Although this blog is titled SCOTUS (as in the Supreme Court of the United States) for Students, I feel that now is as good a time as any to extend the content and reach of the blog to the State courts. If you are in my RCL class (which I’m sure you are if you are reading this), you are probably aware that we just did a Deliberation on the topic of drawing legislative districts. Though I touched on this briefly in last week’s post, I’d like to talk more specifically about the topic as it relates to our home state of Pennsylvania.
In June of 2017, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, a special intrests NGO, filed a lawsuit against the legislative map. In their suit, they defined gerrymandering and the manipulation of maps to fit political goals “one of the greatest threats to American democracy…” Considering this, many in the state legislative and judicial branch did not foresee such a suit gaining political traction. Despite this, in November of 2017 the PA Supreme Court approved the request and promoted the suit to one of immense significance.
This was to be the state’s first official judicial proceeding to rule on legislative districts. Prior to any decision, people throughout the state government certainly knew that a significant precedent would be established. Interestingly enough, our Deliberation focused on many of the same strategies that professors of political science and law testified with in court. Early in the trial, the court saw an analysis of the current map followed by a cross-examination of the chief author of it and questioned his use of political party registration data to create a Republican slanted map.
Following this, West Chester University professor John J. Kennedy testified on behalf of the plaintiff stating that the map seperated “communities of intrest” in a way that disporportionately impacted minority voters. With all this in mind, the map drawn in 2011 was actually thrown out and blocked from use in the 2018 midterm and general elections long before a new one was even divised.
On Feburary 7th, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court released its official opinion explaining its ruling aganist the 2011 map. The map violated reportedly violated the state constitution’s guarantee that “elections shall be free and equal…” Justice Debra McCloskey Todd writes for the majority: “An election corrupted by extensive, sophisticated gerrymandering and partisan dilution of votes is not ‘free and equal.'”
With this in mind, a new map was drawn and submitted in just two days (at the requirement of the court). Both Republicans and Democrats submitted new maps to Governor Tom Wolf for approval which were both denied as examples of partisan gerrymandering. At this pont, all map submissions were forced to be submitted directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, else the court would draw the map itself. Following this, a map drawn with the help of Stanford University law professor Nathaniel Persily is released by the Court. This map was used in the 2018 Elections.
Despite this, challenges of the map on the part of Republicans have not (nor will they) end in the foreseeable future. Despite this, the current map represents an incredible example of just how powerful the courts can be at solving political disputes when it comes down to the nitty-gritty.
I think it is actually kind of funny that both parties submitted maps that were denied for partisan gerrymandering after the previous map had been ruled unjust for the same reason. It took another attempt before a map was drawn that was not deemed a gerrymander. Do political parties always intentionally create gerrymanders that favor them, or are the maps they create actually a result of the values they think would create the fairest map?
Map drawing has to be one of the hardest things to do because there are so many different approaches and it’s impossible to please everyone. I like how an outsider from California helped draw the maps, and I think that would be better that people removed from the issue were put in charge (if possible) over local people with political affiliations.
This was interesting to read, your comment about how your deliberation was similar to professional opinions on the topic indicates how much research you all did on your topic. This really shows how things that get bogged down in politics can be changed very rapidly when the courts take control over them. Perhaps since we see the courts as a fair ruling there is less argument over the issue.
I really enjoy how you were able to incorporate our deliberation into this blog post. I also like how you tied in the court system when helping draw maps. Usually we picture legislators as the main catalysts behind changing maps, but the court system was instrumental in ensuring a fair way of drawing future districts.