What’s the remedy for something like this? Can he be charged with contempt of court?
https://www.facebook.com/KeystoneProgress/posts/10155255767867653
I know that if I refused to comply with a court order, something called a bench warrant would be issued, and woe is me the next time I get pulled over for a traffic violation. I’m sure it’s the same thing for politicians.
stifles laughter
Here’s a non-Facebook link about this story.
Looks like the GOP is taking this to the SCOTUS.
There’s a little more to the story than all that. Scarnati is claiming that he and the legislature he is ostensibly in control of do not possess the data requested by the court, therefore they are unable to comply. In other words, if the court demanded he jump 20 feet in the air, it’s not really contempt because the request is impossible. Scarnati through his lawyer has instructed the court where the information is kept.
There’s also the wrinkle that the court declared the districts unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to draw new maps, but the court failed to release their opinion so there is no indication of what makes the current map unconstitutional. To draw new maps in such circumstance would invite the court to strike those down as well. If the legislature does not meet the deadline for drawing new maps, the court says it will draw maps themselves. That seems problematic since the court isn’t the designated body for map drawing. I’d say the court is overstepping its authority.
Oops. I didn’t intend to post a Facebook link. I meant to post the one you posted. Thanks.
The remedy would be to allow the case to worm it’s way thru the courts. That’s why there are superior courts. It would be difficult to charge someone with contempt of court while the issues of this case are being handled by other courts.
Nope.
There is a request for SCOTUS to issue a stay on the ruling. Without a stay issued the state SC ruling holds and that ruling specifies that the state General Assembly has until 2/9 to produce a new congressional district map and Gov. Tom Wolf has until 2/15 to sign one. If there is no stay before then and they do not do so by that time then the court creates the new map itself with the help of outside experts. Of course SCOTUS can issue a stay on that map being implemented but unless/until such a stay is granted refusal to comply merely means that the court pulls that trigger and that such becomes the map.
Election law experts consider the odds of a stay being issued to be a longshot but not impossible.
SCOTUS has the two cases on redistricting they want already.
This demonstrates a fundamental mis-understanding of how courts in the United States are structured.
The order with which the Pennsylvania Senate President Pro-Tem is confronted comes from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This court is the “highest” court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; it has no court superior to it when it comes to state law. Thus, it certainly has the right to compel compliance with its orders, without worrying about awaiting review by a ‘superior’ court.
The legal attempt by the legislators in question to avoid the effects of the order consists of asking the Supreme Court of the United States to determine if and to what extent the determination and order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania violates the Constitution of the United States. In this case, the SCotUS is not acting as a ‘superior’ court, but, rather, as the court of last resort concerning questions of federal constitutionality. That is, the petitioners are not asking the SCotUS to review the legality of the decisions made regarding application of Pennsylvania state law, but rather are asking it to establish that that application violates the higher authority of the Constitution of the United States.
This is an important distinction because it means that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is certainly free, absent any interjection into the matter by the SCotUS, to proceed with whatever legal determinations it deems necessary. There is no legal principle that requires that it await an outcome before proceeding. Indeed, that’s precisely why the legislators filed an emergency application for a order staying action by the SCoP. In that application, they specifically asked that Justice Alito and the SCotUS act no later than today; last I checked, that did not happen.
Although from my link:
So they requested a ruling by 1/31 but the court apparently said they would give the other side until 2/2 to respond and then decide whether or not to issue the stay.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court based their decision on the state constitution, it had nothing to do with a federal court.
Do you believe that the state supreme court has the authority to draw districts? I don’t think that is a a power they have.
The timing seems unreasonable to me, and as a co equal branch the legislature should contest it.
It doesn’t look very likely that the legislature will succeed. I wonder if you’d have the same attitude if the Dems held the state houses 2:1 instead of the Republicans?
You think the legislature won’t succeed in obtaining a stay? Is say it’s a long shot yeah, but not out of the question, especially given a similar thing happened a couple weeks ago in NC.
To answer your question, yes if feel the same regardless of party. I’m opposed to the courts acting in place of the legislature. And since the districts are directed to be drawn by the legislature, I think tfhe court is overstepping it’s authority. Its exacerbated by the court not releasing its opinion upon which the legislature could use to draw new districts that would comply.
And even if it were to continue with the court redrawing the districts, that would likely lead to a variety of new legal challenges.
Not sure I am understanding your argument here.
Are you putting forth that the judicial branch has no place in judging whether or not the legislative branch has drawn the districts according to the constitution and the law, that the legislative branch is free at any time to draw them however they want?
Or objecting to the specific remedy that this court has provided, ruling that the map drawn by the legislature is not in keeping with the state constitution and directing them to fix it in time for the next election?
Or specifically to the if they refuse to comply with that directive default option of then the courts giving them a map to use?
If only the last one, then what would propose as the remedy for refusal to comply with the court order?
(I personally would not rule out a stay either even if it is a long shot.)
Also where are you reading that the court won’t release their opinion? I think you are confusing Joe Scarnati’s (the Pennsylvania state Senate president pro tempore) refusal to turn over the data requested by the court with the court not releasing something. In fact the request for the stay explicitly states that the courts opinion and the dissenting opinions are Appendix A.
The order did say what the requirements were for the new districts, though…that they be "compact and contiguous territory, as equal in population as practicticable; and which do not divide any county, city, etc, except where necessary to ensure equality of population.
None of this is particularly unusual. That’s just the regular standard on drawing fair districts. Make it as compact as possible, and don’t cut across established boundaries to lump similar voters together.
The last one, only. I don’t think the court has authority to redraw the districts on its own. I don’t know what the remedy would be, and as I’m not well versed in the PN state constitution, I’d be guessing. My guess would be that the court should produce its guidelines and where they derive the authority to set them. Then, using those guidelines, the legislature should act. The court could then answer any future litigation based on adherence to those guidelines. Essentially, the legislature is the appropriate place for the lines to be drawn.
Every article I’ve read has stated that the opinion has not yet been released. I grant I could be mistaken but I cannot find it. This article is a bit older, but WaPo says:
And in looking at the PN court site, I find the concurring and dissenting statement, but not the opinion itself. (filter on 2018 - it’s the two documents published Jan 22).
And yes the request for stay makes mention of these documents in Appendix A and B, but those are also missing from the request.
So it’s not that the court wont release its opinion, it’s that it hasn’t done so already. If I’m mistaken, please link to it.
I don’t see the significance of that. Clearly the court is going to be very unlikely to uphold legal challenges to districts that they themselves drew. Or do you mean federal courts?
But as already referenced, they have. The authority is that they are the arbiters of the state constitution and the laws derived from it. The guidelines, according to their interpretation are “composed of compact and contiguous territory; as nearly equal in population as practicable; and which do not divide any county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward, except where necessary to ensure equality of population.”
Maybe that is a good decision maybe a bad one, but it is within their authority to have decided how to interpret the law.
You could be right about the opinion not being released yet but there is nothing about implementing that ruling that requires information within it.
Not yet. But it’s possible for state constitutions to violate the federal constitution. In that case, the feds win.
Whether or not that is applicable in this case remains to be seen. But there have been plenty of times when the SCOTUS has ruled that state constitutions violate the US constitution.
It’s “PA”, not “PN”.