logo
    • Magazine
    • Membership
    • Donate
  • Racial Justice
  • Economic Justice
    • Collections
  • Climate Justice
  • Health Justice
  • Leadership
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Subscribe
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Complimentary Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Membership
  • Submissions

US Supreme Court Lets Stand Pennsylvania Redistricting Order

Steve Dubb
February 7, 2018
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print

February 5, 2018, Washington Post

“The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to delay redrawing congressional lines,” writes Robert Barnes in the Washington Post. As NPQ covered last month, the case had led the Pittsburgh Foundation, for the first time in the community foundation’s 73-year history, to file an amicus brief in a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that had been filed by the nonprofit League of Women Voters. The foundation derided the state’s congressional district map as a “draconian infringement of the constitutional rights of Pennsylvania citizens.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, voting 5-2 along partisan lines, agreed with the foundation and overturned the Republican-drawn map, writing that it “clearly, plainly, and palpably” violated the state constitution.

Because the Pennsylvania decision relied on the state constitution, the US Supreme Court’s decision to not intervene was widely anticipated. Barnes writes that, “Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. turned down their request for a stay without even referring the case to his colleagues.”

Barnes notes that the Pennsylvania redistricting “might aid Democrats in their attempt to flip the House from Republican control. Democrats need to take about two dozen seats to win the majority, and Pennsylvania could provide some of that total. Six incumbents, five of them Republicans, have said they will not be on the fall ballot.” Barnes also observes that, “The victory for opponents of partisan gerrymandering might also indicate a new way to combat the issue, by challenging redistricting in state courts under state constitutions.”

“The Pennsylvania high court,” Barnes writes, “wants the legislature to submit a new plan to the governor by the end of this week and said the governor should have it ready for the state court’s review by February 15th.” Barnes adds that redistricting is likely to be contentious, especially given “the tight elections timeline and the highly polarized politics surrounding the matter.”

Sign up for our free newsletters

Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Pennsylvania is scheduled to hold its congressional primaries on May 15th, which is only a little more than three months away. “Because the district lines are in question,” Barnes explains, the filing deadline for candidates has been extended until March 20th.

Related cases are also in federal courts in Texas, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Courts in those states had ordered new districts drawn for the 2018 elections. “But, Barnes notes, “the Supreme Court stopped those decisions, and Monday’s denial to Pennsylvania’s request does not affect them.”

Two cases, however, are currently under review by the US Supreme Court; while it is highly unlikely a ruling for the plaintiffs invaliding districts would influence 2018 elections in those states, 2020 election boundaries might well be affected. One case, Gill v. Whitford, involves a challenge to a legislative map drawn by Republicans in Wisconsin. The other, Benisek v. Lamone, involves a challenge to a legislative map drawn by Democrats in Maryland. The nonprofit Brennan Center has information regarding the federal cases on this website.

Moving these cases forward has been a major increase in the degree of partisan gerrymandering, facilitated by computer technology that allows for more precise drawing of district lines to favor one political party or another. A year ago, the nonpartisan Campaign Law Center wrote that, “The redistricting plans of the 2010s evidence more extreme partisan gerrymandering than any other decade in modern American history.”

Because Republicans controlled more state houses at the time of the post-2010 census redistricting, this redistricting has often, but not always, favored Republicans. For example, in Democrat-controlled Rhode Island, the Campaign Law Center estimates that the Democrat drawn lines have resulted in the Democrats having nine more seats (out of 75) than they would if more politically neutral lines were drawn.—Steve Dubb

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
About the author
Steve Dubb

Steve Dubb is senior editor of economic justice at NPQ, where he writes articles (including NPQ’s Economy Remix column), moderates Remaking the Economy webinars, and works to cultivate voices from the field and help them reach a broader audience. Prior to coming to NPQ in 2017, Steve worked with cooperatives and nonprofits for over two decades, including twelve years at The Democracy Collaborative and three years as executive director of NASCO (North American Students of Cooperation). In his work, Steve has authored, co-authored, and edited numerous reports; participated in and facilitated learning cohorts; designed community building strategies; and helped build the field of community wealth building. Steve is the lead author of Building Wealth: The Asset-Based Approach to Solving Social and Economic Problems (Aspen 2005) and coauthor (with Rita Hodges) of The Road Half Traveled: University Engagement at a Crossroads, published by MSU Press in 2012. In 2016, Steve curated and authored Conversations on Community Wealth Building, a collection of interviews of community builders that Steve had conducted over the previous decade.

More about: Supreme CourtgerrymanderingNonprofit NewsPennsylvaniaPolicy

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

Join Today
logo logo logo logo logo
See comments

Spring-2023-sidebar-subscribe
You might also like
Cancelling Student Debt Is Necessary for Racial Justice
Kitana Ananda
To Save Legal Aid, Expand Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Zoë Polk
No Justice, No Peace of Mind and Body: The Health Impacts of Housing Insecurity for Black Women
Jhumpa Bhattacharya, Maile Chand and Andrea Flynn
The Human Impact of the Global Refugee Crisis Must Be Understood—And Acted Upon
Anmol Irfan
Black Americans Need Reparations: The Fight for the CTC Highlights the Roadblocks
Jhumpa Bhattacharya and Trevor Smith
Edgar Cahn’s Second Act: Time Banking and the Return of Mutual Aid
Steve Dubb

NPQ Webinars

April 27th, 2 pm ET

Liberatory Decision-Making

How to Facilitate and Engage in Healthy Decision-making Processes

Register Now
You might also like
Cancelling Student Debt Is Necessary for Racial Justice
Kitana Ananda
To Save Legal Aid, Expand Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Zoë Polk
No Justice, No Peace of Mind and Body: The Health Impacts of...
Jhumpa Bhattacharya, Maile Chand and Andrea Flynn

Like what you see?

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

See our newsletters

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

NPQ-Spring-2023-cover

Independent & in your mailbox.

Subscribe today and get a full year of NPQ for just $59.

subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Copyright
  • Careers

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.