New PA Maps In Effect

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Serious answer:

PA-18: No longer vulnerable (although the only reason it was every vulnerable to begin with was the special election)
PA-12: No longer safe
PA-17: Now less vulnerable
PA-16: No longer vulnerable
PA-07: Definite pickup
PA-15: Now more vulnerable
PA-08: More or less the same
PA-06: More or less the same
PA-11: No longer vulnerable

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Serious answer:

PA-18: No longer vulnerable (although the only reason it was every vulnerable to begin with was the special election)
PA-12: No longer safe
PA-17: Now less vulnerable
PA-16: No longer vulnerable
PA-07: Definite pickup
PA-15: Now more vulnerable
PA-08: More or less the same
PA-06: More or less the same
PA-11: No longer vulnerable

PA-6 could become a lean/likely D pickup if its new iteration is all of Chester plus Reading. It remains more or less the same if it's Chester+ part of Lancaster.

Based on the Compactness criteria set out by the court, having part of Lancaster is probably more likely.

[Oryxslayer]

Serious answer:

PA-18: No longer vulnerable (although the only reason it was every vulnerable to begin with was the special election)
PA-12: No longer safe
PA-17: Now less vulnerable
PA-16: No longer vulnerable
PA-07: Definite pickup
PA-15: Now more vulnerable
PA-08: More or less the same
PA-06: More or less the same
PA-11: No longer vulnerable

PA-6 could become a lean/likely D pickup if its new iteration is all of Chester plus Reading. It remains more or less the same if it's Chester+ part of Lancaster.

Based on the Compactness criteria set out by the court, having part of Lancaster is probably more likely.

Or it becomes the least likely alternative, since a cut into Lancaster requires an extra county chop for PA-13 or PA-07. We really don't know what the master will pick.

[Virginiá]

The question will be what the legislature does once the court begins to draw their map. The Republicans have tried to throw up hurdles whenever possible, so I doubt we have seen the end of the dirty tacrics.

I saw it pointed out somewhere that if impeachment proceedings are begun against a judge, that judge cannot rule on anything until the Senate rules one way or the other. So it's possible that the GOP state House could vote to impeach a handful of Democratic justices, knowing it will fail (or not?), and then you have a situation where maybe there are only 2 or 3 judges who are not impeached, 2 of whom would be Republicans, and they could possibly rule in a favorable way.

Of course there may be some quorum issues here, but the general idea remains the same. Obviously if this were to happen, it would have to happen soon, so I guess we'll see. It's pretty absurd but I could see them doing it.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

What do you think is the most likely outcome of this redistricting situation?

It's looking really bad for the Democrats. If this continues, they'll most likely also fail to gain the House in 9 months

This is the funniest goddamn thing I’ve read on Atlas in ages.

Mondale is easily the most enjoyable poster to read on Atlas if you're looking for some humor.

A high energy FF!

[Virginiá]

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

[jimrtex]

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.

[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?

[Gass3268]

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?

And failed to persuade Justice Alito?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

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.

[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.

[Nyvin]

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.

I'm glad we have the Supreme Court to decide those things instead of partisan hacks on forums.

[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.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

01, 02, 07, 13, and 14 are Safe D.

06, 08, 12, 15, and 17 are Competitive.

03, 04, 05, 09, 10, 11, 16, and 18 are Safe R.

[Oryxslayer]

01, 02, 07, 13, and 14 are Safe D.

06, 08, 12, 15, and 17 are Competitive.

03, 04, 05, 09, 10, 11, 16, and 18 are Safe R.

A 12th based out of Butler & North Allegheny is not competitive in the slightest. You need to use the South/SouthEast Suburbs of Allegheny to shift one of the neighboring counties towards the middle. This is easiest done with Beaver or Washington if that is the goal.

[Virginiá]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/pennsylvania-gerrymander-case-deadline-republicans-strategy-20180208.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They told the court they would need around 3 weeks to redraw the map, and then after told to redraw the map, they waste all but <week of that time whining to the US Supreme Court, not even opting to prepare a map (or two) just in case their request for a stay is denied. Now they are left scrambling, looking to cut corners.

Is there any situation where a Republican-controlled legislature would just opt to throw up their hands and say, "fine, you win this round. The decade is almost over, let's just draw a fair map with marginal incumbent considerations and be done with it." Is that possible anywhere in the country? For gods sakes. Stop being so god damn greedy.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

God, Republicans are so stupid.

[Oryxslayer]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/pennsylvania-gerrymander-case-deadline-republicans-strategy-20180208.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They told the court they would need around 3 weeks to redraw the map, and then after told to redraw the map, they waste all but <week of that time whining to the US Supreme Court, not even opting to prepare a map (or two) just in case their request for a stay is denied. Now they are left scrambling, looking to cut corners.

Is there any situation where a Republican-controlled legislature would just opt to throw up their hands and say, "fine, you win this round. The decade is almost over, let's just draw a fair map with marginal incumbent considerations and be done with it." Is that possible anywhere in the country? For gods sakes. Stop being so god damn greedy.

Something to note is that the original schedule has been changed a bit, with a map simply needing to be approved by the 15th. Previously, the legislature only had till tomorrow to create a map, now they at least have a few days. The court has also stated that if all parties in this process agree (candidates, governor, legislature, justices) then it would be fine to move the primary a few weeks if incredibly necessary.

But yeah, Pubs are right now in a corner without a real escape plan.

[muon2]

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.

Another possibility is that Alito knows that SCOTUS has the votes to rule against political gerrymandering and will do so later this year. That means PASC would likely be upheld. Therefore a stay serves no good purpose from SCOTUS' perspective.

[muon2]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/pennsylvania-gerrymander-case-deadline-republicans-strategy-20180208.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They told the court they would need around 3 weeks to redraw the map, and then after told to redraw the map, they waste all but <week of that time whining to the US Supreme Court, not even opting to prepare a map (or two) just in case their request for a stay is denied. Now they are left scrambling, looking to cut corners.

Is there any situation where a Republican-controlled legislature would just opt to throw up their hands and say, "fine, you win this round. The decade is almost over, let's just draw a fair map with marginal incumbent considerations and be done with it." Is that possible anywhere in the country? For gods sakes. Stop being so god damn greedy.

Something to note is that the original schedule has been changed a bit, with a map simply needing to be approved by the 15th. Previously, the legislature only had till tomorrow to create a map, now they at least have a few days. The court has also stated that if all parties in this process agree (candidates, governor, legislature, justices) then it would be fine to move the primary a few weeks if incredibly necessary.

But yeah, Pubs are right now in a corner without a real escape plan.

It's not just parties used to the majority; even in a minority position parties have a hard time throwing their members under the bus. In 2011 the Pubs were given a plan with a solid 2nd Latino CD that could have been used to challenge the IL map, but it would likely cost 1 or 2 Pub seats. They went with a weak Latino-influence CD instead that maintained all the Pub seats that had been won in 2010, but lost their claim that the Dems shouldn't reverse so many seats that were affirmed by voters in the previous cycle.

[jimrtex]

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?

And failed to persuade Justice Alito?

Alito did not see that opinion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled:

"Achtung! You will follow these rules. And you will do so in 18 days."

"Why these rules? Where did they come from?"

"Off with the dissenters heads"

"By and by we will tell you why."

16 days later: "Here is why. You only have two more days."

[jimrtex]

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?

[jimrtex]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/pennsylvania-gerrymander-case-deadline-republicans-strategy-20180208.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They told the court they would need around 3 weeks to redraw the map, and then after told to redraw the map, they waste all but <week of that time whining to the US Supreme Court, not even opting to prepare a map (or two) just in case their request for a stay is denied. Now they are left scrambling, looking to cut corners.

Who is "they" and in what manner did they "tell" the court?

Is this a new variation of "I read it on the Internet", but is now "I wrote it on the Internet"?

[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?