In a number of states, courts have told legislatures to go back and re-draw newly redistricted maps. According to one constitutional scholar, depending on how gerrymandered New York’s maps are, the State Court of Appeals could end up deciding whether the maps need to be sent back to the drawing board.

Peter Galie is a professor emeritus at Canisius College in Buffalo. He is also co-author, along with attorney Christopher Bopst, of the leading reference work on New York’s State Constitution, “The New York Constitution: A Reference Guide,” published by Oxford University Press.

The two scholars worked with map makers hired by the Empire Center for Public Policy to come up with a set of maps that both scholars have called fair. You can find their report here.

“In the past, the New York Court of Appeals has put the bar so high for getting involved in calling something an unconstitutional political gerrymander, that it’s pretty much washed its hands of the whole issue,” Galie said.

However, the 2014 amendment that created the Independent Redistricting Commission includes a provision which says political gerrymandering is unconstitutional, something that Galie calls an obvious invitation for the court to reassess the high bar it has set.

“It would not be alone,” said Galie. “Courts around the country are using the state constitution as opposed to the federal constitution to strike down these provisions. I have looked at Ohio, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida. All of them, the courts, have said go back and redraw — the (lines) are inconsistent with our state’s constitution.”