Kentucky’s Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Republican-drawn boundaries for state House and congressional districts, rejecting Democratic claims that the majority party’s mapmaking amounted to gerrymandering in violation of the state’s constitution.

The court noted that an alternative proposal would have resulted in nearly the same lopsided advantage for Republicans in Kentucky House elections and would not have altered the GOP’s 5-1 advantage in U.S. House seats from the Bluegrass State.

The new district boundaries were passed by the GOP-dominated legislature over Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s vetoes in early 2022. The new maps were used in last year’s election.

The justices referred to redistricting as an “inherently political process” assigned to the legislature.

“An expectation that apportionment will be free of partisan considerations would thus not only be unrealistic, but also inconsistent with our constitution’s assignment of responsibility for that process to an elected political body,” Justice Angela McCormick Bisig wrote in the majority opinion.

The court concluded that the once-a-decade mapmaking did not violate Kentucky’s constitution. It upheld a lower court ruling that had concluded the new boundaries amounted to “partisan gerrymanders,” but said the constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid the consideration of partisan interests during redistricting.

The new maps were challenged by the state Democratic Party and several individuals, including Democratic state Rep. Derrick Graham. Their lawsuit contended the new boundaries reflected “extreme partisan gerrymandering” in violation of the state constitution. It claimed the state House map divided some counties into multiple districts to “dilute the influence” of Democratic voters.

With the new districts in effect in last November’s midterm election, Republicans increased their legislative supermajorities. Several Democratic state House members lost their reelection bids after having Republican-friendlier territory tacked onto their districts.

Democrats’ biggest objection to the redrawn congressional boundaries focused on an extension of the sprawling 1st Congressional District, situated mostly in western Kentucky, to include Franklin County, home of the capital city of Frankfort in central Kentucky.

The 1st District is represented by powerful Republican Rep. James Comer. Comer has been at the center of the House GOP’s impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden as chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

Comer and his wife have homes in Monroe and Franklin counties in Kentucky. They purchased the Franklin County home when he was state agriculture commissioner, when his work was based in Frankfort.

For decades, Democrats wielded complete control in setting legislative boundaries, and then shared that power once the GOP took control of the state Senate. Last year was the first time the legislature had redrawn districts since Republicans consolidated their control of the legislature. The GOP took control of the state House after the 2016 election.

In last year’s election, the GOP won 80 of the 100 state House seats. Under an alternative plan relied upon by the plaintiffs, Republicans were projected to win at least 77 seats, the Supreme Court said.

“We note that every seat is important,” Bisig wrote. The court concluded that a difference of three seats in the 100-seat Kentucky House didn’t rise to the level of a “clear, flagrant and unwarranted” violation of constitutional rights.

State GOP spokesperson Sean Southard said the high court rightfully rejected “a pathetic attempt” by Democrats to throw out Kentucky’s congressional and state House maps.

Kentucky House Democratic leaders said they disagreed with the ruling. “It gives legislative majorities much more authority to protect themselves at the expense of many voters while guaranteeing more political polarization for decades to come,” they said in a statement.

ALBANY, N.Y. — House Republicans in swing districts are trapped between the wishes of their GOP base to move forward on an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden and the risk of being portrayed as extremists as they defend their seats in the 2024 midterm elections.

Vulnerable GOP members are trying to perform a high-stakes balancing act: Support the inquiry, but refrain from a full-throated endorsement of impeachment.

And whether they are successful could determine which party controls the chamber after 2024.

The 221-212 party-line vote Wednesday in the narrowly divided chamber to further the impeachment process underscored how little wiggle room Republicans have to allow their more vulnerable members, particularly in coastal blue states like New York and California, to duck the politically charged issue.

Democrats are eager to highlight Republicans trying to have it both ways. Party leaders are gearing up to make sure an impeachment push proves to be a potent issue for their candidates next year, in addition to abortion rights, as they try to offset Biden's weakness at the top of the ticket.

“They’re gift wrapping an issue for Democrats to prosecute against them in 2024. Most of these guys were off-year wins and have never had to defend these seats in a presidential election year,” Neal Kwatra, a New York Democratic consultant, said. “With Democrats focused on pickups in New York, this gives them fresh meat and motivation.”

Democratic House candidates, too, expect impeachment could provide fodder for ads to hit their Republican opponents in swing seats and create a clear opening to tie their opponents to former President Donald Trump in those battleground districts.

“This is another example of the extreme side of the MAGA movement that has held our government hostage,” Democrat John Mannion, who is running to unseat Rep. Brandon Williams in a Syracuse-area House seat, said in an interview.

Democrats expect the issue will remain a potent one for voters — allowing their candidates to talk about substantive matters, while portraying Republicans as obsessed with attacking Biden.

And in New York and California, which have a plethora of competitive House races, early signs show Republican discomfort over the issue.

New York GOP Rep. Mike Lawler said in a statement to POLITICO there is not yet sufficient evidence to impeach Biden and set a removal trial in the Senate, despite voting to advance the process. Lawler prevailed last year in a suburban New York City district that Biden won by 10 percentage points in 2020.

“To my constituents, I promise to approach this inquiry with the seriousness it demands, keeping in mind the core American value that someone is always innocent until proven guilty — and you will always have my word that I'll put what’s right for our country before what’s right for my party,” Lawler said in a statement.

But Wednesday’s vote put all House Republicans on the record in backing the initial phase of establishing the impeachment inquiry.

Republicans are reviewing the international business dealings of Biden’s son Hunter, but have insisted they are primarily interested in whether the president financially benefited.

While the issue has been an animating one for Republican voters, swing district GOP lawmakers are framing the vote for the inquiry as a way to shore up their bipartisan bonafides.

Rep. David Valadao, a California Republican in a district Biden won by 11 points in 2020, emphasized in an interview that he was simply voting to advance the probe, not to impeach the president.

Asked if voters in his swing district will make that distinction, he said, “We’ll find out.”

“I've voted on the Trump one. I voted on the expulsion of Santos. I've taken a pretty bipartisan approach on this one," Valadao said. "When they're wrong, they’re wrong — call it.”

Republican Rep. Marc Molinaro, who represents a Hudson Valley district in New York to the north of Lawler, also comforted himself with the shaky view voters have of Biden.

“Now, with serious questions about President Biden, Congress has a responsibility to check it out. It is our job to do so,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “Because if he handles his personal affairs anything like he does inflation, crime, or the border — there’s reason for us to be suspicious.”

Other Republicans are making a plea for restraint.

Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, a Long Island Republican, urged his GOP colleagues “to advance this inquiry in a level-headed fashion and let only the facts guide us.”

D’Esposito, Lawler and Molinaro are among the five House Republican freshmen from New York with credible Democratic challenges next year. Given the razor-thin majority the House GOP holds, their seats are expected to be key in determining which party controls the chamber after 2024.

Republican Rep. Mike Garcia, who represents a battleground district near Los Angeles, has been outspoken in his support for the impeachment inquiry — and is framing the move as due diligence.

“The White House has made it clear that they're not going to cooperate in any kind of inquiry until it’s formalized,” Garcia said. “So let's formalize it. We get the information, we have an obligation to not turn a blind eye to this stuff.”

For some California Republicans, that vote “is akin to walking the plank,” said Mike Madrid, a GOP strategist and co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. He argued that the many voters won’t know or care about the distinction between a procedural and impeachment vote.

Still, some Republicans fear the price of inaction for the party on pursuing impeachment against Biden, whose popularity with voters continues to sag.

Former Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) pointed to broad support within the Republican base for a Biden impeachment.

Not acting against Biden could hamper Republican turnout, Sweeney said. But at the same time, top GOP lawmakers need to explain to more moderate voters why the inquiry is necessary.

“It could be risky.It could also be risky to do nothing” he said. “It depends on how thorough and how effective the Republican majority is at communicating the evidence they’ve got.”