ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania

U.S. Supreme Court won't touch Pennsylvania congressional map

| Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2018, 1:42 p.m.

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected yet another attempt by Pennsylvania Republican legislative leaders to have the state’s new congressional map voided.

The ruling Monday represented the latest development in the long-running court battle over congressional re-districting in Pennsylvania.

Lawyers representing Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, and Speaker of the House Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, sought have the nation’s high court set aside the new congressional map the state Supreme Court handed down in February. The state Supreme Court hired a consultant to create the map after finding that the state’s 2011 congressional map was the result of an unconstitutional political gerrymander by Republicans who controlled the General Assembly.

The 2011 map, often cited as one of the most egregiously gerrymandered in the nation, gave Republicans, who counted about 814,000 fewer voters than Democrats, control of 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 Congressional Districts.

GOP legislative leaders argued that the state Supreme Court, which is controlled by Democrats, overstepped its bounds and legislated from the bench when it issued a new map.

The U.S. Supreme Court previously rejected appeals that sought to have the map set aside for the Nov. 6 mid-term election.

The recent appeal asked the court to void the map for the 2020 elections.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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