The 14-page ruling issued Oct. 6 will be challenged by the state’s GOP, but it virtually ensures New Mexico’s three congressional districts—all represented by Democrats—will remain as they are for the 2024 elections.
How and where those court decisions shake out could have significant repercussions in Congress, potentially making it structurally more difficult for Republicans to expand or sustain their current 222–212 U.S. House majority in 2024’s elections.
The complaint alleged the congressional map redrawn by the state legislature during a 2021 special session and signed into law by Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham was done “in contravention of traditional redistricting principles … to accomplish a political gerrymander that unconstitutionally dilutes the votes of residents of southeastern New Mexico in order to achieve partisan advantage.”
The suit was filed in Clovis, where a state district court judge determined plaintiffs had “a strong, well-developed case that [the 2021 map] is an unlawful political gerrymander that dilutes Republican votes in congressional races in New Mexico.”
The state appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. In July, it ruled the lawsuit was “justiciable”—justified—under state law and sent the case back to the state 9th Judicial District Court and Judge Fred Van Soelen.
The Supreme Court gave the state circuit court an Oct. 1 deadline to issue its ruling. It extended that deadline to Oct. 6 following a Sept. 27–28 trial.
Attorneys for the state’s GOP argued the Democratic-led Legislature intentionally diluted Republican votes in the state’s Congressional District 2 (CD2), which had “leaned Republican.”
Plaintiffs presented emails between Democrat officials that showed they reapportioned the state’s three congressional districts to ensure a “balancing” of districts, each with 53 percent or above of registered Democrat voters.
GOP: Gerrymander Led to Flip
In the 2022 midterms, Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) unseated Republican incumbent Yvette Herrell by 50.32 percent to 49.68 percent, less than 1,500 votes.In the ruling, Judge Van Soelen wrote that “objective evidence presented shows the resulting dilution of the plaintiffs’ vote was substantial” but not enough of “an egregious partisan gerrymander” to be unconstitutional under state law.
“Some degree of a partisan gerrymander is permissible,” he wrote. “It is only when partisan gerrymanders are ‘egregious’ that Constitutional protections are indicated.”
While the Legislature intended to “entrench their party in [CD 2], and they succeeded in substantially diluting their opponents’ votes,” given “variables that go into predicting future election outcomes, coupled with the competitive outcome of the only actual election held so far” under the map, plaintiffs did not provide evidence to show that the defendants were “successful in their attempt to entrench their party in Congressional District 2,” he wrote.
Mr. Pearce said Judge Van Soelen acknowledged CD 2’s partisan gerrymandering but somehow decided a shift “18 points in favor of Democrats” was not “egregious enough.”
“The gerrymandered districts disenfranchise the votes of all conservative voters: Hispanic, Native American, Black, and all other pro-family, pro-parent, pro-gun, pro-life voters, farmers, and oil and gas workers,” he said. “Democrat, Republican, and Independents alike have lost their voice. New Mexico’s primary industry is undermined, and jobs are at stake.”
The state’s Republican Party “believes the fight is too important to accept this setback without contest,” Mr. Pearce said. “On behalf of all disenfranchised voters in the state of New Mexico, [the state GOP] will be appealing our case to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”
