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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
You can’t. But this wasn’t a supreme court decision, it was a denial of a emergency petition to stay.
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.
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.
That seems right, though I think there are provisions for emergency writs. Unless SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, the normal path is to go through the district courts. I could totally be wrong on this one.
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.