# Pa. state Senate leader refuses court order on redrawing district maps **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 31, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912 "2018-01-31T22:27:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2018, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/181 "2018-02-20T21:47:52Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > :rolleyes: I’m not sure if that is a yes or a no. > [@CarnalK](#): > > The Senate. You see, despite the classroom talk of co-equal branches, the Senate gets to choose the size of the Supreme Court and is the gate keeper of who populates it. By the structure set up by the founders, the SC jumping up and setting it’s own rules for inclusion would be quite outrageous. Well, in this hypothetical, the SC court ruled that it could. In this reality, I would disagree with that ruling, as it would be different from what the original intent was with the wording. But, we are not talking about that situation, we are talking about one in which the SC has a reason to rule the senate’s actions unconstitutional, in order for it to relate to the case that this thread is about. If you keep going back to “They wouldn’t do that”, then there can be no progress made. For the purposes of discussion, assume that the SC’s decision in this hypothetical follows a reasonable line of argument, or that an amendment was added, indicating that the senate was required to hold a hearing and vote, but refused to. Otherwise, we are just discussing a different case that has nothing to do with this thread, and you are missing the entire point. So, rather than trying to bring that up to re-debate, pretend that the SC actions in that hypothetical makes sense, using whatever hypothetical construct makes you most happy. I like the idea of an amendment to require the senate to hold a vote, so let’s assume for the purpose of this hypothetical, that amendment is in effect, and the senate is ignoring it. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2018, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/182 "2018-02-20T21:57:58Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > This thread is about the PA Supreme court order that the GOP was refusing to cooperate with. Its right there in the thread title. The Garland thing was offered as an analogy, I don’t think we need to change the focus of the entire thread to just that. Then go complain to jayjay and the people who brought up Garland. As it stands, it appears the PA GOP is [going to challenge the court’s map](http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-republicans-to-sue-congressional-map-federal-court-20180220.html), not ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2018, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/183 "2018-02-20T22:02:04Z")
From what I’m reading, they’ll _try_ to challenge it. I say ‘try’ because I have yet to read anything that offers convincing evidence or arguments that the feds will see any reason to take it up. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/184 "2018-02-20T22:03:36Z")
> [@newme](#): > > [From the PA SSC ruling:](http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6015/file-6790.pdf?cb=842ff7) Yes, the PA Supreme Court cited Baker and Wise, but the bolded part of your quote is entirely their own. The PA Supreme Court recognized that federal courts have and have taken the authority to act in redistricting actions. SCOTUS has never recognized state supreme courts ability to assume the authority to act in the way they did in Wise and Baker with respect to federal courts, absent provisions to do so. The PA Supreme court extrapolated that and declared their own authority to do so. This is from [Wise:](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2891630926062394230&q=Wise+v.+Lipscomb&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1) > [@](#): > > The Court has repeatedly held that **redistricting and reapportioning legislative bodies is a legislative task** which the federal courts should make every effort not to pre-empt. … When a federal court declares an existing apportionment scheme unconstitutional, it is therefore, appropriate, whenever practicable, \*\*to afford a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to meet constitutional requirements by adopting a substitute measure rather than for the federal court to devise and order into effect its own plan. \*\*The new legislative plan, if forthcoming, will then be the governing law unless it, too, is challenged and found to violate the Constitution. “[A] **State’s freedom of choice to devise substitutes for an apportionment plan found unconstitutional, either as a whole or in part, should not be restricted beyond the clear commands of the Equal Protection Clause.** ” (my bold) Wise talks about federal courts, and the high barriers that should exist prior to federal courts getting involved. The distinction between federal courts and state courts is not trivial. The matter regards federal legislative districts, and the power to draw them which is derived from the US Constitution. Baker is about whether a question is justiciable. Ultimately, because Tennessee did not reapportion their districts for 60ish years, SCOTUS ruled tat an equal protection claim was available. At the federal level. By relying on this, the PA Supreme Court extrapolated the federal power to the states. That’s a leap. I’m abbreviating heavily because of the length of the opinion, and IMO its lack of readability. But if you think there is more to Baker that is supportive of your position, feel free to elaborate. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > This is something that is not addressed in the constitution. Someone needs to make a decision on it, who would you propose that be? Voters. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2018, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/185 "2018-02-20T22:51:35Z")
Pithy rejoinder. But it is the power of the voter that is insulted by the partisan gerrymander. I complain because my vote counts for less than my neighbor, and you tell me to vote for someone to change that? And don’t see a problem? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2018, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/186 "2018-02-20T23:09:39Z")
You’ve just got to vote yourself up by your bootstraps. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2018, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/187 "2018-02-20T23:22:12Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Pithy rejoinder. But it is the power of the voter that is insulted by the partisan gerrymander. I complain because my vote counts for less than my neighbor, and you tell me to vote for someone to change that? And don’t see a problem? You may have missed [post #30](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20761888&postcount=30). It’s not a problem because the state legislative districts are created by the PA redistricting commission per the state constitution. That constitution also details the guidelines for those districts, and provides for remedies in the case there is a challenge to those districts. One of those remedies is for the state supreme court to step in. Presumably, the state legislative districts created under this process are acceptable. The entire thrust of the complaint in your post is without merit. ---
**Author:** ![newme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e0b2c6/32.png) [@newme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newme)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2018, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/188 "2018-02-20T23:33:30Z")
[Growe v, Emison would seem relevant:](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/507/25.html) > [@](#): > > “The power of the judiciary of a State to require valid reapportionment or to **formulate a valid redistricting plan** has not only been recognized by this Court, but appropriate action by the States in such cases has been specifically encouraged.” > [@](#): > > The District Court erred in not deferring to the **state court’s efforts to redraw Minnesota’s state legislative and federal congressional districts**. Its conclusion that the state court’s legislative districting plan (which it treated as merely one available option) violated 2 of the Voting Rights Act was also erroneous. Having found these defects, we need not consider the other points of error raised by appellants.The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/189 "2018-02-21T00:08:27Z")
> [@newme](#): > > [Growe v, Emison would seem relevant:](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/507/25.html) Growe was mostly about the conflict between federal or state level intervention. In Growe, SCOTUS reiterated the preference for congressional legislative district disputes to be resolved by the states themselves. Consistent with Arizona case, it’s an available option for state legislatures to designate another body to perform the redistricting. So yes, in the cases where such a designation is made, it’s no problem for that to happen. I’m not as versed in the MN rules, are they substantially the same as for PA? Their constitution doesn’t seem as explicit on how the districts should be drawn. ETA: but yes, I think the current issue is likely dead and would not expect SCOTUS to take the matter up, especially given the case in Wisconsin yet to be decided. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/190 "2018-02-21T01:13:31Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > …The entire thrust of the complaint in your post is without merit. The central thrust of my complaint is justice, that legislative power be distributed in accord with the will of the voter. The precise formalities of legislation being properly observed changes nothing. Its still spinach, and I say to Hell with it. Justice is what matters here, and as we all know, the Law is the handjob of Justice. And those who press for justice are the real Americans, the rest of us just live here. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/191 "2018-02-21T13:47:54Z")
Finishing the beating of the dead horse … if SCOTUS ruled that Congress needed to do X or else be acting against the Constitution (which is their job to decide, agree or disagree with any ruling), and Congress then did not do X, what should happen? I do not believe that the response of “the voters will decide” is adequate. I believe that X must still occur with the Judicial and the Executive Branches stepping up to the plate to cause it to occur as is appropriate to the circumstance. A separate question. So agreed that SCOTUS won’t want to get involved in this … but could a lower Federal court with a more GOP activist judge agree to hear it? And what then? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/192 "2018-02-21T16:51:00Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Finishing the beating of the dead horse … if SCOTUS ruled that Congress needed to do X or else be acting against the Constitution (which is their job to decide, agree or disagree with any ruling), and Congress then did not do X, what should happen? > > I do not believe that the response of “the voters will decide” is adequate. > > I believe that X must still occur with the Judicial and the Executive Branches stepping up to the plate to cause it to occur as is appropriate to the circumstance. I certainly agree in many circumstances. Do you agree that there are circumstances that are not justiciable - that the voters must speak because the other branches cannot or should not? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/193 "2018-02-21T17:01:44Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > A separate question. So agreed that SCOTUS won’t want to get involved in this … but could a lower Federal court with a more GOP activist judge agree to hear it? And what then? Not an expert, but how do you appeal a state Supreme Court decision to any court lower than SCOTUS? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/194 "2018-02-21T17:15:41Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I certainly agree in many circumstances. Do you agree that there are circumstances that are not justiciable - that the voters must speak because the other branches cannot or should not? When the circumstances are that voting is actually what is being messed with, telling us that voting is the recourse seems … problematic. The other branches are supposed to be a check on the rogue branch. That is how this system of government works. If you remove those checks, then what do we actually have? What’s to stop one party from completely rigging the election process to ensure permanent power if they do not have any check on them. How does voting solve that problem? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/195 "2018-02-21T17:16:05Z")
Bone - I think that is a fair way to resolve some disputes, but I would say that on some matters, particularly regarding the structure of government, I think it is actually more fair to have the will of the voters expressed through referendum rather than through legislative elections. While I’ve been reading this thread, I must immediately concede that I’m not an expert in Pennsylvania law, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. But it seems to me that the Pennsylvania legislature is a fairly gerrymandered body in and of itself. So expecting a controversy of gerrymandering to be fairly resolved through legislative elections tainted by gerrymandering seems to be an absurd suggestion. It also seems fairly absurd to take the suggestions of some others, and simply let the unfair map continue to be in place after the courts have found it to be unfair. I can’t quite make the leap to say that having the courts draw their own map is the optimal solution, but it seems to me that it may be the least bad solution. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/196 "2018-02-21T17:23:14Z")
The solution, as per the original court order, was for the PA state GOP to create a fair map. They refused to do so. Had they just done what the court ordered them to do, as was their right being the judicial branch and a check on the legislature, then none of this would have been an issue. I don’t think we want a world where legislators are above the law, but it seems that maintaining unfair GOP advantage is more important to them than the proper functioning of representative democracy. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/197 "2018-02-21T17:28:32Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Not an expert, but how do you appeal a state Supreme Court decision to any court lower than SCOTUS? Also not an expert, but I would think that you’d start with the federal court for your district. I don’t think you can jump straight to SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/198 "2018-02-21T17:33:35Z")
You would also have to make a case based on violation of federal, not state, law. Unless it’s 2000 and this is Florida, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/199 "2018-02-21T17:47:48Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Not an expert, but how do you appeal a state Supreme Court decision to any court lower than SCOTUS? You can’t. But this wasn’t a supreme court decision, it was a denial of a emergency petition to stay. > [@Airbeck](#): > > When the circumstances are that voting is actually what is being messed with, telling us that voting is the recourse seems … problematic. It would be, except as indicated in post #30, the congressional district drawing is distinct from the state legislative district drawing. The state legislative district drawing is subject to a different process that is presumably fair, since it’s by independent commission, and subject to review and replacement by the state supreme court. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Bone - I think that is a fair way to resolve some disputes, but I would say that on some matters, particularly regarding the structure of government, I think it is actually more fair to have the will of the voters expressed through referendum rather than through legislative elections. > > While I’ve been reading this thread, I must immediately concede that I’m not an expert in Pennsylvania law, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. But it seems to me that the Pennsylvania legislature is a fairly gerrymandered body in and of itself. > > So expecting a controversy of gerrymandering to be fairly resolved through legislative elections tainted by gerrymandering seems to be an absurd suggestion. It also seems fairly absurd to take the suggestions of some others, and simply let the unfair map continue to be in place after the courts have found it to be unfair. > > I can’t quite make the leap to say that having the courts draw their own map is the optimal solution, but it seems to me that it may be the least bad solution. I think referendum has potential as well, though I’m not familiar if it’s available to PA residents. I am assuming that the PA legislature is not gerrymandered because the process for drawing state legislative districts is spelled out in the state constitution, drawn by independent commission, including provisions for the PA supreme court to redraw the districts. I’m not a fan of gerrymandering, and see that in some instances the court may be the place of last resort. In order of preference, citizen voting ranks higher for me. > [@davidm](#): > > Also not an expert, but I would think that you’d start with the federal court for your district. I don’t think you can jump straight to SCOTUS. That seems right, though I think there are [provisions for emergency writs](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_20). Unless SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, the normal path is to go through the district courts. I could totally be wrong on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912/200 "2018-02-21T18:05:01Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Wise talks about federal courts, and the high barriers that should exist prior to federal courts getting involved. The distinction between federal courts and state courts is not trivial. The matter regards federal legislative districts, and the power to draw them which is derived from the US Constitution. > [@Bone](#): > > Growe was mostly about the conflict between federal or state level intervention. In Growe, SCOTUS reiterated the preference for congressional legislative district disputes to be resolved by the states themselves. These two posts seem to be in conflict. The points raised in both, taken together, seem to indicate that the PA court did have the authority: The first says that a federal court would have the authority, and the second says that it is better for such a matter to be handled by a state than by the federal government. If federal court action is permissible, and state action is better than federal action, then state court action is also permissible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pa-state-senate-leader-refuses-court-order-on-redrawing-district-maps/807912.md?page=11)