Written by McKenna Horsley for Kentucky Lantern
Kentucky’s recently redrawn congressional and legislative districts will stand for future elections.
In an opinion published Thursday morning, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate’s previous decision that the maps were a result of “partisan gerrymanders” but did not find them unconstitutional.
“Regardless of how unusual or eye-raising it may be, we must not erase it unless it plainly leaves the four corners of our constitutional frame,” the opinion, written by Justice Angela McCormick Bisig, says. “In applying the substantially deferential standard we afford to purely political acts by a coordinate branch of government, we perceive no such constitutional infirmity and thus affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the redistricting statutes pass constitutional muster.”
Kentucky Democrats filed the lawsuit after the Republican supermajority in the General Assembly adopted the maps last year. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case earlier this year, bypassing the Court of Appeals.
Justices heard oral arguments in the case in September. At the time, Michael Abate, a Louisville attorney representing Democrats, told reporters the court will have to decide if the state Constitution prohibits a majority party from gerrymandering or creating districts to heavily favor the party in power. He said elections with preordained outcomes because of gerrymandering are “not ‘free or equal,’” as the state Constitution requires.
However, Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams, a defendant in the lawsuit, said after oral arguments the case hinges on what is in the state Constitution regarding gerrymandering, not just the new maps.
“Our position is that the Constitution doesn’t speak to this issue at all. If it did, why’d the Democrats gerrymander their maps for 100 years?” Adams said. “So my view is this is a matter in the Constitution left up to the legislature, and they can use their own standards as long as they comply with the Voting Rights Act.”
Justice Christopher Shea Nickell, concurring with the majority opinion in part while also dissenting in part, wrote “ any comprehensive remedy for the deleterious effects of partisan gerrymandering must be addressed through the political process.”
“Should the people discern egregious, arrogant political abuse upon review of the legislative redistricting plans enacted by their elected representatives in the General Assembly, their ultimate remedy lies in a constitutional amendment or expulsion of the perpetrators at the polls,” Nickell said. “In short, review and remedy of controversies related to political gerrymandering reside with the people.”
Justice Robert B. Conley, in dissent, wrote he agreed with much of the court’s analysis but disagreed that Democrats “had standing to bring such claims in the first place.”
