Opinion ID: 891859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Partisan Effect

Text: {57} I think the Majority is mistaken in thinking that the public will is measured solely or even primarily from an un-enacted legislative plan and is also mistaken in its thinking that plans can be fully partisan free. The legislative plan passed with all Republicans and some Democrats voting against passage. The Governor, elected by a will of the majority of voters, vetoed the plan. No attempt was made to override the veto. A highly qualified and experienced retired First Judicial District Court (Santa Fe) judge, who reflected no partisanship, scrupulously studied the facts and the law, and came to a considered and principled determination. Lawyers known to be highly partisan on both sides presented evidence and arguments. The Majority's view that thoughtful consideration means give more credence to the un-enacted legislative plan than to that offered and eventually modified by the Executive has no basis in law or reason. In no way has the will of the majority of the people or the voice of the people been muzzle[d,] Majority Opinion ¶¶ 21, 32-33, in the process here. {58} In challenging partisan effect, Petitioners Jennings and Lujan, as well as Maestas, indicated in their opening briefs that unlawful partisan bias is to be significant. In their petition for writ of superintending control, Petitioners Maestas and Egolf used the phrases blatant partisan bias and demonstrably partisan effect. Petitioner Egolf used severe in his opening brief. Petitioners Jennings and Lujan also used the phrase significant partisan change in their response brief. The Majority faults Judge Hall for not slow[ing] the process down enough to determine whether the significant partisan performance changes could have been ameliorated[.] (Emphasis added.) Majority Opinion ¶ 40. Yet the Majority has not shown how any partisan effect here rises to a level of significance, severity, or blatancy sufficient to call for Judge Hall to rethink his work to arrive at less partisan change[,] id.; Majority Order 20 (¶¶ 2-3), much less to arrive at the Majority's required neutrality. Nor has the Majority shown how a new plan addressing a purported Republican swing-seat advantage will not result in an attackable maintenance of some Democratic advantage. Judge Hall certainly did not indicate, with respect to swing seats, that there existed significant Republican partisan performance advantage and, when one considers Mr. Sanderoff's full testimony, Judge Hall could in his sound discretion have refused to view any Republican performance swing-seat advantage as justification for arriving at a different plan. Maintenance of and changes in seats of one party or the other is an understandable effect of the reapportionment process. As the majority recognizes, Judge Hall sat as a judge in a court of equity. Majority Order 6 (¶ 3). Considerably more must exist here to say that Judge Hall abused his discretion.