Pennsylvania's Republican gerrymander is now so dead that not even Brett Kavanaugh can revive it

[turbinetree]

Every now and then, democracy wins.

IAN MILLHISER

OCT 29, 2018, 4:02 PM


On Monday, the Supreme Court turned away an effort to reinstate Pennsylvania’s gerrymandered congressional maps. Although this is not the first time the Court refused to bail out the GOP’s partisan gerrymander in this state, it is the first time it turned away this case since Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation gave Republicans a solid majority on the Supreme Court.

The case is Turzai v. Brandt.

Last January, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down that state’s congressional maps because they violated the state constitution. The unconstitutional maps were so aggressively gerrymandered that Republicans won 13 of the state’s 18 congressional districts in 2012 even though Democrats won a majority of the popular vote.

The state supreme court’s decision should have been the final word on the case. As a general rule, state supreme courts have the final word on questions of state law, and the Supreme Court of the United States cannot overrule their interpretation of a state constitution. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania Republicans came to the U.S. Supreme Court with a legal theory that is simultaneously outlandish but nevertheless well-crafted to appeal to Republican judges.

The Constitution provides that “the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” Pennsylvania Republicans argue that this language prevents the state supreme court from tossing out a partisan gerrymander because a court is not a legislature.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has repeatedly rejected this reading of the word “legislature.” It did so most recently in its 2015 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistrict Commission.

https://thinkprogress.org/pennsylvania-republican-gerrymander-rejected-by-supreme-court-ddb138948cbd/

[Demovictory9]

1. excellent!!!

[OAITW r.2.0]

2. Good news...lets see how an un-gerrymandered population really votes.

Maybe this will reflect the will of the majority?

[Takket]

3. What was the vote?

The site was so ridledowith pop ups I couldn’t read the article.

[rsdsharp]

4. The Court doesn't usually publicize votes on petitions for cert.

It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Since cert was denied, fewer than four justices voted in favor.