MADISON, Wis. (CN) - The novel judicial panels appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court convened on Friday for the first time to chart a path forward in two lawsuits challenging the state's congressional maps.

Wisconsin redraws its congressional maps every decade after the census. When lawmakers and the governor fail to agree, the Wisconsin Supreme Court can step in and impose remedial maps.

When the process broke down in 2020, the high court stepped in and adopted a "least change" approach, modifying districts only as needed to equalize population. With the 2026 midterms approaching, it remains uncertain whether new maps will be in place by then.

As a result, the current map closely mirrors the 2011 version, which was challenged for partisan gerrymandering. The 2020 map has faced similar criticism, prompting two lawsuits filed in July in Dane County Circuit Court seeking to have the map tossed.

One suit claims the map is biased against Democrats; the other argues it unconstitutionally favors incumbents. Both blame the court's "least change" methodology.

For the first time, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has enforced a 2011 law governing redistricting challenges, appointing a three-judge panel from three counties in November to hear the cases.

The panels met with the parties for the first time Friday in Dane County to set the path forward, including clarifying their authority under the statute.

The first case was brought by Elizabeth Bothfeld, a voter from Dodgeville, who argues the congressional map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Dane County Circuit Judge Julie Genovese and Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Mark Sanders appeared in person, while Outagamie County Circuit Judge Emily Lonergan joined by Zoom.

Several parties have taken interest in the two cases, including Republican Congressmen Tony Wied, Tom Tiffany and Derrick Van Orden, the state Legislature, individual voters and parties involved in the earlier Johnson litigation that led the Wisconsin Supreme Court to adopt the current map.

Attorney Julie Zuckerbrod, representing Bothfeld, asked the panel to allow summary judgment on her client's separation-of-powers claim, arguing there are no factual disputes.

That claim centers on the high court's use of the "least change" approach to draw the 2020 map - a method the court later abdicated in Clarke. Bothfeld argues in her 27-page complaint that relying on prior partisan legislative maps instead of the court's independent judgment violated the separation of powers.

 Zuckerbrod suggested that the issue is dispositive, meaning that if summary judgment is granted to Bothfeld, then the map redraw can begin while the other issues are litigated.

Attorney Kevin Leroy, representing the Legislature, asserted that the panel's authority remains unclear and may be limited to factfinding. He urged the judges to focus on his pending motion to dismiss, which argues the constitutional challenge lacks merit.

Ultimately, the court split the difference with briefings on the motion to dismiss and summary judgment for mid-January.

Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the UW Law School's State Democracy Research Initiative, told Courthouse News the panels have broader authority than intervenors suggested in today's hearing. They could dismiss the cases or conduct factfinding that indicates their perspective on the legal issue without directly overturning the maps.

Either way, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will have the final say. The 2011 statute governing the three-judge panels limits their role but assigns appellate review directly to the high court, bypassing the Court of Appeals.

Justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley opposed the panel appointments, accusing the liberal majority of judicial activism. Justice Brian Hagedorn, the third conservative dissenter, likewise said the majority misread the statute, arguing the panel should have been randomly selected, a requirement not spelled out in the law.

Hagedorn also questioned whether three circuit judges have such authority. But Godar said the majority's reading was reasonable, noting that while the bench is sharply divided over whether a panel was required, the statute's plain language is clear and mirrors federal procedures used in other states.

The second case heard Friday, brought by Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy, a liberal voting rights group, followed a similar path.

The parties debated whether the court should first resolve motions to dismiss before moving to discovery and trial, but ultimately agreed to a flexible trial date in April 2027 and a briefing schedule beginning next year.

The voting rights group advances a different theory, arguing the 2010 congressional map was unconstitutionally anticompetitive because it favored incumbents. As in the Bothfeld case, they say the Wisconsin Supreme Court's "least change" approach in 2020 carried those flaws forward, producing incumbent victory margins of more than 30% statewide and an unconstitutional electoral system.

In the business leaders' case, Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Conway and Portage County Circuit Court Judge Patricia Baker appeared in person, while Marathon County Circuit Court Judge Michael Moran joined by Zoom.

Attorney Douglas Poland, representing the voting rights group, highlighted the procedural uncertainty created by the three-judge panel, asking which county's local rules would apply, who filings should be addressed to, whether out-of-county judges must be notified of new filings and what standards would govern the use of artificial intelligence.

"Wait a minute - Dane County doesn't have any rules on AI?" Baker said, cutting Poland off.

Conway shrugged, prompting Baker to order parties to include a disclosure if they use AI in any filings with the court. Additionally, Dane County local rules will be enforced.

The parties declined to give comment on Friday's proceedings.

Source: Courthouse News Service