New PA Maps In Effect

[Orser67]

Opinion TLDR:

Gerrymandering violates the "Free and Equal Elections" clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The court holds that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regarding permissible districts:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

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.

Beat me to it. This is a Titanium R seat.

[Badger]

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.

If in some alternative universe a Republican controlled PA SC struck down an anti-gerrymandering law and gave the Republican legislature 5 days to come up with a map as packed-and-cracked as they pleased, it'd be rolling off the presses within 24 hours, guaranteed.

[Badger]

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.

One can dream....

[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.

One can dream....

Well clearly Alito knows the outcome in Gill v Whitford (WI). Like the legislative case in WI, the PA case is based in part on the requirements of the state constitution. That differentiates PA from the gerrymandering cases for MD and NC which are federal questions only. It seems to me that if Gill was going in favor of the state, Alito would almost certainly have gone for a stay for the PA map. But if Gill was going against the state, and the argument in conference was something that would also apply to PA, then then the fate of the PA case is already sealed. In late Mar SCOTUS hears Benisek v. Lamone (MD) and the questions there may shed even more light as to the direction of SCOTUS' thinking on the subject.

[Torie]

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.

One can dream....

Well clearly Alito knows the outcome in Gill v Whitford (WI). Like the legislative case in WI, the PA case is based in part on the requirements of the state constitution. That differentiates PA from the gerrymandering cases for MD and NC which are federal questions only. It seems to me that if Gill was going in favor of the state, Alito would almost certainly have gone for a stay for the PA map. But if Gill was going against the state, and the argument in conference was something that would also apply to PA, then then the fate of the PA case is already sealed. In late Mar SCOTUS hears Benisek v. Lamone (MD) and the questions there may shed even more light as to the direction of SCOTUS' thinking on the subject.

A complication is that the PA Supreme Court finally explained their decision, and endorsed the efficiency theory, meaning the map needs to be gerrymandered to help the Dems get more proportionality (one map somebody drew at RRH had a seat going from Lackawanna to Centre county, excluding Luzerne in a long erose snake with hideous bridge chops as an example of this concept). It is highly unlikely Justice Kennedy will adopt that concept, so to that extent PA law and federal law will substantially diverge. Things are really a mess now because the efficiency theory and minimizing chops and maximizing compactness, don't go together very well at all in states such as PA.

[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.

One can dream....

Well clearly Alito knows the outcome in Gill v Whitford (WI). Like the legislative case in WI, the PA case is based in part on the requirements of the state constitution. That differentiates PA from the gerrymandering cases for MD and NC which are federal questions only. It seems to me that if Gill was going in favor of the state, Alito would almost certainly have gone for a stay for the PA map. But if Gill was going against the state, and the argument in conference was something that would also apply to PA, then then the fate of the PA case is already sealed. In late Mar SCOTUS hears Benisek v. Lamone (MD) and the questions there may shed even more light as to the direction of SCOTUS' thinking on the subject.

A complication is that the PA Supreme Court finally explained their decision, and endorsed the efficiency theory, meaning the map needs to be gerrymandered to help the Dems get more proportionality (one map somebody drew at RRH had a seat going from Lackawanna to Centre county, excluding Luzerne in a long erose snake with hideous bridge chops as an example of this concept). It is highly unlikely Justice Kennedy will adopt that concept, so to that extent PA law and federal law will substantially diverge. Things are really a mess now because the efficiency theory and minimizing chops and maximizing compactness, don't go together very well at all in states such as PA.

Plus as jimrtex and I showed last spring, the mathematics of efficiency theory is hogwash.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

One can dream....

Well clearly Alito knows the outcome in Gill v Whitford (WI). Like the legislative case in WI, the PA case is based in part on the requirements of the state constitution. That differentiates PA from the gerrymandering cases for MD and NC which are federal questions only. It seems to me that if Gill was going in favor of the state, Alito would almost certainly have gone for a stay for the PA map. But if Gill was going against the state, and the argument in conference was something that would also apply to PA, then then the fate of the PA case is already sealed. In late Mar SCOTUS hears Benisek v. Lamone (MD) and the questions there may shed even more light as to the direction of SCOTUS' thinking on the subject.

A complication is that the PA Supreme Court finally explained their decision, and endorsed the efficiency theory, meaning the map needs to be gerrymandered to help the Dems get more proportionality (one map somebody drew at RRH had a seat going from Lackawanna to Centre county, excluding Luzerne in a long erose snake with hideous bridge chops as an example of this concept). It is highly unlikely Justice Kennedy will adopt that concept, so to that extent PA law and federal law will substantially diverge. Things are really a mess now because the efficiency theory and minimizing chops and maximizing compactness, don't go together very well at all in states such as PA.

That map doesn't appear to be a complete set of Congressional Districts though, the yellow district is certainly quite overpopulated.

[Nyvin]

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.

One can dream....

Well clearly Alito knows the outcome in Gill v Whitford (WI). Like the legislative case in WI, the PA case is based in part on the requirements of the state constitution. That differentiates PA from the gerrymandering cases for MD and NC which are federal questions only. It seems to me that if Gill was going in favor of the state, Alito would almost certainly have gone for a stay for the PA map. But if Gill was going against the state, and the argument in conference was something that would also apply to PA, then then the fate of the PA case is already sealed. In late Mar SCOTUS hears Benisek v. Lamone (MD) and the questions there may shed even more light as to the direction of SCOTUS' thinking on the subject.

A complication is that the PA Supreme Court finally explained their decision, and endorsed the efficiency theory, meaning the map needs to be gerrymandered to help the Dems get more proportionality (one map somebody drew at RRH had a seat going from Lackawanna to Centre county, excluding Luzerne in a long erose snake with hideous bridge chops as an example of this concept). It is highly unlikely Justice Kennedy will adopt that concept, so to that extent PA law and federal law will substantially diverge. Things are really a mess now because the efficiency theory and minimizing chops and maximizing compactness, don't go together very well at all in states such as PA.

That map doesn't appear to be a complete set of Congressional Districts though, the yellow district is certainly quite overpopulated.

Plus it was intentionally made to look ridiculous.  There's no reason for that northern border district and you don't need to split Dauphin between three districts just for two examples.  The MontCo/Berks district look overpopulated as well.

They're taking the concept of efficiency theory to the extreme.

[muon2]

They're taking the concept of efficiency theory to the extreme.

Yes, but unfortunately the legal minds and partisans on both sides refuse to look at efficiency theory applied to neutral maps in a variety of elections, including typical waves for both sides. Mathematically efficiency theory punishes maps that must last a decade and include a lot of swing districts. The theory also works against creating true section 2 VRA districts, and rewards the creation of minority districts that must rely on white crossover voters.

[Torie]

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.

One can dream....

Well clearly Alito knows the outcome in Gill v Whitford (WI). Like the legislative case in WI, the PA case is based in part on the requirements of the state constitution. That differentiates PA from the gerrymandering cases for MD and NC which are federal questions only. It seems to me that if Gill was going in favor of the state, Alito would almost certainly have gone for a stay for the PA map. But if Gill was going against the state, and the argument in conference was something that would also apply to PA, then then the fate of the PA case is already sealed. In late Mar SCOTUS hears Benisek v. Lamone (MD) and the questions there may shed even more light as to the direction of SCOTUS' thinking on the subject.

A complication is that the PA Supreme Court finally explained their decision, and endorsed the efficiency theory, meaning the map needs to be gerrymandered to help the Dems get more proportionality (one map somebody drew at RRH had a seat going from Lackawanna to Centre county, excluding Luzerne in a long erose snake with hideous bridge chops as an example of this concept). It is highly unlikely Justice Kennedy will adopt that concept, so to that extent PA law and federal law will substantially diverge. Things are really a mess now because the efficiency theory and minimizing chops and maximizing compactness, don't go together very well at all in states such as PA.

Plus as jimrtex and I showed last spring, the mathematics of efficiency theory is hogwash.

Where is the link to that? Putting aside the internal mathematics, I wonder if there is a metric that more "efficiently" moves towards proportionality (in other words, has a higher number for the ratio for the amount of proportionality gained, divided by the increased erosity and chop count). The VRA will still require performing minority CD's, with crossover white votes or no. That would trump the PA constitution as interpreted by PA's highest court.

I think the map I linked does have equal population districts. The yellow CD is really two CD's with yellows of slightly different shades. The guy who drew the map is a competent map drawer. He thinks this is the kind of map the PA Supreme Court will impose, which yes, would create quite a fire storm if it does, and might move the Pubs to go the impeachment and convict route even (they have the votes to do that).

[Nyvin]

Let's just say darn near anything is better than the system in place now...

[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.

One can dream....

Well clearly Alito knows the outcome in Gill v Whitford (WI). Like the legislative case in WI, the PA case is based in part on the requirements of the state constitution. That differentiates PA from the gerrymandering cases for MD and NC which are federal questions only. It seems to me that if Gill was going in favor of the state, Alito would almost certainly have gone for a stay for the PA map. But if Gill was going against the state, and the argument in conference was something that would also apply to PA, then then the fate of the PA case is already sealed. In late Mar SCOTUS hears Benisek v. Lamone (MD) and the questions there may shed even more light as to the direction of SCOTUS' thinking on the subject.

A complication is that the PA Supreme Court finally explained their decision, and endorsed the efficiency theory, meaning the map needs to be gerrymandered to help the Dems get more proportionality (one map somebody drew at RRH had a seat going from Lackawanna to Centre county, excluding Luzerne in a long erose snake with hideous bridge chops as an example of this concept). It is highly unlikely Justice Kennedy will adopt that concept, so to that extent PA law and federal law will substantially diverge. Things are really a mess now because the efficiency theory and minimizing chops and maximizing compactness, don't go together very well at all in states such as PA.

Plus as jimrtex and I showed last spring, the mathematics of efficiency theory is hogwash.

Where is the link to that? Putting aside the internal mathematics, I wonder if there is a metric that more "efficiently" moves towards proportionality (in other words, has a higher number for the ratio for the amount of proportionality gained, divided by the increased erosity and chop count). The VRA will still require performing minority CD's, with crossover white votes or no. That would trump the PA constitution as interpreted by PA's highest court.

I think the map I linked does have equal population districts. The yellow CD is really two CD's with yellows of slightly different shades. The guy who drew the map is a competent map drawer. He thinks this is the kind of map the PA Supreme Court will impose, which yes, would create quite a fire storm if it does, and might move the Pubs to go the impeachment and convict route even (they have the votes to do that).

I don't have the time this morning to collect the links, but they are on this board from last spring. The short form is that I constructed a neutral WI legislative map that comported with the VRA and measured it with both Cook PVI and muon2 SKEW and found it it to be fair and reflective of the electorate from 2004 to 2016. Measured by the efficiency gap test used in WI he same map would fail as a Dem gerrymander in 2008 and a Pub gerrymander in 2016 - the exact same map! The efficiency gap assumes no change in the electorate's behavior over time, so swing districts punish a plan for the party that wins in a wave election year.

[muon2]

Let's just say darn near anything is better than the system in place now...

A system that forces plans that lock in the two parties' seats for a decade (as the efficiency gap would), regardless of swings in the electorate, is not necessarily better than the present system. We wouldn't be talking about the chance of parties changing control of the House with each cycle.Check out the CA maps before their reform. They were bipartisan gerrymanders that would have passed the efficiency test, but the seats didn't change parties except during scandals. That's not representative government either.

[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?

Not yet. Is it good?

You should. Baer is a Democrat, so you can be assured that it is good.

[jimrtex]

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.

One can dream....

Well clearly Alito knows the outcome in Gill v Whitford (WI). Like the legislative case in WI, the PA case is based in part on the requirements of the state constitution. That differentiates PA from the gerrymandering cases for MD and NC which are federal questions only. It seems to me that if Gill was going in favor of the state, Alito would almost certainly have gone for a stay for the PA map. But if Gill was going against the state, and the argument in conference was something that would also apply to PA, then then the fate of the PA case is already sealed. In late Mar SCOTUS hears Benisek v. Lamone (MD) and the questions there may shed even more light as to the direction of SCOTUS' thinking on the subject.

I read through Whitford v Gill, and I don't see any state requirements other than the superficial ones such as that there be 99 house districts, and that house districts nest in senate districts.

[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.

[Badger]

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.

Or PA, or OH, or.....

[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.

[Gass3268]

Some fun in order to help bring down the tensions a bit in this thread:

[GeorgiaModerate]

Some fun in order to help bring down the tensions a bit in this thread:

Pizzamandering!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

What is especially curious is that there is essentially no intersection between this opinion and the Gill v. Whitford case.

The PA Court opinion holds that congressional districts are unconstitutional under a provision of the state constitution that has no equivalent in the US constitution.  Their reasoning is almost entirely on the basis that they are non-compact (as judged by both geometric measures or splitting of existing subdivisions).  They put very little weight on the resulting partisan split of the delegation nor any reliance on constitutional provisions that have a federal equivalent, and they considered no evidence about the partisan motivation of the gerrymander.

The Whitford plaintiffs argue that state assembly districts are unconstitutional under several provisions of the federal constitutions (which have equivalents in the PA constitution, but are ignored by the PA court).  Their argument is based entirely on the claim that the partisan split of the delegation is biased, combined with qualitative evidence of partisan motivation.  Compactness is not at issue at all; indeed the plaintiffs acknowledge that the existing districts are reasonably compact.

[muon2]

What is especially curious is that there is essentially no intersection between this opinion and the Gill v. Whitford case.

The PA Court opinion holds that congressional districts are unconstitutional under a provision of the state constitution that has no equivalent in the US constitution.  Their reasoning is almost entirely on the basis that they are non-compact (as judged by both geometric measures or splitting of existing subdivisions).  They put very little weight on the resulting partisan split of the delegation nor any reliance on constitutional provisions that have a federal equivalent, and they considered no evidence about the partisan motivation of the gerrymander.

The Whitford plaintiffs argue that state assembly districts are unconstitutional under several provisions of the federal constitutions (which have equivalents in the PA constitution, but are ignored by the PA court).  Their argument is based entirely on the claim that the partisan split of the delegation is biased, combined with qualitative evidence of partisan motivation.  Compactness is not at issue at all; indeed the plaintiffs acknowledge that the existing districts are reasonably compact.

Yet Alito rejected the stay without even referring it to the full court. That is what makes me think there is something in the PA ruling that lines up with the direction SCOTUS is taking in Whitford.

[Mike Thick]

What is especially curious is that there is essentially no intersection between this opinion and the Gill v. Whitford case.

The PA Court opinion holds that congressional districts are unconstitutional under a provision of the state constitution that has no equivalent in the US constitution.  Their reasoning is almost entirely on the basis that they are non-compact (as judged by both geometric measures or splitting of existing subdivisions).  They put very little weight on the resulting partisan split of the delegation nor any reliance on constitutional provisions that have a federal equivalent, and they considered no evidence about the partisan motivation of the gerrymander.

The Whitford plaintiffs argue that state assembly districts are unconstitutional under several provisions of the federal constitutions (which have equivalents in the PA constitution, but are ignored by the PA court).  Their argument is based entirely on the claim that the partisan split of the delegation is biased, combined with qualitative evidence of partisan motivation.  Compactness is not at issue at all; indeed the plaintiffs acknowledge that the existing districts are reasonably compact.

Yet Alito rejected the stay without even referring it to the full court. That is what makes me think there is something in the PA ruling that lines up with the direction SCOTUS is taking in Whitford.

Don't get our hopes up too much, Muon.

[KingSweden]

What is especially curious is that there is essentially no intersection between this opinion and the Gill v. Whitford case.

The PA Court opinion holds that congressional districts are unconstitutional under a provision of the state constitution that has no equivalent in the US constitution.  Their reasoning is almost entirely on the basis that they are non-compact (as judged by both geometric measures or splitting of existing subdivisions).  They put very little weight on the resulting partisan split of the delegation nor any reliance on constitutional provisions that have a federal equivalent, and they considered no evidence about the partisan motivation of the gerrymander.

The Whitford plaintiffs argue that state assembly districts are unconstitutional under several provisions of the federal constitutions (which have equivalents in the PA constitution, but are ignored by the PA court).  Their argument is based entirely on the claim that the partisan split of the delegation is biased, combined with qualitative evidence of partisan motivation.  Compactness is not at issue at all; indeed the plaintiffs acknowledge that the existing districts are reasonably compact.

Yet Alito rejected the stay without even referring it to the full court. That is what makes me think there is something in the PA ruling that lines up with the direction SCOTUS is taking in Whitford.

We know for a fact it was not referred to the Court?