Pennsylvanias's constitutional crisis

February 19, 2018
Pennsylvanias's constitutional crisis
By Frank Ryan

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/pennsylvanias_constitutional_crisis_.html#ixzz57Z98stL3

In a repeat of the state's extraordinary role in the 2016 presidential election, this year, Pennsylvania will be the center of a serious constitutional challenge.

At stake may be the entire congressional balance of power between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats in PA are attempting to do through the courts what they were not able to do at the ballot box. They are assuming that the woes of their cause are due to redistricting, not to failed policies repudiated by the electorate.

Trump's stunning statewide victory in Pennsylvania in 2016 had absolutely nothing to do with gerrymandering.

As background, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 2018 ruled that the 2012 redistricting of Pennsylvania's congressional districts was unconstitutional. The Court gave the legislature until February 9 to submit a plan of redistricting to the governor for approval. The governor would then have until February 15 to accept or reject the map.

The governor has rejected the map, and in its decision, the Supreme Court reserved the right to draw the boundaries of redistricting of its own accord or to select one of many competing plans.

Currently, Pennsylvania is represented by 13 Republicans and five Democrats. The governor's perspective is that it is "fairer" to have approximately equal representation of Democrats and Republicans despite extreme "clustering" of Democrats in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other cities. The commonwealth has been known for decades to have a very conservative "T" region in which only the anchor cities in the Southeast and Southwest provide traditionally solid support for a liberal agenda.

The current map is without a doubt unusual, and most can understand the reasons behind the court challenge. The map does not look "normal" due to the lines drawn, and so there were legal challenges to reverse it in 2017. The lawsuit was decided after President Trump was elected. The same maps were approved by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 2013, which found them to be constitutional.

Since the 2016 election, the money spent to sway the Supreme Court has been staggering. Three Democratic Supreme Court justices won election in November 2015, thereby giving the Court a balance of five Democrats and two Republicans. This shift in the balance of power on the court set the stage for the constitutional crisis playing out in Harrisburg.

As soon as the Supreme Court intercedes and adopts a new map, a constitutional crisis immediately ensues. Seldom in our nation's history has a state Supreme Court usurped the constitutional role of the legislature in drawing congressional boundaries.

The importance of these maps to our nation and its balance of power is profound. Should the districts be gerrymandered by the Court's Democratic majority, sufficient seats may flip to the Democrats to facilitate a shift in power in Washington D.C., potentially disenfranchising millions of Pennsylvanians as well as derailing the Trump agenda.

By writing the decision the way it did, the Court is likely violating the Constitution in that it is the responsibility of the legislature to draw the map. Additionally, the new maps, due to court-ordered time constraints, did not allow time for the legislature to vote on them.

The Supreme Court decision will be one of many constitutional challenges in Pennsylvania in the weeks ahead. It is likely that there will be a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the PA Court's decision, further delaying the congressional primary elections.

It is also likely that there will be a move to impeach the justices engaged in redistricting without the legislature's approval.

None of these outcomes is helpful, but once again, Pennsylvania will play a pivotal role in our nation's history in the days ahead.

The damage to our republic when a judiciary not only legislates from the bench, but manipulates elections makes the interference by Russians pale in comparison.

Frank Ryan, CPA, USMCR (ret.) represents the 101st District in the PA House of Representatives. He is a retired Marine reserve colonel and a CPA and specializes in corporate restructuring. He has served on numerous boards of publicly traded and non-profit organizations. He can be reached at FRYAN1951@aol.com.

I honestly think Trump has changed the climate in PA and it wont be as bad as projected ......... at least I hope!

Pennsylvania legislators seek SCOTUS Emergency Stay of new congressional district map

Posted by William A. Jacobson Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 8:34pm

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...gency-stay-of-new-congressional-district-map/

On February 19, 2018, the majority Democrat members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court imposed a new congressional district map that was very Democrat friendly, likely swinging 4-5 seats to Democrats. It could be the difference between Democrats taking control of the U.S. House or not in the 2018 midterms.

The map became so Democrat-friendly after a series of decisions as to placement of boundaries that helped Democrats. Nate Cohn at The NY Times described it this way:


Few people expected that the Pennsylvania congressional map, which the state Supreme Court ordered redrawn to undo Republican gerrymandering, would prove to be as favorable to Democrats as the one adopted by the court on Monday.

Perhaps the easiest way to convey the cause for surprise: The new map is better for Democrats — by nearly every measure — than the maps that Democrats themselves proposed.

How could that be?

It is hard to explain. Perhaps all four Democratic map proposals reflected an earnest effort to reach a compromise with Republicans. The more likely explanation is that Democrats did not believe it was realistic to demand such a favorable map, since it would require a series of Democratic-leaning choices. And the court order did not specify that the maps should aim for partisan balance, which might have justified a more Democratic map.

Apparently, a more favorable map was quite realistic; after all, it is now a reality, one that gives a significant boost to Democratic hopes of retaking the House. It’s a reality because the newly adopted map consistently makes subtle choices that nudge districts in the direction of Democrats.

The issue, Cohn notes, is that heavy Democrat voting numbers in the Philadelphia area means Democrats win by huge majorities in a small number of districts, but lose elsewhere in the state:

A series of pro-Democratic choices would be necessary to create statewide partisan balance, since lopsided winning margins in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh put Democrats at a considerable disadvantage in translating their votes to seats statewide.

By redrawing districts statewide to compensate for heavy Democrat numbers in the Philadelphia area, the PA Supreme Court pretended to be imposing more fair maps. In fact, the PA Supreme Court took into account partisan voting when drawing the maps. This was partisan gerrymandering of the type the PA Supreme Court decried when the Republican legislature did it in 2011, except this time it was the PA Supreme Court doing it to an end they liked more.

The new map has Republicans in Pennsylvania talking about a possible impeachment of the PA Supreme Court justices:

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey (R) called for a “conversation” about impeaching state Supreme Court justices over their new congressional map, which both parties say will benefit Democrats.

At a press conference, Toomey said it was “inevitable” that state lawmakers would consider impeachment over the redrawing of the state’s new congressional maps, which he called a “power grab” by state Democrats.

“Look, I think it’s inevitable that that conversation’s going to take place,” Toomey said. “I think state House members and state senators are going to be speaking amongst themselves and their constituents, and the fundamental question is does this blatant, unconstitutional, partisan power grab that undermines our electoral process, does that rise to the level of impeachment?”

Prior to the final map choice being issued by the PA Supreme Court, Republican legislators had sought an emergency stay from Justice Samuel Alito, who has responsibility for the Third Circuit, which include Pennsylvania. Alito denied the stay without an issued opinion and without even referring the request to the full court.

We don’t know why Justice Alito denied the prior stay. It may have been that he viewed the matter as premature, as the PA Supreme Court had not yet acted on a final map. Perhaps once a final map was issued, and the dispute clarified, a stay would be considered.

We’re about to find out. The PA legislators are again seeking an emergency stay. The Emergency Application for a Stay (pdf.) is embedded at the bottom of this post.

The Application focuses on what the PA legislators see as the key legal issue, that the PA Supreme Court usurped a power vested by the U.S. Constitution in state legislatures (Article I, Section 4):

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

From the Application opening paragraph:

This case arises from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s usurpation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s legislative authority to draw its congressional district lines through its preordained invalidation of the lawful districts the General Assembly enacted in 2011 (the “2011 Plan”). At all stages, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court set this case on a path whereby only it would draw Pennsylvania’s new congressional districts—a task delegated to the “Legislature”—in violation of the Elections Clause. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4. But as Justice Kennedy stated in League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, “drawing lines for congressional districts is one of the most significant acts a State can perform to ensure citizen participation in republican self-governance. * * * As the Constitution vests redistricting responsibilities foremost in the legislatures of the States and in Congress, a lawful, legislatively enacted plan should be preferable to one drawn by the courts.” 548 U.S. 399, 415-16 (2006). “Underlying this principle is the assumption that to prefer a court-drawn plan to a legislature’s replacement would be contrary to the ordinary and proper operation of the political process.” Id. at 416. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court conspicuously seized the redistricting process and prevented any meaningful ability for the legislature to enact a remedial map to ensure a court drawn map.

———————–