Amy Howe

Jan 26 2018

Pennsylvania legislators go to justices on redistricting

The Supreme Court today received yet another request to intervene in a state’s redistricting battle – this time from Republican legislators in Pennsylvania, who asked the justices to temporarily block a ruling by the state’s supreme court invalidating the state’s federal congressional map. A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ordered the legislature to draw new maps by February 9, ruling that the current map was the product of partisan gerrymandering and violates the Pennsylvania constitution.

In their brief filed today, the Republican legislators – who include the president pro tempore of the state senate and the speaker of the state’s house of representatives — told the justices that the state supreme court’s decision “has cast Pennsylvania’s Congressional elections into chaos on the eve of the 2018 primary elections,” which are scheduled for May 18; March 6 is the deadline for candidates to file to run in the primaries. With those deadlines in mind, the legislators asked the justices to rule on their request by January 31.

Election law expert Rick Hasen described the legislators’ request as a “longshot bid,” because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied on the state constitution – of which the state supreme court, rather than the U.S. Supreme Court, is generally the sole arbiter. The legislators argue that, because the federal constitution gives state legislatures power over federal congressional elections, the state court’s ruling infringes on their authority. In 2015, the Supreme Court rejected an argument by the Arizona legislature that the state’s use of an independent redistricting commission violated the U.S. constitution; we’ll have a better sense soon of what the justices might think of the Pennsylvania legislators’ reasoning.

This post was also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies