[Note: The ACRU filed an amicus brief and an objectively drawn redistricting map in this case.]
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s map likely fails its own gerrymandering standards, because it skews so heavily democratic. Further, it did not adequately follow it’s own redistricting criteria. The map submitted by the ACRU had more compact districts and fewer political subdivision splits.
In issuing a new map, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acted like a legislature, not a court. It imposed proportional representation, even though it had no state or federal legal authority to create that political outcome. Legislatures – not courts – are the place for those political decisions. Even worse, the court heard no evidence, refused to explain why it drew its map, and improperly pulled the case from the trial court, which was best positioned to hear evidence and draw a map.