Republican legislators introduce bill to move lawsuits out of Dane County
A pair of Republican legislators have introduced a proposal that would allow the parties in lawsuits against state officials filed in Wisconsin's largest, and most Democratic, counties to have the venue changed to another county court. Critics of the proposal say it amounts to an attempt to gerrymander the court system.
The legislation from Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard) and Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) is currently circulating for co-sponsorship. Under the 'Court Fairness Bill,' if a lawsuit against certain government officials is filed in a county with a first or second class city — the designation given to cities with more than 39,500 residents — any party to the lawsuit can request a venue change to a different circuit court. The second court would be chosen randomly and no further venue changes would be allowed.
Steffen told the Wisconsin Examiner that the bill was designed to allow Republicans to move lawsuits out of Dane County court because they believe they don't 'get a fair shake' when arguing in front of judges elected by the state's most Democratic voting county. Current law doesn't require lawsuits against the state government to be filed in Madison, but because most state government offices are in the capital city, many of those lawsuits are heard in the Dane County Circuit Court.
'If you are a liberal entity or individual, you increase your chance of success substantially by filing that case in the Dane County Circuit,' Steffen said. 'That type of judge shopping should not only be discouraged but prevented when possible, and so I don't believe that that is the way our Founding Fathers, both at the national or state level, envisioned courts to work where individuals or organizations are making decisions where they file based on the chance of it being a more favorable outcome.'
Steffen added that he thinks the number of lawsuits filed against state government would decrease if people thought they might be heard by judges outside of Dane County.
'So by providing an option for either party to request a random selection to another circuit, we increase the public's perception and support of the decision that is made, and we decrease the number of frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits and decisions,' he said.
Current law already allows parties to a lawsuit to change the venue at the appellate level. Wisconsin is divided into four appeals court districts. If a case is heard at the circuit court level in Dane County, its appeal would generally be heard in the District IV Court of Appeals, which covers 24 counties across most of southwestern and central Wisconsin. In 2011, Republicans enacted a law that allows a party in a lawsuit to request that an appeal be heard in a different district.
Jeff Mandell, general counsel of the voting rights focused firm Law Forward, told the Examiner the proposal is an attempt to disenfranchise voters in cities that Republicans don't like because of the people they elect to be judges.
'It's a further attempt to gerrymander the courts,' he said. 'The gerrymandered Legislature has already gerrymandered the appellate courts and now it's trying to gerrymander the circuit courts. It is anti-democratic. It is anti-rule of law, it is inappropriate, it is inefficient, and there's no good reason for it, and here, fascinatingly, they only want it to apply to lawsuits that are filed in counties that have cities of the first or second class. So they're really just targeting counties that have larger populations or that they don't like. It's a very weird thing.'
While the proposal would allow venue changes in Milwaukee County and more than a dozen counties with second class cities, Steffen said it's targeted at Dane County because he believes Republicans lose 90-95% of their cases there.
'There is no place other than downtown Madison that has a 91% concentration of a party,' he said.
Mandell said Steffen is exaggerating how poorly conservative causes do in Dane County court and there's no requirement right now that lawsuits against the state be filed there. Wisconsin's judges are elected for a reason, Mandell said, and this bill would nullify the choices of hundreds of thousands of Dane County voters.
'We have elected judges in Wisconsin, and one of the theories is that we do that because our judges are responsive to and come from the community,' he said. 'So if I have an issue with the way that a local election official, or any other local official is doing something in my local area, part of the reason to bring the suit where I live is because the judge knows and understands the conditions of my local area. To then send it someplace completely different is truly bizarre.'
He added that if someone were trying to sue their member of Congress, the proposal would allow that suit to get moved to another side of the state where there is less knowledge about that representative and the community that elected them.
'You are looking to the court to give you relief, but you are probably also looking for other people who are constituents of your member of Congress to know about this and be able to follow the case,' he said. 'But now the venue is going to be randomly reassigned, and it could be assigned well outside of the congressional district. The judge is no longer a constituent or doesn't know as much about the member of Congress and the local media no longer has the same kind of access. The whole thing is just really, really bizarre.'
Experts also say there are a number of logistical concerns with the proposal.
Bree Grossi Wilde, executive director of UW-Madison's State Democracy Research Initiative, said because of Wisconsin's political geography, the proposal wouldn't make things even. Moving a case out of Dane County doesn't give a 50-50 shot at landing that case in a conservative or liberal county because a higher number of Wisconsin's 72 counties lean conservative.
'If the concern is to try to level the playing field and have a more diverse kind of set of circuit court judges deciding these important cases that are brought against state or federal officials, or whatever it might be, then actually, it's going to swing in the opposite direction,' she said. 'It's not going to be more level. It's going to be likely more conservative judges deciding these cases.'
She added that a similar bill authored by Republicans in Kentucky was struck down by that state's Supreme Court. Steffen said he's not concerned about that happening here if the bill were passed — though it's unlikely it would be signed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.
Plus, Grossi Wilde said, because Dane County has been the venue for many of these cases for so long, there's a level of expertise and institutional knowledge in cases involving complex areas of state law such as elections.
'Sometimes it's more about expertise … these are judges that are familiar with these claims and are able to sort of manage them more efficiently,' she said, adding that 'Dane County Circuit Court has built up that bench, has built up this sort of expertise, because they're used to managing these type of cases.'
Sending cases out around the state to judges who deal with many issues and are not particularly familiar with certain areas of the law — 'whether it be … civil, criminal, family, juvenile, probate … [or] complicated or constitutional claims' could burden courts and cause them not to work as well, she said.
Steffen said he hadn't nailed down the details of how the new venue would be randomly selected, but suggested drawing cards or names out of a hat.
But Mandell questioned what would happen if a case was filed in Milwaukee County and the name drawn out of the hat was far-away Bayfield County.
'It's highly inefficient,' he said. 'I mean … every time the court wants to hold a hearing, everybody might have to, you know, schlep all the way to Bayfield. For what purpose?'
The deadline for lawmakers to sign on to the bill as co-sponsors is Feb. 18.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom's Team Unveils New Nickname for JD Vance
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. After pivoting into a Donald Trump-style of social media posting to mock the U.S. president, California Governor Gavin Newsom's team has now introduced a new nickname for Vice President J.D. Vance, "Just Dance Vance." The governor's office was commenting on Vance's recent visit to Indianapolis where Republicans are under pressure from the Trump administration to redraw the state's electoral map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The same move has recently been pushed by Texas Republicans in the Lone Star State, promising to give the GOP five additional seats next year. The controversial strategy is behind the recent fleeing of Texas Democrats from the state and sparked nationwide protests against a "Trump takeover" on Saturday. "NOT EVEN JD 'JUST DANCE' VANCE CAN SAVE TRUMP FROM THE DISASTROUS MAPS 'WAR' HE HAS STARTED," Newsom's office wrote on X on Saturday, mimicking Trump's habit to write in all-caps. Why It Matters The kind of trolling that Newsom is currently directing at Trump on social media is yet another step in the quickly escalating clash between the U.S. president and the California governor. Their relationship has deteriorated after Trump decided to send thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles earlier this summer despite Newsom's objections. Main image, California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks about the 'Election Rigging Response Act' at a press conference at the Japanese American National Museum on August 14, 2025, in Los Angeles, California; Inset, Vice President JD... Main image, California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks about the 'Election Rigging Response Act' at a press conference at the Japanese American National Museum on August 14, 2025, in Los Angeles, California; Inset, Vice President JD Vance delivers a speech during a visit to RAF Fairford in England on August 13, 2025. More Getty Images The president justified the move as necessary to contain protests in the city against his administration's mass deportation efforts, but Newsom said it was only trying to fulfill "the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial president." The state of California has since sued the president for sending federal troops to Los Angeles without Newsom's permission. A trial was held last week and a decision in the case is looming. What To Know Giving Vance a nickname—"Just Dance Vance"—is just one of the many ways Newsom is imitating Trump's very recognizable social media posting style to mock the president. These include using derogatory nicknames for his political opponents, writing in all-caps and overtly and exaggeratedly praising himself for real or imaginary achievements. In Trump's social media world, the California governor is often referred to as "Newscum." In his mocking posts, Newsom has repeatedly referred to Trump as "tiny hands." This mockery has gone side by side with the California governor's fight against nationwide attempts to redistribute congressional boundaries ahead of the 2026 midterms—a strategy that is backed by Trump and his administration. Newsom has threatened to go ahead with his own plan to redraw California's electoral map should Texas and other Republican-led states reconfigure their state's congressional districts in their favor. The governor said that California will not redraw its electoral map if Republican-led states give up on the idea—if not, they can expect a tit-for-tat from the Golden State which would effectively neutralize their efforts. What People Are Saying Newsom's press office wrote on X: "NOT EVEN JD 'JUST DANCE' VANCE CAN SAVE TRUMP FROM THE DISASTROUS MAPS 'WAR' HE HAS STARTED. NOT EVEN HIS EYELINER LINES LOOK AS PRETTY AS CALIFORNIA 'MAP' LINES. HE WILL FAIL, AS HE ALWAYS DOES (SAD!) "AND I, THE PEACETIME GOVERNOR—OUR NATION'S FAVORITE—WILL SAVE AMERICA ONCE AGAIN. MANY ARE NOW CALLING ME GAVIN CHRISTOPHER 'COLUMBUS' NEWSOM (BECAUSE OF THE MAPS!). THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER." Questioned by a reporter about his trolling of the president in his recent social media posts, Newsom said on Thursday: "I'm just following his example. If you have issues with what I'm putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns with what he's putting out as president." Reporter: What's going on with those posts on X that are clearly trolling the president? Newsom: I hope it's a wake up call for the president. I'm just following his example. If you have issues with what I'm putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns with what he's… — Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2025 White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but Newscum's obsession is getting a little creepy at this point. Gavin will never be ready for primetime!" What Happens Next It is unclear how long Newsom and his team will continue to mock the president and his social media posting style, but the bitterness between the two is unlikely to dissipate. Newsom's time in office ends next year, and he is rumored to be contemplating a run for president.


Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
Europe needs to treat Putin like an ‘existential threat,' Sen. Schmitt warns
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., discusses his take on the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska and more on 'Fox News Sunday.'
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Harrison: As Texas and California talk redistricting, there's no fight in Mississippi
Don't look for Mississippi to get involved in what appears to be an escalating redistricting war where states redraw their U.S. House districts to aid Republicans or Democrats ahead of a hotly contested 2026 national election. Mississippi most likely will not engage in the redistricting battle because Republicans already have been helped about as much as possible in the Magnolia State. Here, there are three safe Republican U.S. House districts and one safe Democratic district. In theory, the Mississippi Legislature could draw the congressional districts in such a manner as to make all four districts favor Republicans. But to do so, Black voters, who generally are more prone to vote Democratic, would have to be diluted to such an extent that the redraw would conflict with long-held federal court rulings. From a legal standpoint and even from an ethical and moral standpoint, it would be difficult to justify no Black-majority districts in Mississippi, where the non-white population is nearing 40%. Unsurprisingly, Texas fired the first shot in what is shaping up as a nationwide redistricting battle. The Texas Legislature, at the behest of President Donald Trump, who fears his Republican Party will lose the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm election, is trying to redraw the Longhorn State's 38 congressional districts to give the Republicans five more seats. They currently have 25. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom is threatening to retaliate by creating more Democratic districts. California currently has 43 Democratic districts and nine Republican districts. There have been rumblings of blue New York and red Florida also going back to the redistricting drawing board to create more seats to help their respective party. Normally, redistricting is conducted every 10 years after the release of the U.S. Census. The last redistricting occurred after the 2020 U.S. Census. But it should be no surprise that Trump, fearing that Republicans will lose the House in 2026, asked Texas to eschew the norms and conduct a mid-decade redistricting. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of gerrymandering or of drawing districts to benefit their political party. The courts, generally, have said that is OK. But the courts — at least in the past — have also said their minority populations must be given opportunities to elect candidates of their choice. While the courts have said gerrymandering is allowed, a recent Economist/YouGov poll found an overwhelming 69% oppose the partisan drawing of districts, compared to only 9% who support it and 22% of respondents who are unsure. A plurality of 35% support states retaliating if another state draws districts to support one particular party. The retaliation is opposed by 30%, while 36% of respondents are unsure. A plurality also opposes Trump's call for the FBI to hunt down Texas Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state to prevent the Legislature from having the quorum needed to draw new congressional districts. For what it's worth, a study by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project found 15 states with failing grades in terms of non-partisan redistricting. Nine of those states failed because of their strong Republican tilt, while five failed because of strong Democratic leanings. Two — Tennessee and Louisiana — failed because of racial unfairness. Through court rulings, a new Black-majority district has been created in Louisiana since the Princeton study was conducted. Texas and Florida were among the states receiving failing grades. New York and California were not. Another large Democratic stronghold, Illinois, did get a failing grade. Mississippi is unique because of its racial makeup and voting patterns. Most white Mississippians vote Republican, but the large Black minority — the largest percentage of Black voters in the nation — tends to vote Democratic. While Republicans have won all statewide elections since 2016, the elections often are relatively close. In the latest redistricting, Democrats argued that because of the strong pro-Democratic minority population, one of the three heavily Republican congressional districts should be drawn in a manner to make it more competitive. But the majority-Republican Legislature rejected that argument. Hence, there is no need for the Republicans in the Mississippi Legislature to undertake redistricting now. This column was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is the editor of Mississippi Today Ideas.