Slaying the redistricting monster

Gerrymandering is corrosive to the underlying democratic process.

Tick, tick, tick … That sound you hear is the clock ticking down toward the deadline for the Pennsylvania Legislature to redraw the state Congressional maps.

It’s the last few dying embers of the smoldering carcass of the redistricting process our elected representatives pulled off back in 2011.

In a ruling that turned the Pennsylvania political world upside down, the state Supreme Court tossed out the maps, ruling them unconstitutional because they were blatantly gerrymandered to favor Republicans. Not only that, but the court told the Legislature to redraw the maps and do it by this past Friday, submitting them to Gov. Tom Wolf.

The court hinted that if the Legislature failed to rectify what they called a blatant exercise in politics, they would do it themselves.

Republicans who control both the state Senate and House, thus holding all the cards in the redistricting poker game, were not thrilled.

They appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging this “activist” court was itself dabbling in politics, blatantly taking on a role that is reserved for the Legislature.

The nation’s high court rejected their complaint, and concurred with the state court. Last week the state Supreme Court expounded on why they ruled the way they did.

In a 139-page majority opinion, Justice Debra Todd detailed the problems with the last redistricting exercise, something the Legislature is mandated to do based on the results of the latest census.

The next one is due in 2020. You’ve heard of the fox guarding the hen house. Welcome to the world of redistricting, Pennsylvania-style.

Republicans control the Legislature, thus they bend and contort the boundaries of congressional districts to favor their candidates, in particular GOP incumbents.

It is precisely that blurring of boundaries that earned Justice Todd’s wrath.

The judge wrote that the redistricting process clearly violated the clause the mandate of neutral standards such as compact and contiguous districts not be distorted.

Anyone who glances at the current 7th District knows that did not happen.

The court wrote that the 2011 redistricting process plainly violates the guarantee laid out by the state Constitution, that elections be “free and equal.”

“An election corrupted by extensive, sophisticated gerrymandering and partisan dilution of votes is not ‘free and equal,’” Todd wrote.

It’s corrosive to the underlying democratic process, the idea that every vote counts. When gerrymandering flourishes, it dilutes the power of that vote, undermines citizens’ belief in the system, and fuels the rampant apathy seen in so many voters who no longer bother to exercise their precious franchise, the vote.

In short, what gerrymandering does is turn the process upside-down: Representatives selecting their voters, instead of the other way around.

Citizen groups such as the League of Women Voters have waited seven years to expose this blatant political exercise to the disinfectant meted out in the court.

Now the courts have imposed a rush to justice, seeking to reverse in weeks what has festered for years.

Maybe the Legislature will be successful in redrawing the state’s 18 congressional maps. The deadline was Friday. Gov. Wolf then had until Feb. 15 to sign off and submit the plan to the court for its imprimatur.

All of this is being done so that the new, hopefully more representative map, can be in place for the May primary.

Here in the 7th, a small army of both Republicans and Democrats will be seeking their party’s nomination to replace Republican Rep. Pat Meehan, who has decided not to seek re-election after it was revealed he used taxpayer dollars to settle a sexual harassment complaint filed by a former staffer.

At this point, none of these candidates know what the district will actually look like, and more importantly if they reside within the new borders, thus making them eligible to run.

We fully support the rulings of the courts. The redistricting process was a blatant exercise in gerrymandering.

We hope that the timetable imposed by the court does not merely replace it with a rush to judgment.