Letter to the editor: Barletta against fair districts |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Barletta against fair districts

I would like to remind voters that U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, who is challenging Bob Casey for the U.S. Senate, attempted to defy a state Supreme Court decision that finally established fair geographic boundaries for congressional districts in Pennsylvania.

I joined the League of Women Voters and 17 other Pennsylvanians in a challenge to Pennsylvania’s unfairly gerrymandered districts. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the districts based on the Pennsylvania Constitution providing for “free and equal” elections. The State GOP leadership appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the appeal was rejected. As a result, the new map was adopted.

In an effort to undermine voters and defy the state’s right to create congressional districts, Barletta appealed to a federal court to force Pennsylvania to return to the same gerrymandered map the state courts had rejected. That court denied the appeal by Barletta, resulting in fair district boundaries for the congressional election in November. The lawsuits by Barletta and the Republican leadership of the state Legislature cost taxpayers over $1.5 million.

Our lawsuit was about returning power to the voters through fairly drawn and competitive districts. Barletta’s challenge was not about serving his constituents or the citizens of Pennsylvania, but what would be best for Barletta and his party. This is not the behavior we should reward by sending him to the Senate so he can further degrade the institution through partisan stunts.

Bill Marx


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.