Partisan politics affected courts redistricting view

The lead editorial in the March 4 paper focused on partisan gerrymandering. The opinion piece praised the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for striking down a Republican-drawn redistricting plan. The plan was approved in 2011 by a vote of 136-61, which included 36 Democrats. The districts have been in place for three election cycles without objection.

In praising the court’s action, the opinion piece fails to mention the Supreme Court decision was 5-2. A key point is Pennsylvania has partisan judicial elections. Five Democrats voted for the plaintiffs (which included the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters) and two Republicans voted against it. How about that – partisan Democrats found that partisan Republican legislators had drawn an unfair district map!

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the Pennsylvania Constitution does not grant the judiciary any role in redistricting. Article Two of the United States Constitution specifically grants the various state legislatures the authority to determine district allocations based on the decennial census.

I agree with the editorial’s premise that “gerrymandering” can result in clear partisan advantage. Some states have redistricting commissions. California created such a commission via a constitutional amendment in 2008. California’s experience is noteworthy for at least one reason. After their commission completed its work, elections held between 2010 and 2016 resulted in only two districts being “flipped,” according to the website Pro Publica. That’s two out of 314 district elections. An article posted on the website Dec. 21, 2016, by Olga Pierce and Jeff Larson goes into great detail about the incredibly thorough job Democrats did of undermining the intent of the voters in creating the commission.

California is a deeply blue state in its political leadership. This could also happen in a deeply red state. I have no problem with the concept of a “neutral” redistricting commission. However, there are always seen and unseen forces furiously seeking political advantage, no matter what method is used.

It is unfortunate that your editorial writer failed to frame the argument to include the critical role a very partisan Pennsylvania Supreme Court played in this situation. JOHN LAUNDER Fayetteville