PA Redistricting is THIRD WIN for Democrats that could impact 2018

[berni_mccoy]

PA has 18 House Reps, only 5 of which are Democrats.

The redistricting that must happen there could result in a pickup of at least 4 seats, possibly more.

Arizona and Alabama have also been forced to fairly redistrict based on recent legal battles.

AZ could lead to 1-2 seat pickup, possibly more.

AL could be 3-4.

There are other cases pending as outlined in this map (out of date now that PA is resolved):

?itok=dSMVOB1Q

More info here on various cases by state and type of case (Partisan, Racial and other):

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/state-redistricting-litigation

[Wounded Bear]

1. Don't forget North Carolina, too...

[berni_mccoy]

3. Last I heard, that's not a done deal. The map there hasn't been re-drawn

And must be done so before a deadline. An appeal was made by republicans to get a stay and the stay is in place unless the Supreme Court rules on it.

Groups of plaintiffs led by the League of Women Voters and Common Cause filed two cases challenging North Carolina’s 2016 remedial map on partisan gerrymandering grounds.

The court held trial over a four-day period in October. On January 9, the court struck down the map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and blocked the state from using the plan for future elections. The court directed that the North Carolina legislature adopt a remedial plan and directed that any such plan be filed with the court by January 29. Because of upcoming election deadlines, the court also ordered that the parties propose special masters to redraw the map in the event the court rejects any legislatively enacted remedial map.

The legislative defendants filed an emergency motion to stay the remedial map drawing process pending the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone. On January 18, the Court issued an order staying the district court’s decision, including the remedial map process, pending appeal.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for expedited briefing and oral argument in hopes that a new map can be put in place in time for the 2018 elections. The Court has yet to rule on their motion.

[Wounded Bear]

10. I see. Thanks for the update...

I hope the win there, too.

[lagomorph777]

2. Looks like precedent is getting set pretty strongly and SCOTUS is OK with it.

The remaining cases should become progressively easier.

[Hortensis]

4. SCOTUS is sitting on the Wisconsin decision and hearing

some more cases this year. Don't know what it all means with all the different points of law involved, but I take a deep breath every time the subject comes up.

[Wounded Bear]

6. I thought that was still at the state level...

Perhaps I'm wrong.

[Hortensis]

11. The one I mentioned is Gill v Whitford. SCOTUS heard

that one at the beginning of the term last fall? It challenges partisan gerrymandering as unconstitutional.

A lower federal court ruling:

“We find that Act 43 was intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters throughout the decennial period by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats. Moreover, as demonstrated by the results of the 2012 and 2014 elections, among other evidence, we conclude that Act 43 has had its intended effect.”

[Wounded Bear]

5. I think that generally, precedent has been to not interfere with State election systems...

Bush/Gore being a notable exception. I'm just glad the state SC was on the right side of the issue.

Any yahoo could look at the district maps in some states and say, "How the hell did that happen?" My state (WA) uses a tri-part commission to redistrict and comes out fairly rational.

[lagomorph777]

7. Tri-part?

Dem, Puke, and...?

[Wounded Bear]

8. Dem, Repub, and a judge...

Has been working so far. It might be in our state constitution, I'm not sure.

[lagomorph777]

9. OK, thanks