State GOP lawmakers seek high court review of congressional map |

State GOP lawmakers seek high court review of congressional map

Deb Erdley

Months after their appeals failed to overturn the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court’s congressional redistricting map, the state’s Republican legislative leaders once again are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the issue.

Lawyers representing Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, and Speaker of the House Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, on Thursday filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the nation’s high court to take up an appeal of the new congressional map the state high court handed down in February when it ruled that the 2011 congressional map was the result of an unconstitutional political gerrymander by Republicans who controlled the General Assembly.

GOP legislative leaders, however, argue that the state Supreme Court, which is controlled by Democrats, overstepped its bounds and legislated from the bench when it issued a new map. They said the court also added new requirements for congressional redistricting that are not included in either the U.S. or Pennsylvania constitutions.

ā€œIt is important to note that this filing will have no impact on the elections this fall. Still, we believe the voters of Pennsylvania deserve an answer as to whether the state Supreme Court overstepped its authority. We believe it did,ā€ Scarnati and Turzai said in a joint statement Thursday.

Debra Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 412-320-7996, [email protected] or via Twitter @deberdley_trib.

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.