High court upholds redistricting plans
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Nov. 29—CONCORD — A divided New Hampshire Supreme Court has ended a legal dispute over redistricting plans for the state Senate and Executive Council, concluding that the topic was a political question beyond the legal reach of the judicial branch.
The 3-2 ruling issued Wednesday upheld the redistricting bills that were adopted by the Republican-led Legislature in 2021 in spite of Democrats' claims that the bills amounted to partisan gerrymandering.
The ruling was precedent-setting, because in the past the court had not ruled on whether justices could strike down redistricting if maps gave a decided advantage to the party in power.
In the majority finding, Associate Justice Patrick Donovan said the court concluded this was a political, "non justiciable" question in large part because neither state laws nor the New Hampshire Constitution define partisan gerrymandering.
"We have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority," Donovan wrote.
Justices James Bassett and Gary Hicks dissented in that decision, pointing out this was the first time in state history the court had used this logic to decline to rule on a controversy.
"It is implausible to suggest that partisan gerrymandering is uniquely immune to judicial standards," the dissenters wrote.
The three in the court's majority were nominated by Republican Gov. Chris Sununu.
Former Democratic Gov. John Lynch had nominated the two dissenters.
Attorney General John Formella praised the court's decision.
"This opinion means that in New Hampshire, partisan and political questions related to redistricting will continue to be placed where they belong: in the hands of the people's elected representatives," Formella said.
The lawsuit had maintained the plans violated three provisions of the Constitution — the equal protection, free speech and association clauses.
Gov. Chris Sununu agreed that partisan gerrymandering was "horrible" and said that was why in 2021 he vetoed two plans by the Republican-led Legislature to reapportion the state's two congressional districts.
"You should never gerrymander anything...to me if it looks like gerrymandering and smells like gerrymandering, then it is," Sununu said.
One of the plans Sununu rejected would have put the hometowns of Democratic U.S. Reps. Chris Pappas and Annie Kuster in the same district.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court stepped in and became the only state court in the country to assume the power of state lawmakers to redraw the redistricting maps.
The high court's plan moved only a few small towns from one congressional district to another.
A group of 10 Democrats, including former House Speaker Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth, brought the suit.
In their filing, they said that while Republican candidates got fewer than 50% of the total votes for Executive Council, they nonetheless won four of the five races.
They contend this was because the GOP-led Legislature "packed" the Second District seat on the Executive Council to make it overwhelmingly more Democrat-leading and make the other four districts more Republican-leaning.
Asked if he thought either the Senate or council redistricting plans amounted to gerrymandering, Sununu told reporters, "No."
The court upheld a superior court's ruling that had dismissed this suit on the same grounds the majority used to decide its appeal.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, national Campaign Legal Center and the Elias Law Group had supported the lawsuit challenging these plans.
