Monday, February 05, 2018 2:27:03 PM
Supreme Court refuses to block Pa. ruling invalidating congressional map
Visitors line up in front of the Supreme Court while the Justices hear arguments on gerrymandering on Oct. 3, 2017, in Washington, D.C.
(Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post)
By Robert Barnes February 5 at 1:46 PM Email the author
The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to delay redrawing congressional lines, meaning the 2018 elections in the state will probably be held in districts far more favorable to Democrats.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who hears emergency requests from the state, turned down the petition without obvious objection from his colleagues.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruled that the state’s Republican legislative leaders had violated the state Constitution by unfairly favoring the GOP. Although there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in the state, Republicans hold 13 of 18 congressional seats.
It is the most significant victory by critics of the way most congressional and legislative districts are drawn and a sign that their efforts will be felt as early as this fall’s midterm elections.
Federal courts in Texas, North Carolina and Wisconsin found that either politics or intentional discrimination played an unacceptable role in drawing electoral lines and ordered new districts in place for the 2018 elections, but the Supreme Court stopped those decisions.
Gerrymandering, explained
The process of re-drawing district lines to give an advantage to one party over another is called "gerrymandering". Here's how it works. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post
2:42
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-pa-ruling-invalidating-congressional-mapdecision-means-2018-elections-in-the-state-will-probably-be-held-in-districts-far-more-favorable-to-democrats/2018/02/05/2d758f90-0aa3-11e8-8890-372e2047c935_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-breaking-news%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&utm_term=.cc048339a623
The justices are traditionally reluctant to order changes in an election year, for one thing. And they have never thrown out a state’s redistricting plan because they found it so infected with partisan bias that it violates voters’ constitutional rights.
[Supreme Court takes up Wisconsin case on partisan gerrymandering]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-takes-up-wisconsin-as-first-test-in-partisan-gerrymandering-claims/2017/10/03/4349b5de-a82a-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.4ccc85e2df35
Unless and until it does — the subject is under review at the high court — the justices have routinely told states found to be offenders that they do not have to immediately redraw the maps, which almost surely means they won’t be in place for the 2018 elections.
But the previous decisions have been by federal courts weighing how gerrymandering might violate the U.S. Constitution. The Pennsylvania case was brought under the commonwealth’s Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court generally does not interfere in such decisions.
Those challenging gerrymandering now see the state route as perhaps a quicker way to their goal.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruled that the congressional map drawn by the Republican legislature in 2011 “clearly, plainly and palpably violates” the commonwealth’s Constitution. It demanded a quick redrawing of the lines so that 2018 elections could be held in fairer districts.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court justices are elected, and with Democrats in the majority, voted along party lines in demanding a change to the districts. Republicans hold 13 of the 18 congressional seats in what is usually considered a swing state. The ruling gives Democrats a chance to win more of those seats as they try to tip the balance in the House.
But Republican legislative leaders in Pennsylvania had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put the decision on hold. And other Republican-led states told the justices that they should refrain from ordering new districts anywhere, even if they find later this term that there is a way to gauge extreme partisan gerrymandering.
“Put simply, there is no need to hurry,” said an amicus brief filed by Republican officials in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri and South Carolina. They noted that the 2020 Census will require new lines to be drawn nationwide anyway.
Pennsylvania’s Republican legislative leaders told the U.S. Supreme Court that, just as the court decided to reverse the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, there is a federal issue at stake.
The Constitution’s Elections Clause provides that the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections shall be decided by the “legislature” of each state, or by Congress. That leaves no room for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to usurp the legislature’s power under vague interpretations of the state’s guarantees of free speech and equal protection, they say.
The court’s 5 to 2 ruling was not accompanied by a detailed opinion, which it said would come later.
“For the first time in United States history, a state court, in attempting to play the role of ‘lawmaker,’ has invalidated a congressional districting plan without identifying a violation of the U.S. Constitution or a state constitutional or statutory provision providing specific redistricting criteria,”
the GOP leaders told the court.
[ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17A795/33301/20180125203828316_Emergency%20Application%20for%20Stay%20final5.pdf ]
But the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, one of the challengers to the plan, told the court in its response brief that the Supreme Court on numerous occasions has said the meaning of “legislature” in the Constitution is not so literal.
To rule for the commonwealth’s legislative leaders, “this Court would need to overrule no fewer than six of its precedents, all upholding the power of state courts to review and remedy unconstitutional congressional districting plans,” the group’s brief said.
It added: “Their stay applications are just a ploy to preserve a congressional map that violates Pennsylvania’s Constitution for one more election cycle.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-pa-ruling-invalidating-congressional-mapdecision-means-2018-elections-in-the-state-will-probably-be-held-in-districts-far-more-favorable-to-democrats/2018/02/05/2d758f90-0aa3-11e8-8890-372e2047c935_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-breaking-news%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&utm_term=.cc048339a623
Visitors line up in front of the Supreme Court while the Justices hear arguments on gerrymandering on Oct. 3, 2017, in Washington, D.C.
(Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post)
By Robert Barnes February 5 at 1:46 PM Email the author
The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to delay redrawing congressional lines, meaning the 2018 elections in the state will probably be held in districts far more favorable to Democrats.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who hears emergency requests from the state, turned down the petition without obvious objection from his colleagues.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruled that the state’s Republican legislative leaders had violated the state Constitution by unfairly favoring the GOP. Although there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in the state, Republicans hold 13 of 18 congressional seats.
It is the most significant victory by critics of the way most congressional and legislative districts are drawn and a sign that their efforts will be felt as early as this fall’s midterm elections.
Federal courts in Texas, North Carolina and Wisconsin found that either politics or intentional discrimination played an unacceptable role in drawing electoral lines and ordered new districts in place for the 2018 elections, but the Supreme Court stopped those decisions.
Gerrymandering, explained
The process of re-drawing district lines to give an advantage to one party over another is called "gerrymandering". Here's how it works. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post
2:42
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-pa-ruling-invalidating-congressional-mapdecision-means-2018-elections-in-the-state-will-probably-be-held-in-districts-far-more-favorable-to-democrats/2018/02/05/2d758f90-0aa3-11e8-8890-372e2047c935_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-breaking-news%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&utm_term=.cc048339a623
The justices are traditionally reluctant to order changes in an election year, for one thing. And they have never thrown out a state’s redistricting plan because they found it so infected with partisan bias that it violates voters’ constitutional rights.
[Supreme Court takes up Wisconsin case on partisan gerrymandering]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-takes-up-wisconsin-as-first-test-in-partisan-gerrymandering-claims/2017/10/03/4349b5de-a82a-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.4ccc85e2df35
Unless and until it does — the subject is under review at the high court — the justices have routinely told states found to be offenders that they do not have to immediately redraw the maps, which almost surely means they won’t be in place for the 2018 elections.
But the previous decisions have been by federal courts weighing how gerrymandering might violate the U.S. Constitution. The Pennsylvania case was brought under the commonwealth’s Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court generally does not interfere in such decisions.
Those challenging gerrymandering now see the state route as perhaps a quicker way to their goal.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruled that the congressional map drawn by the Republican legislature in 2011 “clearly, plainly and palpably violates” the commonwealth’s Constitution. It demanded a quick redrawing of the lines so that 2018 elections could be held in fairer districts.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court justices are elected, and with Democrats in the majority, voted along party lines in demanding a change to the districts. Republicans hold 13 of the 18 congressional seats in what is usually considered a swing state. The ruling gives Democrats a chance to win more of those seats as they try to tip the balance in the House.
But Republican legislative leaders in Pennsylvania had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put the decision on hold. And other Republican-led states told the justices that they should refrain from ordering new districts anywhere, even if they find later this term that there is a way to gauge extreme partisan gerrymandering.
“Put simply, there is no need to hurry,” said an amicus brief filed by Republican officials in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri and South Carolina. They noted that the 2020 Census will require new lines to be drawn nationwide anyway.
Pennsylvania’s Republican legislative leaders told the U.S. Supreme Court that, just as the court decided to reverse the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, there is a federal issue at stake.
The Constitution’s Elections Clause provides that the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections shall be decided by the “legislature” of each state, or by Congress. That leaves no room for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to usurp the legislature’s power under vague interpretations of the state’s guarantees of free speech and equal protection, they say.
The court’s 5 to 2 ruling was not accompanied by a detailed opinion, which it said would come later.
“For the first time in United States history, a state court, in attempting to play the role of ‘lawmaker,’ has invalidated a congressional districting plan without identifying a violation of the U.S. Constitution or a state constitutional or statutory provision providing specific redistricting criteria,”
the GOP leaders told the court.
[ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17A795/33301/20180125203828316_Emergency%20Application%20for%20Stay%20final5.pdf ]
But the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, one of the challengers to the plan, told the court in its response brief that the Supreme Court on numerous occasions has said the meaning of “legislature” in the Constitution is not so literal.
To rule for the commonwealth’s legislative leaders, “this Court would need to overrule no fewer than six of its precedents, all upholding the power of state courts to review and remedy unconstitutional congressional districting plans,” the group’s brief said.
It added: “Their stay applications are just a ploy to preserve a congressional map that violates Pennsylvania’s Constitution for one more election cycle.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-pa-ruling-invalidating-congressional-mapdecision-means-2018-elections-in-the-state-will-probably-be-held-in-districts-far-more-favorable-to-democrats/2018/02/05/2d758f90-0aa3-11e8-8890-372e2047c935_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-breaking-news%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&utm_term=.cc048339a623
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
