A panel of federal judges this month ruled that Pennsylvania’s map of congressional districts did not violate the U.S. Constitution.
But Monday the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the very same map, saying it “clearly, plainly and palpably” violates the state constitution.
So which court’s ruling will hold as the law of the land?
The answer, several lawyers and constitutional experts said, appears to be the state Supreme Court’s ruling. Probably.
“Because the court rests its ruling solely on Pennsylvania law, this is effectively the end of the road,” said Jud Mathews, associate professor of law at Penn State.
The federal Third Circuit panel on Jan. 10 ruled the state’s map of congressional districts did not violate the Constitution. The plaintiffs in that case, a group of about 20 voters, had political arguments that needed to be addressed by legislators, not the courts, the Third Circuit said.
But in the decision announced Monday, the state Supreme Court, which has the last word on Pennsylvania law, said the congressional district map, drawn in 2011, violates the state constitution.
Seth Kreimer, the Kenneth W. Gemmill professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, said clever lawyers might look for ways to argue the state Supreme Court violated voters’ federal rights in reaching its decision. And while that sounds like a remote possibility, Kreimer pointed to another highly politicized case: Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2000 decision stopping the recount of Florida votes and handing the election to George W. Bush.
“In interpreting state law, the state courts generally get the last word and the [U.S.] Supreme Court should stay out and generally does stay out of state law,” Kreimer said. In Bush v. Gore, he said, the U.S. Supreme Court took an “unprincipled” approach in the case and involved itself in Florida law.
Added Gary Green of Sidkoff Pincus & Green in Philadelphia, “It’d be pretty hard” to get an injunction of the state Supreme Court’s decision. “State supreme courts are respected.”
Assuming there is no “crazy partisan” effort as in Bush v. Gore, Green said, the state’s high court made a decision “that was as clear as could be.”
It’s not unprecedented for federal courts to wade into the issue, citing federal law. An appeals court this month ruled that North Carolina’s congressional map was drawn in such a way as to violate voters’ federal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court last week issued a stay of that decision.
In an interview with reporters in the Capitol, Senate Republicans’ top lawyer Drew Crompton said the postponed North Carolina case is similar to Pennsylvania’s.
Delaying fixes in both states would help Republicans, who drew up the maps and hold most of both states’ congressional seats.
The U.S. Supreme Court also has its own gerrymandering cases in this term. The court is considering arguments in cases from Wisconsin, where Democrats are appealing a Republican-dominated district map, and Maryland, where the GOP is challenging a map drawn by Democrats.
Many oppose the idea of drawing up voting districts to favor the party in power, said Bruce Ledewitz, a professor of law at Duquesne University. But those in power argue that using that power is their right for winning elections.
“The issue is, how do you prove it?” Ledewitz asked. “How do you distinguish between the permissible use of the [political] party and the impermissible use?”
