• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pennsylvania Supreme Court throws out state's congressional map

OK, I'll take your word on this, since I am not well versed in this. Will study it, but it's more than likely you are correct.

If state constitutions offer a higher level of protection than the US Constitution (and many do on many subjects), then state law is subject to that higher level of protection. For example, some states have higher protections than the US 4th Amendment, so state law which would be constitutional under the 4th Amendment may still be found unconstitutional under the state's bill of rights. There's no appeal for that kind of thing.
 
Actually, after debating with Harshaw, I think he is right, so I have to disagree with you on appealing Federal seats, and I already said no appeal on State seats, so I disagree with you here too.

There is nothing that prohibits a decision of a state Supreme Court from being appealed to the Federal Courts: Appeals | United States Courts. Whether they accept it or not is a different question.

If you believe there is, then please share it.
 
That is what I just said. It's a request for a stay, not an "appeal." And it's not an appeal of the general ruling that the districts are unconstitutional.

We can revisit the discussion should they actually file for a stay, an appeal, or request for stay pending appeal.
 
We can revisit the discussion should they actually file for a stay, an appeal, or request for stay pending appeal.

We can revisit it if they actually get anywhere appealing the ruling of the constitutionality of the district plan. For now, it doesn't look they're even trying to do that.
 
There is nothing that prohibits a decision of a state Supreme Court from being appealed to the Federal Courts: Appeals | United States Courts. Whether they accept it or not is a different question.

If you believe there is, then please share it.

You can file anything you want. But if there's no federal question, it won't go anywhere.

Besides, they wouldn't just be appealing to the federal courts; they'd being filing a petition for cert at the Supreme Court. State supreme court decisions go directly there, if they're taken up.
 
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

They must be expecting something real important to happen before 2020 to justify the expense, like maybe the midterms coming up this year? :shock: ... :mrgreen:

I don't know Pol. But for me, it makes no sense to wait 8 years when in 2 more the whole thing will have to be done again. I thought perhaps the Democrats finally took over the state legislature last election, but that isn't the case. But I did read this:

Legislative districts are drawn every ten years, following the U.S. Census. Districts are drawn by a five-member commission, of which four members are the majority and minority leaders of each house (or their delegates). The fifth member, who chairs the committee, is appointed by the other four and may not be an elected or appointed official. If the leadership cannot decide on a fifth member, the State Supreme Court may appoint him or her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_General_Assembly

It seems the drawings of the districts were done pretty much on a bipartisan basis if the above is correct. That makes this whole thing weird.
 
I don't know Pol. But for me, it makes no sense to wait 8 years when in 2 more the whole thing will have to be done again. I thought perhaps the Democrats finally took over the state legislature last election, but that isn't the case. But I did read this:

Legislative districts are drawn every ten years, following the U.S. Census. Districts are drawn by a five-member commission, of which four members are the majority and minority leaders of each house (or their delegates). The fifth member, who chairs the committee, is appointed by the other four and may not be an elected or appointed official. If the leadership cannot decide on a fifth member, the State Supreme Court may appoint him or her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_General_Assembly

It seems the drawings of the districts were done pretty much on a bipartisan basis if the above is correct. That makes this whole thing weird.

Interesting.

Well, here's the same wiki page for NC, and the SCOTUS just stayed the lower court decision that the NC redistricting was illegal. It is, in fact, bald-faced partisan gerrymandering. Whether you think blatant power grabs like that are legal (and whether the courts do) doesn't take the smell out of the carpet.
SCOTUS Issues Stay of Lower Court Ruling on NC Congressional Districts - NC Capitol Connection

Here's a little NC history from that wiki :
1966, One Man, One Vote[edit]
As was the case in other states where rural legislators hung on to power despite changes in state demographics, North Carolina eventually had to redefine its method of electing house members and to reapportion congressional seats, which was supposed to be done after every decennial census. At a time of civil rights legislation to end segregation (Civil Rights Act of 1964) and enforce the constitutional right to vote for African Americans and other minorities (Voting Rights Act of 1965), the US Supreme Court made rulings that resulted in corrections to state legislature representation and apportionment in several states.

Starting in 1966 (in the wake of Reynolds v. Sims, a US Supreme Court case establishing the principle of one man, one vote), members of the North Carolina State House were required to be elected from districts defined on the basis of roughly equal population, rather than from geographic counties. The county basis had resulted in a longstanding rural bias in the legislature. The new urban populations, including minorities and immigrants, were historically underrepresented in terms of legislative seats and funding, although the state's demographics and population had become increasingly urbanized. The court's ruling required changes also in other states with similar practices. The changes allowed full representation for the first time from some urban and more densely settled areas. It also meant that counties with low populations lost the chance to elect a resident member to the legislature for the first time in state history.

In the landmark Shelby County v. Holder case, Supreme Court judges invalidated sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 thereby freeing individual states to "change their election laws without advance federal approval."[15][16][17] In August 12, 2013 Republican Governor Pat McCrory signed omnibus election law bill—House Bill 589[18] which added requirements for voting such as photo identification.[18] [19] In July 2016, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the restrictive election laws.[20]
 
Making them "more fair" for democrats is still gerrymandering.
Not necessarily.
If the districts were currently fair, redrawing them to be more fair to democrats might be gerrymandering.
But the Supreme Court of PA has said they are not, according to the PA constitution.
 
Interesting.

Well, here's the same wiki page for NC, and the SCOTUS just stayed the lower court decision that the NC redistricting was illegal. It is, in fact, bald-faced partisan gerrymandering. Whether you think blatant power grabs like that are legal (and whether the courts do) doesn't take the smell out of the carpet.
SCOTUS Issues Stay of Lower Court Ruling on NC Congressional Districts - NC Capitol Connection

Here's a little NC history from that wiki :

gerrymandering can take many different forms. It used to be down here, 30 years ago in Georgia, each county was give so many state legislatures depending on its population. The county I lived in had four with four distinct districts. But when a Republican won one of the districts, the Democratic legislature went to countywide elections. In other words, everyone in the county voted for four representatives, thus after the next election, all four were once again Democrats.

We did that for around ten years before the courts ruled the multi member districts unconstitutional and back to four separate districts we went. It was one of the few times where a court ruling actually favored the Republicans. Finally in 2002, for the first time ever, Georgia elected its first Republican governor to go along with both chambers of our state legislature. Georgia's been republican ever since.
 
Interesting.

Well, here's the same wiki page for NC, and the SCOTUS just stayed the lower court decision that the NC redistricting was illegal. It is, in fact, bald-faced partisan gerrymandering. Whether you think blatant power grabs like that are legal (and whether the courts do) doesn't take the smell out of the carpet.
SCOTUS Issues Stay of Lower Court Ruling on NC Congressional Districts - NC Capitol Connection

Here's a little NC history from that wiki :

SCOTUS did not stay the NC decision. They stayed the timing for the implementation of that decision. Big difference.
 
SCOTUS did not stay the NC decision. They stayed the timing for the implementation of that decision. Big difference.
As someone who lives in PA, I hope they don't put a stay on it.

There are at least 9-10 months until the next big election, I think that should be enough time to implement new districts...
 
Last edited:
SCOTUS did not stay the NC decision. They stayed the timing for the implementation of that decision. Big difference.

You are correct, my bad. It's basically kicking the can down the road, and the 2018 elections will use the rigged maps.

At the top of this page is one of the nice PA districts:
Pennsylvania Court Kills Pro-GOP Congressional Map

I think my sister might live in that thing, lol.
 
political gerrymandering undermines democracy and should be banned nationwide.
 
gerrymandering can take many different forms. It used to be down here, 30 years ago in Georgia, each county was give so many state legislatures depending on its population. The county I lived in had four with four distinct districts. But when a Republican won one of the districts, the Democratic legislature went to countywide elections. In other words, everyone in the county voted for four representatives, thus after the next election, all four were once again Democrats.

We did that for around ten years before the courts ruled the multi member districts unconstitutional and back to four separate districts we went. It was one of the few times where a court ruling actually favored the Republicans. Finally in 2002, for the first time ever, Georgia elected its first Republican governor to go along with both chambers of our state legislature. Georgia's been republican ever since.

My dad's family is from GA. It was to the right socially even when I was a kid - and that was during LBJ. I imagine it's shifting as people come and go.
 
My dad's family is from GA. It was to the right socially even when I was a kid - and that was during LBJ. I imagine it's shifting as people come and go.

Georgia's had a huge influx of folks from the north. Most of them settle in and around the bigger cities. Rural areas probably aren't changed much from LBJ's time. At least as being religious and conservative. Now they have changed their old D for an R mainly because the Democratic has become very anti-religious and very liberal.
 
Pennsylvania Supreme Court throws out state's congressional map, ruling that gerrymandering violates constitution





The ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was that partisan gerrymandering violates the state Constitution. We shall soon find out if supporters of states rights in SCOTUS actually believe in states rights.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court throws out state's congressional map, ruling that gerrymandering violates constitution

Hopefully more States will follow suit, most district maps look like a Picasso. I think if most were redrawn based on how they should be determined the power distribution within government might change dramatically and the Reps would be actually representing those from the same area.
 
As someone who lives in PA, I hope they don't put a stay on it.

There are at least 9-10 months until the next big election, I think that should be enough time to implement new districts...

What if the next big election were in May and the candidate deadline to file was in early March. Would that be enough time?
 
What if the next big election were in May and the candidate deadline to file was in early March. Would that be enough time?
Not sure.

Possibly - I sometimes think that the speed of our processes could be greatly improved with the right changes.

It might require a bigger effort than most want to make, however.


Isn't there software out there to draw district lines according to whatever parameters are assigned?
It's really the debate over those parameters that causes the time constraint.

Although the implementation part might be a problem, what with voters being in new districts and such, but that always happens with redistricting.
 
Pennsylvania Supreme Court throws out state's congressional map, ruling that gerrymandering violates constitution





The ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was that partisan gerrymandering violates the state Constitution. We shall soon find out if supporters of states rights in SCOTUS actually believe in states rights.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court throws out state's congressional map, ruling that gerrymandering violates constitution

All these gerrymandering cases are going to hit the supreme court and the one that is ruled on is going to blanket cover the rest. It is believed that case will hit in June(ish) time of this year.
 
Didn't we just have a North Carolina ruling by the SCOTUS on this very subject? The Constitution gives the power the state legislatures unless at such a time congress enacts a law to make or alter such legislation. The power to eliminate gerrymandering lies with each state legislature or with congress if congress passes a law to do just that.

It is my understand California went to an independent commission to draw their lines. It can be done. But usually the party in power in each states sees an opportunity to increase their congressional power within those states and won't make gerrymandering illegal or outlaw it. Having the ability regardless of party to increase the power of the party is too much for most states to pass up.

Democrats gerrymandered the heck out of Illinois and New York after the last census because they could. The same holds true for Texas and North Carolina by the republicans. Besides, we already have federally mandated gerrymandering in what is known a majority minority districts. For the SCOTUS to rule that gerrymandering is illegal or unconstitutional, that would mean an end to majority minority districts as well.

States rights, each state has the right to draw their districts as each state legislature wants. At least according to the U.S. Constitution. as for Pennsylvania and its constitution, I don't know. But why would one side here wait 8 years to challenge the drawings of the districts? Makes no sense when a new census is due in 2020 and districts will once again have to be redrawn.

I thought they did too but I think it was a 3 judge panel. Whose ruling the SCOTUS just put on hold most likely to be decided early summer time when they rule on two other gerrymandering cases coming their way ahead of North Carolina's.
 

It will be put on hold by the SCOTUS. Similar ruling happened in North Carolina and the SCOTUS just blocked implementation.

Supreme Court Tells North Carolina To Hold Off On Redrawing Congressional Map

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday evening granted a request from Republican lawmakers in North Carolina to temporarily put on hold a lower court order that the state redraw its congressional map by next week.

A special panel of three federal judges had found that state Republicans turned the redistricting process so much to their advantage that it violated the First and 14th Amendments as well as Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court ordered the lawmakers to draw a new map before the end of the month.​
 
I thought they did too but I think it was a 3 judge panel. Whose ruling the SCOTUS just put on hold most likely to be decided early summer time when they rule on two other gerrymandering cases coming their way ahead of North Carolina's.

Ah, how so grasshopper. Thanks for the mind jog.
 
Actually, after debating with Harshaw, I think he is right, so I have to disagree with you on appealing Federal seats, and I already said no appeal on State seats, so I disagree with you here too.

Supreme Court will take up a second gerrymandering case this term

The Supreme Court announced Friday it will add a second case this term to determine whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, accepting a challenge from Maryland Republicans who say the state’s dominant Democrats drew a congressional district that violated their rights.

The court already has heard a challenge from Wisconsin Democrats, who challenged a legislative redistricting drawn by the state’s Republican leaders.​

And the SCOTUS just put NC's gerrymandering ruling on hold. Most likely until these other two are decided.
 
Not sure.

Possibly - I sometimes think that the speed of our processes could be greatly improved with the right changes.

It might require a bigger effort than most want to make, however.


Isn't there software out there to draw district lines according to whatever parameters are assigned?
It's really the debate over those parameters that causes the time constraint.

Although the implementation part might be a problem, what with voters being in new districts and such, but that always happens with redistricting.

Good answer. Well, those are the actual timeframes for the primaries and the actual filing date is March 6.

The Supreme Court of PA gave no detail to their ruling beyond saying that it was unconstitutional. It is difficult to argue one way or the other the basis for their ruling since they haven't given one.

From the current Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Constitution. Article II, Section 17:

(d) Any aggrieved person may file an appeal from the final plan directly to the Supreme Court within thirty days after the filing thereof. If the appellant establishes that the final plan is contrary to law, the Supreme Court shall issue an order remanding the plan to the commission and directing the commission to reapportion the Commonwealth in a manner not inconsistent with such order.

(e) When the Supreme Court has finally decided an appeal or when the last day for filing an appeal has passed with no appeal taken, the reapportionment plan shall have the force of law and the districts therein provided shall be used thereafter in elections to the General Assembly until the next reapportionment as required under this section 17.

This demonstrates that the Constitution has laid out a procedure to appeal that involves the Supreme Court and those procedures were followed in 2011. The next census results come within 3 years and any remedies should be done for that timeframe.
 
Back
Top Bottom