Pennsylvania Gerrymandering (Scranton, Harrisburg, Wyoming: lawyers, living in, bill)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by jate88

Why is the state legislature saying the PA supreme court violated the constitution?

Because their ruling given the time frame almost guarantees they will draw the maps upsurping the delegated responsibilities of the legislator. A ruling they need to redraw them is one thing, the courts redrawing them is a whole other ballgame. I'm going to speculate it will be blocked for this election cycle and whether it stands after that remains to be seen. One of the primary issues here is there is no definitive answer as to what is gerrymandering.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Because their ruling given the time frame almost guarantees they will draw the maps upsurping the delegated responsibilities of the legislator. A ruling they need to redraw them is one thing, the courts redrawing them is a whole other ballgame.

I'm going to speculate it will be blocked for this election cycle and whether it stands after that remains to be seen. One of the primary issues here is there is no definitive answer as to what is gerrymandering

If the GOP legislators choose to ignore a Supreme Court order, which they are, then of course they're going to be stripped of their authority. It's amazing how ridiculous this has become--a political party is completely neglecting their duty to obey the very body that rules on the law of the land. Of course, had the PA Supreme Court ruled the other way, I'm sure the GOP would be ecstatic to claim how "the court has spoken."

Also, most legal scholars disagree with you. From the NYTimes:

The most likely argument for federal review, election scholars said, is that the court order violated the federal Constitution’s elections clause, which delegates authority over elections to state legislatures. The Supreme Court entertained a similar argument in Bush v. Gore, the case that determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. But the court later narrowly rejected the idea that state legislatures have sole authority over elections in a 2015 decision that, fittingly, dealt with redistricting in Arizona.

“This case was designed from the get-go to get to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and no further,” said Justin Levitt, an election-law scholar and associate dean at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “There are one or two exceedingly long-shot ways that Republicans might attempt to get this in front of the Supreme Court. But I would not lay odds on that.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/u...-congress.html

In connection to this article, here's a summary of the Arizona independent Redistrict Commission case that the Supreme Court allowed to stand in 2015, which would seem to be very applicable in the Pennsylvania case:

U.S. states' efforts to counter extreme gerrymandering won a victory Monday, as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a bipartisan Arizona panel that draws the state's districts. The court's vote was 5-4; Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...eting-gridlock

Finally, there IS a valid test for gerrymandering called the "efficiency gap."

The efficiency gap has several properties that make it ideal for measuring the extent of gerrymandering. First, it directly captures the packing and cracking that are at the heart of every biased plan. Surplus votes for winning candidates are the definition of packing, and lost votes for defeated candidates the essence of cracking. All a gerrymander is, in fact, is a plan that results in one party wasting many more votes than its opponent. The efficiency gap tells us exactly how big the difference between the parties’ wasted votes is.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1185...gerrymandering

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by maf763

My guess is that the back and forth results in the delay of a new map for 2018. Legislative action has been attempted but stalled in both houses. In the senate, 16 of 50 members are co-sponsors on SB 22 and 102 of 203 members of the house are co-sponsors of HB 722. The co-sponsors are from both parties with more Democrats by about a 2-1 margin. Neither has faced a committee vote.

The tactic the GOP is employing is to delay the inevitable, no doubt. But the PA Supreme Court was smart enough to expect that, which is why they've had a "Plan B" in place all along. In addition, they've now received the information they would need to move forward from the League of Women Voters, anyway, to facilitate an independent map, so it is clear this is just Republican theatrics:

Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, thumbed his nose at the court’s subsequent Jan. 26 order to turn over mapmaking and voter data. His move, issued in a letter, was more theatrical than effective. The court appears to have gotten the material anyway from winning plaintiffs’ side, League of Women Voters and some Democratic voters.

5 takeaways on GOP leader's refusal to obey Pa. court order in gerrymandering case - The Morning Call

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by Duderino

The tactic the GOP is employing is to delay the inevitable, no doubt. But the PA Supreme Court was smart enough to expect that, which is why they've had a "Plan B" in place all along. In addition, they've now received the information they would need to move forward from the League of Women Voters, anyway, to facilitate an independent map, so it is clear this is just Republican theatrics:



5 takeaways on GOP leader's refusal to obey Pa. court order in gerrymandering case - The Morning Call

Yep, if they don't create new maps by the middle of the month which are deemed fair enough, I believe the court will take this upon themselves and draw their own for the state. Their ruling did as much as possible to ensure there will be new maps for this year's races.

[eschaton]

Edit: U.S. Supreme Court has denied the stay. Legislature now has until Friday to draw a map. It's happening.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Edit: U.S. Supreme Court has denied the stay. Legislature now has until Friday to draw a map. It's happening.

First the Eagles, and now this! What a great day for Pennsylvania!

[Wells5]

Originally Posted by Duderino

First the Eagles, and now this! What a great day for Pennsylvania!

Speak for yourself.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by Wells5

Speak for yourself.

I take it you're not an Eagles fan

As far as gerrymandering, that's in no one's best interest, whether it benefits Republicans or Democrats.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Duderino

If the GOP legislators choose to ignore a Supreme Court order,

How do they follow an order when the court has not given them any information as to specifically what is considered gerrymandered?

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

How do they follow an order when the court has not given them any information as to specifically what is considered gerrymandered?

The ruling pertained to the very fact that blatant political manipulation entered into the districting process. The Court relied upon the testimony of academics who dedicate their career to studying electoral politics.

They didn't have to base their ruling on a certain "threshold" for gerrymandering, because the blatant political manipulation, in and of itself, is what "plainly" violated the Pennsylvania State Constitution.

For a new map, it's been made pretty clear that the legislature will need to devise a new map that passes the "smell test" in the view of the same electoral experts. Hint: the boundary lines must be based MUCH more on county/municipal boundaries, to the extent possible, and not party affiliation of registered voters. Just like eschaton has proposed in this thread.

It's really not that difficult to accomplish and can be done in a matter of a couple hours with adequate software that generates "random" simulations.