Pennsylvania Will Redraw its Gerrymandered House Districts

February 6, 2018 - (2 min read)

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling that the state’s 2011 Congressional redistricting plan constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. This is the fourth court in a relatively short period of time to rule that partisan gerrymandering may be unconstitutional.

In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the governor until February 15 to come up with a new map — or the court will draw one itself.

Since 2012, Republicans have won 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional seats. But they have never received more than 55.5 percent of the vote. In a brief order the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the redistricting plan “clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

[blog_subscription_form title=”Subscribe to CitiesSpeak” subscribe_text=”Get the essential news and tools for city leadership, delivered daily by email.” subscribe_button=”Submit”]

Last month, a three-judge federal court struck down North Carolina’s 2016 Congressional redistricting plan concluding it was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The court ordered the state legislature to come up with a new plan. The Supreme Court put that order on hold allowing the Republican legislators defending the plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.

What is different in this case?

We don’t know for sure, but Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog offers this explanation: “The state supreme court relied on the state constitution, of which it (rather than the U.S. Supreme Court) is generally the final arbiter; and the state supreme court has not yet issued an order describing its reasoning in any detail. However, the fact that Alito did not refer the request to the full court, as Chief Justice John Roberts did with the North Carolina case, strongly suggests that he did not view the case as an even remotely close call.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing two of those decisions, one from Wisconsin and the other from Maryland, this term.

lisa_soronen_new_125x150About the author: Lisa Soronen is the executive director of the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC), which files Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Big Seven national organizations, including the National League of Cities, representing state and local governments. She is a regular contributor to CitiesSpeak.