On February 7, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court released an explanation for its decision from last week to find that the State Constitution forbids partisan gerrymandering. Here is the majority opinion in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v Commonwealth, 159 MM 2017. This is one of the rare times when a state court used a state constitutional provision mandating “free and equal” elections to strike down an unfair election law. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/cases-of-public-interest/league-of-women-voters-et-al-v-the-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-et-al-159-mm-2017
4 opinions Feb 7-8, 2018 at top
—–
NO *extreme* gerrymanders until 2011 ???
NONSENSE – one more party hack GANG of oligarchs vs another party hack GANG of oligarchs
— nothing new in 6,000 plus years.
—
PR and AppV
See BAN Feb 5 for earlier stuff – below.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/pa-supreme-court-releases-gerrymandering-opinion-2011-map-violates-free-and-equal-elections-20180207.html
lots of vague adjectives and adverb — standard hack rot.
Ranked choice voting in single winner districts does not give us pure proportional representation.
Ranked choice voting in multiple winner districts does guarantee pure proportional representation.
Are you interested in pure proportional representation, which makes elections more fair and which lowers the election thresholds for diverse interest groups?
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation for more than twenty-three consecutive years and pure proportional representation works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
The court issued its initial vague opinion on January 22, giving the legislature 18 days (until February 9) to “fix” the map. It took 16 days for the court to explain what it believes is be wrong with the current map.
Between the Civil War and Wesberry v Sims, only Philadelphia and Allegheny counties were divided in creation of congressional districts. That satisfied the traditional redistricting criteria of respect for political subdivisions and population equality. It now appears that the court has adopted the standard of Jowei Chen that cutting of counties be “minimized”, which in practice means chopping 17 counties (for 18 districts).
The simple solution is to enjoin the use of the current map.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-bill-of-rights
—-
English Bill of Rights 1689
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
SMALL PART
Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
***
By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;
***
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare
***
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
***
THE 1689 ACT WAS A LATER MODEL FOR THE USA 1776 DOI — AND MANY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS SECTIONS IN THE 1776-1789 STATE CONSTS AND THE LATER 1791 USA 1-9 AMDTS.
ZERO MENTION OF THE 1689 ACT IN THE JUNK PA SCT OPINIONS — PAR FOR THE NEW AGE COURSE OF BRAIN DEAD USELESS PARTISAN HACK JUDGES – AKIN TO THE HACK JUDGES IN THE KING JAMES II REGIME.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp
1776 PA CONST
—-
http://www.duq.edu/academics/gumberg-library/pa-constitution/texts-of-the-constitution
SPACES ADDED BETWEEN SENTENCES
1968 PA CONST
Article VII
ELECTIONS
Qualifications of Electors
Section 1
Every citizen twenty-one years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact.
1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month.
2. He or she shall have resided in the State ninety (90) days immediately preceding the election.
3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least sixty (60) days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within sixty (60) days preceding the election.
—
ZERO MENTION OF THE ABOVE IN THE PARTY HACK JUNK OPINIONS
[[ THE 21 AGE VIOLATES USA AMDT 26 (1971) — 18 AGE VOTERS ]]
JR —
EACH GERRYMANDER DISTRICT SHALL BE 1 OR MORE LOCAL GOVTS AND/OR A PART OF 1 OR 2 LOCAL GOVTS
— AND REVERSE —
EACH LOCAL GOVT SHALL BE 1 OR MORE GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS AND/OR A PART OF 1 OR 2 GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS.
AS USUAL — THE M-O-R-O-N-S IN THE CASE DID N-O-T ATTACK THE USE OF SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS – 2 USC SEC. 2C.
PR AND APPV — REGARDLESS OF ALL MATH MORONS DOING GERRYMANDER CASES SINCE 4 JULY 1776.
@Demo Rep,
The court is not part of the legislature. It does not have the authority to dictate the criteria used by the legislature. There is a failsafe under US Statute (elect all 18 representatives at large)
Again — The math moron so-called lawyers failed to attack 2 USC Sec. 2c (1967) — requiring single member [gerrymander] districts — enacted after the 1964 SCOTUS USA Reps population gerrymander case.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2c
See the 1932 results with many at large elections — after many States had gridlock in 1931-1932 [econ doom middle of Great Depression I – Elephants in total panic] due to major population shifts in 1910-1930 [WW I effects – car biz in 1920s, etc.] —
plus the DIRECT subversion of the Const after the 1920 Census — NO reapportionment of USA Reps in 1921-1922. See later 1929 USA Apportionment law.
The JUNK PA majority opinion cites the usual SCOTUS junk about the courts being the default backup for having new gerrymanders.
PR and AppV
If the court is going to use a state constitutional provision mandating “free and equal” elections than they need to strike down the restrictive ballot access laws as well.
@BMM
None of the judges are Libertarian, Green, or independent. Why would they strike down a law that does not apply to them?
JR — Party HACK judges only strike down laws that injure *their* Party gangsters ???
Shocking — like a lightning bolt from the blue sky ???
PR and nonpartisan AppV — esp in ALL elections for ALL judges — esp SCOTUS and ALL State supreme courts.
The League of Women Voters was the lead plaintiff, but they were removed for lack of standing. They weren’t suffering any tangible injury. The other plaintiffs are Democrats from each district who complained that their congressman had contrary viewpoints and were not responsive, and that the legilature had intended to retaliate against them because they were Democrats.
Reality check —
With plurality winners in gerrymander pack/crack districts, only the plurality fraction/FACTION has any *real* power
— smaller minority factions with contrary viewpoints gets no attention and no respect by the gerrymander oligarch monsters [GOM] who win in the now many rigged gerrymander districts with 60-70-80-90 percent winners — TOTAL ignoring of minorities in such districts.
— some *minor* attention for minorities in districts with district winners under about 55 percent.
The JUNK PA opinions also had zero to say about the districting language in the PA Const about the PA legislature — which enacted the 2011 USA Rep gerrymander law
— ie 2 larger gerrymander groups enacting the 18 districts gerrymander.
IE – highly probable Donkey case attacking the PA Legislature gerrymanders shortly – using the JUNK logic in the USA Reps case.
PR and AppV.
http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/a_deeper_dive_into_congression.html
Various possible new 18 gerrymander district schemes — esp the *compact* scheme at bottom.
LEGIS DEADLINE – today FRI 9 Feb 2018
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/02/gop_congressional_map_draft.html
Elephant scheme for 18 new gerrymander districts — bit like the *compact* scheme above.
What will PA SCT Donkey HACKS do ??? Stay tuned — next week.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/pennsylvania-republicans-gerrymandering-congressional-map-supreme-court-20180209.html
Another story about new Elephant gerrymander map.
http://www.pahousegop.com/maps2018.aspx
PA Elephant State Reps site.
Has some factoids about proposed new 18 USA Rep gerrymander map — obviously produced by the gerrymander computer program being used.
Am I the only one who sees the obtuse back-and-forth statements by DR, JR, and JO and am reminded of bots have “conversations”
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97439
Donkeys NOT liking the proposed new gerrymander scheme.
BL is free to start a censored blog — and get NO viewers/comments.