↓

Home→Uncategorized→Lyle Denniston, Expert on the U.S. Supreme Court, Asks Why the Court is Silent on the Pennsylvania Redistricting Case

Lyle Denniston, Expert on the U.S. Supreme Court, Asks Why the Court is Silent on the Pennsylvania Redistricting Case

Posted on March 17, 2018 by Richard Winger

Lyle Denniston in this column asks what is taking so long for the U.S. Supreme Court to respond to the Pennsylvania Republican legislators’ request to countermand the new U.S. House districts, and use the old ones. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

Comments

Lyle Denniston, Expert on the U.S. Supreme Court, Asks Why the Court is Silent on the Pennsylvania Redistricting Case — 4 Comments

Demo Rep on March 17, 2018 at 6:12 pm said:

How many minority rule gerrymander cases are on the SCOTUS Docket at the moment ???

Way too late THIS year to have *regular* primary and general elections with ANY *MAJOR* changes ???

2019-2020-2021-2022 – a very different story ???
—
PR and AppV
Demo Rep on March 17, 2018 at 10:49 pm said:

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2018/03/16/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-congressional-districts-supreme-court-district-map-consitiution/stories/201803160186

Will SCOTUS 5 of 9 cause TOTAL chaos – next week ???
James Ogle on March 18, 2018 at 4:41 am said:

ANNOUNCEMENT
By International Parliament Vice President James Ogle [One]
3/18/2018

Help Build the Twelve Population-balanced Provinces of Earth

The new International Parliament has been using the mathematics of pure proportional representation (PPR), ranked choice voting (RCV) in multiple winner districts only, while prohibiting plurality votes (i.e. yes/no, Xs, click the dot, thumbs up/thumbs down, etc.) for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works fine.

The new signup web page for the International Parliament (IP) continues to feature three roles as free signup but the monetary-based roles which fund the team requires $10. processing fee for IP Senator, Provincial Parliament Senator (PPS) and All Party System dues-paying member.

See the new .com All Party System site, the new maps and please consider making a donation or joining as a free or monetary contributor to help the team move forward.

http://www.allpartysystem.com
D Frank Robinson on March 19, 2018 at 6:57 am said:

Since the Supreme Court has by default assumed the role of National Election Commission, it could seek simplifying alternatives to the present rat’s nest of laws whose sole intent and function is to make two parties de facto government sponsored agencies to select candidates.
For example, the Court could require the states to use an open all write-in ballot by striking down any regulations which, through the states’ monopoly on ballot printing, impose a ballot which is not content-neutral and censors the voter’s right to vote for any person for any office on that ballot in any election.
Also, for example, in gerrymandering cases the Court could strike down laws which do not allow voters to choose which legislative district they want to vote in within a state. It would be equivalent to voters enrolling themselves in a voting district instead allowing politicians to incarcerate them in a voting district.