by Jonathan Lai & Liz Navratil, Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/19/18 [Good! All Chester County is definitively within one district, PA-06, in line with the anti-gerrymandering principle.]
HARRISBURG — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to the new congressional map imposed by the state high court, assuring that the redrawn lines would be used in the 2018 elections.
The action came hours after a federal-judge panel dismissed a similar suit, saying Republican lawmakers who brought it had not legal standing. With the back-to-back rejections — both coming on the eve of the petition-filing deadline for congressional candidates — no legal challenges to the map remained.
The new map lines could have an impact on the makeup of the 2019 Congress, with Democrats hopeful that they could pick up at least a few more seats in Pennsylvania….
keep reading at Philadelphia Inquirer
Daily Kos, 2/9/18
Pennsylvania’s congressional district map is one of the most shameless gerrymanders in the country, and is a big reason why Republicans have a majority in Congress.
The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court found it unconstitutional and has ordered the state legislature to submit a new map before the 2018 elections.
But Pennsylvania Republicans are refusing to listen. After the U.S. Supreme Court denied their appeal, they are now talking about impeaching the state Supreme Court.
Impeaching the state’s Supreme Court justices would require a supermajority of the state Senate, which Pennsylvania Republicans unfortunately have because … gerrymandering.
Sign the petition: Stop partisan Republican attacks voting rights. End Pennsylvania’s gerrymander.
Our Message to Pennsylvania state legislature :
Pennsylvania Republicans need to stop attacking voting rights. Instead of impeaching judges for doing their jobs, start doing your job and draw fair maps.
By Sam Levine, HuffPpost, 10/3/17
The court has never said whether lawmakers can go too far in drawing electoral boundaries to benefit their political party.
Wendy Sue Johnson has lived in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, for nearly five decades ? and for most of her life, she remembers competitive elections as voters from surrounding rural areas packed in with voters from the town.
Johnson, a 48-year-old lawyer and former teacher who identifies as a Democrat, used to bring in the chairs of both the Republican and Democratic parties to talk to her students.
“It would flip back and forth, so people had to work hard during elections and convince the voters that they were qualified and had the right policies and ideas,” Johnson told HuffPost.
In 2011, that changed.
Following the 2010 census, Wisconsin Republican lawmakers drew new maps for the state Assembly that moved Johnson from her old Assembly district into a new one packed with Democratic voters. It was an attempt to diminish the power of Democratic votes like Johnson’s by concentrating them in a single district and consolidating Republican electoral power elsewhere. The boundary separating Johnson’s new Assembly district from her old one, which is currently represented by a Republican, runs right outside the side door to her house.
Now Johnson is one of 12 Wisconsin voters who are now plaintiffs in Gill v. Whitford, a landmark case the Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday that could put an end to that kind of partisan redistricting….
keep reading at HuffPpost
By Sam Levine, Huffington Post, 7/22/17
The upcoming case could dramatically reshape how electoral districts are drawn.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says a case dealing with how far political parties can go to draw election districts to their benefit might be the “most important” the court will hear next term.
Ginsburg made the comments at a Duke Law School event Friday while referring to Gill v. Whitford, a case in which plaintiffs are challenging Wisconsin’s 2011 map for the state assembly as unconstitutional. A panel of three federal judges ruled 2-1 last year the Republican-drawn map violated the constitution. After the redistricting, Republicans won 48.6 percent of the vote in 2012, but triumphed in 60 of the state’s 99 electoral districts.
The case is significant because the Supreme Court has never set a standard for when a partisan gerrymander is unconstitutional, though it has written critically of them in the past. If the Supreme Court were to uphold the ruling of the lower court, it could dramatically limit the ability of parties to redraw electoral maps to their advantage in the next round of redistricting following the 2020 Census….
keep reading at Huffington Post