Republicans have more than enough votes in the Wisconsin State Assembly to impeach Justice Protasiewicz and just enough votes in the State Senate — a two-thirds majority — to remove her. But removal would allow Governor Evers to appoint another liberal jurist, which is why Republicans don’t plan to convict and remove Protasiewicz. If, instead, the Republican-led State Senate chooses not to act on impeachment, Justice Protasiewicz is suspended but not removed. The court would then revert to a 3-3 deadlock, very likely preserving the Republican gerrymander and keeping a 19th-century abortion law, which bans the procedure, on the books.

If successful, Wisconsin Republicans will have created, in effect, an unbreakable hold on state government. With their gerrymander in place, they have an almost permanent grip on the State Legislature, with supermajorities in both chambers. With these majorities, they can limit the reach and power of any Democrat elected to statewide office and remove — or neutralize — any justice who might rule against the gerrymander.

It’s that breathtaking contempt for the people of Wisconsin — who have voted, since 2018, for a more liberal State Legislature and a more liberal State Supreme Court and a more liberal governor, with the full powers of his office available to him — that makes the Wisconsin Republican Party the most openly authoritarian in the country.

Of course, there is nothing yet written in stone. Wisconsin Republicans might, for the first time, show an ounce of restraint and refrain from taking this radical step against self-government. If they choose otherwise, Justice Protasiewicz could sue, citing her First Amendment right to free speech: The Republican case against her, after all, is that she disparaged their gerrymander in her campaign, making her “biased.” The scheme could also backfire; if Protasiewicz were to resign following an impeachment, the state would hold a new election next year. Wisconsin Republicans might then face an angry and mobilized electorate in a presidential year.

Regardless of how this specific situation plays out, it illustrates a broader problem in the structure of American political life. In the absence of national regulation — and against the backdrop of a federal Supreme Court that is, at best, apathetic on issues of voting rights — states are as liable to become laboratories of autocracy as they are to serve as laboratories of democracy. And without federal intervention to enforce a “republican form of government,” as the Constitution phrases it, the voters themselves have no other choice but to leave for greener pastures if they hope to govern themselves.