US Supereme Court To Legislate on Redistricting in PA

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 6/28/03 | Carrie Budoff

[PAGOP]

High court says it will take up Pa. redistricting The case could determine how much influence party politics should have when election maps are redrawn. By Carrie Budoff Inquirer Staff Writer

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to take up a Pennsylvania congressional redistricting case that could settle the question of how much party politics can influence new election maps.

The justices will decide whether to uphold Pennsylvania's congressional redistricting maps, which prompted confusion in last year's primary campaigns when Democrats succeeded in getting the courts to strike down the plan drawn up by the Republican-controlled legislature.

The Supreme Court could delve into the broader issue of what constitutes political gerrymandering and whether the judicial system should even be deciding such issues.

"We're hopeful the court will say there are limits to how biased a redistricting map can be in terms of favoring one party," said Washington lawyer Paul Smith, who represents a group of Democrats who filed the appeal of a revised Pennsylvania redistricting plan that was upheld by a federal court in January.

In their response to the appeal, Republicans raised the question of whether the courts should even get involved in ruling on redistricting. The GOP argues that it should remain under the jurisdiction of the legislature and governor.

"Something got their attention," said Stephen MacNett, who as lead counsel to Pennsylvania Senate Republicans has helped defend the plan. "They could believe there are issues in the Pennsylvania map, or there are justices who said this looks like a good opportunity to decide whether we belong in this business."

Arguments would be heard during the court's next session, which begins in October and ends in June or early July 2004. Depending on the timing of the decision, and if the maps are overturned, the uncertainty of last year's campaigns could be repeated.

Pennsylvania was forced to reduce congressional districts from 21 to 19 last year after the 2000 census.

Democrats and Republicans battled last year over two plans for redrawing the state's congressional boundaries. The first was declared unconstitutional because the court held that its 19-person disparity between the largest and smallest districts violated the federal mandate of "one man, one vote."

But the election proceeded under the same maps because the decision came down in the midst of the primary season and created turmoil.

Legislative leaders came up with a revised plan, which was to be used starting in the 2004 congressional election. The plan, which deviated by no more than one person, was upheld by a three-judge federal panel in January. The court said it represented "a good faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality."

But the revised plan is now the subject of the Supreme Court case.

"We are perplexed as to why they would be reviewing it," said Steve Miskin, a spokesman for the House Republican leaders.

"We look forward to seeing what they have to say."

[PAGOP]

This should indicate to all of you why it is so important for President Bush to have another four years. This court is now going to rule on our redistricting in PA. The redistricting in PA is very clearly defined. If they change anything about the last redistricting at all they will be once again legislating and violating the seperation of powers.

[Kuksool]

In 2000, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore. Naturally, the RATS sneered at the ruling as pure partisanship. This past Thursday, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Democratic redistricting plan in GA. Now, the Justices appear to be concerned that the GOP has too much of an advantage in PA. I wonder if the SCOTUS is trying to make amends to the Democrats for Bush V. Gore.

[GigaDittos]

I hope not, because that is not the duty of the US Supreme Court. They are to rule on the Constitutionality of law. Does a law violate the US Constitution? That's the only question. If it does not, then it's none of their d@mn business.