News, Entertainment, Enlightenment
Pet chimp named Scatter William Lawrence Sr. Omnibit 1-24-18
Elvis Presley had a pet chimp named Scatter. It was notorious for lifting up women’s skits.
(For what it’s worth this Omnibit was first found in the new edition of the Saturday Evening Post.)
Gerrymandering Bad, Court Decision Worse
By Leo Knepper
On Jan. 22, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion striking down the Congressional districts adopted in 2011. The decision requires that new districts be adopted by the General Assembly and approved by the Governor by Feb. 15. If new Congressional districts are not adopted by that time, the Supreme Court will establish new districts. (Why the plaintiffs waited six years to bring the lawsuit is open for discussion. However, a cynic would note that it coincided nicely with Democrats obtaining a majority on the Supreme Court.)
The timeline of the case or even the timeline required for the adoption of new districts is not the biggest problem. What is most concerning is the Court’s threat to adopt districts it devises should its timeline not be met by the legislature. Nowhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution is the Judiciary delegated the responsibility of creating legislative districts. The power to create Congressional districts is reserved for the General Assembly. The Judiciary may invalidate the General Assembly’s districts and require new maps to be drawn. The Supreme Court’s threat to create and adopt its own maps represents a dangerous departure from the separation of powers.
Make no mistake, some of Pennsylvania’s Congressional districts were among the most outrageous examples of gerrymandering in the country. The Court has the ability and authority to invalidate the districts, but it does not have the authority to impose its own districts. This would represent a dangerous precedent and makes the judiciary a super-legislature. If the Supreme Court is successful in seizing the power it has just granted itself out of thin air, we have more significant problems than poorly drawn districts. From redistricting, it is only a short distance to the Courts writing and adopting a state budget if the General Assembly doesn’t get it done in time.
The General Assembly adopted awful Congressional districts six years ago. The problem should have been addressed then via the Constitutionally provided remedy. In the long term, significant redistricting reform is necessary, and that can be accomplished via legislation or changing the state constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision represents a threat to the separation of powers, and that shouldn’t be taken lightly by anyone.
Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.
Redistricting Ruling Blind Partisanship Not Blind Justice — The Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court two days ago (Jan. 22) ruled that Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional districts must be re-mapped by the legislature by Feb. 9 else it will do it itself.
The vote was on party lines with Democrats Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht concurring and Republicans Saylor and Mundy dissenting.
Democrat Max Baer concurred and dissented noting that it would be better if the order occurred without a primary being just months away, and a special election in the 18th District scheduled for March 13.
While the order specifically exempts the special election, Baer noted that voters in this district would be electing a representative in March in one district while nomination petitions would be circulating for a newly-drawn district, which may or may not include the current candidates for the special election. Again and respectfully, I find the likelihood for confusion, if not chaos, militates strongly against my colleagues’ admittedly admirable effort to correct the current map prior to the May 15, 2018 primary election.
And he is right. While we grant that there is egregious gerrymandering — and have been consistently critical as to how the 7th District was drawn — this was not the time to fix it.
What the court did was not blind justice but blind partisanship. While you can expect partisanship in a legislative body, you cannot have it in on a court.
