If the lawsuit succeeds, Earle said, the Legislature would be required to redraw boundaries. If they don’t do it to the court’s satisfaction, the court would do it, he said.

The defendants in the case are members of the state Government Accountability Board. Anne E. Schwartz, spokeswoman for the state Department of Justice, which would defend the board in court, said DOJ has not yet received or reviewed a copy of the lawsuit.

A federal lawsuit in 2012 over the redrawn boundaries left 130 of 132 districts intact, while two were ordered to be redrawn.

The lawsuit states that in prior rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown a willingness to find gerrymandering unconstitutional, but there hasn’t been a workable standard offered to distinguish between legal and unconstitutional district line-drawing.

But the lawsuit states that an “efficiency gap” in voting between the two major parties helps demonstrate that the 2011 plan is unconstitutional.

The efficiency gap measures the effects of “cracking” — dividing a party’s supporters in multiple districts so they don’t form a majority — and “packing” — concentrating one party’s backers in a few districts that they win by overwhelming margins.