special session, it could pressure them to do so by offering an ultimatum: Go back to the drawing board or we’ll draw the maps for you.

Historically, in New Mexico, neither of those options has been pursued when it comes to redistricting, he said.

Joshua Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, said if Van Soelen deems the current map unconstitutional and orders it redrawn, the Legislature would likely prefer to do that job than leave it to the courts.

“The Democrats would probably look at it and and ask themselves, ‘What is simpler? Drawing it again or letting it go up to the Supreme Court?’ The Legislature could redraw the maps within 30 days” and avoid a lengthy court battle, he said in an interview.

The process of redrawing election district maps often is another example of partisan wrangling, with high stakes when it comes to who holds power in a state or in Washington.

The New Mexico case has garnered national attention — as have many other high-profile redistricting contests across the country.

The trial included testimony from Republican lawmakers who said they felt their party — which is in the minority in both the state House of Representatives and the Senate — had no real say in the creation of the maps.

Several redistricting experts also testified. One said the redrawn congressional district maps, which affected the 2nd District most significantly, smacked of gerrymandering, while another said there was nothing in the changes that would “entrench” anyone in power, as the new 2nd District is a toss-up district

that either major party could win.

On the second day of the trial, Van Soelen said he did not expect any Democratic lawmakers named in the suit to testify but said some of their texts, emails and other communications on the redistricting process could be admitted as evidence, even after the trial ended. Van Soelen is expected to get those by the end of Tuesday, which means it’s unlikely he would issue a ruling before then.

Cory Sukala, an assistant professor of government for New Mexico State University who has been watching the case play out, said it’s hard to predict what will happen until after Van Soelen reviews those messages and determines whether they add to the plaintiffs’ argument.

“A lot of it may depend on what, if anything, is found in that correspondence,” Sukala said in an interview. “From there, there’s a lot of ways this could go, and in large part it’s up to the judge.”

“I’m sure there will be appeals regardless of what the initial ruling is,” Sukala added.

The state Supreme Court urged the District Court to evaluate the GOP’s gerrymandering claim using a threepart test set by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent from the majority ruling in a 2019 gerrymandering case out of North Carolina. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled partisan gerrymandering was a matter for states and Congress, not federal courts, to regulate.

Kagan recommended a test that first asks whether mapmakers intended to strengthen their own party’s power by diluting votes for their opponents. The second question is, did that plan actually work? The third is whether the mapmaking body has legitimate, nonpartisan reasons for their decisions.

Hannah Burling, president of the League of Women Voters of New Mexico, said in an interview much of the outcome could depend on how closely Van Soelen adheres to those three guidelines.

That’s where one side or the other might have reason to push back, she said.

If the case does end up back in the state Supreme Court’s hands, Burling thinks it will be resolved quickly because of the need to resolve the maps long before the candidate filing date for the 2024 general election.

Sukala said no matter how it works out this time, the issue will return in the next decade.

“Every 10 years we do a census, which means every 10 years we have to redraw lines, which means every 10 years we have these exact sorts of fights,” he said.