New Mexico Supreme Court to hear GOP challenge to congressional map

Jan. 8—After several months of delays, the state Supreme Court will hear a case this week challenging New Mexico's new congressional maps.

The hearing, scheduled for Monday, comes about three months after the state's highest court ordered a stay in proceedings in a lawsuit brought by the Republican Party of New Mexico contending the newly redistricted maps of the state's three congressional districts amount to a political gerrymander.

Monday's arguments will focus on whether claims of partisan gerrymandering can be decided by the state courts or whether, as the Democratic defendants contend, congressional maps are a policy matter that falls under the Legislature's purview. If the state Supreme Court sides with the Democrats, the case could be dead. If the justices side with the Republicans, the case would go back to the district court level, where it started early last year.

In the long run, the stakes could be high for both major political parties. A win for the GOP on Monday would send the case back to district court with the possibility, if the plaintiffs prevail down the line, that the Legislature will be ordered to return to the state Capitol and redraw the congressional maps, said the GOP's lawyer, Carter B. Harrison IV.

"[The] Supreme Court will either say that a partisan-gerrymandering claim can't be brought at all (i.e. no one can bring one, not just that we haven't met our burden) or will say that a claim can be brought and outline some of the standards for what constitutes judicially correctable partisan gerrymandering," Harrison wrote in an email.

Monday's hearing — which could be ruled on as soon as the same day — is the latest chapter in a still-evolving story about the often contentious process of redrawing the maps for state legislative and congressional seats every 10 years after the census.

When New Mexico lawmakers met in a special session late in 2021 to draw new maps, many said that no matter how the maps came out, lawsuits would follow.

They were right.

Shortly after the new maps were approved by the heavily Democratic Legislature and signed into law by Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, the state Republican Party and six other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to stop the new congressional map from moving forward. The legal complaint said lawmakers "ran roughshod" over traditional redistricting methods to give Democrats an advantage.

Under the previous map, Republican voters in southeastern New Mexico were mostly grouped within a single congressional district, creating one district that usually elected a Republican and two that usually elected a Democrat. Now, the plaintiffs say, those voters are split among all three of the state's congressional districts, diluting their voting power.

Some critics say those redrawn maps played a role in the November defeat of former U.S. Rep. Yvette Herrell in the state's 2nd Congressional District, which left New Mexico with an all-Democratic congressional delegation.

The suit names Lujan Grisham, Lt. Gov. Howie Morales, Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque, and House Speaker Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, as defendants. (Egolf did not run for reelection and will be relinquishing his House seat and role as speaker later this month.)

Initially, lawyers for Lujan Grisham and Democratic lawmakers asked state 9th District Judge Fred T. Van Soelen to throw the case out. Last April, Van Soelen ruled the case could go forward but said he would not make a final ruling until 2023 because of the short amount of time left to create a new map before the 2022 primary elections in June and general election in November. In July, the Democratic defendants asked the state Supreme Court to stay the proceedings and to rule on whether the issue of gerrymandering can be tried in court under the state Constitution.

Steve Pearce, chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, wrote in an email last week his organization is hopeful the New Mexico Supreme Court will rule the Legislature's maps "were a blatant case of partisan gerrymandering."

"The new boundaries were strictly for political gain and to ensure Republicans could not win certain races," he wrote. "This was an obvious case of partisanship and designed to stop GOP momentum last November. This illegal gerrymandering certainly played a role in Republican setbacks this past election. We look forward to the Court making a just and proper ruling."

Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, said if the court agrees with Pearce, the Legislature would likely convene a special session, as it did before, on redistricting. He said if the Legislature ignores or delays the court order, the court could appoint an independent mapmaker to draw the maps for the state.

New Mexico is not the only state dealing with a redistricting lawsuit. According to the Brennan Center's website, as of Dec. 21, "73 cases have been filed challenging congressional and legislative maps in 27 states as racially discriminatory and/or partisan gerrymanders, of which 48 remain pending at either the trial or appellate levels."

The center reported litigation has led to court orders to redraw legislative and/or congressional maps in several states, including Alaska, New York and Ohio.

Li said nationally there is "pretty much an equal number of Democrats and Republicans filing litigation to turn over maps."

The New Mexico case is playing out as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule later this year on a similar case in North Carolina. There, the state's Supreme Court said the Legislature's congressional redistricting map amounted to partisan gerrymandering on the part of Republicans.

The court ordered lawmakers to redraw the maps. Instead, some North Carolina Republican lawmakers appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to decide if the state Supreme Court has the right to make such redistricting decisions. North Carolina Republicans are arguing no, citing the "independent state legislature" theory, which holds that state legislatures have sole authority over the conduct of federal elections in their states, which cannot be limited by state courts or constitutions or any other state-level power. The court is expected to revisit the case this summer.

Li said that decision could impact every state in the country when it comes to redistricting. Ultimately, he said, it's possible Congress "could come in and mandate how you draw districts."

Li said he's not surprised by the number of redistricting court cases popping up around the country.

"In America, we make maps and fight about them in court," he said with a laugh.