Filed Date: Jan. 20, 2022
Closed Date: Dec. 14, 2023
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about partisan gerrymandering in Kentucky.
On January 20, 2022, plaintiffs—the Kentucky Democratic party, a Kentucky state representative, and four Kentucky voters—filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky against defendants the Kentucky Secretary of State and Kentucky State Board of Elections. The plaintiffs (represented by private counsel) brought claims under the Kentucky Constitution alleging that electoral maps enacted by the Kentucky legislature were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The plaintiffs sought a declaration and an injunction preventing the electoral maps from being implemented.
Following the 2020 Census, the Kentucky legislature enacted new maps for its 100 state house districts and 6 U.S. congressional districts. These maps, called HB 2 and SB 3 respectively, were enacted on January 20, 2022 after the legislature overrode the Governor’s veto. The same day of the veto override, plaintiffs filed the complaint.
On January 27, 2022, the state of Kentucky moved to intervene as defendant. Kentucky’s motion to intervene as a defendant was granted on February 10, 2022.
Plaintiffs moved for an injunction on January 28, 2022. On February 4, 2022, Kentucky moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Judge Thomas D. Wingate denied both motions on February 17, 2022.
A non-jury trial was held in front of Judge Thomas D. Wingate on April 5-7, 2022. Following the trial, in a November 10, 2022 order, the court found that the challenged maps were partisan gerrymanders but nevertheless constitutional. The Court reasoned that none of the sections of the Kentucky constitution relied on by plaintiffs prohibited partisan gerrymandering.
On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order in its decision on December 14, 2023. The Kentucky Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s interpretation of the sections of the Kentucky Constitution relied upon by plaintiff. The Kentucky Supreme Court also held that while it may be possible for partisan gerrymandering to rise to the level of a constitutional violation, the maps challenged by plaintiffs could not be flagrantly unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders for only affecting 3 out of 100 state house seats and 0 of 6 Congressional seats.
Summary Authors
James Brennan (12/29/2024)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 1:31 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Kentucky
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 20, 2022
Closing Date: Dec. 14, 2023
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Kentucky Democratic party, a Kentucky state representative, and four Kentucky voters
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: