Taylor Questions 2021 Redistricting—But What About His Own Role?
Taylor now warns against changing district lines for politicians’ benefit. In 2021, he advocated keeping Franklin whole—then supported Map M, which split Franklin. The final map put Oak Creek in a district represented by a Franklin resident.
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor (RINO) has a credibility question to answer on redistricting.
At the September 22 meeting of the Milwaukee County Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services Committee, Taylor called for greater transparency in the next round of redistricting and criticized what he says occurred when Milwaukee County drew its current supervisory districts in 2021.
The committee was considering File 26-675, an official review of Milwaukee County's independent redistricting process and recommendations for the next cycle following the 2030 Census. Milwaukee County Legistar
Taylor's message was direct:
“This is not about us.”
He criticized supervisors for “changing district numbers” and “changing lines,” saying those decisions were not necessarily in voters' best interests.
Then Taylor went further.
He said greater transparency, an earlier process and public hearings might prevent supervisors from:
“play[ing] around with lines to benefit them personally”
Taylor then added:
“that is exactly what happened and frankly that's why I'm here”
Those are Taylor's words—and Taylor's characterization of what occurred in 2021.
But if politicians' conduct during that redistricting deserves scrutiny, Taylor's own participation is also part of the record.
And his own words raise a straightforward question:
Does the standard Taylor applies to others match the position he took when Milwaukee County's current districts were actually being drawn?
Taylor's 2021 Message: Don't Draw Maps Around Politicians
Five years ago, Taylor sounded remarkably similar to how he sounds today.
On September 17, 2021, while no longer serving on the County Board, Taylor appeared before Milwaukee County's Independent Redistricting Committee.
Taylor praised the independent process and told the committee:
“let's not focus on where elected officials live”
He warned against creating districts because politicians were attempting to:
“protect somebody or write someone out”
Taylor said he believed voters should determine who represents them rather than elected officials shaping districts around political considerations.
Taylor even said he did not know whether the independent maps might place existing supervisors in the same district—and that he did not think it mattered.
His stated principle was clear:
Where politicians lived shouldn't determine the lines.
Taylor Specifically Said Keeping Franklin Whole Was Important
Taylor didn't speak only in generalities.
He specifically discussed Franklin.
Taylor criticized an earlier state legislative configuration that carved a “sliver of Franklin” into a district with Oak Creek and South Milwaukee.
He attributed that earlier arrangement to political considerations involving the seats of then-state representatives Mark Honadel and Jeff Stone and identified himself as someone who might eventually have sought Stone's office.
Those were Taylor's allegations about the motives behind that earlier map—not an independently established finding about why those boundaries were drawn.
Taylor also described the administrative complications created by dividing Franklin among multiple districts.
Then he praised the municipality-whole approach.
Taylor said Franklin and Hales Corners would:
“remain whole”
and added:
“I think that's important”
Taylor explained that keeping a community together could mean having one supervisor representing it rather than dividing the municipality among several.
Taylor even offered what now sounds like a warning about what could happen when the independent map reached the County Board:
“if it starts getting chopped up, you'll know why it gets chopped.”
Taylor Was Out of Office—But He Was Participating
There is an important distinction in Taylor's role during 2021.
Taylor was not a Milwaukee County supervisor when the current districts were being drawn.
Taylor had left the County Board following the 2018 election defeat from Patti Logsdon and would not return until 2022. Milwaukee County confirms Taylor had a four-year absence from the Board before being elected again in 2022. Milwaukee County
But Taylor wasn't sitting on the sidelines.
He appeared before the Independent Redistricting Committee.
And weeks later, he was directly advocating a particular map to the elected officials who would decide which boundaries to adopt.
Six Weeks Later: “Please Support Map M”
On October 27, 2021, Taylor emailed Milwaukee County supervisors and municipal officials.
The subject line was unmistakable:
“Please Support Map M.”
Taylor told the recipients:
“I have been closely following and participating in the redistricting process.”
Map M wasn't an informal proposal. Milwaukee County's legislative record identifies it as one of six alternatives—J, K, L, K1, K2 and M—formally presented by Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), the regional planning agency that provided the technical map-drawing work for Milwaukee County's 2021 redistricting process to the County Board for consideration. Milwaukee County Legistar
But Map M did not keep Franklin whole.
It divided Franklin between proposed supervisory districts.
That creates the first TAYLOR credibility question:
Why did Taylor tell the Independent Redistricting Committee that keeping Franklin whole was important—and then, only weeks later, actively advocate a map that divided Franklin?
Taylor's October email does not answer that question.
Map M Wasn't Simply Adopted as the Final Map
An important distinction should be made.
The original Map M Taylor advocated was not simply adopted unchanged as Milwaukee County's final supervisory map.
After the Independent Redistricting Committee's Map L was rejected on October 22, the County Board proceeded to consider additional alternatives. The official legislative record shows that on October 29 the Board worked from Map K1 and approved multiple amendments in developing its tentative supervisory plan. Milwaukee County Legistar
So it would be inaccurate to say Taylor's Map M simply became the current map.
But that does not eliminate the credibility question.
The relevant fact is simpler:
The specific map Taylor asked supervisors to support divided Franklin—despite Taylor having said only weeks earlier that keeping Franklin whole was important.
Taylor Warned Against Protecting Incumbents—Then Incumbency Became Part of the Process
There is another part of the 2021 redistricting record that provides important context for Taylor's criticism today.
When Taylor appeared before the Independent Redistricting Committee in September 2021, he was explicit about incumbency.
Taylor said:
“let's not focus on where elected officials live”
and warned against creating districts because politicians were attempting to:
“protect somebody or write someone out”
Taylor said voters should determine who represents them—not elected officials shaping districts around political considerations.
Taylor had expressed essentially the same principle years earlier. In discussing the independent redistricting ordinance he helped advance, Taylor said the process was designed far enough ahead of the next redistricting that there would be “no self interest to protect.” Urban Milwaukee
But by October 2021, the process Taylor had championed had changed substantially.
After the County Board rejected the Independent Redistricting Committee's final recommended map, supervisors assumed greater control over the process. SEWRPC produced additional alternatives, including Map M—the map Taylor personally urged supervisors to support on October 27. Contemporary reporting shows Map M was favored by several supervisors but ultimately failed before the full County Board on an 8-10 vote. Urban Milwaukee
The Board then moved forward with Map K1 and began considering amendments.
That is when the very issue Taylor had warned about—where individual politicians lived—became unmistakably part of the mapmaking discussion.
Supervisor Sylvia Ortiz-Velez introduced an amendment specifically designed to place then-County Board Chairwoman Marcelia Nicholson in District 10 without another incumbent in that district. Ortiz-Velez told her colleagues that Nicholson would still have to face the voters regardless of where she was placed and that voters should decide whether to reelect her. Urban Milwaukee
The amendment passed.
Importantly, Nicholson said she had not requested the amendment or asked that her incumbency be protected, and she voted against it. Urban Milwaukee
The episode is directly relevant to Taylor's current criticism of the 2021 process.
Taylor was actively participating in that process while out of office. He appeared before the Independent Redistricting Committee, communicated directly with County supervisors and municipal officials, and described himself in his October 27 email as having been “closely following and participating in the redistricting process.”
And Taylor's own standard had been unequivocal:
Don't focus on where elected officials live. Don't draw districts to protect somebody or write somebody out.
Yet the process ultimately included an amendment expressly drawn around the placement of the sitting County Board chairwoman, Marcelia Nicholson-Bovell.
Five years later, Taylor is criticizing supervisors for “changing district numbers” and “changing lines” and warning against supervisors playing with boundaries “to benefit them personally.”
That makes Taylor's own 2021 warning especially relevant today:
If protecting incumbents and considering politicians' addresses violated the principles Taylor advocated, how does he assess a 2021 process in which incumbent placement became an explicit consideration—and what did he say or do about it while he was actively participating in that process?
That question becomes even more significant when considered alongside Taylor's own Map M advocacy and the eventual Franklin configuration that placed Taylor and Patti Logsdon in separate supervisory districts.
And Where Did Taylor Ultimately Land?
The redistricting process ultimately left Franklin divided.
Taylor resides in Franklin, and the current District 17 includes eastern Franklin along with Oak Creek. Milwaukee County's official Board materials confirm Taylor represents District 17 and that district numbers changed as a result of the decennial redistricting. Milwaukee County
Patti Logsdon represents District 9, which includes western Franklin and Hales Corners. Milwaukee County
The result was that Taylor and Logsdon were no longer in the same supervisory district.
The final configuration also created an unusual representational dynamic. District 17 includes all of Oak Creek along with a portion of eastern Franklin, yet its supervisor, Steve Taylor, resides in Franklin. Oak Creek is now the more populous of the two cities—an estimated 38,296 residents in 2025 compared with Franklin's 36,687—although Franklin is geographically larger by land area. The result is that all of Oak Creek is represented on the County Board by a Franklin resident, while Franklin itself is divided between supervisory districts.
That history is particularly noteworthy because Logsdon had been elected to Taylor's former District 9 seat in 2018. The County identifies Logsdon as first elected in April 2018 and Taylor as returning to the Board after a four-year absence in 2022. Milwaukee County
Taylor subsequently ran for District 17.
He had no named opponent.
Milwaukee County's 2022 election results show Taylor receiving 3,066 votes, with another 64 write-in votes cast. Milwaukee County
Coincidence? The available records do not answer that question.
Nor do the records reviewed by FCN establish that Taylor drew the Franklin boundary, requested that his residence be placed in District 17 or supported Map M because of its potential electoral consequences.
But the geography is relevant when Taylor himself now says politicians' personal interests should not influence district lines.
Taylor Is Now Criticizing What Happened in 2021
That makes Taylor's September 2026 comments particularly noteworthy.
The County is now conducting an official review of the independent redistricting process. File 26-675 examines lessons from the previous cycle and possible changes before the redistricting following the 2030 Census. Milwaukee County Legistar
The review itself originated with a 2026 budget amendment sponsored by Taylor along with Supervisors Sequanna Taylor, Shawn Rolland and Deanna Alexander. The amendment specifically requested an evaluation of the independent process used for the 2022 supervisory elections. Milwaukee County Legistar
Corporation Counsel Scott Brown told the committee that County officials had met with Taylor and others while conducting what Brown described as a “postmortem” of the previous process. Preliminary recommendations included earlier stakeholder involvement, establishing the sequence of operations in advance and continuing to use SEWRPC as the technical map-drawing entity.
County Clerk George Christenson likewise said the 2021 process demonstrated the value of an independent body but identified several areas for improvement, including greater stakeholder participation, greater diversity on the Independent Redistricting Committee and clearer separation between SEWRPC's technical map preparation and policy deliberations.
Then Taylor spoke.
And once again, he specifically discussed keeping municipalities together.
Taylor referenced the municipality-whole approach involving:
Oak Creek, South Milwaukee, Franklin, Hales Corners, Greendale, Greenfield and the North Shore.
He discussed the benefit of having one supervisor representing a community rather than splitting it among several. He also acknowledged that Voting Rights Act considerations can complicate a municipality-whole approach.
That sounds remarkably similar to what Taylor told the Independent Redistricting Committee in 2021.
Taylor's Principles Have Remained Consistent. What About the Map He Supported?
Taylor's publicly stated principles in 2021 and 2026 are largely consistent:
Keep communities together.
Don't focus on where politicians live.
Don't manipulate district lines for politicians' personal benefit.
Let voters determine who represents them.
Make the process transparent.
The credibility question arises from what Taylor advocated between those statements.
The chronology is straightforward:
2018 — Taylor leaves the County Board; defeated by Logsdon, Patti Logsdon is first elected to District 9. Milwaukee County
September 17, 2021 — Taylor tells the Independent Redistricting Committee not to focus on politicians' residences, opposes drawing districts to protect or eliminate politicians and says keeping Franklin whole is important.
October 27, 2021 — While still out of office, Taylor says he has been “closely following and participating” in redistricting and urges supervisors to “Please Support Map M.”
Map M — The proposal Taylor advocated divides Franklin. It is formally among the maps considered by the County Board. Milwaukee County Legistar
Late 2021 — The County Board makes additional changes. Map M itself is not simply adopted unchanged. Milwaukee County Legistar
Final configuration — Franklin remains divided, with Taylor and Logsdon in different supervisory districts.
2022 — Taylor runs in District 17 without a named opponent and returns to the County Board after four years away. Milwaukee County
September 2026 — Taylor again advocates transparency and keeping communities together and says safeguards are needed so supervisors don't “play around with lines to benefit them personally,” adding:
“that is exactly what happened and frankly that's why I'm here”
A Question of Credibility
That chronology does not establish that Steve Taylor manipulated Milwaukee County's district boundaries (well maybe).
It does something different.
It puts Taylor's current criticism of the 2021 process beside Taylor's own participation in that same process.
Taylor says today that politicians shouldn't manipulate lines for personal benefit.
Taylor said in 2021 that politicians' addresses shouldn't matter.
Taylor said keeping Franklin whole was important.
Taylor warned that if the independent map were chopped up, people would know why.
Then Taylor urged supervisors to support a map that split Franklin.
When redistricting was finished, Taylor and the supervisor elected to his former seat were in different districts.
Taylor then returned to the County Board from District 17 without a named opponent.
Now Taylor says politicians manipulated district lines for personal benefit during that same 2021 process.
That is Taylor's allegation.
The available evidence does not establish that Taylor personally engineered the Franklin split or that his support for Map M was motivated by a future candidacy.
But if Taylor expects the public to scrutinize what other politicians did during the 2021 redistricting process, his own participation deserves scrutiny under the same factual standard.
That leaves Taylor with two questions raised by his own record:
Why did Steve Taylor advocate Map M after publicly saying that keeping Franklin whole was important?
And when Taylor says today that politicians manipulated district lines for their personal benefit in 2021:
Does he believe his own participation in that process should be examined under the same standard?
Those questions do not require speculation about Taylor's motives.
They require Taylor to explain how the map he supported fits the redistricting principles he advocated before it—and is advocating again today.
This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.
Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.
