PENNSYLVANIA ON FIRE, FROM SUPER BOWL TO SCOTUS | Not All Partisan Politics At High Court
February 6, 2018
FROM THE SUPER BOWL TO SCOTUS
|Pennsylvania is making a big splash this week. The Supreme Court — à la JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO — denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans yesterday to delay redrawing the state’s congressional map ahead of the 2018 elections. Without even referring the case to his colleagues, Justice Alito denied the request for a stay, following the general rule of thumb that calls on SCOTUS to refrain from intervening in a state supreme court’s interpretation of its own constitution.
NOBODY SAID IT WOULD BE EASY
|NPR’s Nina Totenberg explains that after Monday’s decision from SCOTUS, Pennsylvania now has 10 days to come up with a new congressional map. Totenberg notes, “Nobody says this is easy, but there are computers that do this very, very quickly. The state court ordered the legislature to redraw the lines to get rid of the partisan gerrymander and to do it by this Friday. The GOP majority in the state legislature didn’t do that. And so now it’s stuck with the Friday deadline. And under the process laid out by the state Supreme Court, after the state legislature draws the new lines, the governor, who’s a Democrat, has until February 15 to decide whether to endorse it and submit it to the state court. So there is, shall we say, time for negotiations.”
IT'S GONNA BE YUGE
|Quite simply, it is a very big deal that Pennsylvania has to redraw its 18 congressional districts for the 2018 elections. Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-Large, explains that even slight tweaks to some districts could make it nearly impossible for Republicans to keep their current majority. “[There’s] a whole lot of potential vulnerability for Republicans that, with the necessity of creating a new map now certain, is unavoidable for GOP line-drawers. If there are six — or even more — potential Democratic gains in Pennsylvania, that could get the party one quarter of the way back to the majority. Which is a very big deal.”
FOOD FOR THOUGHT, FOLKS
|Rick Hasen noted on his blog yesterday, “JUSTICE ALITO’S denial of the stay in the Pa Congressional redistricting case is a reminder that it is NOT all partisan politics at the court. If it were, surely J. Alito would have ruled to help Republicans in their Pa House races in 2018.”
WHAT GOES UP
|Someone’s having a real bad day in light of JUSTICE ALITO’S refusal to wade into the Pennsylvania case, and it’s Pennsylvania Senate President pro tempore Joseph Scarnati. Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern points out that it was Scarnati who declared last week that he would defy his state supreme court’s order requesting data to make a new nonpartisan map. “The legislator insisted that SCOTUS would soon reverse the state Supreme Court. Now that it has refused to do so, Scarnati is out of options: He must turn over the data or risk being held in contempt of court. Pennsylvania’s midterm elections will be held in much fairer districts, whether Republicans like it or not.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
A Blow Against Gerrymandering
The New York Times“It’s important to note that both parties have abused gerrymandering in recent years. Democrats have done so in Illinois and Maryland. Republicans have done so in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin, among other places. Republicans have been able to do more gerrymandering mostly because they control more state governments — not because Democrats are above gerrymandering. But I think that this shared blame should make the problem easier to address.”
Partisanship In Pennsylvania Isn't Confined To Its Congressional Map
Los Angeles Times“Ending gerrymandering in Pennsylvania is probably worth the cynicism that the partisan division on the court will inspire. But there is another way to end gerrymandering that doesn’t depend on a judicial finding that a map violates either the U.S. Constitution or the constitution of a particular state. A state can follow California’s example and entrust congressional redistricting to a citizen commission, an approach the Supreme Court upheld in 2015 in an Arizona case. Gerrymandering is a blot on democracy, but not all solutions have to come in court.”