• 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

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Pennsylvania Supreme Court throws out state's congressional map, ruling that gerrymandering violates constitution

HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has struck down the boundaries of the state's 18 congressional districts, granting a major victory to plaintiffs who had contended that they were unconstitutionally gerrymandered to benefit Republicans.
Click to expand...

The state's congressional delegation is controlled by Republicans, 13-5, even though registered Democratic voters outnumber registered Republicans.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
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
Click to expand...

It's the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so it has nothing to do with "states rights," since they represent the State of Pennsylvania.

I see nothing in the article stating that the losing side is going to appeal to federal courts.
 
MTAtech said:
It's the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so it has nothing to do with "states rights," since they are the state.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about SCOTUS, and this would be a states' rights issue to them. If they overrule this ruling, then it is obvious that those justices who support states rights are actually Federalists in some cases.
 
Making them "more fair" for democrats is still gerrymandering.
 
danarhea said:
I'm talking about SCOTUS, and this would be a states' rights issue to them. If they overrule this ruling, then it is obvious that those justices who support states rights are actually Federalists in some cases.
Click to expand...
I see nothing in the article stating that the losing side is going to appeal to federal courts.
 
danarhea said:
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
Click to expand...

Can always look North and see what we have done to address the issue. Formatting sucks- page 6
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_electoral_districting_courtney.pdf
Basics of Federal Redistricting in Canada
Ottawa’s
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
, adopted in 1964, set out the five basic
elements of the federal exercise:
2
(a) A separate three-member commission for each of the ten provinces appointed by
federal cabinet on the recommendation of the Commons’ Speaker and the Chief
Justice of each province;
(b) A requirement that no constituency's population could vary by more than 25
percent above or below the provincial electoral quota unless there were “exceptional
circumstances” justifying the construction of seats with populations that exceeded or
fell below the limits. The provincial quotas were to be determined by dividing a
province's population by the number of seats to which it was entitled in the House of
Commons.
(c) A stipulation that the population of each electoral district was to correspond "as
nearly as may be" to the province's electoral quota. Nonetheless the commissions
were to consider the following in determining district boundaries: (i) the community
of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district,
and (ii) a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural, or
northern regions of a province.
(d) An opportunity for the public to present written briefs and to make repre-
sentations at public meetings called by the commission about the maps first
proposed by the commission.
(e) An opportunity for MPs to voice their concerns with the proposed maps once
formal objections to a commission's work had been filed with the Commons’ Speaker
by any ten members. The debate precipitated by the objections would, together with
the maps as originally proposed, be forwarded to the commission for its
consideration. The decision that the commission reached would be final.
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
I see nothing in the article stating that the losing side is going to appeal to federal courts.
Click to expand...

You bet your bottom dollar that this will be appealed.
 
danarhea said:
I'm talking about SCOTUS, and this would be a states' rights issue to them. If they overrule this ruling, then it is obvious that those justices who support states rights are actually Federalists in some cases.
Click to expand...

MTAtech said:
I see nothing in the article stating that the losing side is going to appeal to federal courts.
Click to expand...


danarhea said:
You bet your bottom dollar that this will be appealed.
Click to expand...

There's no indication this is headed to federal court, nor is there any basis upon which it could, really. State supreme courts are the final arbiters of their own constitutions, and unless there's some concurrent federal question, which there doesn't appear to be here, there's no appeal. And even if there were an attempt, state supreme court cases are appealed directly to the US Supreme Court, and it's entirely up to them as to whether they take it or not. They likely would not.

There's a case currently in the federal courts claiming that the district map violates the US Constitution, but this isn't that. And in that federal case, the Democrats who brought the suit have lost at the trial court level.
 
Harshaw said:
There's no indication this is headed to federal court, nor is there any basis upon which it could, really. State supreme courts are the final arbiters of their own constitutions, and unless there's some concurrent federal question, which there doesn't appear to be here, there's no appeal. And even if there were an attempt, state supreme court cases are appealed directly to the US Supreme Court, and it's entirely up to them as to whether they take it or not. They likely would not.

There's a case currently in the federal courts claiming that the district map violates the US Constitution, but this isn't that. And in that federal case, the Democrats who brought the suit have lost at the trial court level.
Click to expand...

The ruling is already being appealed to the US Supreme Court. State Supreme Courts are appealed all the time.

I'm not surprised by the ruling, but if a court is going to say that a law is unconstitutional, they should at least say what part of the constitution is being violated.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has this little gem in the constitution: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" and this gets violated all the time.
 
For those wondering how reapportionment is addressed in the Commonwealth Constitution, as opposed to that of Canada:

Legislative Reapportionment Commission
Section 17

(b) The commission shall consist of five members: four of whom shall be the majority and minority leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, or deputies appointed by each of them, and a chairman selected as hereinafter provided. No later than sixty days following the official reporting of the Federal decennial census as required by Federal law, the four members shall be certified by the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the elections officer of the Commonwealth who under law shall have supervision over elections. The four members within forty-five days after their certification shall select the fifth member, who shall serve as chairman of the commission, and shall immediately certify his name to such elections officer. The chairman shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth other than a local, State or Federal official holding an office to which compensation is attached. If the four members fail to select the fifth member within the time prescribed, a majority of the entire membership of the Supreme Court within thirty days thereafter shall appoint the chairman as aforesaid and certify his appointment to such elections officer. Any vacancy in the commission shall be filled within fifteen days in the same manner in which such position was originally filled.

(c) No later than ninety days after either the commission has been duly certified or the population data for the Commonwealth as determined by the Federal decennial census are available, whichever is later in time, the commission shall file a preliminary reapportionment plan with such elections officer. The commission shall have thirty days after filing the preliminary plan to make corrections in the plan. Any person aggrieved by the preliminary plan shall have the same thirty-day period to file exceptions with the commission in which case the commission shall have thirty days after the date the exceptions were filed to prepare and file with such elections officer a revised reapportionment plan. If no exceptions are filed within thirty days, or if filed and acted upon, the commission's plan shall be final and have the force of law.

(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.

(h) If a preliminary, revised or final reapportionment plan is not filed by the commission within the time prescribed by this section, unless the time be extended by the Supreme Court for cause shown, the Supreme Court shall immediately proceed on its own motion to reapportion the Commonwealth.

(i) Any reapportionment plan filed by the commission, or ordered or prepared by the Supreme Court upon the failure of the commission to act, shall be published by the elections officer once in at least one newspaper of general circulation in each senatorial and representative district. The publication shall contain a map of the Commonwealth showing the complete reapportionment of the General Assembly by districts, and a map showing the reapportionment districts in the area normally served by the newspaper in which the publication is made. The publication shall also state the population of the senatorial and representative districts having the smallest and largest population and the percentage variation of such districts from the average population for senatorial and representative districts.

Pennsylvania Constitution - Current | Duquesne University
 
Harshaw said:
There's no indication this is headed to federal court, nor is there any basis upon which it could, really. State supreme courts are the final arbiters of their own constitutions, and unless there's some concurrent federal question, which there doesn't appear to be here, there's no appeal. And even if there were an attempt, state supreme court cases are appealed directly to the US Supreme Court, and it's entirely up to them as to whether they take it or not. They likely would not.

There's a case currently in the federal courts claiming that the district map violates the US Constitution, but this isn't that. And in that federal case, the Democrats who brought the suit have lost at the trial court level.
Click to expand...

I disagree. these are Federal Congressional seats, not state Congressional seats, that the ruling was made over, so the state Supreme Court is not the final arbiter here. If it was statehouse seats only, I would agree with you, but it's not.
 
danarhea said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Republicans will fight this to the death, they know its hard for them to win without Gerrymandering. Routinely see democrats get more votes yet republicans hold on to more seats
 
AliHajiSheik said:
The ruling is already being appealed to the US Supreme Court. State Supreme Courts are appealed all the time.

I'm not surprised by the ruling, but if a court is going to say that a law is unconstitutional, they should at least say what part of the constitution is being violated.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has this little gem in the constitution: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" and this gets violated all the time.
Click to expand...

Where are you seeing that this is already being appealed?
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. these are Federal Congressional seats, not state Congressional seats, that the ruling was made over, so the state Supreme Court is not the final arbiter here. If it was statehouse seats only, I would agree with you, but it's not.
Click to expand...

There's no federal question; the ruling was on the basis of the PA constitution, even if it involves US congressional seats. There's no higher authority for state constitutions.
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. these are Federal Congressional seats, not state Congressional seats, that the ruling was made over, so the state Supreme Court is not the final arbiter here. If it was statehouse seats only, I would agree with you, but it's not.
Click to expand...

If it were statehouse seats only, it could still be appealed to Federal Courts.
 
Harshaw said:
There's no federal question; the ruling was on the basis of the PA constitution, even if it involves US congressional seats. There's no higher authority for state constitutions.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
If it were statehouse seats only, it could still be appealed to Federal Courts.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom