PA Supreme Court strikes down PA legislative map.

[Torie]

Word is that we keep the old maps for the next two years. Any scholars with insight?

If by "old maps" you mean the ones drawn in 2001, how is that possible when the seats don't have equal population, and PA lost a seat (with respect to the CD's)?

[Torie]

I'm talking about for the legislative seats. The Congressional map must be staying since it wasn't part of the breaking news stories.

OK, but the legislative seats are still not equal in population, and in Baker v Carr, SCOTUS ruled that they must be.

[Torie]

Mississippi just held elections for the Legislature in seats that were drawn after the 2000 Census. No Supreme Court intervention there. Could happen in PA too

Yes, but that was before the Census kicked in I believe. They got in just under the wire because they have odd year elections for state races, rather than even year ones.

[Torie]

Unless I am missing something, a federal court should toss this ruling. A state court cannot be bound by its prior decision if its reach given the current facts, makes it unconstitutional (the old map still being used after final and useable new census data is available). But can a state court be this dumb?  Or am I the dumbo here? Puzzling.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The PA supremes decided on their own just how you balance the state law on minimizing the division of political jurisdictions against the Baker v Carr equal population Constitutional mandate, and came up with a 0.5% deviation standard, or came up with no standard, and just did what felt right, or what?  Yes, it seems the federal courts will throw this one out in a hurry. They may even uphold the map that was drawn by the Commission, if it otherwise minimized divisions subject to getting equal - or more equal - populations.

[Torie]

Oh, they were interpreting state constitutional language. I hate state constitutions. But I digress.