The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has struck down the Republicans’ partisan gerrymander. To be clear, this is a ruling on the state constitution, not the federal one. That might make it more difficult for the Roberts Court to overrule. I’m not a lawyer, but this is a different kettle of fish than the cases where U.S. District Courts have ruled against congressional maps.
The Democratic-controlled court, which said that the districts violate the state constitution, gave the Republican-controlled Legislature until Feb. 9 to pass a replacement and Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf until Feb. 15 to submit it to the court. Otherwise, the justices said they will adopt a plan in an effort to keep the May 15 primary election on track.
The court said the boundaries “clearly, plainly and palpably” violate the state’s constitution, and blocked it from remaining in effect for the 2018 elections.
Presumably, the court will wind up drawing the boundaries because the Republican legislature and the Democratic governor will not agree on them. And if the process isn’t short-circuited by the U.S. Supreme Court, Stephen Wolf of Daily Kos Elections projects that it will mean at least one more guaranteed seat for the Democrats and a potential pick up of as many as six.
If you’re handicapping the likelihood of the Republicans losing control of the House, you need to adjust your odds in light of this news. If it stands, it could be the decisive factor that changes the ultimate outcome.
that’s quite a turn of events in PA
Also I think the Supreme Court, mainly Kennedy is poised to change the landscape too with their decision this summer. It’s going to definitely be very interesting situation
I daresay the GOP will be pushing as hard as they can to get this into the Gorsuch court ASAP. Even a stay till after the November elections, regardless of success on the merits, would be a win for them.
Didn’t they try the same thing in North Carolina and their stay was declined by SCOTUS?
Dunno; but not having a legal leg to stand on is unlikely to deter them from trying, doncha think?
No, the Supremes said 2018 could proceed with the maps as is while the case is still winding its way through the courts. Which means Art Pope is still breathing easy, for now.
For reasons already stated in other comments, it is unlikely the U.S. Supreme Court would touch it, because it lacks jurisdiction.
Sure, you’re right — but will that stop the GOP from trying anyway? They’ve demonstrated their contempt for the rule of law when it goes against them so many times already. And I can’t see the Gorsuch* court leaving it alone if they can possibly get away with it.
*I say “Gorsuch court” rather than “Roberts court” because his ascension to that bench I believe will fundamentally change American jurisprudence, and not in a good way.
Don’t they need 5 members to agree to hear a case?
I am not sure right now they have 5 who are willing to take the case based on whether they have jurisdiction.
Petitions for review (certiorari) in the Supreme Court need only 4 votes to be granted. So Chief Suppressor Roberts needs only fellow-extremists Thomas, Alito and errand-boy Gorsuch to go along in order to hear the case.
If it’s a ruling based on state constitutional law, then the only way to appeal it to the US Supreme Court is to argue that the ruling impinges on a federal law or federal right. I don’t know if such an argument can be made here, not being familiar with the case. The point is, though, that state courts are the final arbiters of state law so long as the state law is not contrary to federal law.
Or to the Federal Constitution. Which is not to say that SCOTUS will not discover a new right like the right of corporations to donate unlimited money to campaigns.
Of course – “federal law” includes federal constitutional law. 🙂
Just clarifying that the US Code isn’t the only issue.
This is great news. So many battles to fight . . . . Good thing this looks like a straight-up State constitution ruling, so that should keep Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch from wraping their corrupt fingers around it.
Bush v Gore says hi.
Bush v Gore doesn’t apply. In fact, Bush v Gore CANNOT apply because the Supremes (all 5 of them) declared that the case non-referentialble in Federal Court.
SCOTUS has avoided all challenges to the voting patterns of the states except those referencing the 14th amendment protected status … in NC that status is race.
One man, one vote does not hold countenance in gerrymandering. It refers strictly to the principle that congressional districts (and presumably state gov’t districts) have approximately the same number of votes. Doesn’t matter if they are black or white.
I doubt the Roberts court will get caught up in the fights over state constitutions. Its a morass with no end in sight.
You might be missing my point. In Bush v Gore the Court intervened in an issue based on Florida law and already decided by the Florida Supreme Court on utterly specious equal protection grounds. They made up a farcical excuse to stick their noses in.
when do we get to see the ocean floor exposed, with fish flipping around? I mean when do we get to know itsa gonna be a tsunami?
This is big, because with 4 more seats from a fair PA map we don’t even have to flip any R+4 seats to win the House. There’s enough R+3 and less.
This is a good reminder that many challenges can be made to bad laws by challenging them under state constitutions. (Not federal laws, alas.)
States can recognize more rights than those recognized under the federal constitution. They just can’t recognize fewer rights.
Cases decided under state constitutions are mostly beyond the jurisdiction for the U.S. Supreme Court. A number of states have stricter search and seizure provisions than the federal constitution, for example.
This is the sort of “federalism” (a term misused in the mouths of conservatives) that conservatives hope you don’t know about.
I think it is also an important reminder that the Red in Red States is largely an artificial creation and, no matter how many MAGA hat wearing Abandoned-Working-Class softball interviews coastal media puts in front of us, it is not true reflection of many state’s voting population.
Admittedly it has been done since the beginning of the Republic, but the GOP has been especially relying on these tactics more and more since 2000 as they understand they are trying to retain majority-level power with a minority of voters.
Well, the “conservative” volunteer Law Brigades will have 30 days to make up some farcical, baseless claim that this decision affects federal elections and federal offices, and hence argue for US Supreme Court jurisdiction. We’ll see soon enough the level of intellectual dishonestly to which Roberts’ Repubs will stoop. I’d guess there is no bottom, whatever the naive law professors seem to think. They comically continue to act as though Roberts’ Repubs must “follow precedent”, haha.
Roberts’ Repubs have to come up with some contrived means of reviewing and reversing this PA decision, else there is a significant chink in the GOoP vote suppression armor—one can’t have state supreme courts overseeing the vote suppression tactics of the American Fascist Party!
So this is a direct challenge to Repub anti-voting rights, which Chief Suppressor Roberts simply must stop dead in its tracks…