Officials from Six States File Amicus with U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Partisan Gerrymander

[brooklynite]

Source: Ballot Access News

The Secretaries of State of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and South Carolina have filed this amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Pennsylvania U.S. House lawsuit over partisan gerrymandering. This is the case in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated the U.S. House district boundaries based on the Pennsylvania constitution. The Secretaries of State of these other six states want the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Secretary of State of South Carolina, Mark Hammond, who signed this brief, is not even responsible for election administration in his state. In South Carolina the State Election Commission handles elections.

U.S. Supreme Court rules require that amicus briefs disclose who paid for the filing. This brief reveals that units of the Republican Party paid for it.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17A795/33542/20180129130841548_Amicus%20Submission%20of%20Secretaries%20of%20State.pdf

Read more: http://ballot-access.org/2018/01/29/officials-from-six-states-file-amicus-with-u-s-supreme-court-in-pennsylvania-partisan-gerrymander-case/

[jl_theprofessor]

1. Based on what standing?

[brooklynite]

2. "We don't want to lose"?

[Cosmocat]

5. Hammer meets ...

nail ...

[Cryptoad]

3. Standing???????????

We dont need no stinking standing!!!!!!!!

[PoliticAverse]

7. Amicus briefs do not require the author have "standing"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

Although there are limitations on who can file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court.

(Rules/requirements: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/rulesofthecourt.pdf )

[jl_theprofessor]

13. Thank you for the clarification.

[brooklynite]

14. Nor do they require the Court to take any action whatever on the case.

[Gothmog]

4. The brief was paid for by the RNC

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[usaf-vet]

6. They don't want to lose their 'hole card" for winning elections.

This is the best example of just how important gerrymander districts are to the party who drew the district lines.
They know their ability to hold power will be lost without the stack decks.... better known as partisan gerrymander districts.

[DeminPennswoods]

8. Don't they mean KAOS?

http://getsmart.wikia.com/wiki/KAOS

[bronxiteforever]

9. A case of State Rights States against States Rights

[BumRushDaShow]

10. WTF?

Sorry but it's remarkable to see who feels the need to get involved in OUR "States Rights".

[Ken Burch]

11. I thought the Pennsyvania ruling was based on the state constitution

and couldn't BE appealed to the Supreme Court.

[PoliticAverse]

15. The following Associated Press article explains the issue...

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/Pennsylvania-s-top-Republican-lawmakers-are-asking-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-to-stop-an-order-by-the-state-s-highest-court-in-a-gerrymandering-case-that-threw-out-the-boundaries-of-its-18-c/id-3e0861839df0453aba26006c346b024b

Key line:

The 22-page argument acknowledged that "judicial activism" by a state supreme court is ordinarily beyond the U.S. Supreme Court's purview. But, it said, "the question of what does and does not constitute a 'legislative function' under the Elections Clause is a question of federal, not state, law, and this Court is the arbiter of that distinction."

[DeminPennswoods]

16. PA constitution doesn't specifically address congressional districts

at least not that I could find. It sets up the process for re-districting and addresses how state legislative districts are to be drawn, but since the same commission does both state and federal districts, it should be using the same guidance as to compactness, etc. To me, it would follow that if the federal congressional districts do not follow the guidelines as set forth in the constitution, then they are illegal.

[mountain grammy]

12. Ratfuckers.