New PA Maps In Effect

[Brittain33]

A fair map would probably end up 8D-10R at best in a neutral year. Unfortunately there is a lot of Democrat self-packing in the cities.

I don't mean to single you out, and I understand why this term came up in the context of drawing congressional lines, but there is a lot of unintended euphemism involved in describing racial housing patterns in Philadelphia as Democrat self-packing.

[Brittain33]

If the legislature is smart, they'll craft a compromise with Wolf that sacrifices some districts to Ds and swing status, gives incumbents some predictability, and avoids the courts throwing the doors wide open to a radically redrawn new map.

[Brittain33]

If the legislature is smart, they'll craft a compromise with Wolf that sacrifices some districts to Ds and swing status, gives incumbents some predictability, and avoids the courts throwing the doors wide open to a radically redrawn new map.

If Ds are smart they take their chances with the 5-2 Dem court drawing the maps.

Oooh. Has anyone done a D gerrymander of Pennsylvania? I thought that was hard to do.

[Brittain33]

For SCOTUS to overturn the PA constitution on this, they wouldn't just need to establish that the constitutiondoesn't ban gerrymandering. It needs to establish that there is a constitutional right to gerrymander.

"Eh, I could see that."

[Brittain33]

What are the chances the Supreme Court intervenes in this?

There is one precedent, Florida, and they didn't.

[Brittain33]

Unfortunately, Republicans are probably just going to throw Pat Meehan under the bus and call it a day, only netting Democrats 1 seat.

SC has to approve of the map.

Why are people forgetting there is a Democratic governor here?

Maybe Tom Wolf will cave in to the Republican Legislature.

Just like he did when he appointed Sally Mundy (R) to the State Supreme Court.

Wolf had to appoint a Republican. The legislature would have voted not to confirm a Democrat. Court picks need to be confirmed by the PA legislature.

How did they ever end up with 5 Dems?

[Brittain33]

So the court's criteria make a competitive 8 and 15 very likely and a competitive 6 and 17 (or call it 11, for the nostalgic) quite possible. How refreshingly democratic. It's almost un-American.

Remembering the 1990s, it's funny how the new 7 and 13 are automatically written off as solid D.

[Brittain33]

[Brittain33]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since SCOTUS denied the stay, isn't that the end of it?  Or could they petition for a stay on some other grounds?

It's Pennsylvania Republicans, I'm sure next stop is The Hague

[Brittain33]

Pa. Supreme Court releases gerrymandering opinion: 2011 map violates 'free and equal' elections

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/pa-supreme-court-releases-gerrymandering-opinion-2011-map-violates-free-and-equal-elections-20180207.html?mobi=true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Majority opinion: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-1-2018majorityopinion.pdf?cb=1
Concurring and dissenting opinion: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-1-2018concdissopinion.pdf?cb=1
Dissenting opinions: One and two

Baer's opinion explains why the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is violating due process and the US Constitution Elections clause.

Would that be the opinion that failed to persuade the majority?

[Brittain33]

I feel like the PA GOP will be forced to make the map as fair as possible because if the Democratic SC and Governor don't like it they could draw up a map that's worse for the GOP.

This makes sense, but I suspect it will be too easy to avoid making enemies of representatives who might survive the remap by drawing them out of districts in a remap that ends up getting vetoed by Wolf, so they go with a least-change map that pisses off no Republicans except Meehan and gets vetoed anyway.

[Brittain33]

And failed to persuade Justice Alito?

To be fair, I'm sure Justice Alito would have gone along with any justification (dissenting opinion, Scottish law, Klingon precedent) that preserved 13 Republican butts in seats for 2018, but if he couldn't get 4 of his colleagues to go along there was no point in looking like a loser on the stay.

[Brittain33]

Concurring and dissenting opinion: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-1-2018concdissopinion.pdf?cb=1

Baer's opinion explains why the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is violating due process and the US Constitution Elections clause.

Would that be the opinion that failed to persuade the majority?

Did you read the opinion?

Not yet. Is it good?

[Brittain33]

Jim, on a different note, do you think "democracy" or "have one election in 2010, then just Republican primaries after that" is closer to how most Americans think about how state government should be organized?

If "Americans" is too broad, we can narrow to NC or WI.

[Brittain33]

I ask this question not to be a smart-ass, but because while many state constitutions don't have explicit language about redistricting, they do have language about guaranteeing a right to vote, equal and fair access to suffrage, a republican form of government, democracy, and other broad and variably interpreted principles which Americans adhere to in theory. If you gerrymander a map so that a majority of voters choose Democrats, or a majority choose Republicans, or maybe they split, but you keep getting the same Republicans no matter what, it's not hard to see how you are violating the principles of democracy embodied in those constitutional provisions. That may not satisfy a literal search for the words "district" but it serves the purpose of the courts and the constitution well.

[Brittain33]

I ask this question not to be a smart-ass, but because while many state constitutions don't have explicit language about redistricting, they do have language about guaranteeing a right to vote, equal and fair access to suffrage, a republican form of government, democracy, and other broad and variably interpreted principles which Americans adhere to in theory. If you gerrymander a map so that a majority of voters choose Democrats, or a majority choose Republicans, or maybe they split, but you keep getting the same Republicans no matter what, it's not hard to see how you are violating the principles of democracy embodied in those constitutional provisions. That may not satisfy a literal search for the words "district" but it serves the purpose of the courts and the constitution well.

If you go to the polls and are told you can't vote because you have two t's in your name you are denied the right to vote. If you go to vote and don't like the candidates that is not denying you a right to vote.

If you have a government that does not reflect the will of the voters and does not change even as the vote totals change significantly from one election to the next, you no longer have a democracy or a representative government.

I believe you understand exactly the point I am making, Jim, even if you don't personally find it the most compelling argument for yourself.

[Brittain33]

Oryxslayer, I can't believe you did that.

[Brittain33]

But no, this map is DOA. So this begs the question - whats the plan? This map as I said earlier doesn't seem all that professional, cuts could easily be reduced everywhere. It seems this maps job is to die, but why? If the plan was to deprive the court of legitimacy, this map is not the map to do that with. Perhaps we are going to see a volume trick, where the Legislature keeps sending maps to Wolf next week that are bed, but each subsequent one is marginally better. This way, Wolf looks like a partisan constantly vetoing. But this doesn't seen too likely.

Couldn't this just be explained by too many people + running out of time = mediocre, rushed job that everyone could sort of agree on?

[Brittain33]

I ask this question not to be a smart-ass, but because while many state constitutions don't have explicit language about redistricting, they do have language about guaranteeing a right to vote, equal and fair access to suffrage, a republican form of government, democracy, and other broad and variably interpreted principles which Americans adhere to in theory. If you gerrymander a map so that a majority of voters choose Democrats, or a majority choose Republicans, or maybe they split, but you keep getting the same Republicans no matter what, it's not hard to see how you are violating the principles of democracy embodied in those constitutional provisions. That may not satisfy a literal search for the words "district" but it serves the purpose of the courts and the constitution well.

If you go to the polls and are told you can't vote because you have two t's in your name you are denied the right to vote. If you go to vote and don't like the candidates that is not denying you a right to vote.

If you have a government that does not reflect the will of the voters and does not change even as the vote totals change significantly from one election to the next, you no longer have a democracy or a representative government.

I believe you understand exactly the point I am making, Jim, even if you don't personally find it the most compelling argument for yourself.

What is the "will of the voters"?

Is the right to vote an individual right, or a collective right? If you live in an area where you are a political minority, have you consented to be subjugated to the will of your neighbors?

Jim, it sounds like you're most interested in the individual right to vote, while I am focusing on whether we have a democratic and representative form of government as opposed to a one-party state with ineffective elections. Is that fair? I imagine your emphasis is linked to the rationale in the Pennsylvania court's majority. Is that correct?

I don't really have anything to add to my arguments about the need for a democratic and representative form of government. It is an awkward fact of history that in many parts of the U.S., particularly where there are racial minorities, there has not even been the pretense of actual democracy or representative government despite the ideals of the Declaration of Independence for most of 200+ years of independence. I believe, and many judges believe, that we should move in the direction of democracy and representative government. In the arguments you and I have engaged in, Jim, you have always focused on other lines of argument and not engaged with this issue. That's your choice, but this is why we never come to resolution.

If everyone has the right to cast a ballot, but some ballots count for more than others because the voter's political party and beliefs align with the majority party in the legislature in 2010, then the right to cast a ballot is not equal and fair.

[Brittain33]

In a system where representation is based on geographic areas, there is no right to representation on the basis of political beliefs or race.

This would advocate for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's criteria (observe county and municipal boundaries) over those the 2010 PA legislature chose (maximize representation for voters of the same political beliefs, while disregarding geographic area) for drawing boundaries, as with PA-7.

In any case, I'm more interested in a healthy democracy where opposing views have an opportunity to have a voice in government rather than a system comparable to the Soviet Union where you have the form of elections and people can vote but those in power at a certain time (1877, 1917, 1949, or 2010) decide what the outcome is for decades to come and the leadership and policy is incapable of change except through internal party mechanisms. We saw that kind of government in southern U.S. states until the 1970s under southern Democrats including Texas; it wasn't anyone's idea of good government.

Jim, you are defending one-party government in states where at times, often frequently, a majority of the voting-age population opposes that party. I'm curious: do you think this is a good thing for that state? Do you think this is consistent with the idea that a U.S. state is a democracy? Please don't answer with another question; don't give me some variation of "the Constitution says it has to be this way"; I am asking you as someone whose political knowledge I respect, because I want to understand how you think about this situation.

[Brittain33]

So based on those 2016 results, they definitely drowned Reading in Lancaster County.

[Brittain33]

All of those legislators need to be impeached for numbering a Montgomery County district as the 7th.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

That ACLU map looks like the naive geographically compact maps on 538. Why would you split Huntingdon and Northumberland county unless they were trying to make some of the middle districts looks round or square?

[Brittain33]

It looks like Wolf is trying to make the 9th a little more competitive. That dash of blue in centre County is State College.

We know young people are energized and we are seeing massive D gains in margins so that is a smart move by Tom. 

I would think that the 9th can't get anywhere near the realm of competitiveness, even with State College.