Jowei Chen, a political science professor at the University of Michigan, had a computer draw 1,000 versions of Kansas congressional maps, using non-partisan and traditional guidelines.
The results? The map Kansas lawmakers passed this year had more Republican districts than 98.8% of Chen's simulations.
"This extreme, additional level of partisan bias ... can be directly attributed to the map-drawer's clear efforts to favor the Republican Party," Chen said in a written report filed in Wyandotte County District Court.
A trial over the map approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature is set to begin Monday in Wyandotte County, where attorneys for a group of voters will attempt to prove that lawmakers produced politically and racially gerrymandered district lines that violate the Kansas Constitution.
Republicans say the lines are constitutional and fair.
The map — called Ad Astra, after the state's motto — divides Wyandotte County between two congressional districts for the first time in 40 years, cleaving apart minority communities that traditionally vote for Democrats. The new boundaries come as 3rd District Democratic U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids heads into what is expected to be a tough election cycle for congressional Democrats.
The map also places Lawrence, a Democratic-leaning city, into the solidly Republican 1st District, which encompasses the western and northcentral areas of the state. GOP lawmakers overrode Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly's veto in February to approve the map.
Three lawsuits have been filed, with two focused on voters in Wyandotte and Johnson counties and one featuring Douglas County voters. Several organizations and law firms are representing the voters, among them the ACLU of Kansas, Campaign Legal Center, the Elias Law Group, former U.S. Attorneys for Kansas Barry Grissom and Stephen McAllister, as well as Mark Johnson of Dentons.
Court documents and a hearing earlier this week provide a glimpse of what's expected at trial — the first step in a fight virtually guaranteed to be decided by the Kansas Supreme Court. That court has never struck down a congressional map, but courts in several states this year have ruled redrawn boundaries to be unfair.
Congressional maps in North Carolina, Maryland and Pennsylvania have all been tossed by judges as every state adjusts its lines to account for population changes recorded by the 2020 Census.
Three experts for the plaintiffs — all political science professors at major universities — lay out in written reports an analytical case against the Kansas map, purporting to show it gives "extreme, disproportionate advantage to the Republican Party," according to one scholar.
Another writes that the division of Black and Hispanic voters across the Kansas City metro area 3rd District and the eastern Kansas 2nd District has reduced or eliminated the ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choice in either district.
"On this plan, Republicans are likely to win nearly all of the congressional elections over the next decade while only winning 57-59% of the votes in Kansas," wrote Christopher Warshaw, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University.
Chen wrote that the map goes "beyond any 'natural' level of electoral bias" caused by state's political geography or the political composition of the state's voters. Nearly 99% of computer simulations Chen ran using non-partisan, traditional redistricting criteria created fewer Republican-leaning districts than the map passed by lawmakers.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs have also issued subpoenas to a variety of individuals, demonstrating they intend to get under the hood of the GOP-led redistricting effort. In addition to legislative leaders, individuals associated with Kansans for Life, the Kansas Policy Institute and the Kansas Chamber of Commerce have received subpoenas.
Republican political consultants and lobbyists Mark Dugan and David Kensinger have both been subpoenaed, as well as Amanda Adkins, the likely Republican nominee to challenge Davids. Several Republican senators have also been subpoenaed, including some who made comments indicating they had or had considered seeking concessions to support the map.
The plaintiffs will present a "mountain of evidence" at trial that shows lawmakers intended to dilute Democratic votes and that the map had the effect of doing so, R. Stanton Jones, an attorney for some of the plaintiffs, said in court on Monday.
Republican lawmakers have consistently defended the map as lawful.
"I feel strongly that our map was solid," Senate Vice President Rick Wilborn, a McPherson Republican, said. "It was based on numbers, based on some guidelines. I know some people didn't like it."
Lawyers for the plaintiffs cleared an early bar Monday when Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper denied a motion by Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt's Office to dismiss the case. The ruling from the bench came after more than two hours of oral arguments.
Kansas Solicitor General Brant Laue argued that the issue of political gerrymandering shouldn't be an issue for the courts. He also argued the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the Legislature sweeping power over redistricting — a theory that has grown in popularity nationally among conservatives.
"What is the answer to political gerrymandering? The answer is it's a political question," Laue said.
But Klapper said adopting the state's position would give the Legislature "unfettered and unchecked power" in congressional redistricting.
Sharon Brett, legal director for the ACLU of Kansas, which is representing some of the plaintiffs, said the group was "obviously pleased" with the judge's decision.
"The Ad Astra 2 map is an extreme and obvious gerrymander that was deliberately designed to dilute the votes of Kansas Democrats and Black and Latino voters in Wyandotte County," Brett said in a statement. "The evidence at trial will prove beyond a doubt that this gerrymandered map is unfair and unconstitutional."
John Milburn, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, said in a statement the legal questions in the motion to dismiss will ultimately be decided by higher courts, "as we have said from the beginning of this case."
"We will present our case on the merits in the courtroom," Milburn said.
------
(Kansas City Star reporter Katie Bernard contributed to this article.)
