New Pennsylvania Congressional Map Is a Big Win for Democrats

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Angrytaxpayer, Feb 20, 2018.

  1. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    9,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ?? Not a hunter are you. It was sarcasm. ;) Like shooting fish in a barrel.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2018
  2. Angrytaxpayer

    Angrytaxpayer Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    3,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Damn I'm getting all pf the members confused now
    Thought I was responding to FreshAir lol
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2018
  3. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,444
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Texas and Nevada both have a higher percentage of undocumented immigrants population-wise.
     
    mdrobster and Derideo_Te like this.
  4. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    77,525
    Likes Received:
    52,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pennsylvania legislators seek SCOTUS Emergency Stay of new congressional district map.

    PA Supreme Court imposed map even more gerrymandered to Democrats than Democrats had requested.

    On February 19, 2018, the majority Democrat members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court imposed a new congressional district map that was so Democrat friendly, it would likely swing 4-5 seats to Democrats and could even result in Democrats taking control of the U.S. House in the 2018 midterms.

    The map became so Democrat-friendly after a series of judicial decisions as to placement of boundaries that helped Democrats. Nate Cohn at The NY Times described it this way:

    Few people expected that the Pennsylvania congressional map, which the state Supreme Court ordered redrawn to undo Republican gerrymandering, would prove to be as favorable to Democrats as the one adopted by the court on Monday.

    Perhaps the easiest way to convey the cause for surprise: The new map is better for Democrats — by nearly every measure — than the maps that Democrats themselves proposed.

    How could that be?

    Democrats did not believe it was realistic to demand such a favorable map, since it would require a series of Democratic-leaning choices. And the court order did not specify that the maps should aim for partisan balance, which might have justified a more Democratic map.

    [The Judicial map] gives a significant boost to Democratic hopes of retaking the House. It’s a reality because the newly adopted map consistently makes subtle choices that nudge districts in the direction of Democrats.

    The new map has Pennsylvania talking about a possible impeachment of the PA Supreme Court justices:

    Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey (R) called for a “conversation” about impeaching state Supreme Court justices over their new congressional map, which both parties say will benefit Democrats.

    At a press conference, Toomey said it was “inevitable” that state lawmakers would consider impeachment over the redrawing of the state’s new congressional maps, which he called a “power grab” by state Democrats.

    “Look, I think it’s inevitable that that conversation’s going to take place,” Toomey said. “I think state House members and state senators are going to be speaking amongst themselves and their constituents, and the fundamental question is does this blatant, unconstitutional, partisan power grab that undermines our electoral process, does that rise to the level of impeachment?


    The Emergency Application for a Stay (pdf.) from SCOTUS is at the link. The Application focuses on wthe key legal issue, that the PA Supreme Court usurped a power vested by the U.S. Constitution in state legislatures (Article I, Section 4):

    The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof;

    From the Application opening paragraph:

    This case arises from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s usurpation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s legislative authority to draw its congressional district lines through its preordained invalidation of the lawful districts the General Assembly enacted in 2011 (the “2011 Plan”). At all stages, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court set this case on a path whereby only it would draw Pennsylvania’s new congressional districts—a task delegated to the “Legislature”—in violation of the Elections Clause. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4. But as Justice Kennedy stated in League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, “drawing lines for congressional districts is one of the most significant acts a State can perform to ensure citizen participation in republican self-governance. * * * As the Constitution vests redistricting responsibilities foremost in the legislatures of the States and in Congress, a lawful, legislatively enacted plan should be preferable to one drawn by the courts.” 548 U.S. 399, 415-16 (2006). “Underlying this principle is the assumption that to prefer a court-drawn plan to a legislature’s replacement would be contrary to the ordinary and proper operation of the political process.” Id. at 416. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court conspicuously seized the redistricting process and prevented any meaningful ability for the legislature to enact a remedial map to ensure a court drawn map.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...gency-stay-of-new-congressional-district-map/


     

Share This Page