Steuben County Judge Patrick McAllister ruled on Thursday that New York's congressional, state Senate and Assembly maps drawn by the Legislature are unconstitutional gerrymanders.

He also ruled that the maps were “void ab initio” for failure to follow the constitutional process of having bipartisan maps presented by the Independent Redistricting Commission.  

Not surprisingly, the judge’s remedy requires the Legislature “to be given another chance to pass maps that don’t violate the constitution.” 

But another part of the judge’s ruling is raising eyebrows among some constitutional scholars.

McAllister wrote on page 16 of his ruling, “therefore, the court will require any revised maps generated by the legislature to receive bipartisan support among both Democrats and Republicans in both the senate and the assembly."

Christopher Bopst, a partner at Wilder & Linneball in Buffalo, is an expert on the state constitution who has co-written, along with Dr. Peter Galie, several leading reference works on the topic, including “The New York State Constitution,” published by Oxford University Press.

Bopst told Capital Tonight that McAllister’s remedy attempts to inject bipartisanship into the process, something which may be beyond the scope of his power. 

“It was a little unusual. I’ve never seen a provision before…that requires a remedy that has to garner bipartisan support,” according to Bopst. 

“What the judge…essentially said, was, ‘you didn’t follow the bipartisan design of [the Independent Redistricting Commission] so I’m going to require that there be bipartisanship in the actual composition of the legislation before I allow it,'” said Bopst. “That’s unusual. And he may have overstepped on that one.”

Bopst said it’s tough to say whether the ruling will hold up on appeal.