No proof congressional map is unconstitutional, judge says

[modrepub]

HARRISBURG (AP) -- A Pennsylvania judge says Democratic voters suing to invalidate the current map of Pennsylvania's congressional districts haven't proven that it violates the state constitution by unfairly favoring Republican candidates.

Commonwealth Court Judge Kevin Brobson, a Republican, issued a 130-page report to the state Supreme Court by Friday's deadline, set by the Democratic-majority high court that ordered the lower court to fast-track hearings and sum up the evidence.

The justices quickly scheduled oral arguments to be held Jan. 17.

<snip>

Republicans now fill 13 of Pennsylvania's 18 seats in the U.S. House, despite winning roughly half of the statewide congressional vote in the last three congressional elections.


http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/12/no_proof_congressional_map_is.html#incart_river_home

[meow2u3]

1. Time to appeal the decision

The judge who ruled that there was no proof of gerrymandering is a repuke. He has a partisan interest to keep the obscenely gerrymandered districts as is.

[DeminPennswoods]

2. The PA supreme court sent this case to him

for fact-finding. IIRC, the case was fast-tracked throught the courts. It seems like the plaintiffs weren't surprised at the outcome since he's a Republican judge. The plaintiffs were pleased that he found there was definate partisan bias in the map. The case is now heading back to the state supreme court for a final ruling. FTR, Dems hold a 5-2 majority on the PA supreme court.

[meow2u3]

3. From the Morning Call: Gerrymandering ruling shows low expectations

http://enewspaper.mcall.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=d806b38e-0fed-4ab3-8d5e-9f5fd1340072&link_id=0&can_id=3a47ae7d28b3692b31a0dc924bc4847c&source=email-resolve-to-help-spread-the-word-about-our-jan-12-event&email_referrer=email_282186&email_subject=resolve-to-help-spread-the-word-about-our-jan-12-event

Low expectations can be a curse or a blessing.

The greatest beneficiary I’ve ever seen is President Trump. Throughout his campaign and the first year of his presidency, he got away with things no other politician could even consider doing, because ... hey, he’s Donald Trump. What do you expect?

President Obama had the opposite problem. He entered office in such a wave of high expectations that he got the Nobel Peace Prize before he even did anything. No one could have measured up.

One thing all of us should regret is the incredibly low expectations people have for integrity in Pennsylvania government.

Whenever a national group gauges the ethical standards of state governments nationwide, we finish near the bottom. We got a fresh reminder of how bad it is last month when the board of the State Employees’ Retirement Systems decided former state Senate Democratic leader Robert Mellow still should get his $245,000 a year state pension after going to federal prison for corruption.

As one reader pointed out to me after I included this in my year in review, the more amazing part of this awful story may be that any departed state legislator gets a $245,000 a year pension, let alone one who went to prison for cheating us in office.

But I’m going to focus today on another example of low expectations for good government in Pennsylvania.

It comes courtesy of state Commonwealth Court Judge Kevin Brobson, who ruled last week that the plaintiffs challenging Pennsylvania’s outrageously gerrymandered congressional districts had not spelled out a standard for a court to determine whether the 2011 map “crosses the line between permissible partisan considerations and unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering under the Pennsylvania Constitution.”

Brobson concluded that the voters challenging the map had plainly shown that the Legislature’s Republican majority leaders used partisan considerations when they drew the plan in 2011, and that it favored Republicans in some of Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional districts. He wrote, “A lot can and has been said about the 2011 plan, much of which is unflattering and yet justified.”

The judge nonetheless ruled the plaintiffs hadn’t sufficiently demonstrated that this gerrymandering was unconstitutional.

What amounts to his recommendation now goes to the state Supreme Court.