HARRISBURG, Pa. – Election law advocates say the state Supreme Court's ruling declaring Pennsylvania's congressional map unconstitutional was the first of its kind in the nation.

On Monday, the court said the map created by Republicans in 2011 was drawn to discriminate against Democrats.

With it, the GOP has consistently held 13 of the state's 18 congressional districts despite the fact that voters are pretty evenly divided between the parties.

According to Michael Li, senior redistricting counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, this is the first time a court has relied on general provisions of a state constitution to strike down gerrymandered district lines. And that, he says, is huge.

"It means that there is now a potential second front in the war against partisan gerrymandering that there wasn't before that doesn't depend on what the U.S. Supreme Court does," he explains.

The General Assembly has until Feb. 9 to submit a new district plan to Gov. Tom Wolf.

Republicans in the state Senate say they will request a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Li maintains the federal high court would have little if any reason to intervene.

"This is a decision that was solely based on the Pennsylvania Constitution and provisions that actually predate the U.S. Constitution, and so it's really hard to see what basis they would have for appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court," he points out.

Supporters of redistricting note that a more impartial map also would put more Republicans in Democratic districts, making elections more competitive overall.

Li explains that many state constitutions have broader protections for electoral rights than the U.S. Constitution, so the ruling in the Pennsylvania court could serve as a model for other states.

"State courts oftentimes look to each other for guidance on how to handle issues where they have similar provisions, so the Pennsylvania decision could be really persuasive and helpful to other courts," he states.

The court has ordered that a new district plan be in place by Feb. 19, in time for primary elections coming up in May.




get more stories like this via email

The new congressional map - crafted by Gov. Ron DeSantis and approved by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature last month, scatters more than 370,000 Black voters from being able to choose their representative - and a circuit judge says that's unconstitutional.

The ruling, which is expected to be appealed, came as no surprise to observers including those who say they tried to work on a more fairly drawn map.

State Rep. Kelly Skidmore - D-Boca Raton - is a ranking member of the House Congressional Redistricting Subcommittee.

"The court recognized that this was a diminishment of Black representation in Congress," said Skidmore, "and there is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and our Fair Districts Amendment."

The challenge focuses on a north Florida district now held by Rep. Al Lawson - D-Tallahasse. The district runs from Jacksonville west more than 200 miles to Gadsden County and nearly half of its population is Black.

Lawson says he's pleased with the ruling, while the DeSantis administration issued a statement vowing to appeal.

Skidmore said everyone knew what DeSantis was proposing was unconstitutional.

She said she warned her colleagues during debate but ultimately the Republican leadership in both the House and Senate kowtowed and refused to challenge the governor with a new map of their own after he vetoed theirs.

"When I went to school, you didn't get to grade your own work," said Skidmore, "You don't get to draw the map and then get to approve the map that you drew. That's not how government is supposed to work. There were no checks and balances in that process."

The move by DeSantis prompted mostly Black lawmakers to stage a sit-in protest during the vote for the maps.

The order from the judge expected today or Friday will likely replace the DeSantis map with one of the two that the Legislature put in the bill the governor received in March.

Judge Layne Smith says he plans to follow the state constitution in his ruling. The saga is expected to reach Florida's conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

As the Minnesota Legislature considers new police-reform proposals, the discussions coincide with results from a state investigation of the Minneapolis Police Department. Groups pushing for change say a meaningful response is needed.

Last week, Minnesota's Human Rights Department announced Minneapolis police have engaged in a pattern of race discrimination that violates state statute.

The probe started right after the murder of George Floyd. Johnathon McClellan - president of the Minnesota Justice Coalition - said his group isn't anti-police, but he hopes the findings convince those who are skeptical of reform to reconsider their stance.

"If the protests weren't enough for you," said McClellan, "if the death of George Floyd and Daunte Wright or Winston Smith wasn't enough for you, we hope that the report is enough for you to at least look at this."

His group backs legislation that sets deadlines for police to release body-camera footage. Another plan would extend the civil statute of limitations in deadly-force cases.

Those are part of a larger House public safety plan. However, Senate leaders have emphasized other public safety priorities, including police officer recruitment.

In Minneapolis, accountability groups say community voices should be included as the state works with the city on a consent decree to establish changes. For Minnesotans elsewhere, McClellan said he hopes the report resonates with them, even if they haven't been victimized by police.

"This should have us all question what we believe and what our role is, in a society and as a people," said McClellan.

The Minnesota Justice Coalition has asked federal officials for investigations into the practices of other agencies, including the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

The group suspects questionable methods have carried over into other jurisdictions, but no decision has been made yet to authorize those probes.

Separately, the U.S. Justice Department continues its own review of MPD in the wake of George Floyd's murder.

Good-government groups are pushing back against a bill requiring voters to fill out a ballot which could later be thrown out if they are missing documentation when they register to vote for the first time on Election Day.

Currently, Granite Staters can sign an affidavit attesting their identity if they are missing needed documents. They need both a state ID to prove identity and age and a passport, birth certificate or naturalization document to prove citizenship. If they do not follow up with the documentation later, they can be investigated for fraud.

Proponents say the bill is for security, but audits have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Liz Tentarelli, president of the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, said the bill is a proposed solution to a problem that does not exist.

"I think people would be really surprised if they said, 'Well, yes, we have same-day voter registration, but you must have these documents. You've got to prove identity, age, where you live, and citizenship.' How many people carry citizenship papers around with them?" Tentarelli asked.

Tentarelli noted only people who are registering for the first time on Election Day would need to fill out affidavit ballots, which she noted are essentially provisional ballots. The legislation has been passed by the state Senate, and is now before the House.

She added the bill also raises privacy concerns because so few would have to fill out provisional ballots, and clerks would have to go through and invalidate the ones from people who did not follow up with documentation.

"Where's the privacy of that ballot?" Tentarelli remarked. "And the sponsor said, 'Well, if that person voted fraudulently, all rights to privacy are canceled.' Well, did that person vote fraudulently or did that person just become a normal person and forget to do something within the time limit?"

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu has expressed "hesitation" about the bill, saying it might delay results, and arguing New Hampshire's election system works.

New Hampshire is currently one of a handful of states not using provisional ballots. Provisional ballots are required by federal law, but the state got an exemption for having same-day voter registration at the time of the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.