Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Senate Bill 150

Division of municipalities into wards and redistricting of supervisory and aldermanic districts and appointing a panel to hear challenges to the apportionment of a congressional or legislative district, and hearing certain appeals

Topics: Census, County: Board, Judge: Circuit court, Milwaukee County, Municipality: Council, Municipality: Elections, Redistricting, Supreme Court

Became law

The governor signed it on Jul 25, 2011. It's ⁠.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Jul 11, 2011

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, passed

    Passed Jul 19, 2011

  4. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed 58 to 39

  5. Governor, passed

    Signed

  6. Law, here now

    2011 Wisconsin Act 39

Latest entry in the official record, Aug 1, 2011: “Published 8-8-2011”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it does

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Adjustment of municipal wards to accommodate redistricting plans The bill requires municipal ward plans, and the aldermanic and supervisory districts upon which they are based, to reflect municipal boundaries on April 1 of the year of each federal decennial census. Currently, ward plans must reflect municipal boundaries on August 1 of the year following the year of the federal decennial census.

The change applies retroactively to ward plans and aldermanic and supervisory districts created in response to the 2010 federal decennial census.

Read the full summary

The bill also amends the laws governing municipal ward division to ensure that if municipal wards do not accommodate a congressional or legislative redistricting act on its date of enactment, the affected municipalities must change their wards so that their ward divisions enable the election of members of congress and members of the legislature under the redistricting act. Currently, the laws only partially accommodate this process.

Local ward division and redistricting timeline Currently, within 60 days after the decennial population count, by block, becomes available from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, but no later than July 1 of each year following the year of the census, each county board of supervisors must submit to each municipality having territory in the county a tentative supervisory district plan or a description of boundary requirements for such a plan. Within 60 days after the receipt of this information from the county board of each county in which a municipality is located, each municipality having a population of 1,000 or more must adopt or readjust wards in accordance with statutory population parameters. In enacting or adopting its plan, a municipality must make a good faith effort to reflect the county's requirements in enacting a supervisory district plan.

Within 60 days after every municipality having territory within a county enacts or adopts a ward division plan, the county must enact a final supervisory district plan combining contiguous whole wards to form supervisory districts.

This bill shortens the maximum time specified for action at each of the above stages of the redistricting process to 45 days, effective beginning with ward divisions and redistricting in response to the 2020 federal decennial census.

Municipal ward plan revisions Currently, under the state constitution, the legislature is directed to redistrict legislative districts according to the number of inhabitants at its next session following each federal census. At the same intervals, the legislature also reapportions congressional districts in this state pursuant to federal law. Under current state law, following each decennial federal census, most municipalities are also required to divide their territory into wards, and counties and cities are required to redistrict supervisory and aldermanic districts so that the districts contain, as nearly as practicable, an equal number of inhabitants according to the census results. With limited exceptions, wards are required to consist of one or more whole, contiguous census blocks (the smallest geographic units for which census results are available). Counties and municipalities are required to complete this action in three steps, which in no case may conclude later than 180 days after publication of the census results. (Usually, the process begins in April and ends in October of the year following the year of the census.) If counties or municipalities fail to adopt division plans, the courts may do so upon petition by interested parties. Revised county and municipal district plans are used to elect members of county boards of supervisors and common councils in the spring of the second year following the year of the census.

The legislative and congressional redistricting plans are used to elect members of the legislature and members of congress in the fall of the second year following the year of the census. The legislature may subdivide or adjust the boundaries of a municipal ward and use the revised ward boundaries to create a legislative or congressional district.

This bill amends various laws to facilitate the legislative and congressional redistricting process and directs counties and municipalities to revise their ward and districting plans to reflect any legislative act establishing a legislative or congressional district boundary that does not coincide with a ward or municipal boundary.

The bill also provides that when a municipality is consolidated with another municipality, the governing body of the consolidated municipality must revise its municipal ward plan to the extent required to effect the change. Currently, the statutes do not address this issue.

County supervisory district plans Currently, within 60 days after publication of the federal decennial census, each county must adopt a tentative county supervisory district plan. Each municipality must adopt a ward division plan, if it is required to do so, within 60 days after the county or counties in which the municipality is located adopt a tentative county supervisory district plan, and each county then must adopt a final supervisory district plan within 60 days after every municipality in the county adopts a ward division plan, if it is required to do so. Currently, the tentative plan must include suggested boundaries or information concerning the number of supervisors to be elected and a description of boundary requirements.

This bill provides that a final county supervisory district plan must not be inconsistent with the tentative plan except to accommodate authorized municipal ward divisions or to reflect an official correction to the census. The bill also applies to amended supervisory district plans in counties other than Milwaukee and Menominee the same standards with respect to contiguity, compactness, numbering, and applicability that apply to amended plans in Milwaukee County. In addition, the bill applies to tentative district plans in Milwaukee County the same standards with respect to contiguity that apply to final district plans in that county.

Incorporation of census corrections Currently, decennial ward division plans, as well as decennial county supervisory and city aldermanic district plans, are based on the federal decennial census. The statutes do not treat the issue of corrections that the U.S. Bureau of the Census issues. This bill provides that the ward plans and aldermanic district plans shall reflect the census results, including any corrections, for the populations of counties, municipalities, and census blocks on April 1 of the year of the census, if corrections are issued prior to adoption of a decennial ward plan, or if a municipality that is affected by a correction is not divided into wards, prior to adoption of a county supervisory district plan.

Amended aldermanic district plans The bill makes an amended aldermanic district plan that may be adopted in certain cities in response to an intradecade county supervisory district plan subject to the same passage and notice requirements, and district composition requirements, that apply currently to original decennial aldermanic district plans.

Under current law, absent members are not included in determining passage requirements and there are no notice and district composition requirements for these amended plans.

Challenges to apportionment of congressional and legislative districts;

hearing of appeals This bill requires the supreme court to assign a three-judge panel to hear any matter that seeks to challenge the apportionment of a congressional or legislative district. Under the bill, the supreme court must choose a judge from each of three circuits and designate one circuit as having venue for purposes of hearings and filing documents.

Under the bill, no party may seek to substitute any of the assigned judges and any appeal of the panel's decisions are to be heard directly by the supreme court.

Minor and technical changes The bill also makes other minor technical changes in the law to facilitate the ward division and county and municipal redistricting process.

Who's behind it

Committee on Senate Organization is its ⁠.

See all the details

Author (1)

  • Committee on Senate Organization

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There were 13 votes on this bill.

Senate Committee on Judiciary vote on an amendment

Passed, 5 to 0 · Jul 15, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 4 recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate Committee on Judiciary vote to recommend it

Passed, 3 to 2 · Jul 15, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 3, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote on an amendment

Passed, 19 to 14 · Jul 19, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Senate amendment 5 adopted, Ayes 19, Noes 14”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote to pass it

Passed, 19 to 14 · Jul 19, 2011

See how each of the 33 senators voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 19, Noes 14”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 58 to 39 · Jul 20, 2011 · 1 didn't vote

See how each of the 98 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (58)

No (39)

Didn't vote (1)

Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 58, Noes 39”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 58 to 39 · Jul 20, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 58 to 39 · Jul 20, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 58 to 39 · Jul 20, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 3 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 58 to 39 · Jul 20, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 4 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 59 to 38 · Jul 20, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 5 laid on table, Ayes 59, Noes 38”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 58 to 39 · Jul 20, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 6 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 58 to 39 · Jul 20, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 7 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 58 to 39 · Jul 20, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 8 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Aug 1, 2011

    The new law was published.

  2. Jul 25, 2011

    The governor signed it. It became 2011 Wisconsin Act 39.

  3. Jul 25, 2011

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Jul 20, 2011

    The Assembly passed it too, 58 to 39.

  5. Jul 19, 2011

    “Read first time and referred to calendar of 7-20-2011 pursuant to Assembly Rule 93” (the official wording)

  6. Jul 19, 2011

    The Assembly received it.

  7. Jul 19, 2011

    The Senate passed it, 19 to 14.

  8. Jul 19, 2011

    The Senate adopted it, 19 to 14.

  9. Jul 19, 2011

    The Senate adopted it.

  10. Jul 15, 2011

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 3 to 2.

  11. Jul 15, 2011

    “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 4 recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0” (the official wording)

  12. Jul 13, 2011

    The committee held a public hearing.

  13. Jul 11, 2011

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.

  14. Jul 11, 2011

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Jul 11, 2011 · Senate

    Introduced by committee on Senate Organization

  2. Jul 11, 2011 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations

  3. Jul 13, 2011 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  4. Jul 14, 2011 · Senate

    Senate amendment 1 offered by Senators Erpenbach and Risser

  5. Jul 14, 2011 · Senate

    Senate amendment 2 offered by Senators Erpenbach and Risser

  6. Jul 15, 2011 · Senate

    Senate amendment 3 offered by Senators Risser and Erpenbach

  7. Jul 15, 2011 · Senate

    Senate amendment 4 offered by Senator Zipperer

  8. Jul 15, 2011 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  9. Jul 15, 2011 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Amendment 4 recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  10. Jul 15, 2011 · Senate

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  11. Jul 15, 2011 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  12. Jul 18, 2011 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 7-19-2011 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  13. Jul 19, 2011 · Senate

    Senate amendment 5 offered by Senator Zipperer

  14. Jul 19, 2011 · Senate

    Read a second time

  15. Jul 19, 2011 · Senate

    Senate amendment 4 adopted

  16. Jul 19, 2011 · Senate

    Senate amendment 5 adopted, Ayes 19, Noes 14

  17. Jul 19, 2011 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  18. Jul 19, 2011 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  19. Jul 19, 2011 · Senate

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 19, Noes 14

  20. Jul 19, 2011 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  21. Jul 19, 2011 · Assembly

    Received from Senate

  22. Jul 19, 2011 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to calendar of 7-20-2011 pursuant to Assembly Rule 93

  23. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  24. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representatives Doyle, Hulsey, Pocan, Barca, Berceau, Bernard Schaber, Bewley, Clark, E. Coggs, D. Cullen, Danou, Fields, Grigsby, Hebl, Hintz, Kessler, Jorgensen, Mason, Milroy, Molepske Jr, Pasch, Pope-Roberts, Radcliffe, Richards, Ringhand, Roys, Seidel, Sinicki, Staskunas, Toles, Turner, Vruwink, Young, Zamarripa and Zepnick

  25. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39

  26. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representatives Doyle, Barca, Berceau, Bernard Schaber, Bewley, Clark, E. Coggs, D. Cullen, Danou, Fields, Grigsby, Hebl, Hintz, Hulsey, Jorgensen, Kessler, Mason, Milroy, Molepske Jr, Pasch, Pocan, Pope-Roberts, Radcliffe, Richards, Ringhand, Roys, Seidel, Sinicki, Staskunas, Steinbrink, Toles, Turner, Vruwink, Young, Zamarripa and Zepnick

  27. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39

  28. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 3 offered by Representatives Richards, Barca, Berceau, Bernard Schaber, Bewley, Clark, E. Coggs, D. Cullen, Danou, Doyle, Fields, Grigsby, Hebl, Hintz, Hulsey, Jorgensen, Kessler, Mason, Milroy, Molepske Jr, Pasch, Pocan, Pope-Roberts, Radcliffe, Ringhand, Roys, Seidel, Sinicki, Staskunas, Steinbrink, Toles, Turner, Vruwink, Young, Zamarripa and Zepnick

  29. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 3 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39

  30. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 4 offered by Representatives Richards, Barca, Berceau, Bernard Schaber, Bewley, Clark, E. Coggs, D. Cullen, Danou, Doyle, Fields, Grigsby, Hebl, Hintz, Hulsey, Jorgensen, Kessler, Mason, Milroy, Molepske Jr, Pasch, Pocan, Pope-Roberts, Radcliffe, Ringhand, Roys, Seidel, Sinicki, Staskunas, Steinbrink, Toles, Turner, Vruwink, Young, Zamarripa and Zepnick

  31. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 4 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39

  32. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 5 offered by Representatives Roys, Barca, Hulsey, Pocan, Berceau, Bernard Schaber, Bewley, Clark, E. Coggs, D. Cullen, Danou, Doyle, Fields, Kessler, Grigsby, Hebl, Hintz, Jorgensen, Mason, Milroy, Molepske Jr, Pasch, Pope-Roberts, Radcliffe, Richards, Ringhand, Seidel, Sinicki, Staskunas, Steinbrink, Toles, Turner, Vruwink, Young, Zamarripa and Zepnick

  33. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 5 laid on table, Ayes 59, Noes 38

  34. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 6 offered by Representatives Roys, Barca, Berceau, Bernard Schaber, Bewley, Clark, E. Coggs, D. Cullen, Danou, Doyle, Fields, Grigsby, Hebl, Hintz, Hulsey, Jorgensen, Kessler, Mason, Milroy, Molepske Jr, Pasch, Pocan, Pope-Roberts, Radcliffe, Richards, Ringhand, Seidel, Sinicki, Staskunas, Steinbrink, Toles, Turner, Vruwink, Young, Zamarripa and Zepnick

  35. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 6 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39

  36. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 7 offered by Representatives Roys, Barca, Hulsey, Pocan, Berceau, Bernard Schaber, Bewley, Clark, E. Coggs, D. Cullen, Danou, Doyle, Fields, Kessler, Grigsby, Hebl, Hintz, Jorgensen, Mason, Milroy, Molepske Jr, Pasch, Pope-Roberts, Radcliffe, Richards, Ringhand, Seidel, Sinicki, Staskunas, Steinbrink, Toles, Turner, Vruwink, Young, Zamarripa and Zepnick

  37. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 7 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39

  38. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 8 offered by Representatives Staskunas, Barca, Berceau, Hulsey, Pocan, Bernard Schaber, Bewley, Clark, E. Coggs, D. Cullen, Danou, Doyle, Fields, Grigsby, Hebl, Hintz, Jorgensen, Mason, Milroy, Molepske Jr, Pasch, Pope-Roberts, Radcliffe, Richards, Ringhand, Roys, Seidel, Sinicki, Steinbrink, Toles, Turner, Vruwink, Young, Zamarripa and Zepnick

  39. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 8 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 39

  40. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  41. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  42. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 58, Noes 39

  43. Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  44. Jul 21, 2011 · Senate

    Received from Assembly concurred in

  45. Jul 25, 2011 · Senate

    Report correctly enrolled on 7-25-2011

  46. Jul 25, 2011 · Senate

    Presented to the Governor on 7-25-2011

  47. Jul 25, 2011 · Senate

    Report approved by the Governor on 7-25-2011. 2011 Wisconsin Act 39

  48. Aug 1, 2011 · Senate

    Published 8-8-2011

Terms on this page

Wisconsin Act

The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.

Official term: Act. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Wisconsin Act

The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.

Official term: Act

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote