Don’t Believe the Mailers:

Here’s what actually happened.

Political interest groups are spending millions to misrepresent the facts about a 2018 redistricting case in Pennsylvania and the role of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The fact is, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not draw maps – it only steps in  when cases are brought before it.

The Facts of the Case

• The PA State Legislature created a congressional district map, approved in 2011.

• In 2017 the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, with plaintiffs from every congressional district, filed suit against the state of Pennsylvania.

• After testimony from legislators, plaintiffs, and expert witnesses, the court found the map violated the PA Constitution’s promise of free and equal elections and instructed the PA General Assembly to draw a new, lawful map.

• When legislative leaders refused to do so by the court-ordered deadline, the court appointed a special master, who provided a remedy map in time for preparations for the 2018 primary. In 2018 and 2020, that remedy map provided a congressional delegation of 9 Republicans and 9 Democrats, much closer to the vote share of both elections.

• The Court’s role was to uphold the Pennsylvania Constitution and ensure voters had fair and legal districts by ordering a new map.

What’s going on?

Partisan special interest groups funded by billionaire Jeffrey Yass are sending out mailers misrepresenting facts about a 2018 redistricting case in Pennsylvania, claiming the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “gerrymandered the map for Democrats” in 2018.

The fact is:  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not gerrymander the PA congressional map, it ended one. When the legislature’s 2011 map was ruled unconstitutional for violating the state’s guarantee of free and equal elections, the Court simply required fair, lawful districts.

Why is this a red flag?

These mailers suggest that the court acted politically in drawing the maps, when in reality:

• The court was responding to a lawsuit from voters and the nonpartisan League. That map was created by the legislature in 2011 and was known as one of the most distorted in the nation. When civil rights are denied, the proper recourse is to appeal to the courts.

• The ruling was based on the Pennsylvania Constitution, NOT politics.  The Court’s role was to uphold the Pennsylvania Constitution and ensure voters had fair and legal districts by ordering a new map.

• The goal was to fix a map that was intentionally designed by the legislature under a partisan redistricting system and misrepresented the makeup of Pennsylvania’s electorate. Misleading claims like these can erode trust in our courts and confuse voters about the role of the judiciary.

The take away…

These attacks aren’t really about maps. They’re about trying to undermine the independence of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania right before voters head to the polls.

Don’t fall for it.

Interested in sharing this information with a friend?