--- title: Wisconsin Misusing Data in Gerrymandering Supreme Court Case description: The US Supreme Court is considering whether the Wisconsin Legislature drew district lines for its State Assembly to benefit Republicans. canonical: https://time.com/4965673/wisconsin-supreme-court-gerrymandering-research/ author: Jowei Chen article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2017-10-02T18:12:34.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-23T17:41:34.506Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Wisconsin Is Misusing My Research to Defend Gerrymandering og:description: The Supreme Court will soon decide if the Wisconsin map is unconstitutional og:url: https://time.com/4965673/wisconsin-supreme-court-gerrymandering-research/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1975b7077bb98634/6988e02622fb85e53de2317d/wisconsin-gerrymandering-supreme-court-data.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 3648 og:image:height: 2052 og:image:alt: Capitol Centennial og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Wisconsin Is Misusing My Research to Defend Gerrymandering twitter:description: The Supreme Court will soon decide if the Wisconsin map is unconstitutional twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1975b7077bb98634/6988e02622fb85e53de2317d/wisconsin-gerrymandering-supreme-court-data.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Wisconsin Is Misusing My Research to Defend Gerrymandering > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=add98d6c-05bb-4061-9b09-0830832a18f2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=add98d6c-05bb-4061-9b09-0830832a18f2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=add98d6c-05bb-4061-9b09-0830832a18f2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=add98d6c-05bb-4061-9b09-0830832a18f2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) by [Jowei Chen](https://time.com/author/jowei-chen/) ## Jowei Chen Oct 2, 2017 6:12 PM UTC  This Oct. 10, 2012, file photo shows a man walking by the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison. This Oct. 10, 2012, file photo shows a man walking by the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison. Scott Bauer—AP by [Jowei Chen](https://time.com/author/jowei-chen/) ## Jowei Chen Oct 2, 2017 6:12 PM UTC Next week, the [U.S. Supreme Court is considering](http://time.com/4820397/gerrymander-scotus-origins-word/) whether the [Wisconsin](http://time.com/4830145/supreme-court-gerrymandering-wisconsin/) Legislature drew district lines for its State Assembly that so benefit one political party — in this case, the Republican Party — that the map is unconstitutional. One crucial question the Court must answer is _whether_ the Legislature [skewed the Wisconsin map to benefit Republicans](http://time.com/4826980/gerrymandering-gill-whitford-partisan/). To help answer this, I joined several other political scientists specializing in the statistical analysis of redistricting plans. We found that there is no doubt that the legislature’s Assembly map, drawn in 2011, resulted in a strong showing for [Republicans](http://time.com/4960793/donald-trump-republican-party-poll/), stronger than one would expect given the percentage of votes statewide that Republicans received: In 2012, Republicans got less than 50% of the statewide vote and yet won 60 out of 99 seats in the Assembly. Why did that happen? In [the brief that the state of Wisconsin recently filed with the Supreme Court](http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/Gill%20v%20Whitford%20-%20Brief%20for%20the%20Appellants.pdf), the Wisconsin Attorney General points to my academic work, coauthored with Jonathan Rodden of Stanford, and asserts that Democrats have a harder time than Republicans at turning votes into seats. They quote us as saying that Democratic voters “can expect to win fewer than 50% of the seats when they win 50% of the vote.” The implication is that the partisan skew in Wisconsin’s maps is in large part a result of where Democrats and Republicans live. Our research does show that, in fact, this phenomenon is real on a national level. In 2014, [we argued](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/its-the-geography-stupid.html) that on the national level, “the Democrats’ geography problem is bigger than their [gerrymandering problem](http://time.com/4960635/can-computers-fix-gerrymandering/).” That’s because, in general, Democrats reside in urban areas and win there with overwhelming majorities, while Republican voters are more evenly distributed across exurbs and rural areas. Thus Republicans are better able to translate votes into seats than Democrats nationwide. But the crucial question before the [Supreme Court](http://time.com/4961416/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-term-controversy/) is: To what degree does this explain the extreme partisan skew of Wisconsin’s Assembly map? To evaluate that question, I developed an [automated computer simulation algorithm](http://www.umich.edu/~jowei/Political%5FGeography%5FWisconsin%5FRedistricting.pdf) to produce 200 Assembly plans using traditional districting principles while completely ignoring partisan considerations. I analyzed these 200 simulated plans and compared their partisan breakdown to the Assembly map that the Legislature enacted in 2011\. What I found was very revealing: The Legislature’s enacted plan created about 10 to 15 more Republican-leaning districts than nearly all of the computer-produced maps. I also employed a measure known as the “efficiency gap,” which sizes up each party’s ability to turn votes into seats. Of the 200 computer-drawn plans, 144 produced a very small efficiency gap (within three percentage points of zero), indicating the plans gave no substantial advantage to either Democrats or Republicans. The remaining 56 simulated plans exhibited an efficiency gap of between -5.8% and 3%; a negative efficiency gap indicates bias in favor of Republicans. This shows that Wisconsin’s natural political geography skews not all that much overall, but very modestly in favor of Republicans. This natural skew is modest enough that most computer-simulated plans produce nearly zero bias in Wisconsin. These levels of natural bias completely pale in comparison to the much more extreme partisan bias in the districting plan the legislature approved and is presently using. The actual map has an efficiency gap of -15.1%, meaning a Republican bias several times that of most simulated plans and over twice as large as even the most Republican-favoring map among the 200 simulations. Given these results, it’s statistically extremely unlikely that a neutral districting process, following traditional districting criteria, could have produced a plan exhibiting as much electoral bias as the Wisconsin Legislature’s plan. Colleagues of mine have conducted a different simulation that looked at [more than a trillion election outcomes](https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.09852)**.** They found that there was less than a 1 in 1,000 chance that a random map could be as biased as the Wisconsin Assembly map. From these simulations, it is obvious: Wisconsin’s legislature could easily have produced a map with little to no partisan bias. While there is some small natural advantage to Republicans based on residential patterns of Republicans and Democrats, natural geography can explain only a small portion of why the Wisconsin Assembly maps have such an overwhelming partisan bias. And the legislature’s efforts to create 10 to 15 additional Republican districts came at the expense of traditional districting principles, splitting apart far more counties and municipalities than were necessary and producing unnaturally-shaped districts. In short, the legislature clearly skewed the Wisconsin map to benefit the [Republican Party](http://time.com/4959983/donald-trump-republican-party-2018/), and the map they came up with is extremely skewed. Now it is up to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not that is unconstitutional. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/4965673/wisconsin-supreme-court-gerrymandering-research/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/4965673/wisconsin-supreme-court-gerrymandering-research/"},"headline":"Wisconsin Is Misusing My Research to Defend Gerrymandering","datePublished":"2017-10-02T18:12:34.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-23T17:41:34.506Z","description":"The Supreme Court will soon decide if the Wisconsin map is unconstitutional","url":"https://time.com/4965673/wisconsin-supreme-court-gerrymandering-research/","keywords":["Law","Supreme Court","Wisconsin"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1975b7077bb98634/6988e02622fb85e53de2317d/wisconsin-gerrymandering-supreme-court-data.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Jowei Chen","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/jowei-chen/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1975b7077bb98634/6988e02622fb85e53de2317d/wisconsin-gerrymandering-supreme-court-data.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Capitol Centennial","caption":"Capitol Centennial","creditText":"Scott Bauer—AP","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/tag/law/","name":"Law"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/4965673/wisconsin-supreme-court-gerrymandering-research/","name":"Wisconsin Is Misusing My Research to Defend Gerrymandering"}}]}] ```