NEW CASTLE —
Pennsylvanians will soon learn if a revised legislative remapping plan passes legal muster.
The state Supreme Court is conducting a hearing today on the latest plan to draw up new House and Senate districts in the commonwealth. This follows a failed effort earlier this year, when justices rejected a map crafted by Harrisburg Republicans.
At the time, a majority on the court made it clear the plan was flawed because it split municipalities and created districts with bizarre shapes that failed to preserve a sense of community. Instead, it was a plan primarily designed to help keep Republican lawmakers in office.
Such gerrymandering is nothing new. Both parties engage in such practices across the country when opportunity strikes. But we were pleased to see the high court step up and speak out on behalf of real people and real communities, albeit belatedly
Legislative reapportionment should first and foremost be about serving citizens. Sadly, however, it’s more often used as a mechanism to protect incumbents and parties in power.
Because of the prior Supreme Court decision on reapportionment, old districts were kept in place for an additional two years, while a new plan was drafted. This revision is what is now before the court. It again is a map designed mainly by Republicans, while it faces legal challenges from various entities, including all 20 Democratic members of the state Senate.
The new plan indeed creates more compact and sensible districts, but critics say it could be better. It will be up to the court to decide if the plan goes far enough.
Meanwhile, we were struck by comments made to the press by Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, one of the chief supporters of the revised map. Pileggi believes the new plan will survive legal challenges, but he criticized the lack of “objective guidance from the court” in its prior ruling on how to go about the task of improving district designs.
From our perspective, it’s not up to the courts to tell the Legislature how to do its job. Instead, the Supreme Court is like a referee in a game, deciding whether or not actions on the field are proper. The court’s task is to make sure the teams follow the rules, not to tell them how to play.
More specific “guidance” from the court could be construed as legislating from the bench, an activity that’s rightly criticized when it occurs.
If the high court accepts the new reapportionment plan, efforts can begin to implement it and candidates will know the shapes of their districts in 2014. But if this map also fails to impress the justices, it will be back to the drawing board.
Editorials
Our Opinion: Court takes another look at reapportionment plan
- Editorials
-
-
Our Opinion: New Castle school tuition travesty? Enough is enough
New Castle’s taxpayers deserve an explanation. And some money. With the release of the latest Pennsylvania auditor general’s report on the city’s schools, it’s been revealed that some district employees abused taxpayers to the tune of more than $110,000.
-
Our Opinion: IRS probe may reveal multiple problems
When a murky scandal is investigated, the goal is to obtain clarity, as well as to right any wrongs. But reaching such a conclusion can be a tortuous process. And so it is with the current probe of allegations of political targeting by the Internal Revenue Service.
-
Our Opinion: Supreme Court rejects patents on human coding
We can all take comfort in knowing we still retain the rights to our own genetic material. That might seem to be obvious, but a case before the U.S. Supreme Court involved questions over whether private companies could patent human genes as their own.
-
Our Opinion: Vo-tech nursing program faces elimination in budget crunch
The past few years have been difficult financially for Pennsylvania’s education system. Tight budgets produced by an economic slowdown, weakening support from Harrisburg and an ever-increasing rise in personnel costs has created a fiscal bind for most school districts, those in Lawrence County included.
-
Our Opinion: Government’s seizing records a threat to liberty
(Second of two editorials): America’s director of national intelligence had a ready explanation this week regarding the need to seize everyone’s phone records. “Well, you have to start someplace,” James Clapper told NBC News. Let’s stop and think about that for a moment.
-
Our Opinion: News leaks reveal dramatic scope of government data collection
(First of two editorials): In case you had any doubts, Big Brother is watching. And listening. And for all we know, smelling and tasting as well.
-
Our Opinion: Pennsylvania has transportation needs, but plan has problems
Spending money on transportation projects is a popular political pastime. After all, what’s not to like about programs that create jobs and make driving smoother and safer? Yes, construction is an inconvenience, but generally, the public understands it’s necessary for the greater good.
-
Our Opinion: IRS conferences take advantage of public funds
Things aren’t getting any better for the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, the credibility of the nation’s tax collection organization seems to be eroding away as Americans look on with disgust.
-
Our Opinion: Ruling assures sweeping access to DNA
Do you trust government? Well, you better, thanks to a new U.S. Supreme Court decision that gives law enforcement — and ultimately others in government — the ability to access sweeping new information about individuals.
-
Our Opinion: Declines recorded all across Lawrence County in latest data
Lawrence County’s long trend of population decline was highlighted when the Census Bureau reported yet another drop. Last month, the bureau said that the county’s population fell from 91,108 in 2010 to 89,871 in 2012. This compares to figures from 1960, when the county’s population was recorded at 112,965.
- More Editorials Headlines
-
