Wisconsin's redistricting consultants could get paid up to $100,000 each, contracts show

The two consultants hired by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to evaluate or propose new legislative district maps will be paid up to $100,000 each for their work, according to contracts released Wednesday.

Bernard Grofman and Jonathan Cervas, who have previously worked on redistricting in Pennsylvania, Virginia and New York, will be paid $450 an hour in taxpayer dollars. The contracts are in place until the court reaches a final decision on the case.

The consultants will have until Feb. 1 to file a report analyzing map proposals submitted by parties, which are due on Jan. 15. If none of the submissions meet the court's criteria, they could suggest edits or propose maps of their own. The Wisconsin Elections Commission has said the maps must be in place by March 15.

Republicans have asked the court to reconsider their decision ordering them to draw new districts, arguing the timeline for them to do so is rushed. The court ordered other parties to file responses to that motion by Thursday. Republicans are also expected to bring the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Taxpayers are also on track to pay up to $2 million for outside attorneys hired by GOP legislative leaders to defend the election maps approved in 2021 that favor Republicans. A contract with one law firm also set a $450 hourly rate for attorneys' time.

More:What to know about Bernard Grofman and Jonathan Cervas, Wisconsin's new map consultants

More:Wisconsin redistricting timeline: What's happened so far, what deadlines are coming up next

The team that recently redrew maps in Alabama billed the state $515,0000. That group included cartographer David Ely, who was among the experts suggested to assist the court in Wisconsin.

The court's conservative minority opposed the hiring of the consultants, arguing the decision outsourced the Legislature's map-drawing authority to "two out-of-state, unelected and unaccountable political scientists."

In a dissent, conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley criticized that the order did not include a "cap on the fees the parties—including the taxpayers—will be compelled to pay for their 'services.'"