Judge rules for Dems in redistricting suit

A state district judge has ruled that while Democratic lawmakers may have worked to dilute Republican voting power in one of the state's three congressional districts, their efforts did not rise to the level of "of an egregious gerrymander."

The ruling by Ninth Judicial District Judge Fred T. Van Soelen of Clovis struck a blow to the plaintiffs in the case, including the Republican Party of New Mexico, who sued in January 2022. The GOP argued the Democratic-majority Legislature purposefully redrew the map for the 2nd Congressional District to give Democrats a better shot at winning the formerly Republican-leaning district.

Van Soelen's 14-page ruling, which comes after a two-day trial held in Lovington, said while Democrats "succeeded in substantially diluting their opponents' votes" by dividing the GOP's stronghold of votes in southeastern New Mexico between all three congressional districts, the Republican plaintiffs did not provide "sufficient evidence that the defendants were successful in their attempt to entrench their party" in the district.

The Republicans plan to appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court, said Steve Pearce, chairman of the state GOP.

"The Republican Party of New Mexico believes the fight is too important to accept this setback without contest," he wrote in an email.

The ruling, he said, is "bigger than Republican or Democrat. It struck at the heart of our republic, the form of government that allows all beliefs to have a voice."

The Senate's Democratic leadership, who were among the defendants, praised the ruling.

"Senate Bill 1 created three competitive urban/rural districts," they said in a statement. "We believe and continue to believe that competition in elections is healthy."

Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, who was also a defendant, is pleased with the ruling, said her spokesman Alex Curtas.

"Our interest in this case is that we needed clarity about the map in order to properly plan for the 2024 elections," he wrote in an email.

Some fans of the ruling on X, formerly known as Twitter, pointed out Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Ronchetti narrowly carried the district in 2022 as evidence that the map is one in which a Republican can win.

Ronchetti beat incumbent Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham in the 2nd District by about three-tenths of 1%, even as now-U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez, a Democrat, unseated Republican incumbent Yvette Herrell by about seven-tenths of 1%.

This lack of "entrenchment" of Democratic power is one of the reasons Van Soelen, a Republican who was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Susana Martinez a decade ago, said he ruled in favor of the defendants.

Van Soelen noted the state Supreme Court held earlier in the case that "some degree of partisan gerrymandering is permissible." It is only when such gerrymanders become "egregious" and guarantee one party will win that they might be unconstitutional under state law.

"The defendants' intentions were to entrench their party in CD2, and they succeeded in substantially diluting their opponents' votes," Van Soelen wrote. "However, given the variables that go into predicting future election outcomes, coupled with the competitive outcome of the only actual election held so far under the ... map, the court finds that the plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence that the defendants were successful in their ability to entrench their party in Congressional District 2."

Van Soelen did agree with Republican lawmakers who testified they were "effectively shut out of meaningful participation" by the Democratic majority in the 2021 special session where the maps were passed. He also noted the map split nine counties — "the most in New Mexico's history," Van Soelen wrote.

Referring to the testimony of Sean Trende, a political analyst who testified for the Republican plaintiffs, Van Soelen said the new map moved "more than 20 times the number of residents" than had to be moved just to ensure roughly equal population in all three congressional districts. This led to adding about 40,000 Democratic voters to the 2nd Congressional District.

Roswell Mayor Tim Jennings, a Democrat who is a plaintiff in the case, took issue with the fact that the maps break up southeastern New Mexico's oil and gas industry among all three congressional districts, diluting its power by spreading out its federal representation among three people — all Democrats at this point.

"This is the only time in redistricting a congressional district we have singled out an industry and punished them," said Jennings. He said it would be like splitting up Santa Fe among three districts because it "isn't doing well with art sales."

Joshua Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, said the ruling makes it clear Van Soelen realized "this was done to gerrymander and improve the ability of the Democratic Party in a district where it was not well entrenched."

But, he added, Van Soelen also noted how close elections in that district have been, so his decision also came down to the role "candidate quality and turnout" play.

And, Kastenberg said, the ruling opens the door for the Republican Party to take the same approach with redistricting if it regains the majority in the state Legislature.

Kastenberg said the GOP's planned appeal could be an uphill battle since the state Supreme Court directed Van Soelen to evaluate the GOP's gerrymandering claim using a three-part test set by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent from the majority ruling in a 2019 gerrymandering case out of North Carolina.

In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled partisan gerrymandering was a matter for states and Congress, not federal courts, to regulate. Van Soelen cited that case, and Kagan's views, in his ruling.

Kagan recommended a test that first asks whether mapmakers intended to strengthen their own party's power by diluting votes for their opponents. The second question is, did the plan work? The third is whether the mapmaking body had legitimate, nonpartisan reasons for their decisions.

"I'm not sure an appeal will work, but they have the right to appeal," Kastenberg said. "If I were advising them, I would say, 'Go for it.' "