The tiebreaker in the state’s congressional redistricting process is attempting to clarify why he picked a map drawn by Democrats over the one submitted by Republicans. Former Justice John Wallace Jr. says both maps were constitutional but that the Democrats’ map “better satisfied the standard for partisan fairness” when compared to the Republican-drawn map. He also said he appreciated that the Democrats took public testimony into consideration when drawing new boundaries for the state’s 12 congressional districts.
Wallace came under fire last month after he said he chose the Democrats’ map simply because the last redistricting map from 2011 was drawn by Republicans. The state GOP is fighting Wallace’s decision, and filed a lawsuit asking the court to throw out the new map; Democrats have asked the court to dismiss that suit. The court has ordered both political parties to submit briefs addressing Wallace’s statements by Jan. 21.
