A PRIMER: How WI Fair Maps Coalition Plans to Bust Up Gerrymandering in Wisconsin
When election districts are drawn to give one political party an advantage, the practice is known as gerrymandering. In Wisconsin, advocates for “fair maps” argue that gerrymandering has distorted representation and made it harder for voters to hold elected officials accountable. The Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition says its long-term answer is to change who draws the maps in the first place.
In a recent presentation, volunteer organizer Nicole Gabrail introduced herself and the coalition’s core mission: “Today I’m going to be presenting on our plan to permanently kill Wisconsin’s gerrymander.” Her focus was a proposed Independent Redistricting Commission—often shortened to “IRC”—designed to move map-drawing power away from politicians.
This is a legislative proposal … it’s not yet a bill. It doesn’t have a bill number. She said the coalition submitted its draft to Wisconsin’s Legislative Reference Bureau for comment and has been waiting to hear back. The Fair Maps Coalition anticipates the bill will be introduced in early 2027.
So, what is an IRC? Gabrail put it plainly: an independent redistricting commission “takes the ability to draw and pass the legislative maps and congressional maps… out of the hands of our legislature and puts it into the hands of an independent citizen-led commission.” In other words, an IRC is meant to reduce conflicts of interest by separating map-making from lawmakers who benefit from the maps.
Key takeaways from the Fair Maps update
The coalition is aiming for a permanent fix—not just a one-time improvement—by creating an Independent Redistricting Commission.
Wisconsin’s 2024 legislative maps changed, but Gabrail argued the underlying system still allows future gerrymanders.
The proposal borrows “best practices” from other states, plus guidance from organizations that study redistricting nationwide.
The strategy is phased: first pass an IRC bill, then pursue a constitutional amendment to lock it in before the 2030 redistricting cycle.
Gabrail also offered a quick history lesson to show how Wisconsin got here. She highlighted a line from League of Women Voters member Cheryl Maranto: “Gerrymandering is a bipartisan disease.” In Gabrail’s telling, that means any party, given the chance, may draw lines to “entrench their political power,” which is why the coalition wants rules that limit any party’s ability to do it.
Even after new legislative maps were signed into law in 2024, Gabrail cautioned against treating the moment as a final victory. “This is not the end of the journey for us,” she said, noting that maps will be redrawn again after the 2030 census. Without a new process in place by then, she warned, Wisconsin could “end up exactly where we started.”
She also pointed out that not all maps are treated the same. The 2024 changes applied to state legislative districts, she said, but “it did not apply to our congressional maps,” which she described as still being challenged in court.
How the Wisconsin IRC proposal was built
Gabrail stressed that the draft did not “come from thin air.” She said the Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition partnered with the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and reviewed other states’ approaches to independent commissions, along with expert reports. The goal, she explained, is to “borrow best practices” from systems that have shown they can reduce partisan map manipulation.
In the presentation, Gabrail cited research suggesting that only four states—Arizona, California, Colorado, and Michigan—have what she called “truly independent” redistricting commissions written into their constitutions. While she noted these systems “aren’t perfect,” she described them as voter-approved models that are working today. Wisconsin’s proposal aims to move in that direction, while also accounting for Wisconsin-specific legal constraints.
One common question, Gabrail said, is why Wisconsin doesn’t simply copy the “Iowa model.” Her answer: Iowa’s body is “actually an advisory commission,” meaning “they’re not a fully independent redistricting commission.” Under that system, she said, “the legislature is still drawing and passing the maps,” just with advice from the commission.
What the draft IRC would do (in everyday terms)
The proposal Gabrail described is detailed—about 16 pages, she noted—so her presentation highlighted the “most important parts” in a more digestible way. At a high level, the draft outlines who could serve, how members would be selected, what rules mapmakers must follow, and how the public would participate.
Who serves: Commissioners must meet strict eligibility rules intended to ensure independence (for example, excluding current politicians and certain close connections to them).
How members are chosen: The process includes a large, randomized outreach step—Gabrail described “mailing out 10,000 applications at random”—along with broader public posting.
Commission makeup: The draft envisions five Democrats, five Republicans, and five minor party members.
Public input: The IRC would hold two rounds of hearings—one before maps are drawn (to gather community input) and one after draft maps are released (to collect feedback).
Rules for fair maps: Maps must meet constitutional and legal requirements and, the draft says, “shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party,” using accepted measures of partisan fairness.
Decision-making: Many decisions would use a simple majority, while major decisions would require a higher threshold and cross-party agreement.
Funding and oversight: The IRC would be state-funded, audited like other agencies, and any leftover funds would return to the state after maps are implemented.
Gabrail described the coalition’s roadmap as a two-step approach. “Our plan is actually to first pass a bill and then pass a constitutional amendment after the bill,” she said. The amendment matters because it would make the system harder to undo and would make the IRC truly independent. The coalition wants it in place “before the 2030 census.”
Gabrail further explains, “Currently, Article IV of our state constitution gives the legislature authority to ‘apportion and district anew.’ This is why our draft proposal still includes the legislature in the map approval process. However, we ultimately want the IRC to have full authority to both draw and pass the maps. We need a conditional amendment to make that happen.
Why push for structural reform at all? Gabrail argued that when districts are engineered as “safe seats,” it becomes “virtually impossible to hold our politicians accountable,” because election outcomes are less competitive. The Fair Maps Coalition’s central idea is straightforward: If voters want policy that better reflects what Wisconsinite’s support, the rules for drawing districts must be designed to prevent either party from rigging the playing field.
Learn more: Gabrail noted that the coalition shares materials online, including a summary of the draft proposal and FAQs. To find the resources mentioned in the presentation, visit: fairmapswi.com.