So where are they at on the process of making the new districts? Do they have the redrawn districts done and they are just waiting to get them passed? My understanding is that they were refusing to comply with drawing new districts entirely. How much time do they need? Have they asked for an extension and been denied? What is the current hold up. 2 weeks is actually a pretty long time. I hardly ever have an entire two weeks for any project at work. A computer could create the districts almost as fast as you type in the command to do it. What precisely is the holdup that prevents them from accomplishing this task in 2 weeks? We do have an election coming up so we can’t just have them delay forever.
They’re refusing to act, and a Republican state legislator, Cris Dush, is trying to get the justices who ordered the districts redrawn impeached.
As I understand it if they don’t submit something by the deadline, the court will draw the districts.
Last I heard, the legislature had passed an empty shell of a bill so they could later insert the needed language if the SCOTUS appeal failed. They would then insert the necessary language so as to comply with the requirement that the bill be introduced for a certain amount of time.
As to how long is necessary - I don’t know. If I had to establish a framework i’ d start with the amount of time it took to pass previous districts and go from there.
I’m sure a computer could create districts and if that’s the way the legislature moves I’d be fine with it. Shortest line method would be good. But just over two weeks in the absence of an opinion doesn’t seem reasonable to me.
There are two things that both have to happen by deadlines rapidly aproaching to avoid the court just farming it out to their outside independent expert: the (GOP controlled) legislature needs to submit a plan; and then the (Democratic) governor needs to sign it. If the legislature presents the governor with a still gerrymandered solution then the governor could just decline to sign, triggering the court to implement a more neutral plan.
Today is the deadline.
I find this article confusing. Can they send a map if they’re not in session? Is it legal without a floor vote? Is this some underhanded tactic where they’ll later try to say the map wasn’t passed legally?
Maybe it’s just belligerent pig-headed defiance?
While they’re certainly capable of pig-headed defiance, ending the session before the deadline and then delivering a map without a vote seems more calculated than that.
The opinion was released on Wednesday.
And for comparison here are the current districts.
Well it certainly looks much better to the eye.
Dave Wasserman is calling it a ‘less aggressive GOP gerrymander.’
I wouldn’t consider 6 or 13 to be compact.
No idea if the governor will sign off on this map and what a court appointed expert’s map would look like but compactness is not the sole criteria for being acceptably neutral: “compactness, contiguity, minimization of the division of political subdivisions, and maintenance of population equality among congressional districts.” It is acceptable to sacrifice compactness to some degree if needed to achieve the other criteria. Note, voter efficiency is not an explicit criteria and such may still not result from a map that meets those definitions of neutral.
So, like it or not, this map may be constitutional. Is it?
If the governor vetoes it, on what grounds can he do so?
I have not the expertise to know if it is sufficiently neutral as defined. Just that compactness is not the only criteria the definition considers; compactness can be sacrificed some in service of the other criteria.
If the governor believes that this map is less neutral than the map that would be created by a court appointed outside expert (i.e. is still gerrymandered just less so) then he need not veto it. He just needs to not sign it by the deadline of on or before February 15th.
The court’s tactic is not too dissimilar to what every parent of more than one kid knows: Kid one gets to cut the shared treat into fair parts; kid two gets to then choose which one of those two they want.
Given that kid one, in his case the legislature, knows this, one suspects it is close enough to neutral as to make the potential political cost of kid two, the governor, not signing off more than the cost of how badly it remains gerrymandered.
But who knows?
On the grounds that he doesn’t like it. The court order specifically outlines what will happen if either of its sister braches is ‘unwilling or unable’ to remedy the situation.
There’s nothing that says any executive is obligated to accept every piece of legislation that passes its desk just because it’s constitutional. If the PA legislature wants his cooperation maybe they should involve their Democrat colleagues in the process.
The governor can veto for any reason or no reason, or he can simply refuse to act. That’s within the power of the office.