As a Kansas state senator, Tom Holland has spent the past decade representing a largely rural district west and northwest of the Kansas City metropolitan area.
A Democrat, he won his last two elections by roughly 3 points each. The margins of victory weren’t overwhelming, but he had proved adept at earning the support of voters in the kinds of rural areas that have increasingly become the domain of Republicans.
But Holland is now fighting for his political life in court.
When the Legislature redrew the Senate map this spring, part of a once-a-decade redistricting process, Republicans adopted a wholesale reconfiguration of Holland’s district — District 3 — that excluded the Baldwin City resident. Under the new map, he now resides in District 9, pitting him against incumbent Republican Sen. Beverly Gossage.
District 9 includes some of the rural areas Holland represents now, but it also folds in Gossage’s political home base of western Johnson County. The map was included, with the House and state Board of Education maps, into a package that passed the House 83-40, the Senate 29-11, and was signed by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.
Holland is asking the Kansas Supreme Court to block the reconfigured Senate districts. Under the state constitution, the justices review state House and Senate boundaries to determine their validity. Lawmakers would have additional time to approve a new map if it is struck down.
But the consequences of Holland’s challenge, if he is successful, could extend much further than a couple state Senate districts.
Gerrymandering in Kansas
A Wyandotte County District Court last week ruled that the state’s GOP-drawn congressional map was politically gerrymandered, violating the state constitution. It is the first ruling of its kind in Kansas history and has been appealed to the state Supreme Court. If the court upholds the decision, Holland wants the ruling applied to his case, too.
“This is the euphemistic ‘elephant in the room,’” Mark Johnson, Holland’s attorney, wrote in a brief filed with the state Supreme Court on Friday. “If partisan gerrymandering is a valid claim under the Kansas Constitution, then it is not limited to maps drawing congressional districts but must also apply to maps drawing state House and Senate districts.”
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s office has argued that the state constitution is silent on gerrymandering. A group of voters argued successfully in district court, however, that gerrymandering violates constitutional protections of free speech, equal rights and the right to vote.
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on both the state legislative and congressional maps for May 16. A decision on the state legislative maps is due this month; while no deadline exists on the congressional map, a swift ruling is expected.
The two cases hold the potential, in one fell swoop, to transform redistricting in Kansas forever. A Supreme Court decision that there is at least some level of gerrymandering that violates the state constitution — and that the prohibition extends to both congressional and state legislative districts — would upend redistricting in the future, giving Democrats and aggrieved Republicans a freer hand to challenge future maps.
Holland is already setting the stage to take advantage of a favorable decision. The brief filed by Johnson contends the boundary lines for Districts 3 and 9 are politically motivated and can’t be explained by traditional redistricting principles, such as compact districts and preserving communities of interest.
“The obvious motivation is partisan,” Johnson wrote. “Senator Holland is a Democrat, while Senator Gossage is a Republican. District 9 now consists of part of Senator Holland’s old district, which elected him by relatively modest margins, but the balance of the district now consists of heavily Republican portions of Johnson County.”
“And Senator Holland cannot run in Senate District 3 because he has been gerrymandered out of that district altogether.”
Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s position
A spokesman for the attorney general’s office declined to comment, citing pending litigation, and referred back to previous statements and court filings. In a filing last week, Schmidt urged the Supreme Court to approve the state legislative maps, including the Senate districts.
Schmidt wrote that the legislation that enacted the new maps was both procedurally valid — meaning the Legislature didn’t violate its procedures — and that it is “substantively valid,” with districts of close to equal population that don’t improperly split communities of interest.
The bill “mostly avoids pitting incumbents against each other,” Schmidt wrote. “The existence of potential incumbent contests does not render an apportionment plan invalid.”
Johnson argued in his brief, however, that the Legislature ignored its own redistricting guidelines. The guidelines say contests between incumbents “will be avoided whenever possible.”
———
