Supreme Court justices make the sign of the cross Feb. 19 during prayers at a private ceremony in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court in Washington where late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia lies in repose. Credit: Associated Press

SHARE

By of the

Madison — Having the U.S. Supreme Court short one justice for the foreseeable future could affect Wisconsin cases dealing with voter ID, abortion, an investigation of Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and how legislative districts are drawn.

The high-stakes case that could see the most immediate effect is the one dealing with how Republican lawmakers drew district maps to favor their party in 2011.

A panel of three federal judges will hold a trial in May, and any appeals will go directly to the Supreme Court instead of an appeals court. If the high court splits 4-4 — as could happen after the death in February of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia — the ruling of the panel would hold.

That puts more power than usual in the hands of the three-judge panel, which consists of two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee. This month it handed a victory to those challenging the maps, agreeing to hold a trial and expressing an openness to the plaintiffs' claims that the maps were drawn so favorably for the GOP as to be unconstitutional.

Other cases could also be affected by the death of Scalia and the refusal of Republicans who control the U.S. Senate to hold a vote on President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, until after the Nov. 8 presidential election.

Among them is one over the challenge to the investigation — now shut down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court — into whether Walker's campaign illegally worked with political groups.

Other legal challenges on voter ID and abortion are pending and could eventually wend their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Similar laws in other states are also being challenged, and those cases may have a better chance at making it to the high court than the cases from Wisconsin.

Here's a look at where the Wisconsin cases stand.

Redistricting. A group of 12 Democrats last year sued over the way Republican lawmakers drew legislative maps, arguing they violated the voting rights of Democrats because they so heavily favored Republicans.

Lawmakers have to draw new maps every 10 years to account for changes in population. Republicans controlled all of state government in 2011 and were able to put in place legislative and congressional maps that greatly helped them.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said maps can be so partisan that they violate voters' rights, but the justices have not been able to agree on a standard for measuring when maps amount to improper political gerrymandering. The Democrats who brought the suit have proposed a way to make such calculations so courts can rule when politicians go too far in drawing district lines to favor them.

The lawsuit was designed to try to win the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has disagreed with conservatives who contend there is no way courts can determine how much is too much when it comes to partisan gerrymandering.

"He essentially issued an invitation. Our case, the Whitford case, responds to that invitation," said Sachin Chheda, director of the Fair Elections Project, which is assisting with the litigation.

Lester Pines, a Madison attorney not involved in the litigation, said early rulings in the case have shown those bringing the lawsuit have a shot at winning. A Democrat, Pines has been active in challenging limits on collective bargaining and other laws approved by Republicans.

"While they didn't give the plaintiffs a road map, there's a lot of hints there," Pines said of the judges hearing the redistricting case.

But Rick Esenberg, president of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, said he doesn't see how the criteria proposed by the challengers in this case differ significantly from ones the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected in others.

"It looks to me like it isn't that much different than other methodologies that have been tried and defeated," he said.

Handing a victory to those challenging the law, the panel agreed to hold a four-day trial starting May 24.

Once the panel issues its decision, attention will shift to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the justices split 4-4, the panel's ruling will be upheld.

Voter ID. State and federal courts have upheld Wisconsin's 2011 voter ID law, but litigation continues.

Last week, a panel of appeals judges raised the possibility of finding a way to vote for those who have severe challenges in getting photo IDs.

The unanimous panel of 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges sent the case to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Milwaukee for further proceedings. The case could move quickly because primaries are slated for Aug. 9.

In another case, U.S. District Judge James Peterson in Madison threw out in December a challenge to the voter ID law itself, but determined the liberal group One Wisconsin Now and others who brought the lawsuit could keep alive their arguments that voters should be able to use a broader range of IDs for voting. A trial is set to begin May 16.

Under Wisconsin's voter ID law, only certain types of photo IDs can be used at the polls, such as driver's licenses and state-issued ID cards.

The lawsuit also challenges limits on early voting approved by Republicans in recent years.

Challenges are also pending against voter ID laws in other states, such as Texas and North Carolina. The issue from one of the states could eventually get to the U.S. Supreme Court so it can revisit a 2008 ruling that upheld Indiana's voter ID law.

If the Supreme Court were to take one of those cases and split 4-4, the ruling of the lower court would remain in place. That would mean different parts of the country could have different rules on what types of voter ID laws are allowed.

Abortion. Wisconsin Republicans approved a law in 2013 requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they perform the procedure.

U.S. District Judge William Conley in Madison ruled the law violated the right to abortion. In a 2-1 ruling, a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed with that finding.

Attorney General Brad Schimel last month asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.

The nation's high court showed divisions in March when it heard arguments over a Texas law that requires admitting privileges and places other restrictions on abortion that critics say would force the closure of three-quarters of Texas' abortion clinics.

If the court split 4-4 on the Texas case, it would leave in place a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision largely upholding those abortion restrictions. But a similar split in the Wisconsin case would cause the opposite result because of the 7th Circuit's ruling.

It is also possible the U.S. Supreme Court would send the Texas case back to lower courts for further proceedings.

John Doe. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by two Wisconsin Supreme Court justices to stay on a case over a John Doe investigation into whether the Republican governor's campaign illegally worked with political groups.

The state court shut down the investigation last year, finding nothing illegal occurred. The Democratic district attorney maintains Justices David Prosser and Michael Gableman shouldn't have participated in the decision because their campaigns benefited from heavy spending by groups that were under investigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 found in a 5-4 decision that political spending could force judges off cases, but it emphasized the circumstances in the case it was considering — in which a coal executive spent about $3 million to help elect a West Virginia judge — were rare.

If the U.S. Supreme Court took the Wisconsin case and ruled Prosser and Gableman shouldn't have participated in it, it would reopen the underlying questions over when candidates and political groups can coordinate their activities.

A 4-4 split would leave in place Prosser and Gableman's decision to stay on the case, as well as the ruling ending the investigation.