Pa. gerrymandering trial underway; attorneys spar over key documents
HARRISBURG — In a state court case in which lawyers for a group of voters will argue that Republicans have contorted Pennsylvania’s congressional maps to partisan advantage, rival attorneys sparred Monday over admitting key evidence submitted in a separate federal trial.
One of several lawsuits that have popped up around the country challenging the mapping of congressional and legislative districts, if this challenge — fast-tracked by the state Supreme Court — is successful it could force a redrawing of Pennsylvania’s congressional map in time for the 2018 elections.
Suing under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the 18 voters — one for each of the state’s congressional districts — accuse Republican lawmakers of discriminating against Democratic voters by intentionally drawing the congressional map to maximize the number of Republican U.S. representatives elected.
As the trial opened Monday, attorneys argued over a plaintiff motion to introduce evidence produced in a separate federal trial last week. That included an analysis of files that House Speaker Mike Turzai turned over in the federal case showing that mapmakers used detailed partisan data in drawing the congressional districts.
Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-congress-lawsuit-trial-harrisburg-20171211.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
All of us should keep an eye on this case in Philadelphia right now. A favorable ruling in this case could mean the district would be redrawn in time for the 2018 elections.
Also if the PA Supreme Court strikes down the gerrymandered mapping it's a precedent that could be cited in other lawsuits for other states. The fact that Mike Turzai has tried SO HARD to keep his data secret really tells us something doesn't it? It's not legislative privilege Turzai, when our tax dollars paid for the creation of the data. You don't own it and you can't keep it secret from the citizens of PA, especially when it's very pertinent to this case.
Here's something one of the commenters wrote on the Philadephia Inquirer website under this story:
If legislative privilege is intended to shield lawmakers' deliberations EVEN WHEN THOSE DELIBERATIONS ARE SUSPECTED OF BEING CRIMINAL IN NATURE, then the concept of legislative privilege has some serious flaws.
The documents in question were already produced at the request of federal judges in another case, why should they not be permitted in this one? Why is this even a question?
ADMIT THE DOCUMENTS. Just the attempt to exclude them does a pretty good job of making the defendants look guilty. It would seem the defense is short on making a decent case.
