Our FastMap computer algorithm generated a proposal for Wisconsin's 99 assembly and 33 senate districts that we submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on January 12, 2024 in the case Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Several analyses show that our proposal was the best among the seven proposals submitted to the Court that day. From a historical perspective, we believe that (i) Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission marks the moment when computer algorithms surpassed humans in overall mapmaking ability and (ii) FastMap is the first redistricting algorithm in history to outperform a group of professional human mapmakers in a formal court setting. A chronology of our Wisconsin mapmaking efforts during the years 2021-2024 is provided below.
(April 6, 2024) Poster comparing the seven map proposals submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on January 12, 2024 in the case Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Relevant background information and map visualizations are provided. According to this poster, the FastMap proposal significantly outperformed the other six proposals. First place winner, practitioner track, 2024 INFORMS poster competition.
(April 6, 2024) Poster comparing the seven map proposals submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on January 12, 2024 in the case Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Relevant background information and map visualizations are provided. According to this poster, the FastMap proposal significantly outperformed the other six proposals. First place winner, practitioner track, 2024 INFORMS poster competition.
| district_solutions_llc_poster_comparing_map_proposals_submitted_to_wi_supreme_court_in_january_2024.pdf |
(Feb. 24, 2024) Comparison of the seven map proposals submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on January 12, 2024 with most metrics computed by DavesRedistricting.org. Our proposal ("173#008") was the best for 11 of 12 metrics of political neutrality. It had significantly better district shapes and a much greater number of competitive districts than any other proposal. It also had the best performance for Native Americans and nearly the best performance for county splitting (narrowly coming in second).
| district_solutions_llc_powerpoint_comparing_map_proposals_submitted_to_wi_supreme_court_in_january_2024.pdf |
(Feb. 8, 2024) Amicus Brief responding to the Feb. 1 report by the Court-appointed consultants. This brief also provides a detailed comparison of our map proposal (173#008) to the six proposals formally considered by the Court. Twelve metrics of political neutrality are included in the analysis.
| district_solutions_llc_matthew_petering_amicus_brief_submitted_to_wisconsin_supreme_court_on_february_8_2024.pdf |
(Jan. 22, 2024) Amicus Brief comparing the map proposals submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.
| district_solutions_llc_matthew_petering_amicus_brief_submitted_to_wisconsin_supreme_court_on_january_22_2024.pdf |
(Jan. 17, 2024) Wisconsin Supreme Court denies our motion to submit a Wisconsin legislative map proposal in the case Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Only six proposals will be formally considered by the Court.
| 2023ap001399_1-17-24_court_order_denying_motion_to_submit_map.pdf |
(Jan. 16, 2024) Analysis of seven map proposals submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Jan. 12, 2024. Our proposal is the best for political neutrality, best for compactness, best for district competitiveness, and second best for (county + municipality) splitting.
| district_solutions_llc_analysis_of_map_proposals_submitted_to_wi_supreme_court_on_2024-01-12_version08.xlsx |
(Jan. 12, 2024) Remedial map proposal submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (including an accompanying expert report and motion asking the Court to consider the proposal).
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_legislative_map_173_008_assembly_districts.csv |
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_legislative_map_173_008_senate_districts.csv |
| district_solutions_llc_map_173_008_submitted_to_wisconsin_supreme_court_on_january_12_2024.pdf |
| district_solutions_llc_matthew_petering_expert_report_dated_january_12_2024_in_support_of_map_173_008.pdf |
| district_solutions_llc_motion_dated_january_12_2024_asking_wisconsin_supreme_court_to_consider_map_173_008.pdf |
(Nov. 8, 2023) Amicus Brief submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission: "The FastMap computer algorithm is the best solution for Wisconsin legislative redistricting."
| district_solutions_llc_matthew_petering_amicus_brief_submitted_to_wisconsin_supreme_court_on_november_8_2023.pdf |
| district_solutions_llc_notes_accompanying_amicus_brief_submitted_to_wisconsin_supreme_court_on_november_8_2023.pdf |
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_legislative_map_155_176_image_of_assembly_districts.pdf |
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_legislative_map_155_176_image_of_senate_districts.pdf |
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_legislative_map_155_176_assembly_districts.csv |
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_legislative_map_155_176_senate_districts.csv |
(Oct. 4, 2023) Simulating the creation of 1000 Wisconsin Assembly maps without using election data (work completed July 17, 2023).
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_assembly_maps_if_election_data_ignored_in_mapmaking_process_2023-07-17.pdf |
(April 9, 2022) Comparison of our least change legislative map #2 (created Dec. 12, 2021) to the maps made by the WI Legislature and Governor Evers that were considered by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Our map has the best performance for the three "least change" metrics - core retention, staggered-senate-term disenfranchisement, and incumbent pairings - among all maps submitted to the Court.
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_maps_release_08_2022-04-09.pdf |
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_assembly_least_change_map_02_2021-12-12.csv |
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_senate_least_change_map_02_2021-12-12_.csv |
(Dec. 29, 2021) Least change congressional maps (created Dec. 14-16, 2021). These maps show the tradeoff between core retention and political fairness in Wisconsin's congressional districts.
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_maps_release_07_2021-12-29.pdf |
(Dec. 18, 2021) Least change legislative map #2 with less than 2% population deviation (created Dec. 12, 2021). This map has exceptional performance regarding core retention, incumbent pairings, staggered-senate-term disenfranchisement, Voting Rights Act compliance, and compactness. We would have submitted this map to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission had we been affiliated with a law firm to enable the submission.
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_maps_release_06_2021-12-18.pdf |
(Dec. 11, 2021) Least change legislative map #1 with less than 2% population deviation. The creation of this map was motivated by the "least change" opinion issued by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission on November 30, 2021.
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_maps_release_05_2021-12-11.pdf |
(Nov. 26, 2021) Three fair legislative maps with less than 2% population deviation. These maps have exceptional political fairness, compactness, competitiveness, and Voting Rights Act compliance. In one map, Democrats have a 50.0% chance of winning a majority in the state assembly and a 51.5% chance of winning a majority in the state senate. To our knowledge, no other legislative map comes close to this level of fairness.
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_maps_release_04_2021-11-26.pdf |
(Nov. 17, 2021) Fair congressional map #1.
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_maps_release_03_2021-11-17.pdf |
(Nov. 12, 2021) Fair legislative map #1 with less than 2% population deviation.
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_maps_release_02_2021-11-12.pdf |
(Oct. 25, 2021) Set #1 of fair Wisconsin maps.
| district_solutions_llc_wisconsin_maps_release_01_2021-10-25.pdf |