At their heart, the petitions argued lawmakers wanted to gerrymander districts for political purposes.
At the heart of McHugh's opinion is the belief that the courts cannot be super-legislatures.
McHugh's opinion goes to great lengths to point out numerous court rulings on redistricting where judges in West Virginia, in other states and on federal courts - including the U.S. Supreme Court - have shown deference to legislatures.
The Legislature redraws the district boundaries every 10 years to accommodate population shifts documented by the national Census.
But some counties lost out. Mason County, for instance, has a large enough population to have a delegate district entirely within its own borders. But lawmakers carved up Mason County, and it could be represented entirely by people who live in other counties.
McHugh said courts could tackle gerrymandering, especially in cases of racial discrimination, but he said there wasn't a single agreeable standard that would allow a court to upend the work of a legislature over political gerrymandering alone.
"The type of partisan or political gerrymandering alleged to be in existence in this case presents more complex issues, and many courts have concluded that the issues are beyond judicial cognizance," McHugh wrote.
A bit later in the opinion, he added, "this Court will not intrude upon the province of the legislative policy determinations to overturn the Legislature's redistricting plan based upon the assertion of partisan gerrymandering."
The court also took aim at one of the challengers, Thornton Cooper, a South Charleston lawyer who has taken many an issue to court. Cooper drew up his own alternate reality redistricting maps that he said should help invalidate the maps drawn up by the Legislature because they were fairer.
McHugh dismissed Cooper's effort. He said, "The fact that another possibly valid plan may exist does not compel a finding by this Court that the Legislature's chosen plan is unconstitutional."
Cooper's map carved up the state based mostly on population and with little consideration for politics.
"Simply put," McHugh said, "Petitioner Cooper's mechanistic approach did not involve any legislative 'give and take.' "
Because the legislative redistricting case involved state law, it cannot be appealed to a higher court.