In its motion to dismiss the case, the Republican-led DOJ is challenging a contention that the 2011 redistricting caused an “efficiency gap” in voting, by creating boundaries that pack Democrats into a small number of districts and in other places, crack them apart into minorities in districts that have vast majorities of Republican voters.

DOJ argues in its motion that the pro-Republican efficiency gap is a “natural occurrence” and is similar to other gaps that occurred in earlier years, and is a flawed means to measure partisanship in redistricting.

State Assistant Attorney General Brian Keenan maintained in arguments Wednesday that gerrymandering with partisan intent is permissible, and said that the plan proposed by the Democrats’ lawsuit fails because it doesn’t help determine what level of partisanship in creating political boundaries is unconstitutional.

Responding to a question from the bench, Keenan would not concede that in the 2011 redistricting, GOP legislators intended to create a plan that would keep a Republican majority in the state Legislature for the entire 10-year period that the map would remain in effect.