Topeka ? A split Lawrence may not be a done deal yet.

Tim Graham, the Lawrence resident who sued the state to undo the congressional district plan that divided Lawrence between two districts, may appeal a recent judicial decision upholding that plan.

“We have some serious concerns about the ruling,” Graham said.

A panel of three federal judges on July 3 upheld the new district boundaries approved by the Legislature and Gov. Bill Graves. That new map places western Lawrence in the 2nd Congressional District, while eastern Lawrence remains in the 3rd. The dividing line is roughly along Iowa Street.

Democrats opposed to the district plan sounded defeated after the 37-page ruling, noting the emphatic language of the panel.

Then they took a closer look at the facts.

Robert Eye, an attorney from Lawrence who represented Graham and the Democrats, said there still was a possibility he would file an appeal. The deadline is Aug. 2 to appeal to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

One person, one vote

If the decision is appealed, Eye said the Democrats would rely on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New Jersey case that says to ensure every vote has equal weight, states must make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality in the population of the districts.

Under the new district maps in Kansas, the deviation from smallest to largest districts is 33 people, or less than one-half of 1 percent in districts that have more than 672,000 people, according to the 2000 census.

Eye argues that while that is a small percentage, the Supreme Court has ruled that when there are deviations no matter how small, and when there are plans that could offer smaller deviations the state must justify why it allowed the larger deviations.

Eye said such an interpretation “appears to us to allow the court to find that the failure to adopt what is essentially a zero-deviation map, when those were available, is in and of itself evidence of bad faith.”

But if an appeal were filed, what would happen to the Aug. 6 primaries?

Eye said that would be up to the courts.

He said there was precedent for the courts to allow the scheduled election to go forward, and if the courts rule there is a problem with the new district map, it could make changes or order the Legislature to make changes in subsequent election cycles.

The race will go on

Jesse Borjon, a spokesman for Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh, said regardless of whether Graham appealed, the state was assuming there would be primaries Aug. 6.

“Until we hear differently, we are moving forward and preparing,” he said.

Whatever happens to Lawrence in the redistricting battle, some attorneys agree an important outcome of the three-judge panel’s ruling was that it declared the Kansas Attorney General’s Office had no legal standing to sue the state over the new district plan.

Atty. Gen. Carla Stovall filed a lawsuit on behalf of Junction City residents, who opposed being put in a different district than neighboring Fort Riley.

But the secretary of state’s office challenged Stovall’s authority to represent individuals in a case against the state. The secretary of state’s office said the duty of the attorney general was to defend the state.

The three-judge panel dismissed the Attorney General’s Office as a representative of the state, and made Graham, who had filed as an intervener in the case, the plaintiff.

Precedent?

State Rep. Mike O’Neal, a Hutchinson Republican and the House leader in the redistricting process, said the ruling meant the Attorney General’s Office didn’t have the right to sue the state when a disgruntled citizen wanted to challenge a state law.

From now on, it will take private citizens or groups hiring their own attorneys to challenge a redistricting plan, he said.

In 1992, then-Atty. Gen. Bob Stephan challenged the redistricting map, but O’Neal said legal standing wasn’t an issue in that case because everyone agreed the plan needed improvements to reduce the deviations in population.

Mark Ohlemeier, Stovall’s spokesman, said he didn’t think the ruling on legal standing was a precedent.

“Granted the court didn’t rule in our favor. Really the purpose behind this was just to get judicial guidance on what can and should be done,” he said.

He said he doubted the office would appeal.