[EL] PA Congressional Maps Issued/ELB News and Commentary 2/19/18
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
nicholas.stephanopoulos at gmail.com
Mon Feb 19 12:51:20 PST 2018
Here's a preliminary analysis
<https://planscore.org/plan.html?20180219T202039.596761160Z> of the
remedial map from PlanScore. By each metric of partisan symmetry, the map
is impressively neutral -- a clear improvement on its predecessor
<https://planscore.org/plan.html?enacted-PA5-ushouse>.
We'll have a more sophisticated analysis ready soon that incorporates the
effects of incumbency as well.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
> The links to the PA documents have changed. Here is a new set of links
>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6852.pdf?cb=df65be>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6852.pdf?cb=df65be>
>
> Feb. 19, 2018 - Opinion and Order Adopting Remedial Plan
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6852.pdf?cb=df65be>
>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6851.pdf?cb=a1d195>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6851.pdf?cb=a1d195>
>
> Feb. 19, 2018 - Dissenting Opinion (CJ Saylor)
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6851.pdf?cb=a1d195>
>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6850.pdf?cb=0c5bfc>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6850.pdf?cb=0c5bfc>
>
> Feb. 19, 2018 - Dissenting Opinion (J Baer)
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6850.pdf?cb=0c5bfc>
>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6849.pdf?cb=561609>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6849.pdf?cb=561609>
>
> Feb. 19, 2018 - Dissenting Opinion (J Mundy)
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6849.pdf?cb=561609>
>
>
>
>
> <http://media-downloads.pacourts.us/RemedialPlanDistrictbyDistrictImages.zip?cb=473192>
>
>
> <http://media-downloads.pacourts.us/RemedialPlanDistrictbyDistrictImages.zip?cb=473192>
>
> Remedial Plan District by District Images
> <http://media-downloads.pacourts.us/RemedialPlanDistrictbyDistrictImages.zip?cb=473192>
>
>
>
>
> <http://media-downloads.pacourts.us/2011PlanDistrictbyDistrictImages.zip?cb=473192>
>
>
> <http://media-downloads.pacourts.us/2011PlanDistrictbyDistrictImages.zip?cb=473192>
>
> 2011 Plan District by District Images
> <http://media-downloads.pacourts.us/2011PlanDistrictbyDistrictImages.zip?cb=473192>
>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6846.zip?cb=3e1645>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6846.zip?cb=3e1645>
>
> Statewide Images
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6846.zip?cb=3e1645>
>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6845.zip?cb=b6385e>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6845.zip?cb=b6385e>
>
> Remedial Plan Shape Files
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6845.zip?cb=b6385e>
>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6844.zip?cb=c50222>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6844.zip?cb=c50222>
>
> Remedial Plan Reports
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6844.zip?cb=c50222>
>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6843.zip?cb=45943e>
>
>
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6843.zip?cb=45943e>
>
> Remedial Plan Census Block Equivalency Files
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6061/file-6843.zip?cb=45943e>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Date: *Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:35 PM
> *To: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: PA Congressional Maps Issued/ELB News and Commentary
> 2/19/18
>
>
>
> Correction: Persily is an advisor to the Pa. Supreme Court and not a
> special master.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Date: *Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:31 PM
> *To: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *PA Congressional Maps Issued/ELB News and Commentary 2/19/18
>
>
> Pa Supreme Court on 4-3 Adopts Special Master Persily’s Maps for
> Pennsylvania Congressional Redistricting; GOP’s Litigation Options Do Not
> Look Good <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97581>
>
> Posted on February 19, 2018 12:15 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97581>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6015/file-6852.pdf?cb=df65be>
> (with
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6015/file-6850.pdf?cb=0c5bfc>
> three
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6015/file-6851.pdf?cb=a1d195>
> dissents
> <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-6015/file-6849.pdf?cb=561609>
> ) has adopted <https://twitter.com/bycoffe/status/965669707171934208>Nate
> Persily’s maps for redrawing congressional districts. (One of the
> districts–18—looks surprisingly
> <https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/965676388941406208> like Penn
> State’s Nittany Lion.)
>
> [image: http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-map-300x200.png]
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-map.png>
>
> Philly Inquirer:
> <http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-supreme-court-map-congressional-districts-2018-elections-20180219.html>
>
> *Its plan splits only 13 counties. Of those, four counties are split into
> three districts and nine are split into two districts. It also includes
> significant changes to the state map, including dividing Philadelphia into
> only two congressional districts; currently three House members represent
> parts of the city.*
>
> *By contrast the most recent map, enacted in 2011, split 28 counties.*
>
> * “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 court wrote in
> its order.*
>
> The early indications are that this is a much more competitive map which
> will help the Democrats compared to the gerrymandered maps drawn by the
> Republican legislature. Given Nate Persily’s general reputation for
> fairness, I expect that these maps will be fair and comply with the
> requirements set out by the state Supreme Court.
>
> Because this was a case decided under the *state* constitution by the
> *state* supreme court, the usual path for review of this case by the U.S.
> Supreme Court is limited. The only plausible argument I see is that the
> maps violate the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which vests in the
> state legislature the power to choose rules for congressional elections
> (unless Congress acts to preempt them).
>
> The problem with this argument is that the Pa Republicans already went to
> the Supreme Court when the state supreme court announced a redistricting–
> and Republicans raised the very same argument. At the time it was raised, I
> called the argument a long shot <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97047>,
> given a line of cases (most recently a 2015 case from Arizona)
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf>reading the
> word legislature much more broadly in the context of the elections clause.
> The emergency stay request went to Justice Alito, who denied it without
> even referring it to the Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97340>. So
> he likely did not think much of it at the time.
>
> Now it is quite possible that Pa. Republicans will go back to Justice
> Alito, arguing that things are even worse now that the state Supreme Court
> has *adopted* a map itself. That’s the job first and foremost for the
> legislature. But remember that the Pa. legislature did not even come up
> with an official passed plan for the state supreme court to reject. (A pair
> of legislative leaders had a plan, but it was not passed by the
> legislature.) This seems to give Pa. Republicans even less standing to
> complain about things. I expect something new filed with Justice Alito will
> get no further. (After all, we are even later into the election season.)
>
> The alternative, which I’ve been hearing a lot about from reporters, is
> Pa. Republicans filing a *new and separate* federal court challenge in a
> federal district court raising the same Elections Clause challenge. This
> seems like a super longshot. Not only does it present the same problem on
> the merits as what Justice Alito already rejected. But this would be a
> collateral attack on a state supreme court decision in federal court
> (rather than a direct appeal from the state Supreme Court to the U.S.
> Supreme Court). Various abstention doctrines, including the Rooker-Feldman
> doctrine, would counsel federal courts against issuing orders directly
> against the orders of state courts. There are principles of comity and
> federalism that make such challenges extremely hard to bring.
>
> Bottom line: it is hard to see where Republicans go from here to
> successfully fight these maps.
>
> [*This post has been updated.*]
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97581&title=Pa%20Supreme%20Court%20on%204-3%20Adopts%20Special%20Master%20Persily%E2%80%99s%20Maps%20for%20Pennsylvania%20Congressional%20Redistricting%3B%20GOP%E2%80%99s%20Litigation%20Options%20Do%20Not%20Look%20Good>
>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> Arizona: “Panel okays proposal for state lawmakers to tap U.S. Senate
> nominees” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97579>
>
> Posted on February 19, 2018 11:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97579>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Arizona Capitol Times reports.
> <https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2018/02/14/panel-okays-proposal-for-state-lawmakers-to-tap-u-s-senate-nominees/>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97579&title=Arizona%3A%20%E2%80%9CPanel%20okays%20proposal%20for%20state%20lawmakers%20to%20tap%20U.S.%20Senate%20nominees%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
>
>
>
>
> Did My Predictions at Slate About What President Trump Would Mean for
> Voting Rights Come True? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97577>
>
> Posted on February 19, 2018 11:02 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97577>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Last year the staff at Slate asked me to predict what would happen with
> voting rights in the Trump era, as part of a broader set of predictions
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/how_trump_will_change_america_predictions.html> about
> Trump’s effects on politics, law, and culture. Well they’ve now gone back
> to look
> <https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/how-has-trump-changed-america.html> at
> whether the predictions have come true, and here’s my contribution:
>
> *Prediction, Voting Rights: **The Department of Justice under new
> attorney general Jeff Sessions will reverse his department’s challenges to
> the legality of Texas’ voter ID law and North Carolina’s law making it
> harder to register and to vote, leading more Republican states to adopt
> similar restrictive laws even before the Supreme Court may weigh in on
> these issues.*
>
> *One Year Later: Mostly Correct.** The Department of Justice indeed has **flipped
> to side with Texas* <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96556>* in the case
> challenging the state’s strict voter identification law and flipped to **side
> with Ohio*
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/amicus/2018/01/ohio_s_voter_purge_comes_before_the_supreme_court.html>* in
> a case about the state making it easier to purge eligible voters from the
> voting rolls. (The Supreme Court **did not take*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=92522>* the North Carolina voting case on
> technical reasons that **I hope I inspired*
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/02/north_carolina_should_withdraw_its_petition_to_the_supreme_court_in_its.html>*.) Republican
> states **continue to push*
> <https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voting-laws-roundup-2018>
> * for new laws making it harder to register and vote as the rest of us
> wait for eventual signals from the Supreme Court over whether actions like
> Texas’ and Ohio’s are acceptable. —Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and
> political science at the University of California–Irvine School of Law*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97577&title=Did%20My%20Predictions%20at%20Slate%20About%20What%20President%20Trump%20Would%20Mean%20for%20Voting%20Rights%20Come%20True%3F>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
> “The Supreme Court, Judicial Elections, and Dark Money”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97575>
>
> Posted on February 19, 2018 10:54 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97575>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Richard Briffault has posted this draft
> <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3119858> on SSRN
> (forthcoming, *DePaul Law Review*). Here is the abstract:
>
> *In its cases dealing with judicial elections, the Court has cycled back
> and forth over whether to treat judges as representatives of the voters,
> like other elected officials, with judicial elections subject to the same
> constitutional rules as other elections or to emphasize the distinctive
> nature of the judicial role, which could support special limits on judicial
> campaign activity. Over a trilogy of cases decided between 2002 and 2015 –
> Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,
> and Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar – a divided Court has struggled to hold
> together the First Amendment’s commitment to robust and unrestricted
> campaign speech with a growing concern for the Due Process value of
> impartial judicial decision-making and the need to preserve public
> confidence in judicial integrity. Overall, judicial elections have been
> treated as very similar to, but not quite the same as, other elections, and
> some campaign speech restrictions that would be unconstitutional in most
> elections may be constitutional in judicial elections. This has
> implications for the regulation of dark money in judicial elections. As in
> other elections, dark money spending in judicial elections can be subject
> to disclosure requirements but not spending limitations. Unlike in other
> elections, in certain circumstances dark money spending in judicial
> elections could trigger recusal requirements, but the circumstances are
> poorly defined. In any event recusal is unlikely to be an effective
> response to the concerns raised by dark money.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97575&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20Judicial%20Elections%2C%20and%20Dark%20Money%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, judicial
> elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
>
>
>
>
> “The Charging Mystery in the Russia Indictments—And Its Indication of What
> Comes Next in the Mueller Investigation”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97573>
>
> Posted on February 18, 2018 4:11 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97573>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bob Bauer
> <https://www.justsecurity.org/52610/charging-mystery-russia-indictments-and-indication-mueller-investigation/> at
> Just Security:
>
> *In other words, if Mueller’s case for campaign finance violations
> affected only Russians, there would be no obvious reason to exclude Federal
> Election Campaign Act violations from the indictment. Russians spent
> substantial sums to influence an election, as expressly laid out in the
> charging document, and this is an unambiguous violation of federal law. If,
> however, Mueller possesses evidence of Americans’ complicity in these
> violations, he may have decided on a different theory of the campaign
> finance case that more reliably sweeps in U.S. citizen misconduct.*
>
> *On the face of it, the law prohibits a U.S. campaign or person from
> “soliciting” something “of value” from a foreign national, and it bars
> rendering “substantial assistance” to illegal foreign national spending. It
> seems clear that the facts known to date implicate these rules. It is also
> true that there is little precedent and arguably an increased risk of a
> defense grounded in the “vagueness” of these prohibitions. Some
> commentators have expressed unease about the constitutional limiting
> principle that would govern the enforcement of these provisions. I do not
> share this view, but it is held strongly in some quarters and, therefore,
> appropriately and respectfully noted.*
>
> *The Mueller indictment is conceivably one way to solve this problem. It
> alleges a conspiracy to prevent the FEC from taking up and addressing the
> regulatory issues, and American co-conspirators may be brought in on any
> overt act in furtherance of this illegal scheme. Any U.S. citizen who
> intentionally supported the Russian electoral intervention could be liable.
> Examples would include U.S. citizens engaged in conversations like those in
> Trump Tower in summer of 2016, or Don, Jr.’s communications with WikiLeaks
> about the timing of the release of stolen emails. The **conspiracy to
> defraud*
> <https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us>* the
> United States could also envelop any Americans who helped cover the
> Russians’ illegal electoral program by lying to federal authorities about
> the campaign’s Russian contacts.*
>
> *The special counsel may well have concluded that he could deal with any
> instances of U.S. citizen complicity without getting bogged down in
> unresolved questions of what constitutes “soliciting” support or providing
> the foreign national with “substantial assistance.” In sum, Mr. Mueller
> and his team may have adopted this theory of the case to facilitate the
> charging of Americans who helped their Russian allies interfere in the 2016
> election. This is most plausible solution to the Mueller indictment
> mystery.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97573&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Charging%20Mystery%20in%20the%20Russia%20Indictments%E2%80%94And%20Its%20Indication%20of%20What%20Comes%20Next%20in%20the%20Mueller%20Investigation%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “Campaign Finance and Freedom of Speech – A Transatlantic Perspective”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97571>
>
> Posted on February 18, 2018 4:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97571>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Mathias Hong has posted this draft
> <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3123045> on SSRN.
> Here is the abstract:
>
> *If freedom of speech protects a marketplace of ideas – what is its proper
> currency? Is it only the force of the arguments brought forth – or is it
> money as well? For the current majority of the U. S. Supreme Court the
> answer under the U. S. Constitution seems clear: Freedom of speech must
> include the right to unfettered use of money in the competition. For the
> Court, the marketplace of ideas turns into a literal, economic marketplace.
> In what follows I will agree with most American scholars who sharply
> criticize this reading of the First Amendment. I will join in this
> critique, however, as somebody who genuinely admires the strong protection
> of free speech in the United States. I think Europe stands to learn a lot
> from the American model – but I agree with most scholars in the United
> States that the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decisions, especially
> since Citizens United (2010), do not do justice to that worthy American
> free speech tradition itself.*
>
> [image: Share]
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>
> UC Irvine School of Law
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>
> 949.824.3072 <(949)%20824-3072> - office
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
Professor of Law
University of Chicago Law School
nsteph at uchicago.edu
(773) 702-4226
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180219/d2705cae/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 73401 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180219/d2705cae/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2023 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180219/d2705cae/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory