The Kentucky Supreme Court on Dec. 14 ruled against Democrats challenging new congressional maps approved by the GOP-controlled legislature, handing a win to Republicans.
Democrats had argued that the redrawn districts violated Kentucky’s Constitution in several regards, including splitting counties. They also said the maps were the result of partisan gerrymanders, in violation of the Constitution.
Partisan considerations do influence redistricting but that does not mean the new maps are unconstitutional, Kentucky’s highest court said.
“Legislative apportionment is an inherently political process assigned to the General Assembly. An expectation that apportionment will be free of partisan considerations would thus not only be unrealistic, but also inconsistent with our Constitution’s assignment of responsibility for that process to an elected political body,” Justice Angela McCormick Bisig wrote for the majority.
She said that the way the maps were redrawn “does not rise to the level of a clear, flagrant, or unwarranted deviation from constitutional limitations or a threat to our democratic form of government.”
Redistricting happens once a decade. The process is done to incorporate shifts in the state population. Both state and congressional districts are redrawn in redistricting.
Kentucky legislators approved new maps in 2022. Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, vetoed the maps, but legislators overrode the vetoes.
The Kentucky Supreme Court took into account alternative maps put forth by state Democrats. Under the Republican-drawn maps in the 2022 elections, Republicans won 80 state House seats, and Democrats won 20.
Democrats would have won three more seats under the Democrat-drawn maps.
Justices said they could not find that a three-seat disparity involved a level of partisanship that would violate constitutional rights.
They also noted that according to witness testimony in the case, both maps would result in five Republicans and one Democrat representing Kentucky in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a Republican, said the ruling reaffirmed that the redistricting “is an overwhelmingly and inherently political process that is committed to the General Assembly by our Constitution.”
“Because the elected policymakers closely followed the court’s precedent in this area, the validity of the redistricting bills should never have been in doubt,” he added.
Kentucky Democratic Party Chairman Colmon Elridge said the ruling “will be an important bulwark against future efforts to draw more extreme partisan gerrymandered maps in Kentucky” while accusing Republicans of “work[ing] behind closed doors to draw districts that cut up communities for partisan gain to beat incumbents.”
The alternative maps split counties 60 times, compared to the 80 times in the Republican maps, among other differences.
Multiple witnesses, including Princeton University statistician Kosuke Imai, testified for the Democrats, saying the redrawn maps made Republican-leaning districts redder and reduced the Democrat advantage in Democrat-leaning districts. Several other witnesses, though, including University of Kentucky political scientist Stephen Voss, said for Republicans that the maps adhered to features of the state, including its geographic features.
The ruling upheld a lower court ruling from Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate.
Democrats established that redistricting bills “are partisan gerrymanders” but the state Constitution “does not explicitly prohibit the General Assembly from making partisan considerations during the apportionment process,” Judge Wingate wrote in that ruling. He said that the court “must base its holding not on what is perceived as being most just or fair, but instead on what is provided for in the Kentucky Constitution.”
Most justices, but several dissented.
Justice Robert Conley said he agreed with much of the analysis in the majority opinion but was dissenting because he did not think Democrats had standing to bring their claims.
Under court precedent, plaintiffs must have suffered “an injury in fact,” while Democrats’ challenge was based on voter dilution theories, he said.
Justice Debra Hembree Lambert joined in that dissent.
Justice Michelle Keller dissented in part over the majority’s ruling on whether the redrawn maps violated parts of the Constitution governing redistricting.
“I am of the opinion that the violations before us today rise to intolerable levels when all of Section 33’s text is given proper consideration and weight,” she wrote.
The Constitution states that legislators must make districts that “are nearly equal in population as may be without dividing any county, except where a county may include more than one district” … and that districts must join together no more than two counties.
“Today, the Majority of this Court reaffirms our repeated dilution of Section 33’s explicit requirements,” Judge Keller said.
Mr. Beshear, who was just re-elected, told reporters Thursday he had not yet reviewed the new ruling from the Kentucky Supreme Court.
”I’ll be looking to see if the Supreme Court ruled how I think they ruled, and that’s that it’s okay to gerrymander on purely partisan intentions,” he said. “And if that’s the ruling it’s concerning. It’s not the way that government should operate. If it takes a constitutional amendment, I think we should pursue one.”
From The Epoch Times
