The Supreme Court Is Now Republicans’ Only Hope of Restoring Pennsylvania’s Gerrymander

A federal court struck down their challenge on Monday.

Jeff Malet/Newscom via ZUMA Press

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

A federal court threw out a Republican challenge to Pennsylvania’s new electoral map on Monday, dealing a blow to GOP efforts to get rid of congressional districts that are friendlier to Democrats. Now all eyes are on the US Supreme Court, the only court that could halt Pennsylvania from holding its 2018 midterm elections under the new map.

In February, the state supreme court put in place a new map after finding that the old map, one of the most extreme gerrymanders in the country, violated the state constitution by favoring Republicans. The federal case, brought by Republican members of Congress from Pennsylvania and two Republican state senators, was a longshot from the start because federal courts have limited authority to weigh in on state court decisions involving state law. This is ultimately what the three-judge panel, all Republican appointees, concluded Monday. “Because fundamental principles of constitutional standing and judicial restraint prohibit us from exercising jurisdiction, we have no authority to take any action other than to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ verified complaint,” the judges wrote.

Republicans trying to get the new map thrown out have one final recourse in the US Supreme Court. The Republican leaders of the state legislature appealed the state case to the Supreme Court last month in a last-ditch effort to preserve the old map. This appeal is also a longshot. It’s the second time state Republicans have tried to get the Supreme Court to intervene. The first time, they were turned away by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.

But the Supreme Court has sat on this appeal for nearly a month now—far longer than expected—causing some experts to speculate that it might consider taking it up. Tuesday is the deadline in the state for filing nominating petitions for candidates in Pennsylvania’s May primaries. That should make it less likely that the justices will force the state to revert back to the old map and scramble candidates’ plans. 


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend