Supreme Court considers politics in redistricting

AP ^ | 12.10.2003 | GINA HOLLAND

[Kuksool]

Just so you guys know, the reason why I am harping on this thread is because I think the PA redistricting case is even more significant than today's High Court ruling on Campaign Finance Reform. Depending on the outcome on this case, we could say hello to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

[CFC__VRWC]

Haven't these clowns done enough damage this year?!

Oh, they're just getting started doing damage. O'Connor's just waiting for the next NYT editorial and French public opinion poll to come out to tell her how to rule.

[Pubbie]

Hopefully They will not throw out the whole map and just redistrict the Phlidelphia area (Hopefully)

:(

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

Who represents district that is currently in question?

BTW, if Pennsylvania is ruled to be unfair that brings up Georgia and Maryland. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Pubbie]

"Who represents district that is currently in question?"

I think the Philadelphia district is represented by Joe Hoeffel (Who is now running for Senate).

"BTW, if Pennsylvania is ruled to be unfair that brings up Georgia and Maryland. What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Ah you see - O'Connor will rule that Maryland cannot be re-gerrymandered because that would hurt the Democrats and is therefore "UnConstitutional" at least the Constitution this Rogue Supreme "Court" is now constructing with the consent of France, Germany, Nigeria, and Micronesia.

[Kuksool]

{Ah you see - O'Connor will rule that Maryland cannot be re-gerrymandered because that would hurt the Democrats and is therefore "UnConstitutional}

Quite possible. When ever the concept of fairness is discussed, talks of the need for diversity quickly follow. The Supremes could say that Dem gerrymanders are okay because of the compelling need for diversity and the need to protect minority communities from EVIL REPUBLICANS.

[Republican Wildcat]

I used to have such great respect for Sandra Day O'Connor. It seems as though since the Florida case and all the heat the libs and the mainstream press gave her for the way she voted in that case, she has really taken a left turn. It shows great weakness. She did the right thing in that case, and shouldn't care what the editorial boards think of her. The fact she is now making rulings, seemingly based on the opinions of the of the elite, shows she is no longer fit to sit on the Court and needs to step down.

[Kuksool]

{I think the Philadelphia district is represented by Joe Hoeffel}

Hoeffel's district is the PA-13. It voted for Gore, 56-42.
The neighboring districts are as follows:

PA-08. Gore: 51 Bush: 46. It is currently represented by GOP Jim Greenwood.

PA-07. Gore: 51 Bush: 47. It is currently represented by GOP Curt Weldon.

PA-06. Gore: 49 Bush: 49. It is currently represented by GOP Jim Gerlach.

PA-02. Gore: 87 Bush: 12. It is currently represented by RAT Chaka Fattah.

PA-01. Gore: 84 Bush: 15. It is currently represented by RAT Robert Brady.

The RATS are hoping that the Supremes would unpack the RAT voters in the PA-01, PA-02, PA-13 and release them into the PA-06. PA-07, PA-08. If the RATS win this case, we lose 3 House seats.

[Clintonfatigued]

Actually, I think that district 6, represented by Jim Gerlach, would be most likely to get changed. It contains portions of Montgomery, Chester, and Berks Counties, and the three counties don't have a great deal in common socio-economically.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Actually, I think that district 6, represented by Jim Gerlach, would be most likely to get changed. It contains portions of Montgomery, Chester, and Berks Counties, and the three counties don't have a great deal in common socio-economically."

---

I think Clintonfatigued is right; Hoeffel's CD wouldn't be described as a "suburban CD." But, in truth, there is even less in common socio-economically between the Philly and Montco halves of Hoeffel's CD than between the Montco, Chester and Berks parts of Gerlach's Pterodactyl.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"The RATS are hoping that the Supremes would unpack the RAT voters in the PA-01, PA-02, PA-13 and release them into the PA-06. PA-07, PA-08. If the RATS win this case, we lose 3 House seats."

---

The RATs won't be able to unpack the 1st and 2nd CDs---the 2nd CD is minority-majority (over 55% black) and the 1st CD is minority-influence (44% black). The best they could hope for is some fiddling around the margins of the 3 suburban districts and the half-Philly, half-Montco 13th. If the 13th lost its Montco half and instead picked up heavily-RAT Lower Bucks (which has a blue-collar population similar to that of NE Philly, so the district would make more socio-economic sense), it would probably increase the Gore vote in the district to 60% (I'm guesstimating, though---I haven't run the numbers), and, more importantly, would make it nearly impossible for the GOP to win (since Gore voters in historically Republican Montco are more willing to vote for the GOP than Gore voters in hystorically Democrat Lower Bucks). That would mean that the rest of Bucks County could be combined with southern Montco to produce a district with a very close Bush-Gore vote and which where a Republican would be favored. However, doing so would leave the Gerlach district as is, and I would guess from the article that the grotesque boundaries of the Gerlach district was one of their concerns. Fiddling around with the Gerlach district could affect the lines of the Weldon, Toomey and Holden districts, but would not necessarily cause us to lose any seats. If I were the RATs, I would not have opended this can of worms, because the RAT redistricting plans in Maryland, Georgia and North Carolina are much more susceptible to pickups (or eliminating RAT takeover opportunities) by the GOP if they are ungerrymandered than the number of seats they can pick up through "non-partisan" redistricting in the Philly metro area.

I would like to go on the record as saying that when the PA redistricting plan was announced, I was dissapointed in that Weldon's, Greenwood's, Toomey's, Hart's and English's districts weren't shored up enough and that the new districts drawn for Murphy and Gerlach were too marginal. All of these districts could be won by Democrats, especially if the incumbent retires. The mistake was trying to draw "winnable" districts 11 (Kanjorski), 12 (Murtha) and 13 (Hoeffel-Borski), which gave Bush 43%, 44% and 42% of the vote, respectively. The GOP should have made those three districts more Democratic. Even if lighting struck and we had won the Kanjorski district because of his ethics problems, the Hoeffel-Borski CD because Borski won the primary but lost the general, and the Murtha CD the day he finally retires, they would be ephemeral victories, since the RATs would have almost certainly come back the next time and won them. The GOP should have been satisfied with a bulletpfoof 13-6 advantage, but got greedy trying to steal a couple of seats and has left 7 marginal seats that the RATs could win some day. And because they didn't wanted to keep the Bush vote in Kanjorski's CD at 43%, they didn't place the RAT parts of Holden's Schuylkill base in the Kanjosrki CD, thus allowing Holden to pull off the upset against Gekas (and would it have killed them to place Democratic Harrisburg in the 19th district, which gave Bush 62% of the vote?). Greed drove the PA GOP to draw a map that is far from optimal, and which gives the RATs too many opportunities to pick up seats. The plan set up 4 uncontestedly GOP districts (Platts's, Pitts's, Peterson's and Shuster's), 2 districts that are heavily GOP but potentially competitive (Sherwood's and Holden's, the latter of which was a RAT upset in 2002), 3 districts in Western PA that were narrowly carried by Bush but are historically Democratic (English's, Hart's and Murphy's), 4 districts in Eastern PA that were narrowly carried by Gore but where Republicans have a slight advantage (Toomey's, Gerlach's, Greenwood's and Weldon's), 3 districts that are heavily RAT but potentially competitive (Hoeffel's, Murtha's and Kanjorski's) and 3 uncontestedly RAT districts (Fattah's, Brady's and Doyle's). That means that the most likely result in PA is 6 Republicans, 6 Democrats and 7 toss-ups. It would be highly ironic if the Supreme Court were to rule that the PA redistricting map to be unconstitutionally partisan.

BTW, I checked out the black percentages in the 1st and 2nd CDs, and they are actually 61% in Fattah's 2nd and 45% in Brady's 1st. I don't think we'll see the Supremes ordering the black-majority and black-influence districts to be changed.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Then, how do I know which one of the fools is my Congressman? Which one do I hold accountable?"

---

Let's say your district elects 3 Republicans and two Democrats. An important vote comes up, and only 1 of the Republicans votes the way you'd like, with the other two Republicans and the two RATs voting the wrong way. At the next GOP primary, where you can vote for 3 candidates, you vote for the guy who voted the right way and for two challengers (and not for the two Republicans who voted the wrong way). If the two unfaithful Republicans somehow make it through the primary, you can just vote for the one good Republican in the general election (since you only vote for one candidate in the general anyhow). So, you see, you can hold all three Republicans accountable.

[okie01]

Who are we kidding?

The SOBs aren't accountable now.