under aliases. However, if you have any doubts about whether a message is actually from DATCP, hover your cursor over the sender’s email address to see the underlying, actual address. Messages from the agency will generally be in the format of firstname.lastname@wi.gov or firstname.lastname@wisconsin.gov. In some cases, the address may include the name of a program rather that an individual’s name, such as “datcphotline.” But the suffix will always be either wi.gov or wisconsin.gov.

For more information or to file a complaint, visit the Consumer Protection Bureau at http://datcp.wisconsin.gov, send an email to datcphotline@wisconsin.gov, or call 1-800-422-7128.