LANSING, MI -- Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the state by Republicans seeking to throw out the new voter-approved process of drawing political districts.

A complaint filed by 15 Michigan GOP politicians and residents who are ineligible to serve on the independent redistricting commission contends requirements approved by voters in 2018 are unconstitutional, therefore the entire commission must be scrapped. Nessel argued plaintiffs with partisan affiliations and family connections aren’t banned from the commission to protect it from political bias, saying there’s no evidence of discrimination based on political affiliation.

A Michigan voter is ineligible to serve on the redistricting commission if they were a candidate or elected official, worked as a registered lobbyist or consultant, were an officer for a political party or employed by the legislature in the last six years. Family members of those with political ties are also ineligible.

“The problem that the people of the State of Michigan sought to address with the amendment was the partisanship with which legislative districts were being drawn, and the solution they chose was to take that power out of the hands of people with a direct interest in the outcome,” Nessel argues in court documents.

Nessel is representing Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, the named defendant in the case, and filed a brief with the U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids Monday. The short legal brief requests the court schedule a pre-motion conference to dismiss the complaint, while Nessel’s office prepares a full legal response to the lawsuit.

“This is essentially no different than excluding people from jury duty who have a relationship to the parties or have a stake in the outcome of the case,” Nessel wrote.

The complaint was filed by Michigan Freedom Fund Executive Director Tony Daunt, state Sen. Tom Barrett, Board of State Canvassers member Norm Shinkle, Michigan Republican Party officials, lobbyists and political consultants.

The conservative Michigan Freedom Fund, created by an associate of the DeVos family, estimates half a million current residents would be excluded from participating on the commission. That figure represents 5% of the state’s population, according to the U.S. Census.

Plaintiffs argued the restrictions punish people for using their First Amendment and 14th Amendment rights to engage in the political process. They argue the exclusionary criteria doesn’t block other people who don’t participate in politics but may have stronger partisan biases.

“The selection system may actually inhibit transparency, impartiality, and fairness because eligible applicants may be no less partisan than those who fall into the excluded categories," plaintiffs argued in the complaint.

The lawsuit is backed by the National Republican Redistricting Trust, an organization involved in national redistricting efforts and led by former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Voters Not Politicians also filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit earlier this month, arguing the legal challenge will undermine voter-backed efforts to remove partisan bias from legislative map-making. The group was organized end gerrymandering by pushing Proposal 2, a ballot initiative to amend the Michigan Constitution.

Despite opposition from the Michigan Freedom Fund, 61% of Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 last November, creating a bipartisan 13-member redistricting commission comprised of four Democrats, four Republicans and five independents.

The body will decide how the state’s House, Senate and Congressional districts will be drawn starting in 2022 elections, a task previously handled by the Michigan legislature and approved by the governor.

The last maps were created in 2011, when Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s office. A panel of U.S. District Court judges determined the process was a political gerrymander of “historic proportions" to benefit Republicans in four election cycles spanning eight years.

Republicans appealed the federal judge ruling, but the challenge was killed in June when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled partisan gerrymandering claims aren’t within the court’s jurisdiction. Writing on behalf of the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts noted state efforts to address gerrymandering by creating independent commissions.

The decision “neither condones excessive partisan gerrymandering nor condemns complaints about districting to echo into a void,” Roberts wrote.