ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: We need leadership on gerrymandering

| Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2018, 9:00 p.m.

There are nine gerrymandering proposals in our General Assembly. Two — Senate Bill 767 authored by Sen. Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, and House Bill 2020 authored by Rep. Scott Conklin, D-Centre County — pertain to the federal congressional districts regulated under 25 Pa.C.S.506. The others pertain to the General Assembly districts under Article II, Sections 16 and 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Supreme Court has ordered that our 18 federal congressional districts be redistributed to eliminate political gerrymandering.

Lt. Gov. Mike Stack has filed a proposed map with the Supreme Court based on court testimony. Rep. Tina Davis, D-Bucks County, uses the “optimally compact” map. These are marvelously similar, based on scholarship and absent political considerations: 710,000 voters per district; contiguous and compact; respectful of county and municipal boundaries. Philadelphia is its own, and Allegheny County accommodates Pittsburgh. No one has objected to either map.

We need leadership. The Democratic Policy Making Committee has not held a hearing to sort out the gerrymandering proposals. Neither have the Republicans. Eight bills are in Rep. Daryl Metcalfe's (R-Cranberry) committee and five bills are in Sen. Mike Folmer's (R-Lebanon County) committee. Neither has held a hearing. They're still waiting for the court.

Our Supreme Court has spoken. The iron is hot. Now is the time for hearings to sort out how to best purge the gerrymandering from our system.

Please contact your state legislator and demand resolution of this cancer in our system.

The Rev. Roger Thomas

Harmony Township, Beaver County

The writer is chairman of the Pennsylvania Committee for the Analysis and Reform of Our Criminal System.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me