U.S. Supreme Court Will Let Pennsylvania Supreme Court Redistricting Order Take Effect

Posted on by February 5, 2018

On February 5, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the application for a stay that had been requested last week by Pennsylvania state officials. As a result, the State Supreme Court order requiring quick redrawing of all U.S. House districts is in effect. If the legislature doesn’t draw new boundaries quickly, the Court will do the job. The new districts will be in effect for the May 2018 primary.

Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Will Let Pennsylvania Supreme Court Redistricting Order Take Effect — 25 Comments

  1. Approx 10 days for regime hacks to rig new gerrymander districts — if not done (to court’s vague satisfaction), then court appointed hack will do the rigging.

    PR and AppV

  3. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97361

    PA Elephant gerrymander hacks in legislature trying to impeach PA Sup Ct Donkeys —

    perhaps on the direct orders of the Devil City Elephant HQ — in the White House oval office ???

    How about another big fight at Gettysburg, PA among the July 1863 dead ???

    PR and AppV

  7. Alito did not refer to full Court. That is how weak the federal argument is, with or without an explanation.

  9. Gerrymander math will continue —

    1/2 or less votes x 1/2 [bare majority] of rigged districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL

    Each larger conspiracy gang wants to be the 25 percent OLIGARCHY

    — actual circa 1-5 persons – in gangster elite — almost MONARCHY.

    Much, much, much worse primary math – esp if no incumbent.
    —
    PR and AppV

  11. https://www.salon.com/2018/02/06/how-the-republicans-rigged-congress-and-poisoned-our-politics/

    How the Republicans rigged Congress — new documents reveal an untold story

    Exclusive: Insider documents unveil Republicans’ years-long scheme to gerrymander America and undermine democracy
    —–
    2009-2012 Elephant master gerrymander conspiracy —

    just the latest master conspiracy
    — since the gerrymander formation of the English House of Commons in the 1200s
    — a mere 700 plus years of DARK AGE OLIGARCHY regimes — claiming to be *democratic* (small d).
    —
    PR and AppV

  12. The Supreme Court’s opinion says that:

    “First, the Court finds as a matter of law that the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

    “Opinion to follow.”

    If it plainly violates the Pennsylvania Constitution, the court or anyone else (Demo Rep? Mark Brown?, the Supreme Court?) should be able to explain why it is so.

  13. @Brandon Lyon,

    As part of their evidence the plaintiffs had an “expert witness” computer-generate 500 maps. The plaintiffs in response to the the courts order submitted all 500 plans on a thumb drive. The court order says that the special master will develop a map based on the evidence presented in tne Commonwealth Court.

  14. So what if it plainly violates the Pennsylvania Constitution? What does that have to do with federal law and the Supreme Court of the United States? (That was a rhetorical device directed at Republicans like Mr. Riley who think that anything that prevents them from winning is unconstitutional.)

  15. JR/MB —

    What parts of the PA Const did the Donkeys claim to have been violated ???

    How many New Age minority rule gerrymander cases are pending in —
    SCOTUS ???
    lower USA courts ???
    State supreme courts ???
    lower State courts ???

    Need a gerrymander computer to keep up (by the second).

    See Prof. Levitt at

    http://redistricting.lls.edu/

    — who needs ALL of our help to keep up.

  16. https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/league-of-women-voters-files-pa-redistricting-lawsuit

    15 June 2017

    —–

    https://www.pubintlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Petition-for-Review.pdf

    [Complaint] in starting State court – Commonwealth Court — like state circuit / superior courts — parts only — repeats stuff somewhat

    Some paras –
    47, 54 — packing and cracking

    87 -*Markov Chain*

    88-89 efficiency gap

    90 “mean-median gap”

    96 – red/blue vote blobs [– like virus / disease photos]
    —
    mention of PA Const

    100. Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides in relevant part: “The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”
    101. Article I, Section 20 provides: “The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good . . . .”

    Count header before 114

    COUNT II
    Violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Equal Protection Guarantees, Art. I, §§ 1 and 26, and Free and Equal Clause, Art. I, § 5
    —-
    p. 50
    PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    WHEREFORE , Petitioners respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Respondents, and:
    a. Declare that the 2011 Plan is unconstitutional and invalid because it violates the rights of Petitioners and all Democratic voters in Pennsylvania under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Free Expression and Association Clauses, Art. I, §§ 7, 20; Equal Protection Guarantees, Art. I, §§ 1 and 26, and Free and Equal Clause, Art. I, § 5

    Appx [p.54] has a larger PA gerrymander map

  18. @Mark Brown,

    _If_ the map “plainly and palpably” violates the Pennsylvania Constitution, don’t you think that the court could deliver its explanation why it does so within 16 days, especially when it has ordered the legislature to draw a new map that “complies” with the constitution in about the same period of time?

    Does due process apply to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court?

    Are we, and the legislature, left, as suggested by Demo Rep, at looking at the briefs of the plaintiffs to guess at what the five Democratic Supreme Court justices might have found probative?

    Note: that this is unlike the specific provision in the Ohio Constitution, which Richard Winger read as plainly requiring nomination by primary, but only because he was interposing words that were not actually present, and was contrary to the statutes that were enacted when the Ohio Constitution was amended and primaries for _major_ party nominations was implemented, while nominations for minor parties was by petition. That is, the constitution is to be read literally – the Ohio legislature may choose the nomination mechanism from among the two alternatives of primary and petition.

  19. Will the PA legislature have 1 day or less to comply with the PA SCT commands ???

    Which govt branch is now most LAWLESS — on a 1 to 10 scale — in the USA and State regimes ???

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.