Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Election Policy Logo.png
Redistricting
State-by-state
redistricting procedures
Majority-minority districts
Congressional district demographics
United States census,
2020
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

On January 22, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its ruling in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a case dealing with alleged partisan gerrymandering of the state's congressional district plan. The court found that the district map "clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." The court ordered state lawmakers to draw new district boundaries in advance of the 2018 election cycle. State Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the state supreme court's ruling; the court, however, denied this request on February 5, 2018. The state supreme court released its majority opinion in the case on February 7, 2018.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Opponents of Pennsylvania's congressional district plan, which was adopted by the state legislature in 2011, alleged that the plan had been subject to an illegal partisan gerrymander favoring Republicans over Democrats in violation of the free expression and associational rights guaranteed by Article I, Sections 7 and 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
  • Outcome: On January 22, 2018, the state supreme court issued an order striking down the plan, finding that it "clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." The court ordered state lawmakers to draft remedial maps in advance of the 2018 election cycle.

    • Background

    See also: Redistricting in Pennsylvania

    Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Pennsylvania's 18 United States Representatives and 253 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4]

    In Pennsylvania, the statutory authority to draw congressional district boundaries is vested with the Pennsylvania General Assembly. These lines are subject to gubernatorial veto.[5]

    State legislative district lines are drawn by a politician commission. Established in 1968, the commission comprises five members:[5]

    1. The majority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate appoints one member.
    2. The minority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate appoints one member.
    3. The majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives appoints one member.
    4. The minority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives appoints one member.
    5. The first four commissioners appoint a fifth member to serve as the commission's chair. If the commission is unable to reach an agreement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court must appoint a commission chair.[5]


    The Pennsylvania Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and compact. Further, state legislative districts should "respect county, city, incorporated town, borough, township and ward boundaries." There are no such requirements in place for congressional districts.[5]

    Case history

    Pennsylvania's congressional district map, adopted by the state legislature in 2011. Click the above image to enlarge it.
    Source: The National Atlas of the United States of America

    Following the 2010 United States census, Pennsylvania lost one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held the governorship and both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. On December 20, 2011, the state legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett on December 22, 2011.[5][6]

    On June 15, 2017, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania filed suit in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, alleging that the state's congressional district map had been subject to an illegal partisan gerrymander in violation of the free expression and associational rights guaranteed by Article I, Sections 7 and 20, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. On October 16, 2017, Judge Dan Pellegrini stayed the proceedings pending a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gill v. Whitford. On November 9, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the stay and ordered the commonwealth court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, a nonbinding opinion, by December 31, 2017.[7]

    On December 29, 2017, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The opinion was penned by Judge Kevin Brobson and read, in part, as follows:[8][9]

    “ While Petitioners characterize the level of partisanship evident in the 2011 Plan as 'excessive' and 'unfair,' Petitioners have not articulated a judicially manageable standard by which this Court can discern whether the 2011 Plan crosses the line between permissible partisan considerations and unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering under the Pennsylvania Constitution. ... A lot can and has been said about the 2011 Plan, much of which is unflattering and yet justified. Petitioners, however, have failed to meet their burden of proving that the 2011 Plan, as a piece of legislation, clearly, plainly, and palpably violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. For the judiciary, this should be the end of the inquiry.[10] ”
    —Judge P. Kevin Brobson

    Suzanne Almeida, the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, said, "While we are disappointed that Judge Brobson did not find that the existing state of Pennsylvania law was violated by the 2011 partisan gerrymander, we are encouraged by the strong findings of fact in our favor and look forward to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in the case." Drew Compton, an aide to state Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R), said, "Even though it's not always a flattering process, [Brobson] found [the map] to be constitutional on all grounds."[8][11][12]

    The case then advanced to the state supreme court, which heard oral argument on January 17, 2018.[8][9][13]

    Decision

    Seal of Pennsylvania.

    On January 22, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order striking down the state's congressional district map, finding that the map "clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." The order set the following deadlines for revising the district map:[14]

    • February 9, 2018: Deadline for the state legislature to submit a remedial district plan to the governor
    • February 15, 2018: Deadline for the governor to submit a remedial plan to the state supreme court

    The order noted that the court would adopt a remedial plan on its own if the state legislature and governor do not submit a plan. The order indicated that a full opinion would be forthcoming. On January 26, 2018, the state supreme court issued an order appointing Nate Persily, a Stanford University law professor, "to assist the court in adopting, if necessary, a remedial congressional redistricting plan." The court ordered state lawmakers turn over digital files containing information on the state's current congressional district boundaries by January 31, 2018.[15][16][17]

    On February 7, 2018, the state supreme court released the majority opinion explaining its January 22, 2018, order in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Debra Todd and read, in part, as follows:[18]

    “ In sum, we conclude that the evidence detailed above and the remaining evidence of the record as a whole demonstrates that Petitioners have established that the 2011 Plan subordinates the traditional redistricting criteria in service of achieving unfair partisan advantage, and, thus, violates the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Such a plan, aimed at achieving unfair partisan gain, undermines voters’ ability to exercise their right to vote in free and 'equal' elections if the term is to be interpreted in any credible way. An election corrupted by extensive, sophisticated gerrymandering and partisan dilution of votes is not 'free and equal.' In such circumstances, a 'power, civil or military,' to wit, the General Assembly, has in fact 'interfere[d] to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.[10] ”
    —Debra Todd

    Chief Justice Thomas Saylor penned a dissenting opinion that read, in part, as follows:[19]

    “ In summary, I believe that: the present exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction was improvident; this Court’s review would benefit from anticipated guidance from the Supreme Court of the United States; awaiting such guidance is particularly appropriate given the delay, until 2017, of Petitioners’ challenge to a 2011 redistricting plan; and the appropriate litmus for judicial review of redistricting should take into account the inherently political character of the work of the General Assembly, to which the task of redistricting has been assigned by the United States Constitution.[10] ”
    —Thomas Saylor

    Justice Sallie Mundy joined Saylor's dissent and penned a separate dissent. Justice Max Baer filed an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the court's majority opinion.[20][21]

    Aftermath

    On January 25, 2018, state Republicans requested that the Supreme Court of the United States stay the state supreme court's ruling pending an appeal. Attorneys for Republicans argued that the state supreme court overstepped its authority in striking down Pennsylvania's congressional district plan: "This is not simply a question of a state supreme court interpreting its state constitution, but a state supreme court usurping that state legislature's authority expressly granted under Article I, § 4." David Gersch, an attorney for the voters who initially brought the lawsuit challenging the congressional district plan, said that Republicans were making inconsistent arguments, having claimed in a separate lawsuit that the matter should be addressed by state-level authorities: "Now that they have lost in the highest court of the commonwealth, the legislators turn around and say the exact opposite." On January 29, 2018, Associate Justice Samuel Alito requested a response to this request from the other parties involved in the suit by 4:00 on February 2, 2018. On February 5, 2018, the Supreme Court denied Republicans' request for a stay.[14][22][23][24][25]

    On January 31, 2018, attorneys for Pennsylvania State Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R) submitted a letter to the court indicating that Scarnati would not furnish the court with the requested data: "In light of the unconstitutionality of the Court's Orders and the Court's plain intent to usurp the General Assembly's constitutionally delegated role of drafting Pennsylvania's congressional districting plan, Senator Scarnati will not be turning over any data identified in the Court's Orders." The letter also included a footnote indicating that Scarnati did not possess the requested data. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, an attorney for the Pennsylvania General Assembly, in a separate letter, said, "The General Assembly and its Legislative Data Processing Center do not maintain ESRI shapefiles that contain current boundaries of all Pennsylvania municipalities and precincts."[26][27][28]

    On February 9, 2018, Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R) and House Speaker Mike Turzai (R) filed a remedial congressional district plan with Governor Tom Wolf (D). The pair issued a joint statement announcing the plan: "The Republican Legislative Leaders in the House and Senate have agreed to a Congressional District Map that complies fully with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's order and opinion." Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa (D) and House Minority Leader Frank Dermody (D) issued a joint statement that same day denouncing the map: "The Republican leadership in both chambers blocked this process, refused to negotiate, and have now submitted a map directly to [the governor's] office that we have not even seen." J. J. Abbott, a spokesman for Wolf, said, "While the court's order did not appear to allow for two individuals to draw a map on behalf of the entire General Assembly, Gov. Wolf will review Speaker Turzai and President Scarnati's submission in consultation with the experts retained by the administration to determine his next course of action."[29][30]

    On February 13, 2018, Governor Tom Wolf (D) announced that he would not submit the remedial congressional district plan drafted by Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R) and House Speaker Mike Turzai (R) to the state supreme court. In a press release, Wolf said, "The analysis by my team shows that, like the 2011 map, the map submitted to my office by Republican leaders is still a gerrymander. Their map clearly seeks to benefit one political party, which is the essence of why the court found the current map to be unconstitutional."[31][32]

    On February 15, 2018, the deadline set by the state supreme court, parties to the suit and state political leaders submitted their proposals to the court. Wolf, Lieutenant Governor Mike Stack (D), House Democrats, Senate Democrats, the petitioners in the suit, and the intervenors all submitted proposals. These are linked below:[33][34][35]

    On February 19, 2018, the state supreme court voted 4-3 to adopt the remedial congressional plan drafted by Nate Persily. District locations and numbers differ between the two maps. The map adopted by the state supreme court split 13 counties; the 2011 map split 28 counties. Had the 2018 map been in place during the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump (R) would have won 10 districts and Hillary Clinton (D) would have won eight. In 2016, at which time the 2011 map was in place, Trump carried 12 districts to Clinton's six. The full text of the court's ruling, including map images, can be accessed here.[36]

    Justices Debra Todd, Christine Donohue, Kevin M. Dougherty, and David N. Wecht formed the court's majority. The majority opinion read, in part, as follows:[36]

    “ This Court recognized that the primary responsibility for drawing congressional districts rested squarely with the legislature, but we also acknowledged that, in the eventuality of the General Assembly not submitting a plan to the Governor, or the Governor not approving the General Assembly’s plan within the time specified, it would fall to this Court expeditiously to adopt a plan based upon the evidentiary record developed in the Commonwealth Court. ... The Remedial Plan is superior or comparable to all plans submitted by the parties, the intervenors, and amici, by whichever Census-provided definition one employs. ... The compactness of the plan is superior or comparable to the other submissions[.] ... Finally, no district has more than a one-person difference in population from any other district, and, therefore, the Remedial Plan achieves the constitutional guarantee of one person, one vote.[10] ”

    Chief Justice Thomas Saylor filed a dissenting opinion, which read, in part, as follows:[37]

    “ The latest round includes: the submission, within the past few days, of more than a dozen sophisticated redistricting plans; the lack of an opportunity for critical evaluation by all of the parties; the adoption of a judicially created redistricting plan apparently upon advice from a political scientist who has not submitted a report as of record nor appeared as a witness in any court proceeding in this case; and the absence of an adversarial hearing to resolve factual controversies arising in the present remedial phase of this litigation. In these circumstances, the displacement to the judiciary of the political responsibility for redistricting -- which is assigned to the General Assembly by the United States Constitution -- appears to me to be unprecedented.[10] ”

    Justices Sallie Mundy and Max Baer also penned individual dissents.[38][39]

    In its order, the court set the primary election filing period for congressional candidates to begin on February 27, 2018, and to end on March 20, 2018. By contrast, the filing period for candidates for other offices, such as governor and United States senator, began on February 13, 2018, and ended on March 6, 2018.[36]

    Pennsylvania Democrats applauded the remedial map. David Landau, Delaware County Democratic Party chairman, said, "[The remedial map] remedies the outrageous gerrymander of 2011, and that's the important thing, that the gerrymander be over. All that zigging and zagging is gone, and it makes Delaware County a competitive seat now." Meanwhile, Republicans were critical of the map and the process that led to its adoption. Mark Harris, a Republican campaign consultant, said, "It's a straight Democratic gerrymander by a Democratic Supreme Court to help Democrats." Republicans indicated that they planned to challenge the validity of the remedial map in federal court. According to The Washington Post, Drew Compton, an attorney for Senate Republicans, said that "a separation of powers case will form the essence of the GOP's argument."[40][41][42]

    On February 27, 2018, Turzai and Scarnati petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a stay of the state supreme court's order pending appeal. The petition was filed with Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who reviews emergency appeals from Pennsylvania. Attorneys for Turzai and Scarnati wrote the following in their petition:[43]

    “ By promulgating mandatory criteria the General Assembly could not anticipate in 2011, and that are found nowhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution, withholding guidance as to how to achieve compliance with Pennsylvania law until two days before the court's imposed deadline to enact a new plan, creating a proportional-representation criterion that is practically impossible to implement, and imposing a remedial plan that had been in the works all along, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ensured that its desired plan to draft the new map would be successful. This court of action cannot square with either the plain text of the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause, which delegates redistricting authority to 'the Legislature' of each state, or with this Court's interpretive precedent, which holds that '[r]edistricting involves lawmaking in its essential features and most important aspect.'[10] ”

    On March 19, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an order declining to intervene in the case. There were no noted dissents in the order.[44]

    On March 20, 2018, Rep. Cris Dush (R) introduced the following impeachment resolutions against the four justices who signed onto the state supreme court's ruling in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:[45]

    Dush argued that these four justices, all Democrats, exceeded their authority by imposing a new district map, an action that, Dush argued, is the prerogative of the legislative and executive branches. In a memorandum accompanying the impeachment resolutions, Dush said, "[The court's action] overrides the express legislative and executive authority, found in Article IV, Section 15 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, concerning the Governor’s veto authority and the General Assembly’s subsequent authority to override such veto. ... [The justices] who signed this order that blatantly and clearly contradicts the plain language of the Pennsylvania Constitution, engaged in misbehavior in office." Eleven other Republicans signed on as co-sponsors of the impeachment resolutions.[46]

    House Minority Leader Frank Dermody (D) argued that the impeachment efforts constituted an unfounded attack on the judiciary. Dermody said, "It’s an attack on the independence of every judge in our state, one of the bedrock principles of our democracy. If pursued, this would be a clear and present danger to the administration of justice in Pennsylvania." Chief Justice Thomas Saylor said the following in a statement: "Threats of impeachment directed against Justices because of their decision in a particular case are an attack upon an independent judiciary, which is an essential component of our constitutional plan of government."[47][48]

    On May 29, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed Agre v. Wolf, a separate suit alleging unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering in the state's congressional district map, as moot.[49]

    Corman v. Torres

    On February 22, 2018, Pennsylvania State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R), Senate State Government Committee Chairman Mike Folmer (R), and Republican congressmen Lou Barletta, Ryan Costello, Mike Kelly, Tom Marino, Scott Perry, Keith Rothfus, Lloyd Smucker, and Glenn Thompson filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, seeking an injunction against implementation of the state supreme court's remedial congressional district plan. The plaintiffs alleged that the state supreme court, in adopting a remedial map, violated the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution by usurping the redistricting authority granted by the Constitution to state legislatures. The plaintiffs requested that a three-judge panel of the court be convened to consider the case. On February 23, 2018, this request was granted; judges Kent Jordan, Christopher Conner, and Jerome Simandle were appointed to the panel. That same day, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction and set an expedited schedule for review. Oral arguments in the case were heard on March 9, 2018.[50][51][52][53][54]

    On March 19, 2018, the three-judge panel ruled unanimously to dismiss the complaint. The panel's opinion read, in part, as follows:[55][56]

    “ We hold that the federal Elections Clause violations that the Plaintiffs allege are not the Plaintiffs‟ to assert. Because fundamental principles of constitutional standing and judicial restraint prohibit us from exercising jurisdiction, we have no authority to take any action other than to dismiss the Plaintiffs‟ verified complaint. Moreover, the deficiencies identified herein are legal rather than factual in nature. Accordingly, we conclude that leave to amend would be futile. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs‟ verified complaint will be dismissed, and Plaintiffs‟ motion for preliminary injunction will be denied.[10] ”

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
    2. ↑ Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
    3. ↑ The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
    4. ↑ Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 All About Redistricting, "Pennsylvania," accessed May 8, 2015
    6. ↑ Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    7. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," February 13, 2018
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 The Philadelphia Inquirer, "In gerrymandering case, judge recommends Pa. Supreme Court uphold congressional map," December 29, 2017
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," December 29, 2017
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    11. ↑ The New York Times, "Judge Says Pennsylvania Election Districts Give Republicans an Edge, but Are Not Illegal," December 29, 2017
    12. ↑ The Morning Call, "Judge: No proof Pennsylvania congressional map is unconstitutional," December 29, 2017
    13. ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Pa. Supreme Court hears arguments in gerrymandering case," January 17, 2018
    14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," January 22, 2018
    15. ↑ Penn Live, "New Pa. court order adds further definition to 11th-hour redistricting process," January 27, 2018
    16. ↑ The Hill, "Pa. state Senate leader refuses court order on redrawing district maps," January 31, 2018
    17. ↑ The Inquirer, "Sen. Scarnati refuses Pa. Supreme Court order to turn over map data in gerrymander case," January 31, 2018
    18. ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Opinion," February 7, 2018
    19. ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Chief Justice Saylor)," February 7, 2018
    20. ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Justice Mundy)," February 7, 2018
    21. ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Concurring and Dissenting Opinion (Justice Baer)," February 7, 2018
    22. ↑ The Inquirer, "Pa. Republicans ask U.S. Supreme Court to halt redistricting order," January 25, 2018
    23. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania: Emergency Application for Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal to This Court," January 25, 2018
    24. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Justice Alito (Belatedly) Calls for Response in PA Congressional Gerrymandering Case," January 29, 2018
    25. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court won't block Pa. ruling that state redraw congressional boundaries immediately, in decision that could help Democrats," February 5, 2018
    26. ↑ Penn Live, "New Pa. court order adds further definition to 11th-hour redistricting process," January 27, 2018
    27. ↑ The Hill, "Pa. state Senate leader refuses court order on redrawing district maps," January 31, 2018
    28. ↑ The Inquirer, "Sen. Scarnati refuses Pa. Supreme Court order to turn over map data in gerrymander case," January 31, 2018
    29. ↑ The Inquirer, "Top Republicans in Pa. House, Senate submit congressional map to Gov. Wolf," February 9, 2018
    30. ↑ Senator Joe Scarnati, "Pennsylvania Legislative Leaders Submitting Congressional Map," February 9, 2018
    31. ↑ The Inquirer, "Gov. Wolf rejects Republican map proposal, saying it remains a partisan gerrymander," February 13, 2018
    32. ↑ Governor of Pennsylvania, "Governor Tom Wolf Rejects Partisan Gerrymandered Map," February 13, 2018
    33. ↑ WFMZ-TV, "So many maps, so little time: Pennsylvania redistricting debate continues," February 16, 2018
    34. ↑ The United Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters, et al. v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. – 159 MM 2017," accessed February 16, 2018
    35. ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Brief for Intervenors," January 10, 2018
    36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Opinion and Order," February 19, 2018
    37. ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Chief Justice Saylor)," February 19, 2018
    38. ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Justice Mundy)," February 19, 2018
    39. ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Justice Baer)," February 19, 2018
    40. ↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Pa. gerrymandering case: State Supreme Court releases new congressional map for 2018 elections," February 19, 2018
    41. ↑ The Washington Post, "Pennsylvania’s new congressional map could boost Democrats," February 19, 2018
    42. ↑ The Washington Post, "The Latest: GOP to take new congressional map to court," February 19, 2018
    43. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Emergency Application for Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal to This Court," February 27, 2018
    44. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Supreme Court, With No Noted Dissent, Refuses to Intervene in Pa Redistricting Case Just Hours After Lower Court Rules," March 19, 2018
    45. ↑ The Indiana Gazette, "Dush introduces legislation to impeach Supreme Court justices," March 20, 2018
    46. ↑ Pennsylvania House of Representatives, "Memorandum: Impeachment of five PA Supreme Court Justices," February 5, 2018
    47. ↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Pa. Republican state legislator moves to impeach four state Supreme Court justices," March 20, 2018
    48. ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "GOP chief justice slams Republican judicial impeachment move," March 22, 2018
    49. ↑ Bloomberg Law, "SCOTUS Ends One Partisan Gerrymandering Battle; More Remain," May 30, 2018
    50. ↑ Election Law Blog, "New Federal Lawsuit in Pennsylvania Congressional Redistricting Litigation Seeks 3 Judge Court Order to Hold Elections Under Old 2011 Maps; Case is Longshot," February 22, 2018
    51. ↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Corman v. Torres: Verified Complaint," February 22, 2018
    52. ↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Corman v. Torres: On Application to Convene a Three Judge District Court," February 23, 2018
    53. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Three-Judge Federal District Court in Pa Congressional Redistricting Case Sets Expedited Schedule for Briefing on Preliminary Injunction Request," February 23, 2018
    54. ↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Federal judges hear arguments in Pa. congressional map fight: Should they block new map?" March 9, 2018
    55. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Three-Judge Federal Court (All Republican Nominees) Rejects PA Congressional Redistricting Challenge, Leaving Issue to SCOTUS," March 19, 2018
    56. ↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Corman v. Torres: Memorandum Opinion," March 19, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=League_of_Women_Voters_of_Pennsylvania_v._the_Commonwealth_of_Pennsylvania&oldid=8534643"