Federal versus state court matters, because if there is no map, the federal judges follow I think the least change rule, and try to make as few changes from the existing map for the prior decennial, as possible. State court judges however, for some reason follow no such rule, and just do their own thing. So whether a Kentucky map is drawn by a federal or state judge may matter, potentially a lot, although probably not in Kentucky's case. The existing map is pretty logical.
I would assume this is because federal judges view redistricting as an issue for the states and thus, when called upon to deal with it, feel they should make as few changes as possible so as to avoid impinging on states' rights, such as they are. State judges would, of course, have no such compunction.
Also, many state court judges are elected hacks.
