This article is part of a year-long reporting project focused on Pennsylvania’s re-partitioning and gerrymandering.It will be possible with the support of Spotlight PA With members Voting beatA project focused on election integrity and access to voting.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania — The Pennsylvania Capitol has pushed forward with a new parliamentary map that says nonpartisan analysts clearly have a Republican advantage, but because the court’s mandated deadline is approaching. The fate is still unknown.
Maps that help determine the balance of power in Washington have passed with the support of all but two Republicans and Democrats. It now goes to the State Senate for consideration.
The proposal meets the four basic standards of impartiality adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but said the reform group reorganization does not reflect the state’s partisan composition.
Adam Podwitz Thomas of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, a nonpartisan organization that analyzes constituency change plans across the country, said that almost every indicator social scientists use to analyze map fairness is now in Pennsylvania. Said that the proposal showed that it was in favor of the Republican Party.
“I don’t think Governor Wolf will eventually sign,” he said. “I think the prejudice of the party is clearly over-supporting the Republican Party.”
If Wolf and Congress do not agree on a final plan by January 30, the federal court said it would take over the process as part of an ongoing proceeding and select a map from those submitted by the parties involved in the case.
The map, advanced on Wednesday, was selected by the Republican House State Government Committee and is based on a plan drawn by former Republican Lehi County Commissioner and constituency change activist Amanda Holt.
However, the first map was adjusted after several Republicans of the Commission complained that the county had been split. The modified map proceeded from the Commission to Full House without public feedback.
According to some non-partisan analysis, this map creates a compact, adjacent district with equal population and minimal county division (as outlined by the State Supreme Court in a previous constituency change ruling). Requirements), the fairness of the faction cannot be measured.
Partisan fairness is determined using a combination of metrics that measure how the map treats each party. Most indicators use historical election data to see if the projected map forecasts enhance the power of political parties. Analysts look at differences in expected seat share between political parties, among other indicators, even if each party wins 50% of the votes.
Seth Grove, a Republican of York County who defended the map, emphasized that it was originally drawn by a non-member and met the requirements adopted by the State High Court. He said lawmakers, including Democrats, did not propose to modify the map.
“Citizen cartographers developed it without partisan data. Updated without using Partisan data,” says Grove. “I think this is a map that citizens can be proud of.”
On the house floor, Mr. Grove said that of the 17 districts on the map, eight would support the Republican Party, eight would support the Democratic Party, and one would be a toss-up.
These numbers come from Dave’s Redistricting, a nonpartisan website that uploads and analyzes maps of the district, and represents forecasts based on the past results of a single election.
Podowitz-Thomas said using the results of an election “is not really a valid way to see the expected results in the future.”
Using a composite of election results, Dave’s constituency change classified five districts as likely to be democratic and seven districts like Republicans. The other five are classified as competitive, but they support the Republican Party. The analysis of the Princeton Gerrymander project is very similar, Podowitz-Thomas said.
Democrats on Wednesday said they were locked out of the process and had no insight into why Holt’s map was chosen. Congressman Scott Conklin (D., Center) criticized what he called the lack of transparency throughout the process.
“I don’t know, did they choose it for a big hat? Was it a group of people? I don’t know,” said Conklin, who works with Globe as the minority chairman of the committee that advanced the map.
Wolf criticized the map as “terribly distorted,” but he refused to say clearly whether to reject it in its current form.
“My role is to sign or reject what the General Assembly has sent to me,” Wolff said. I told reporters During December. He added that instead of negotiating what the map would look like, he would approve the map in line with the principles of his own constituency change advisory board.
The state redraws a map of Congress every 10 years after the census to account for population changes. Pennsylvania has a slower population growth than other states, so you will lose one of the 18 parliamentary districts.
Even before the process officially began last year, many constituency change observers predicted that Wolf and Republican-controlled parliaments could not reach a compromise and maps would be brought to court. It looks more and more where things are heading.
Two proceedings against this map were filed in federal court in December. One is from a group of inhabitants living in densely populated areas, and the other is from mathematicians and scientists seeking a “data-driven” process.
Since the proceedings have been merged into one, the judiciary has argued that the judiciary should intervene in the process and ban the state from using the current map for the 2022 elections.
As the court’s January 30 deadline for completing the map approaches, Wolf and leading lawmakers are asking them to intervene in the case and submit their own version for consideration.
The federal court is the first level of the state’s appeal court system, and its decisions can be appealed to the State Supreme Court, which is governed by the Democratic Party. The party who filed the case requested the High Court to take over the case immediately, but refused to take over in early January, leaving the door open as possible in the future.
The 2018 State Supreme Court has drawn to abandon previous versions of the Pennsylvania Parliamentary Map, approved by former Republican Governor Tom Corbett a few years ago, to benefit the GOP in a way that violates the State Constitution. I decided that it was done.
While you are here … If you learn something from this story, pay it in advance and become a member of Spotlight PA So someone else can do it in the future spotlightpa.org/donate.. Spotlight PA is funded by BasicsAnd readers like you A person working on accountability journalism to get results.
Pa. House approves the proposed parliamentary map as a court objection is imminent. Spotlight Pa
Source link Pa. House approves the proposed parliamentary map as a court objection is imminent. Spotlight Pa