On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt Republican gerrymandering a crippling blow when it refused to block a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that struck down the GOP’s congressional map for illegally discriminating against Democratic voters. The state court had ordered the Republican-controlled legislature to draw and pass a new map by Feb. 15, but GOP leaders have refused to cooperate with the ruling after Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf promised to veto any new gerrymander. As a result, the state court itself will likely draw new nonpartisan districts, which could lead to major Democratic gains this fall—anywhere from one to as many as six seats.
As shown in the first map at the top of this post (see here for a larger version), Republicans passed an extreme gerrymander following the 2010 census that enabled them to obtain a 13-to-five majority in the state’s congressional delegation, even though Pennsylvania is an evenly divided swing state. That lopsided distribution of seats held up in 2012 even as Obama won the Keystone State—and Democratic House candidates won more votes than Republicans statewide—and again in 2016, when Donald Trump carried the state by less than a point. As we have previously detailed, the second map shown above illustrates what a hypothetical nonpartisan map might look like, which would not only make for a more equitable partisan balance but could also increase black representation.
In an important backdrop to this decision, Democrats won a pivotal majority on the state Supreme Court in the 2015 elections, giving the plaintiffs a fair shot at invalidating the GOP’s map. And crucially, this legal challenge relied solely on the state constitution’s guarantees of free speech and equal protection rights. Consequently, the U.S. Supreme Court had very little leeway to override the state court’s interpretation of Pennsylvania’s own constitution. Republicans forged ahead with a long-shot appeal, but the Supreme Court rightly rejected it.
At the same time, because the state Supreme Court’s case is based on Pennsylvania law, this case can’t set a legal precedent for other states. However, the standard that the judges have established could influence federal courts that are hearing challenges to other partisan gerrymanders in pending cases in Maryland, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. This ruling could also encourage reformers to challenge maps elsewhere under their own state constitutions.
Ultimately, this decision is a monumental victory against one of the worst Republican gerrymanders in the country, and it’s a massive game-changer for Democratic chances of gaining a House majority in November.
Can you chip in $3 to help elect Democrat Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania’s 18th District special election?