It will be a frosty Friday before the Court of Appeals at Albany hands down a decision as devastating as that with which the noble judges clobbered Governor Hochul and the Democratic legislature over their unconstitutional Gerrymandering scheme. It offers the prospect of a turning point for the state’s beleaguered GOP — and is all the more remarkable for having emerged from a court composed of Democratic jurists. 

The ruling was written by the Court of Appeals’ chief judge, Janet DiFiore. She was elevated to the state’s highest court by Governor Andrew Cuomo. Her opinion offers a stronger defense of the state constitution and the spirit of fair play than one might have expected in a state riddled with Democrats moving leftward. Yet the ruling, from its opening line, is firmly grounded in a close reading of the state parchment.

Judge DiFiore begins by noting the amendments of 2014 to the state charter “declaring unconstitutional certain undemocratic practices such as partisan and racial gerrymandering.” Albany Democrats, including Ms. Hochul, just flat out ignored the constitution. Judge DiFiore reckons the maps were drawn “in a nontransparent manner controlled exclusively by the dominant political party” as if the amendment had “never been passed.”

Laws passed by the legislature, Judge DiFiore added, should be given by the courts “a strong presumption of constitutionality.” Yet, she noted, quoting from earlier Empire State jurisprudence, the process followed by Albany’s Democrats in the redistricting process amounted to such “a gross and deliberate violation of the plain intent of the Constitution and a disregard of its spirit” that the state’s top court was compelled to act in this dispute.

After all, Judge DiFiore wrote, the 2014 amendments “were carefully crafted” to ensure voting maps were the “transparent work product of a bipartisan commission” and not “capricious legislative action.” They were “enacted in response to criticism of the scourge of hyper-partisanship.” Yet Albany’s lawmakers “ask us to effectively nullify the 2014 amendments,” Judge DiFiore wrote, averring: “This we will not do.”

The Sun’s Russell Payne has reported that the map Ms. Hochul and her fellow Democrats intended to foist on New York voters would have eviscerated New York’s Republican delegation in the House of Representatives — to as few as four from its current eight. At a time when Democrats hold as slender a majority as they do in the House, the attempt to unconstitutionally tilt the political field in New York is close to an attempted coup.

One case touched on in a dissent to today’s ruling was Baker v. Carr, a 1962 decision requiring state legislatures nationwide to even up disparities in the sizes of state legislative districts to ensure equality of representation between, say, urban and rural voters. New York was among the states that redrew its districts. All the more shocking that Democrats sought to so blatantly rig the districting process for partisan advantage.

Today’s ruling was, though, on a narrow margin. Four of the justices voted for an honest reading of the state constitution, while three dissented, for varying reasons — all putting party over principle. The closeness of the decision, though, makes it no less decisive. While it stands to give New York’s GOP a more level playing field in November’s election, it now requires the party’s candidates to capitalize on the opportunity.