• 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

I admit I need to do some reading about how these 'maps' are drawn and I will, but is it too easy a solution to use what borders in a state that are already there, such as county lines?
 
The Mark said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only way to be "more fair" to democrats is to look at party affiliation. Any map that does so is inherently gerrymandered. The closest you will ever get to a truly neutral redistricting plan is to look at population only--no race, no political affiliation, no income. Nothing but the number of people.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
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.
Click to expand...
Assuming the court is right, and the districts are unfair, they should be redrawn ASAP.
And then redrawn again, after the next Census.
 
backpacker said:
The only way to be "more fair" to democrats is to look at party affiliation. Any map that does so is inherently gerrymandered. The closest you will ever get to a truly neutral redistricting plan is to look at population only--no race, no political affiliation, no income. Nothing but the number of people.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see what you're talking about.

Edit:

I'm not suggesting we redraw districts to favor one party or another, I'm saying that (taking the court's ruling as correct) because the current districts are unfair, they have to be redrawn to become more fair.

The method for doing so would, ideally, be as neutral as possible.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Assuming the court is right, and the districts are unfair, they should be redrawn ASAP.
And then redrawn again, after the next Census.
Click to expand...

So did you or did you not read the procedure that was followed to get to the current districts? Appeal opportunities were already in place and when clause (e) was applicable, the law became the law and the Supreme Court should not be able to change its mind when any issue is resolved at the next census.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
So did you or did you not read the procedure that was followed to get to the current districts? Appeal opportunities were already in place and when clause (e) was applicable, the law became the law and the Supreme Court should not be able to change its mind when any issue is resolved at the next census.
Click to expand...

That is interesting, but I'm not sure it prevents the court from doing what it just did.

Would have to read more about their ruling and such.
 
The Mark said:
That is interesting, but I'm not sure it prevents the court from doing what it just did.

Would have to read more about their ruling and such.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but they haven't posted the basis of their ruling, so they are leaving the legislature hanging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom