>> WISCONSIN IS ON COURSE TO HAVE NEW VOTING MAPS IN SHORT ORDER.

LATE THIS WEEK, CONSULTANTS HIRED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT REJECTED TWO OF THE MAP SUBMISSIONS AS BEING PARTISAN GERRYMANDERS AND SAID THE REST COULDN'T MEET MUSTER WITH THE HIGH COURT.

FOR DETAILS ON THIS, WE TURN TO ZAC SCHULTZ AT THE CAPITOL.

SO WHICH TWO MAPS REPRESENT PARTISAN GERRYMANDER, ACCORDING TO THESE CONSULTANTS?

>> THE FEST ONE SHOULDN'T COME AS ANY SURPRISE AND THAT IS THE REPUBLICAN MAP, THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS' MAP, WHICH IS THE MOST CLOSELY RELATED TO THE CURRENT MAPS THAT ARE IN PLACE THAT THE SUPREME COURT ALREADY SAID WERE GERRYMANDERED.

THE OTHER MAPS ARE FROM WHAT'S CALLED THE JOHNSON INTERVENORS, WHICH ARE MAPS DRAWN BY THE WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND LIBERTY, OR W.I.L., A CONSERVATIVE LAW FIRM.

THEE HEDGED THEIR BEATS BETWEEN SOME OF THE MAPS DRAWN BY THE MORE LIBERAL OR DEMOCRATIC GROUPS IN THIS CASE AND THEIR LEGISLATORS' MAPS, BUT STILL PRETTY MUCH MADE FOR A SLAM DUNK MAJORITY FOR THEIR MAPS IF ADOPTED.

>> IT'S SOMETHING CONSULTANTS CALLED STEALTH GERRYMANDERING, I THINK, IN THEIR REPORT?

>> YEAH.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE W.I.L.

MAPS MET ALL OF THE CRITERIA THAT ARE DETERMINED BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS, THEY KEPT MOST OF THE MUNICIPAL COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST TOGETHER, THE POPULATION, ALL THOSE THINGS WERE THERE, BUT THEY STILL WERE DRAWN IN A WAY THAT WERE PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEED REPUBLICAN MAJORITIES AND, IN SOME CASES, SUPER MAJORITIES.

>> AND SO THE CONSULTANT'S VIEW ON THIS IS NOT SETTING WELL WITH REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS, SAYING THEIR MAPS WERE REJECTED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PRODUCE DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES THAT THIS COURT WANTS.

>> WELL, I THINK THEY'RE SPEAKING TO THEIR AUDIENCE, THEIR BASE, THEIR DONORS AND POSSIBLY HOPING TO SPEAK TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WHERE THEY'RE HOPING THIS APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AND THEN ONE OF THEIR TWO PREFERRED MAPS WOULD ULTIMATELY BE CHOSEN BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE LAND.

BUT THE HONEST REALITY IS THAT EVERY INDEPENDENT ANALYST, EVERY EXPERT, MOST PEOPLE THAT UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE HAVE LOOKED AT THESE MAPS FOR THE LAST DECADES PLUS IS THEY FAVOR REPUBLICANS.

QUESTION.

WAS THE TWO-THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY IN THE SENATE ENTIRELY A GERRYMANDER?

PROBABLY NOT, WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY IS THAT BUT A SOLID PORTION OF THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE GERRYMANDER THAT WAS DRAWN INTO FAVOR REPUBLICANS IN DISTRICTS THAT WERE GUARANTEED TO ELECT THEM.

>> SO AS TO THE OTHER FOUR MAPS FROM DEMOCRATS AND OTHERS, THE EXPERTS DEEMED THEM NOT PARTISAN GERRYMANDERS BUT IS NOT NECESSARILY PERFECT, EITHER.

>> Reporter: THAT'S RIGHT.

THERE WERE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALL FOUR MAPS.

THE EXPERTS, MOST OF THEIR 25-PAGE REVIEW WAS ACTUALLY SCORING IN THEIR ANALYSIS OF ALL THE DIFFERENT MAPS ACCORDING TO A NUMBER OF RHETORIC RUBRICS, MOSTLY LOOK AT PARTISAN FAIRNESS, WHICH IS KIND OF THE NEW STANDARD THAT THIS COURT HAS INTRODUCED FOR THIS PROCESS TO SAY IN A 50/50 TOP OF THE BALLOT STATE, WHICH IS WHAT WISCONSIN IS, WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST FAIR OUTCOME AND HOW WOULD THAT BE REPRESENTED BY HOW THE DISTRICTS LOOKED AND THEY SAID THAT ACCORDING TO SOME ANALYSIS OPTED ONE, LOOKING AT ALL THE OLD ELECTIONS FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, THIS MAP WAS BETTER, THAT MAP WAS A LITTLE BETTER OVER HERE, SO DIFFERENT SCORES FOR DIFFERENT AREAS BUT OTHERWISE ROUGHLY THE SAME, NONE OF THEM STOOD OUT WELL AND ABOVE TO THE OTHERS, SO THEY SAID THE SUPREME COURT CAN PICK FROM THEM IF THEY WANT.

>> SO THE CONSULTANTS ALSO REJECTED REPUBLICAN CLAIMS THAT MAJORITIES IN THE LEGISLATURE ARE DUE TO DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT BEING CONCENTRATED IN CITIES WHILE THE G.O.P.

HAS THIS BROADER SUPPORT OUT-STATE.

THE CONSULTANT SAT SAID GEOGRAPS NOT DESTINY.

UNPACK THIS FOR US.

>> THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER, AND WE'VE REPORTED ON FOR YEARS.

THERE IS A GEOGRAPHIC BIAS FOR REPUBLICANS IN WISCONSIN.

THE QUESTION IS, HOW MUCH.

IN A NEUTRAL, FAIR MAP, WE'VE HAD EXPERTS FROM THE UW SAY THAT REPUBLICANS WOULD WIN SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 50 AND 55 SEATS IN AN AVERAGE YEAR IF THE MAPS WERE ALL DRAWN FAIRLY, AND IN THIS CASE, THE EXPERT SAID THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT BUT YOU CAN MAKE FAIR MAPS WITHOUT HAVING EVERYTHING TILTED ONE WAY, SO IT SHOULDN'T GIVE THE REPUBLICANS 66 SEATS IN T IN THE ASSEMBLY, T MAYBE 50, WHICH IS JOE BIDEN AS IT HAPPENS IN THIS BODY.

>> SO WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

>> THERE IS ONE WEEK FOR THE PLAINTIFFS TO FILE THEIR RESPONSES TO THE EXPERTS.

THAT'S DUE NEXT THURSDAY.

AFTER THAT, THE COURT COULD ASK THE EXPERTS TO DRAW OR ADJUST.

THE EXPERTS DID NOT SUBMIT THEIR OWN VERSION SAYING THAT THE FOUR MAPS THAT THEY PROPOSED THAT WERE IN THERE WERE GOOD ENOUGH BUT THEY CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IF THE COURT WANTS.

THE COURT COULD NARROW IT DOWN, IT COULD MAKE A DECISION.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT.

>> THE CONSULTANTS SAID THEY COULD TAKE A CRACK AT MAKING THESE MAPS IN SHORT ORDER.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHT.