SCOTUS Rejects GOP Leaders’ Ask To Put PA Congressional Map On Hold

The US Supreme Court is seen in Washington, DC, on January 31, 2017. President Donald Trump was poised Tuesday to unveil his pick for the US Supreme Court, a crucial appointment that could tilt the bench to conservat... The US Supreme Court is seen in Washington, DC, on January 31, 2017. President Donald Trump was poised Tuesday to unveil his pick for the US Supreme Court, a crucial appointment that could tilt the bench to conservatives on deeply divisive issues such as abortion and gun control. Trump's choice aims to fill a vacancy left by the sudden death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, which left the highest US court with four conservative and four liberal justices. / AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images) MORE LESS

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Republican leaders’ efforts to stop Pennsylvania from using a new congressional district map in midterm elections were dealt a potentially fatal blow Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court and a panel of federal judges both ruled against them.

The courts rejected requests to throw out or halt use of the map imposed last month by the state Supreme Court, which had ruled that a 2011 GOP-crafted district map violated the state constitution’s guarantee of free and equal elections.

The pair of rulings makes it highly likely that this year’s congressional elections in Pennsylvania will be conducted under district lines widely viewed as more favorable to Democrats than the 2011 map.

The previous map was drafted to aid Republican candidates and proved to be a campaign winner for them, leading the GOP to a 13-5 edge in the state’s congressional delegation for all three elections in which it was used.

Both decisions came with just one day left for the state’s congressional candidates to circulate petitions to get on the May 15 primary ballot.

The U.S. Supreme Court turned down the request without comment.

The panel of judges said it had no authority to act in the matter except to dismiss the case.

“The plaintiffs invite us to opine on the appropriate balance of power between the Commonwealth’s legislature and judiciary in redistricting matters, and then to pass judgment on the propriety of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s actions under the United States Constitution,” the judges wrote. “These are things that, on the present record, we cannot do.”

Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf called the federal judges’ ruling the right decision and said it will let the state move ahead with a fair map.

The Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court had ruled in January that a map Republicans crafted in 2011 amounted to an unconstitutional gerrymander.

After Wolf and lawmakers in the GOP-controlled General Assembly did not produce a replacement, the court enacted its own map last month and gave candidates extra time for petition gathering.

The federal judges’ decision comes in a case brought a month ago by eight sitting Republican congressmen and two GOP state senators. They argued the state justices infringed on the Legislature’s prerogative and did not give lawmakers enough time to come up with a replacement.

The panel said the senators have only two votes in their chamber, calling that “inadequate as a matter of law to allow a lawsuit premised on an institutional injury to the General Assembly.” The eight Republican congressmen, the judges wrote, may have wasted resources campaigning in their old districts, but they cannot prove that was caused by a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause.

“The cost of shifting district boundaries — in terms of both campaign funding and constituent fealty — is surely appreciable,” the judges wrote. “But the federal congressional plaintiffs have identified no legal principle tethering that cost to a legally cognizable interest in the composition of their electoral districts under the Elections Clause.”

In a separate case , two senior Republicans in the state Legislature who were on the losing end of the state Supreme Court decision asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a stay, which would have resulted in the use of the 2011 map for this year’s congressional elections in Pennsylvania. They wanted the new map put on hold while they pursued an appeal to the nation’s highest court.

A group of 18 Democratic voters sued in state court last year to challenge the 2011 map, a case the state Supreme Court put on a fast track before throwing out the former district lines.

All five Democrats on the state Supreme Court said the map violated the state constitution, but one of the Democrats joined both Republicans in objecting to the majority’s determination to enact a new map for this year’s races.

More than 40 candidates had filed petition paperwork by mid-day Monday, according to state elections bureau data. The deadline to submit at least 1,000 voter signatures to get on the primary ballot is Tuesday.

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Sincerely,
TPM Staff
Latest News
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriters:
Director of Audience:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: