Dem lawyers argue against ‘democracy’ to defend gerrymandered maps in court

On Monday, the New Mexico Supreme Court heard arguments on a lawsuit brought by the Republican Party of New Mexico and other plaintiffs regarding the Democrats’ extremely partisan gerrymandered congressional map that resulted in Republicans losing representation in the state’s Second Congressional District. The case is 

On the side of Democrat Gov. Lujan Grisham, Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, and others, attorney Sara N. Sanchez argued that the state Supreme Court had absolutely no right to rule on the case, claiming they had no legal authority even in “extreme” cases.

She said, “Given the fact that there are no binding standards, then yes, Even in the extreme case, that is not justiciable by the court unless until New Mexico adopts a constitutional amendment, legislaton, something that it provides that almost half of the other states have seen fit to do that provides a check on that process.”

Justice Briana H. Zamora said, “I’m concerned with barring forever, assuming there’s no statutory or constitutional amendments, claims of this nature, even in the most egregious cases because we obviously recognizing it’s political, I think the dissent in Rucho recognizes it’s political. But for the really egregious extreme cases to ever bar a claim is concerning to me,” referring to the U.S. Supreme Court case Rucho v. Common Cause. 

“If this court remands for further fact-finding, discovery, etc., we could engage in that all until the cows come home, but it’s not going to change the fact of what this map does and what the plaintiffs are complaining about,” claimed Sanchez.

She then requested, “I would urge the court to consider that it would be the type of decision that would call for a heightened pleading standard where what is being presented shocks the conscience, is of such an extreme nature,” adding, “I would request such a high bar if the court decides to go in that direction.” 

Justice Michael E. Vigil asked regarding diluting citizens’ votes, “Isn’t that the very antithesis of what a democracy is?” 

The Democrats’ other attorney, Holly Agajanian, representing Lujan Grisham, argued strangely against democracy. She said, “Just because something is considered anti-democratic doesn’t mean the court has to step in. And I know that doesn’t feel right based on what everything we think justice is. It feels funny for me to say that. But at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that’s the case. Because in our system of government… These anti-democratic effects we see can only be remedied through the legislature.” 

Attorney for the plaintiffs, Daniel J. Gallegos, argued the maps drawn by the Democrat legislature are a “violation of the state’s equal protection clause,” citing the Legislature throwing out all the maps proposed by the Citizens Redistricting Committee and instead drawing their own hyper-partisan map.

Gallegos referred to other evidence, including soon-to-be former House Speaker Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe) and other lawmakers blatantly bragging about how this map would help Democrats and harm Republicans. These arguments, as well as the communities of interest “cracked” in parts, violates citizens’ rights via “vote dilution.”

Right before 3:00 p.m., the court adjourned, with Chief Justice C. Shannon Bacon saying the Court would need time to deliberate before coming back with a decision, citing no extreme time constraints. However, Bacon said, “We will get you the outcome as soon as practicable.”