Gerrymandering foes take case to Pa. high court
Brace yourself for Round 2 of the gerrymandering free-for-all. A couple of weeks ago, Commonwealth Court Judge Kevin P. Brobson confirmed what just about everyone already knew: The congressional redistricting that took place in 2011 by the Republican-controlled state Legislature was more about politics than people.
Or voters either, for that matter.
Brobson ruled the boundaries of several districts were bent and twisted into odd shapes to benefit Republicans – to make sure several Republican tossup districts became a lot more solidly red, and concentrating some Democrat pockets in districts where they already held a sizeable advantage.
The League of Women Voters had brought suit, hoping to have the new districts tossed out.
Brobson agreed with their basic premise, that the new map created by Republicans did indeed intentionally discriminate “so as to grant Republican candidates an advantage in certain districts within the Commonwealth.”
None of which means a damn thing because Brobson went on to say that even with these blatantly political overtones, he does not feel the process violated the state constitution. And that was his recommendation to the state Supreme Court.
Now it’s the high court’s turn. This morning the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the gerrymandering flap.
Proponents of knocking down the new districts will make their familiar argument – that the 2011 process created one of the worst instances of gerrymandering – the willful distortion of political boundaries to extract a political advantage – in the history of Pennsylvania, if not the rest of the nation.
The Republicans will defend the map – and the process – as part of a political tradition. In other words, it’s always been done this way, and that both parties are equal opportunity “gerrymanderers,” depending on who happens to hold control in the Legislature at the time.
Specifically, our very own 7th District has starred as Exhibit A in much of this debate. Once for the most part covering the bulk of Delaware County, it has been bent and twisted into a shape a pretzel maker would envy. It led one national publication to give it the following distinctive description: It resembles Goofy kicking Donald Duck.
Its shape may be cartoonish, but the effects are anything but.
At its core, gerrymandering undermines faith in the democratic process, offering the grim reality that many voters’ decision really does not count, because the deck has been stacked against them.
And it comes as the crucial 2018 mid-term elections loom in the background. The Supreme Court could side with those blowing the whistle on this process and toss the new boundaries created in 2011.
The muddled legal picture is casting some doubt on those races, including the 7th, where incumbent Republican Pat Meehan will face the winner of a crowded Democratic Primary race.
There is just about a month before would-be candidates have to file their nominating petitions to get on the May primary ballot. It would be nice if they knew exactly what the borders of the district entail before that.
Pennsylvania has 18 congressional districts. At this point it appears as many as five dozen candidates could crowd their way onto the primary ballot, including 14 incumbent U.S. representatives.
The anti-Trump furor that clearly swayed voters’ in the November elections – creating a historic shift in Delaware County, where the Dems won two seats on the Delaware County Council for the first time in decades, and also swept all three county row offices up for grabs, is creating a serious political buzz and will put a spotlight on many suburban races in the 2018 congressional races.
The 2011 gerrymander did not just affect the 7th District, which now sees Meehan trying to serve constituents in five different suburban counties. Republicans were successful in capturing 13 of 18 seats in Congress in a state that has been shifting more and more Democratic, especially in national races, and where Democrats now actually outnumber Republicans.
Candidates can start circulating nominating petitions Feb. 13. They must be filed March 6 and the primary is set for May 15.
Democrats hold a 5-2 majority on the Supreme Court, but merely regurgitating a ruling for the plaintiffs based on partisan grounds would not be a lot better than the gerrymandering that landed all this in front of the court to begin with.
We know where the two sides in this case stand.
We know where Judge Brobson stands.
We know that similar cases are currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently knocked down a redistricting plan in North Carolina.
We soon will know where the justices in Pennsylvania stand.
We hope it’s on the side of justice, and against this willful demonstration of partisan gerrymandering at its worst.