Contact Sue Lani Madsen at rulingpen@gmail.com.

March 20, 2024 Updated Wed., March 20, 2024 at 5:37 p.m.

In a Democrat-controlled state, when a federal judge appointed by a Democrat president makes a decision on redistricting that affects no incumbent Democrats and multiple Republicans, voters may reasonably be skeptical of the impartiality of the results.

New legislative district maps were drawn after the 2020 census. Democrats had insisted the Yakima Valley needed a majority-minority district where Hispanic voters made up over 50% of the population, and the bipartisan redistricting commission delivered one. It was approved by the state Supreme Court and adopted by the Democratically controlled Legislature as required by state law.

But it wasn’t Hispanic enough to suit at least one voter.

Palmer v. Hobbs was brought in January 2022 by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a well-funded Los Angeles-based nonprofit. Influence Watch describes the group as a “left-wing litigation and advocacy group … with a number of MALDEF alumni taking senior roles or being nominated to high-level positions in Democratic administrations at the federal, state, and local levels.”

Ironically for the plaintiffs, in the first election held under the new map, Sen. Nikki Torres, R-Pasco, defeated Democrat Lindsey Keesling with 67.68% of the vote in November 2022 in the majority-minority 15th Legislative District.

And now, as a result of the MALDEF lawsuit the first Latina senator elected from Eastern Washington is being forced out of her district because the judge accepted as fact an assertion that Hispanic voters prefer Democrats in spite of her landslide election. Imagine the front page uproar from Hobbs and Ferguson if this was a right-wing advocacy group forcing out a Democrat.

In the case of Palmer v. Hobbs, it was political from the beginning. When Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, also a Democrat, was sued over the results of Washington’s bipartisan redistricting commission, voters could reasonably expect Hobbs to put up a fight. Instead Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a “notice that defendant Hobbs takes no position.”

Setting up the court to make a political decision erodes confidence in the judiciary.

The “intervenor defendants” added to the case while Hobbs sat on the sidelines include Mayor Jose Trevino, of Granger; Ismael G. Campos, of Kennewick; and Rep. Alex Ybarra, R-Quincy.

According to Ferguson’s official website, the role of the Attorney General is to “provide legal representation to the state of Washington, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities.” The attorney general’s office confirmed by email that includes the redistricting commission.

In his opinion on the Palmer v. Hobbs case issued Aug. 10, Judge Robert S. Lasnik relied on expert testimony comparing the “2022 legislative priorities of Washington’s Latino Civic Alliance (“LCA”) to the voting records of the legislators from the Yakima Valley region” and concluding the incumbent legislators in three districts were insufficiently supportive of the political agenda of the LCA.

It sure looks and smells political.

We need a judiciary committed to staying out of politics, but the blame doesn’t entirely fall on the judges. Both political parties eagerly run to court when the political process doesn’t go their way.

Federal Way Judge Dave Larson, candidate for the state Supreme Court, declined to weigh in on the specific case but noted judges “have to use judicial restraint to stay away from decisions that are purely political and make the parties use the political process to make those decisions.”

Judge Lasnik tried to step out of the way in the case. In August he ordered new maps be drawn and adopted by Feb. 7, with a report in Jan. 8 “notifying the Court on whether a reconvened Commission was able to redraw and transmit to the Legislature a revised map by that date.”

But the bipartisan redistricting commission was not reconvened, which meant the judge was presented with partisan maps to choose from. His March 15 order adopted a map that redraws not only Sen. Torres’ district, but also those of Sen. Curtis King, R-Yakima, and Sen. Brad Hawkins, R-East Wenatchee, as well as Republican representatives.

According to the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, the new map moves more than 500,000 people in 13 districts, and “In comparison, the intervenors offered a map with around 80,000 people moved in only three districts.”

When Hobbs declined to take a position on the state’s bipartisan process, he exposed the judiciary to charges of partisanship. And when the Democratic leadership in the Legislature refused to reconvene the bipartisan redistricting commission, it put the judge in an impossible position. Whichever map he picked would be attacked by the losing party.

Brionna Aho responded on behalf of the attorney general’s office stating they had “hired a pre-eminent expert on the Voting Rights Act to respond to the arguments presented by the plaintiffs and interveners” which resulted in filing a brief supporting the plaintiff.

Probably won’t find the results in this case highlighted by Hobbs or by Ferguson’s gubernatorial campaign. Conservative Hispanic voters my not take kindly to being stereotyped as Democrats.