Redistricting Ruling Blind Partisanship Not Blind Justice

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 White 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.

Redistricting Ruling Blind Partisanship Not Blind Justice

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 legislature by Feb. 9 else it will do it itself. 

 

6 thoughts on “Redistricting Ruling Blind Partisanship Not Blind Justice”

  1. The Dems say the maps are bad because they have more registered voters, and only 5 of 18 Congressional seats. Why not acknowledge that 60 of 67 counties are majority Republican and say the Rs should get more Congressional seats? Because neither criteria is relevant. The state constitution provides that the Legislsture draws the map! Not the Court. Johnny Doc got to pack the Court with a bunch of Dem hacks. But he doesn’t get to rewrite the constitution.

    1. –The Dems say the maps are bad because they have more registered voters, and only 5 of 18 Congressional seats.–

      If that matters as much as they claim why do Republicans win state-wide elections?

      1. As a Republican from the very gerrymandered 7th district, I feel it is unfair to Republicans, as well.
        The committee that makes the maps should not be made by legislatures who have a stake in the redistricting of the map. The petition I saw had a bi-partisan group of citizens and officials.That way there is less likelihood of the public having good reason for mistrust the system.

      2. As a Republican from the very gerrymandered 7th district, I feel it is unfair to Republicans, as well.
        The committee that makes the maps should not be made by legislatures who have a stake in the redistricting of the map. The petition I saw had a bi-partisan group of citizens and officials.That way there is less likelihood of the public having good reason for mistrust the system.

  2. Something scary to consider — What if the legislature sends a map to Wolf by deadline and Wolf rejects it for whatever reason pops in his head? Why, the Democrats on the Supreme Court will end up writing it. To what is the appeal if it should resort to partisan gerrymandering?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *