...perhaps the PA Supreme Court can too!
We'll find out when eleven petitions from Chesco and other locations are argued tomorrow in Harrisburg.
This article shows that the Missouri impasse revolves around the same point as the PA petition: how to attain compactness of districts without splitting other political units except when absolutely necessary:
"Missouri: Court Rejects State Redistricting Map," by the AP, New York Times, 1/18/12:
"The State Supreme Court struck down new State Senate districts on Tuesday and ordered more review of new Congressional boundaries, throwing uncertainty into Missouri’s election season just weeks before candidates are to begin filing for office. The court ordered the trial judge to rule by Feb. 3 on claims that the Congressional districts violated the State Constitution because they were not drawn compactly. The ruling invalidating the State Senate districts said a plan submitted by a special panel of judges violated the State Constitution by dividing Jackson and Greene Counties into too many districts. That redistricting process must over again, with Gov. Jay Nixon appointing a new bipartisan citizens’ commission to draw the boundaries. Missouri is dropping from nine House seats to eight this year, and the Republican-controlled Legislature enacted its Congressional redistricting map last year after overriding
a veto by Mr. Nixon, a Democrat."
For more Chesco background, see my blog “West Chester appeals split between 156th and 160th” (Jan. 10) and Eric Boehm, "District maps under attack before state Supreme Court," Daily Local News, 1/12/12.
For more on the Missouri case, see "Missouri court throws out redistricting plans " in the Kansas City Star, 1/18/12.Â
For related news from other states, see "Redistricting Roundup" at ballotpedia.org.
Let me end with a remark about constitutions: if we don't like them, we should change them. That happens with changing times; for example, amendments to the US constitution abolished slavery and granted citizenship to former slaves after the Civil War and gave the vote to women in 1920.
It often seems to me that precisely those people who should the most respect the constitution do so the least. Cases in point:
PA constitution, II.16:
"The Commonwealth shall be divided into fifty senatorial and two hundred three representative districts, which shall be composed of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable. Each senatorial district shall elect one Senator, and each representative district one Representative. Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district. "
At least until next week, the PA Supreme Court has ruled that the last sentence is basically irrelevant.
US Constitution, Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The US Supreme Court in 2008 ruled that the reference to militia is basically irrelevant (Wikipedia). If so, why did the Founders put it in?
More on the PA constitution, about education, soon.
PS 1/23/12: See also "Amend the Constitution?" by Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune, at Reader Supported News, 22 January 12, showing that any current talk of amending the US constitution is just playing to the political base.
