New PA Maps In Effect

[Nyvin]

Interestingly, they also throw Cartwright under the bus.

Did they? I thought we're writing off Trump's numbers in PA-17 as irrelevant to a congressional Dem who isn't Hillary Clinton.

Cartwright would have a hard time in that PA-17,  but the PA-15 numbers are about as good of a NEPA seat can possibly get for Dems.   I imagine he'll run in the 15th.

Currently a good portion of his district covers the Allentown area.

[Nyvin]

The biggest sticking points looking at the maps is whether

1.  Reading goes to the Philly Metro or Lancaster/Berks

2. Southern Monroe goes to PA-15 or PA-17

I'm finding it weird that literally ALL the maps so far split Allegheny three ways.

[Nyvin]

The 12/03 border there is dumb. Splits an extra unnecessary County.

That could be to keep more of I-79 in PA-12,  I'm seeing it's kinda common on the maps they're submitting.

[Nyvin]

Many a Gerrymander has turned into a Dummymander after 10 years.

Gerrymandering is an American tradition that is even older than the person for whom it is named.

Slavery was also an American Tradition that was written into the constitution by the "Framers"

[Nyvin]

I’m sure that if I had the time and resources, I could draw an even more compact R compact Gerrymander with even fewer splits. From what I’ve read, there are over 500 different ways to draw a compact map that minimizes county splits. What’s a “dumb” or “better” map ultimately is in the partisan eye of the beholder. And we’re ALL partisans, whether we like it or not, including the members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

There is no such thing as nonpartisan or neutral redistricting principles.

So you're a hyper-partisan with no interests in fair representation.   Gotcha.  

You're basically just a cheerleader for the Republican Party, and not much else.   Thankfully the public at large utterly HATES partisan gerrymandering and it's quickly becoming untenable for politicians/judges to support it or even not act against it.

You're swimming against the tide in the country,  I would expect by 2030 partisan gerrymandering will be probably be a historic thing of the past, at least to the level we see now.

[Nyvin]

Given the make-up of the PASC and Wolf being governor there isn’t anything Republicans can do to win this one, so what will be the most likely outcome? 10D, 8R? Or 9D, 9R?

Probably none of these, or at least we don't know right now. PA geography has a bunch of areas like Bucks, the Lehigh Valley, and Chester where the only available districts are competitive/tossup ones at best. So it will be more like 5 to 6 safe D, 7-9 safe R, 3-6 Tossup/competitive seats. We will see what the special master does next week...

Thanks. Honestly, I’d be very surprised if it’s better than 9D/9R for Republicans. I guess something like 11D/7R is quite possible after 2018.

I doubt it,  Philadelphia is too much of a natural vote sink in what's otherwise a 50/50 state.

[Nyvin]

When will we know the new map has been selected?

Probably tomorrow

[Nyvin]

If you don't like the way your state legislature redistricts, you have three options: 1) amend the U.S. Constitution, 2) get Congress to pass a law on redistricting to your liking, or 3) vote for a divided legislature (if you're "nonpartisan" - which I think is about as common among people who deeply care about politics as a unicorn) or your party's legislature in a redistricting year. Absent that, the courts should butt out of redistricting. It's not in their purview.

What if the state legislature is gerrymandered so heavily following the 2010 election that it is no longer a democratically elected body, cinyc? This is what happened in WI and NC. No point telling people in WI to "elect a legislature you like" when it's proven impossible to dislodge a single-party state without overwhelming force. Now that Democrats are winning some unlikely districts, the governor is refusing to hold elections in vacant senate seats even though election day is 9 months away. The Republicans have completely broken the system and don't believe in democracy. The courts need to step in, just like they had to with Southern Democrats jimrtex cites from two generations ago.

You are wrong about Wisconsin. The Wisconsin legislature is not in session - and won’t be until after the election, unless a special session is called. The governor has no obligation - or even right - to call a special election under those circumstances. Your problem is with Wisconsin law, which doesn’t call for the state to waste money on a useless election that would have no real world consequences - as it probably shouldn’t.

As for the alleged non-overcomeable Gerrymander in NC, funny - I never see you or most Democrats complaining about Democratic Gerrymandering in Democratic states. It’s always the Republican ones that raise your ire. Start with the Democrat Gerrymander in your own home state’s legislature, for example. I guess you’d agree that Massachusetts Democrats have broken the system and don’t believe in democracy, right?  I’m also sure you and other Democrats were real concerned when Democrats Gerrymandered NC so that no Republicans could possibly win the state legislature - until they overcame the map and did.

The fact is no Gerrymander is truly safe 8 or 10 years out. Conditions change. Many a Gerrymander becomes a dummymander. No map is “safe”.

Anyway, the section of the U.S. Constitution I cited applies to Congressional redistricting, not state redistricting. It’s up to the states to decide how to redistrict their legislatures.

There are independent commissions in California and Washington, and a politically appointed commission in New Jersey and Hawaii.  

Sure, Democratic Gerrymandering hasn't been rooted out everywhere but I would say the Democrats are doing a whole hell of a lot more than the Republicans around the country.  

I know you just want to play the #whataboutism card for this, but the problem still exist whether it's one or both parties doing it.

gerrymandering helped the dems hold the house from 1952-1944, but when the tables turn, it suddenly becomes a 'democracy' issue

It was a problem then and it's a problem now.

[Nyvin]

As for the alleged non-overcomeable Gerrymander in NC, funny - I never see you or most Democrats complaining about Democratic Gerrymandering in Democratic states.

Cinyc, I don't expect you to be an expert in my posts, but after the 20th false accusation of "why don't Democrats care about Maryland, huh?!" it's become too boring to indulge these kinds of attacks. Do a search, you can find plenty of posts where I say Maryland's gerrymander should go, too, and just about every other Democrat here is consistent in opposing partisan gerrymandering. As far as Massachusetts's map, you're far too smart to blame gerrymandering when you know the issue in Massachusetts is mainly the lack of a bench / concentration of Republican voters.

The fact is there is no "good government" argument to defend gerrymandering by pretending voters have recourse through state legislatures. After Republicans won big in 2010, they gerrymandered several states to impose de facto single-party government in those states and have used legislative power to then weaken levers available to citizens through local government, judiciary, and future elections. I'm not interested in hearing justifications for it; in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, it is all about one party holding power at the expense of democracy. I would happily throw away Maryland's advantages in the interest of democracy everywhere.

I’m talking about the Massachusetts legislature map, not the Congressional map, where Republicans have what, 6/40 seats in the Senate and something like 20% of the seats in the House? If “proportionality” is what we strive for because it is “fair”, shouldn’t those numbers be higher so that Republicans could create a bench? After all, we have posters here calling for Democrats to get 9/18 seats in PA by forcing a Democratic Gerrymander on the state to overcome the Democrats’ geographical disadvantages there. If “proportionality” is good for PA, why isn’t it good for Massachusetts? In other words, if you want seats in PA for your party in the name of “proportionality” and “democracy”, I want seats for my party in Democratic states like Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, etc. If you get your PA Democratic Gerrymander, I want my Massachusetts Republican Gerrymander. You can’t have it both ways.

I'm 99% sure the national Democratic Party would accept this offer in a heart beat.   

There already is an independent commission in California btw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Brown Vs Board of Education created a "right" that didn't exist previously.   So did Citizens United.    Lots of "rights" are made from the philosophical points of view of the judges.   That's been the nature of the beast since inception.   It's a hallow argument that judges shouldn't have any say in redistricting.    We live in a system of checks and balances....THAT'S something the founding fathers strove to achieve.

[Nyvin]

The only dem gerrymander part of this map is PA-10, which is minor at best.

Everything else about the map is just a plainly drawn, fair map.  

The Philly metro was always going to get the 6 seats it's meant to based on population, the only part that was questionable was if Reading was part of those 6 or if Lancastor was.   Either option was fair.

The Pittsburgh area was always going to have a second seat that was going to be somewhat competitive.   That's fair and normal.

The Lehigh Valley and Scranton metro were both getting their tossup seats,  this variation of them is fair.

The only part I can see on the map where the court slid things in Dems favor is the Harrisburg/York seat, but really the GOP incumbent should be fine there.

[Nyvin]

Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati and House Speaker Mike Turzai says "implementation of this map would create a constitutional crisis"

The giant elephant in the room with their argument is that 13R-5D is not a "normal" delegation for  Pennsylvania, it was always dependent on the maps they drew.   

Drawing a new, fair map and having it elect more than five Democrats would be a perfectly normal and expected result.

[Nyvin]

Trump urging Republicans to challenge map. Clearly he doesn't understand what gerrymandering is.

"Take elections away from you"??

So basically he's admitting that the gerrymandering was done so that Republicans can win office more easily?

[Nyvin]

Democrats better prepare for the fact that this new map is DOA, the Republicans are going to take this case to the the overwhelmingly Republican 3rd circuit, meaning that it’s inevitable that one of those Federal judges will issue a stay order in the next few days that will prevent this map from being implemented in the 2018 Midterms.

The current make up of the 3rd circuit judges is 7D-5R with two vacancies.

[Nyvin]

FiveThirtyEight's take

This article perfectly sums up what I said earlier -

The new PA map is NOT a Democratic gerrymander....it's just a plain, fair map.

People saying it's a dem gerrymander are going by the point of view that a 13R-5D delegation is "normal" and anything more beneficial must be a democratic gerrymander.   It isn't!   The 13R - 5D was the Republican gerrymander they were spoiled with this whole time.

[Nyvin]

FiveThirtyEight's take

This article perfectly sums up what I said earlier -

The new PA map is NOT a Democratic gerrymander....it's just a plain, fair map.

People saying it's a dem gerrymander are going by the point of view that a 13R-5D delegation is "normal" and anything more beneficial must be a democratic gerrymander.   It isn't!   The 13R - 5D was the Republican gerrymander they were spoiled with this whole time.

Ehh the fact that PA-10 (new) is now a R+5.5 seat that cuts two counties is a pretty clear soft D gerrymander - a hard D gerry in this region would also include State College. the rest of the map is fair.

PA-10 would be the only part of the map I would question as a gerrymander.

But realistically it's taking it from Safe R to Likely R for a period of 2 election cycles.

[Nyvin]

If they impeach the judges it's pretty much declaring political warfare across the country.

[Nyvin]

Isn't this a clear violation of the VRA? There was two majority-minority districts with more than 50% black population that could elect the candidate of their choice, and now there's one with 60% and one with 20%. This sucker is gonna get stayed.

PA-1 was 45.7% AA in the previous map.

[Nyvin]

The 3-judge panel denied Republican request to immediately block the new map and bring back the old one.

The chances of this getting anywhere for Republicans is like 0.00000000000001%, and I'm being pretty generous. 

[Nyvin]

So is the new map set in stone at this point and the chance of going back to the old one pretty much zero?

The Secretary of State's office has already begun updating records and shifting precincts. I can't imagine the Supreme Court upending the process like that.

We'll know more on March 9th I guess.

[Nyvin]

Siren --->

https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/971818952253833216

Wasn't the date set to 3/9/2018?

[Nyvin]

Considering the filing deadline is tomorrow, I'd expect to hear from SCOTUS on this pretty soon as well (which i largely expect to be a declined stay as well)

[Nyvin]

Lol

https://www.twitter.com/jjabbott/status/976146950973214720

Yeah, this won't end well for them.  How do they possibly expect to impeach them on morally sound grounds after the SCOTUS refused to stay the ruling?

[Nyvin]

FF move

it's funny how gerrymandering is illegal when the gop does it but not when the libs do so; PA was gerrymandered by the dems for much of the past30-40 years, why only illegal now?

It's not illegal now...it's something that's morally wrong that we're trying to "make" illegal.   That's kinda how the system works, you know, like how slavery ended or how members of congress can no longer transfer funds from a campaign to their personal account?   Just because someone did it in the past doesn't mean it's okay to do now.

[Nyvin]

Illinois isn't that bad. It's just IL-4 (the earmuffs) that's infamous.
Maryland, however, is an absolute atrocity.

IL-4 is drawn that way to unite hispanic populations,  not to gerrymander more Dem seats.

The main benefit of the Illinois gerrymander for dems "WAS" IL-12 and IL-13,  but that's proven useless for the most part.

If anything, by 2016 it's turned into a dummymander by protecting Roskam in IL-6.

[Nyvin]

FF move

it's funny how gerrymandering is illegal when the gop does it but not when the libs do so; PA was gerrymandered by the dems for much of the past30-40 years, why only illegal now?

It's not illegal now...it's something that's morally wrong that we're trying to "make" illegal.   That's kinda how the system works, you know, like how slavery ended or how members of congress can no longer transfer funds from a campaign to their personal account?   Just because someone did it in the past doesn't mean it's okay to do now.

gerrymandering is not morally wrong, unlike the stuff you listed.

Many, many people would disagree with you on this, including a lot of judges around the country, and the people voting on ballot measures to prevent gerrymandering.