Opinion ID: 891859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Partisan performance changes.

Text: On remand, the goal of any plan should be to devise a plan that is partisan-neutral and fair to both sides. If the district court chooses to begin with the plan it adopted previously, it should address the partisan performance changes and bias noted in this order, and if the bias can be corrected or ameliorated with enunciated non-discriminatory application of historical, legitimate, and rational state policies, including through the use of higher population deviations, then the district court should do so. Remand Order at p. 20. In reviewing the Remand Order and Opinion, the Supreme Court identified the following partisan performance changes and bias in the First Court-Adopted Plan: 1) the First Court-Adopted Plan increased Republican swing seats from five to eight over prior executive plans (Remand Order at p. 14); 2) the number of majority Republican districts increased from 31 in the original executive plan to 34 in the First Court Adopted Plan (Remand Order at pp. 14-15); and 3) the incumbent pairings in the First Court-Adopted Plan contributed to partisan performance changes. (Remand Order at p. 15). [10] While the Remand Order compares the First Court-Adopted Plan to earlier executive plans in terms of majority Republican districts and Republican swing seats, the Opinion focuses more on the status quo: [M]aintaining the political ratios as close to the status quo as is practicable, accounting for any changes in statewide trends, will honor the neutrality required in such a politically-charged case. Opinion at pp. 21-22. The first step for this Court in carrying out the direction of the Supreme Court is to identify what constitutes the status quo in terms of the political ratios to be maintained. The Supreme Court gives no specific guidance on this issue. Both at the trial and in briefs submitted on remand, several parties argued that the Court should adopt the present political ratio between Republicans and Democrats in the New Mexico House of Representatives as the status quo. See, e.g., Sena Plaintiffs Objections to Preliminary Plans No. 1 and 2, at p. 31. This Court rejects that approach because it places too much emphasis on the outcome of the most recent election. One need only consider the difference in results between the last two elections (2008 and 2010) to conclude that no single election accurately reflects the status quo for the State of New Mexico. Instead, this Court concludes that a more appropriate measure of the status quo is the partisan make up of the current districts as reflected in the political performance data for each district as compiled by Research & Polling, Inc. [11] Although the trial testimony contained some criticism of the Research and Polling formula, the formula does have the advantage of considering elections over the majority of the most recent decade, as opposed to focusing on a single election. Applying this measure to the current districts, the political ratio for the status quo is 32 Republican majority districts and 38 Democrat majority districts. Because the Supreme Court Opinion mandates that the political ratios be maintained at the status quo, the Final District Court Plan incorporates the ratio of 32 Republican majority districts and 38 Democrat majority districts. [12] In order to reach the political ratio under the status quo as required by the Supreme Court, this Court adjusted district boundaries for two districts so that those districts moved from slight Republican majority districts to slight Democrat majority districts. The two districts selected were District 32 and District 49. The Court selected these two districts because they are slight Democrat majority districts in the current plan. If one of the goals of the Supreme Court remand is to maintain the political ratios that exist under the status quo, it made sense to consider these districts so that they do not change their slight majority Democrat status in the current plan. In addition, it should be noted that both of these districts remain competitive districts. In the Remand Order and Opinion, the Supreme Court also noted that Republican swing seats increased in the First Court-Adopted Plan as compared to earlier executive plans. The First Court-Adopted Plan included eleven Republican majority districts within the swing seat category (defined as 50% to 53.9%) and five Democrat majority seats within the swing seat category. Although it is not completely clear, it appears that the Supreme Court was concerned that the First Court-Adopted Plan contained significantly more Republican majority seats in the swing category, thereby giving Republicans a slight advantage in closely contested districts. To address this concern, the Final District Court Plan includes a total of fifteen districts in the swing category. Of these, eight are Republican majority districts and seven are Democrat majority districts. In the current districts, there are nine Republican majority districts and six Democrat majority districts. While the distribution of those seats across the spectrum from 50% to 53.9% can never be identical between the parties, the distribution resulting in the Final District Court Plan is relatively symmetrical. See the Political Performance chart attached to Preliminary Plan No. 1. Finally, it is worth noting that the Final District Court Plan maintains very similar political performance percentages in the individual swing districts, as compared to the current districts. [13] In the Opinion, the Supreme Court notes that [c]ompetitive districts are healthy in our representative government because competitive districts allow for the ability of voters to express changed political opinions and preferences. Opinion at p. 31. In the Final District Court Plan, the competitive seats under the current plan remain competitive.