Leading Off
● Pennsylvania: On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt Republican gerrymandering a crippling blow when it refused to block a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that struck down the GOP’s congressional map for illegally discriminating against Democratic voters. The state court had ordered the Republican-controlled legislature to draw and pass a new map by Feb. 9, but GOP leaders have only reluctantly begun drawing a new map after Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf promised to veto any new gerrymander. As a result, the state court itself will likely draw new nonpartisan districts, which could lead to major Democratic gains this fall.
In an important backdrop to this decision, Democrats won a pivotal majority on the state Supreme Court in the 2015 elections, giving the plaintiffs a fairer shot at invalidating the GOP’s map. And following its initial order last month, the state Supreme Court also released a more detailed opinion in the case. Critically, it found that gerrymandering violated the state constitution’s “free and equal” elections clause, which it pointedly notes is distinct from the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause.
The court relied on the absurdly large number of divided cities and counties, along with GOP legislators throwing any semblance of compactness out the window, as sufficient evidence that neutral redistricting criteria had been subordinated to partisan interests. However, the court also held that these criteria aren’t the only way to measure a gerrymander, and it rightly noted that even pretty-looking maps could still be gerrymandered. The court further used statistical tests to demonstrate the GOP’s partisan advantage, but it did not rely on any particular one. Instead, the court adopted a broad standard, saying that maps are unconstitutional when they “artificially entrench[] representative power”; statistics merely serve as evidence.
Since the state court relied solely on its interpretation of Pennsylvania’s own constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court had very little room to override it. Republicans nevertheless forged ahead with a long-shot appeal, but the Supreme Court rejected it. At the same time, because the state Supreme Court’s case is based on Pennsylvania law, this case can’t set a legal precedent for other states. However, the standard that the judges have established could influence state courts in other states that have their own version of a “free and equal” clause, and indeed, the Pennsylvania justices even pointed out several such states in their ruling.