New PA Maps In Effect

[Nyvin]

Its pretty much my map from page five. This isn't a bad thing though, Pennsylvania has a whole lot of districts that more or less draw themselves, so all fair maps are going to be reasonably similar. The difference between this map and my previous one is that this map places priority on keeping the current districts located reasonably close to their current iterations over county cuts, and my map did the opposite. This map cuts 12 counties, but each district is based in its former location. My two maps only cut 7 counties each, but saw the 9th/12th/18th migrate around a bit as I undid the current map. That is tradeoffs.

Only downside of this map I can see is that the court ordered as few county cuts as possible, and little to now lower division cuts (I'm fairly sure your map cuts philly wards, but that can be fixed). So, if I was the court, I would select my map, even with the moving districts, since it cuts less counties - as per their orders.

Wow, I honestly didn't notice how similar they were, lol, that really wasn't intentional.   You're right though, especially the northeast part of the map.    I'll be mad if they don't draw the PA-17 district that way,  there really isn't any possible argument not to.

Some of the county splits probably could've been done better, I'm sure it can be improved.   Really a lot of the western 2/3's of the map is mostly irrelevant, all the action is in the eastern third.   

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I forget the exact numbers but none of these 4 groups are more than a net total level of 500 people away from their combined quota.

[AndyHogan14]

Supreme Court signals it might block Pennsylvania ruling against partisan gerrymandering

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alito is such a POS...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-supreme-court-signals-it-might-block-1517265413-htmlstory.html

[henster]

Supreme Court signals it might block Pennsylvania ruling against partisan gerrymandering

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alito is such a POS...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-supreme-court-signals-it-might-block-1517265413-htmlstory.html

States rights go out the window whenever it interferes with the GOP agenda.

[King Lear]

Supreme Court signals it might block Pennsylvania ruling against partisan gerrymandering

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alito is such a POS...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-supreme-court-signals-it-might-block-1517265413-htmlstory.html

I told you so, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court would never let the Republicans lose seats due to Court-ordered redistricting. If the Democrats "secret plan" to have a good Midterm was to have competitive districts redrawn in their favor, it just failed miserably. Unfortunately, the only way the maps will get better for Democrats is for them to win Governerships in the upcoming midterm, not to have state courts give out redistricting orders that will be shot down by the Supreme Court.

[Sestak]

Supreme Court signals it might block Pennsylvania ruling against partisan gerrymandering

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alito is such a POS...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-supreme-court-signals-it-might-block-1517265413-htmlstory.html

I told you so, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court would never let the Republicans lose seats due to redistricting. If the Democrats "secret plan" to have a good Midterm was to have competitive districts redrawn in their favor, it just failed miserably. Unfortunately, the only way the maps will get better for Democrats is for them to win Governerships in the upcoming midterm, not to have courts give out redistricting orders that will be shot down by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court literally cannot strike down a ruling based on the PA Constitution. The US Const says 'the states' have the right to draw maps, not 'state legislators'. Just because that idiot Alito might want to doesn't mean Roberts and Kennedy will.

Stop being a ****ing idiot.

[Greedo punched first]

Does it take 5 justices to grant a stay like with most cases, or does it only take 4?

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Giving the sh!tty precedents set in the past few months, I think PA GOPer's throw this one to the bureaucracy of the scotus to save their a$$es again, because they appreciate a rigged system, much like MD dem legislature, egregious as well!

Bolded for emphasis.

[Doimper]

Giving the sh!tty precedents set in the past few months, I think PA GOPer's throw this one to the bureaucracy of the scotus to save their a$$es again, because they appreciate a rigged system, much like MD dem legislature, egregious as well!

Bolded for emphasis.

thanks, we weren't capable of reading that the first time you posted it

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Giving the sh!tty precedents set in the past few months, I think PA GOPer's throw this one to the bureaucracy of the scotus to save their a$$es again, because they appreciate a rigged system, much like MD dem legislature, egregious as well!

Bolded for emphasis.

thanks, we weren't capable of reading that the first time you posted it

Cute.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Does it take 5 justices to grant a stay like with most cases, or does it only take 4?

Article indicates 5

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[morgieb]

If it's a state constitutional matter, why would the SC grant a stay?

[Nyvin]

I'm pretty sure this 5-4 decision will be instrumental in how this plays out in PA:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/29/supreme-court-arizona-congress-maps/27400015/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Gass3268]

I'm pretty sure this 5-4 decision will be instrumental in how this plays out in PA:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/29/supreme-court-arizona-congress-maps/27400015/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless it's expedited, this could result in this getting pushed back to 2020.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I'm pretty sure this 5-4 decision will be instrumental in how this plays out in PA:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/29/supreme-court-arizona-congress-maps/27400015/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless it's expedited, this could result in this getting pushed back to 2020.

If Kennedy refuses to take the case since they've established that other groups have sovereignty to make districting decisions though...

[Virginiá]

If Kennedy refuses to take the case since they've established that other groups have sovereignty to make districting decisions though...

I mean, it would seem kind of silly for the Supreme Court to take a case where the argument is that courts have no right to decide the validity of legislative/Congressional maps, all while SCOTUS is hearing numerous partisan gerrymandering lawsuits. All this of course happening after the Arizona case, where they already kind of weighed in on this, on the legislative-side. Quite frankly, that Republicans would even go down a road where they could try to bar courts from ever even being able to hear gerrymandering lawsuits seems kind of reckless. But I guess politicians are rarely praised for their long-term thinking.

I'd really hope they just not issue a stay here. This seems like an ideal situation for Roberts to say no as well, since there is no good reason to issue a stay, and so then it is hard to see this as anything but a partisan conservative majority once again siding with Republicans in a way that sustains partisan gerrymanders/Republican power through another election cycle. God knows they've already earned a bad rep in regards to voting rights in general.

[Oryxslayer]

How exactly did the court vote in the instance of Florida? And who was for/against the hold?

[Nyvin]

I really hope the Republicans think this through, because if the Supreme Court rules any kind of state intervention for redistricting unconstitutional, there's nothing stopping states like California, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and others from disbanding their committees and redrawing heavily gerrymandered seats.

In the end it's the Republicans that currently benefit quite heavily from Redistricting Reform.   The only states where they don't (that I can think of) are Florida and Arizona.

[Oryxslayer]

I'm wondering if Alito was for/against the Florida case, I can't find a source on how the members voted. If Alito was against the Florida vase, then he simply might be doing this out of partisanship, even though it will fail. If Alito was for the Florida case, then he could be thinking that the Wisconsin case will be the decider here rather than this case.

[Greedo punched first]

I really hope the Republicans think this through, because if the Supreme Court rules any kind of state intervention for redistricting unconstitutional, there's nothing stopping states like California, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and others from disbanding their committees and redrawing heavily gerrymandered seats.

In the end it's the Republicans that currently benefit quite heavily from Redistricting Reform.   The only states where they don't (that I can think of) are Florida and Arizona.

There's also Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Michigan. Redistricting reform hurts Republicans in those states.

[Nyvin]

I really hope the Republicans think this through, because if the Supreme Court rules any kind of state intervention for redistricting unconstitutional, there's nothing stopping states like California, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and others from disbanding their committees and redrawing heavily gerrymandered seats.

In the end it's the Republicans that currently benefit quite heavily from Redistricting Reform.   The only states where they don't (that I can think of) are Florida and Arizona.

There's also Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Michigan. Redistricting reform hurts Republicans in those states.

If you're talking about the VRA I'm pretty sure that wouldn't apply.  

I would love to see the Republicans try to gerrymander any more seats out of Ohio and North Carolina.

[Greedo punched first]

I really hope the Republicans think this through, because if the Supreme Court rules any kind of state intervention for redistricting unconstitutional, there's nothing stopping states like California, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and others from disbanding their committees and redrawing heavily gerrymandered seats.

In the end it's the Republicans that currently benefit quite heavily from Redistricting Reform.   The only states where they don't (that I can think of) are Florida and Arizona.

There's also Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Michigan. Redistricting reform hurts Republicans in those states.

If you're talking about the VRA I'm pretty sure that wouldn't apply.  

I would love to see the Republicans try to gerrymander any more seats out of Ohio and North Carolina.

No. A redistricting commission would dramatically help Democrats in OH, NC, TX, PA, VA, and MI.

[Bojack Horseman]

If it's a state constitutional matter, why would the SC grant a stay?

Because it’s going to mean the Republicans lose seats.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

In the end, I don't think the decision will be overruled, but the fact that the GOP SCOTUS is even thinking about helping congressional republican here makes my blood boil.

[Badger]

If it's a state constitutional matter, why would the SC grant a stay?

Because it’s going to mean the Republicans lose seats.

I hate to say it, but I am sincerely having trouble seeing any plausible explanation otherwise.