PA Legislators Ask Supreme Court to Stay Usurpation of Redistricting by PA Supreme Court

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Speaker of the House Michael Turzai and Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati filed an emergency application with Justice Samuel Alito to stay the imposition of a new congressional map by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pending resolution of the case by the entire U.S. Supreme Court.  Counsel to the Pennsylvania legislators include RNLA members Jason Torchinsky and Phillip Gordon of Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC and Mark Braden of Baker & Hostetler LLP.  

They described the intentional usurpations of the political process by the Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court (internal citations and notes omitted):

This case arises from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s usurpation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s legislative authority to draw its congressional district lines through its preordained invalidation of the lawful districts the General Assembly enacted in 2011 (the “2011 Plan”). At all stages, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court set this case on a path whereby only it would draw Pennsylvania’s new congressional districts—a task delegated to the “Legislature”—in violation of the Elections Clause. But as Justice Kennedy stated in League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, “drawing lines for congressional districts is one of the most significant acts a State can perform to ensure citizen participation in republican self-governance. * * * As the Constitution vests redistricting responsibilities foremost in the legislatures of the States and in Congress, a lawful, legislatively enacted plan should be preferable to one drawn by the courts.” . . . The Pennsylvania Supreme Court conspicuously seized the redistricting process and prevented any meaningful ability for the legislature to enact a remedial map to ensure a court drawn map.  

First, on January 22, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order enjoining the 2011 Plan because it failed to comply with purported mandatory requirements found nowhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution . . . . Second, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided an inadequate remedial opportunity to the General Assembly, thus ensuring a court drawn map. It did not issue an opinion with its initial order and did not provide its sufficient guidance on how a new map could be drawn in compliance with the Pennsylvania Constitution. It nevertheless gave the General Assembly a mere 18 days, until February 9, to enact new legislation before the Court would impose a plan of its own, and even reserved the right to review the enacted map. Indeed, that was the court’s intention all along. It proceeded to hire a political scientist to prepare for a judicial, rather than a legislative, redistricting. . . . 

. . . [T]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s intentional seizure of the redistricting process is now complete. On February 7—just two days before the deadline that the Court imposed to enact a new plan—the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion . . . . The General Assembly’s leadership rushed to prepare a plan to comply with the court’s opinion, but, given the two-day timeframe, it was unable to put a plan to a vote or negotiate a mutually agreeable plan with the Governor. It submitted that plan to the court and the Governor for review on February 9. On February 19, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted its own plan. The parties to the litigation had never before seen the court’s plan and had no opportunity to vet for compliance with the court’s own criteria. 

By promulgating mandatory criteria the General Assembly could not anticipate in 2011, and that are found nowhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution, withholding guidance as to how to achieve compliance with Pennsylvania law until two days before the court’s imposed deadline to enact a new plan, creating a proportional-representation criterion that is practically impossible to implement, and imposing a remedial plan that had been in the works all along, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ensured that its desired plan to draft the new map would be successful.  

Organizations such as the American Civil Rights Union filed non-partisan maps with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but of course the court was not interested in a map that was not drawn by its hand-picked expert.

Justice Alito requested a response to the application by 3:00 PM Eastern on Monday.  We can expect a decision soon, as he denied the application to stay following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's initial order 10 days after the application was filed.

Supreme Court Grants Cert re Minnesota's Ban on Political Apparel at the Polls

Today, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky to decide whether "Minnesota statute Section 211B.11, which broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place, is facially overbroad under the First Amendment":

The justices said they will review a Minnesota law whose challengers include Andrew Cilek, a man who wore a Tea Party Patriots T-shirt and a "Please I.D. Me" button when he went to the polls in 2010. 

Minnesota is one of at least 10 states with broad bans on political apparel at election sites, according to the challengers. A decision striking down those laws would mark a significant shift for the high court, which in 1992 upheld a Tennessee law that barred campaign materials promoting a specific candidate or party. That law didn’t mention more general political items.

This case has important implications both for free speech rights and for election administration:

That ruling "plainly does not endorse a categorical ban on all types of ‘political’ speech," the challengers argued in their appeal. The group includes the Minnesota Voters Alliance and Cilek, its executive director. 

Minnesota’s law bars the wearing of a "political badge, political button or other political insignia" inside the polling place. . . . The law "is a reasonable method to ensure that the polling place is a location where citizens can exercise the right to vote without confusion, distraction or distress, and election officials can preserve the integrity and reliability of elections," the state officials argued.

On the one hand, states have a strong interest in ensuring the orderly conduct of elections, including prohibiting certain conduct, such as electioneering, at polling places.  On the other hand, voters do not abandon their rights of free speech at the polling place door, and broad bans on anything "political" clearly infringe on a voter's free speech rights.  Even more disturbingly, a vague prohibition such as Minnesota's allows a low-ranking government official, often a poll worker hired just for the day, to determine the limits of a voter's right of free speech by defining "political" (which, in our current culture, has been expanded to embrace almost everything) according to the government official's opinions.  This is the type of tyranny, petty though it may seem, that the First Amendment was designed to combat. 

Of note, prominent free speech advocates and election integrity supporters have already filed amici briefs in support of Minnesota Voters Alliance's challenge to the law: Cato Institute, Rutherford Institute, Reason Foundation, and Individual Rights Foundation; Center for Competitive Politics (now called Institute for Free Speech); and American Civil Rights Union and Association for Government Accountability.

Legendary Partisan Democrat Election Official Brenda Snipes Confirms Vote Fraud

Democrat Broward County, Florida, Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes made a startling confession in a suit brought by the American Civil Rights Union:

Snipes acknowledged the processes her office have been using aren’t perfect and that some non-citizens and felons have voted despite not being eligible — especially right before major elections when groups are actively registering new voters.

This statement should help put to bed the argument that vote fraud is a myth.  A number of important things to note from this:

1. Despite her statement that “non-citizens and felons have voted” there have been zero prosecutions.  It is important to note again that prosecutions are not the proper way to judge vote fraud.  It also calls attention to the fact that a major election official knew that fraud had occurred but made no effort to report it.
2. Democrat and liberal groups do massive voter registration drives to make vote fraud easier.  As Snipes says, fraud happens “especially right before major elections when groups are actively registering new voters.”  This shows that the efforts of registration groups are in part aimed at flooding election officials with registrations to make it easier for fraudulent registrations to be entered.
3. “Major Elections.”  Often when we do hear stories on vote fraud, it is in local elections or Democrat primaries. The latter is often because bitter Democrat election losers are willing to expose the antics of fellow Democrats in these situations.  Snipes' statement makes clear this fraud is happen before major elections such as Presidential elections and that Democrats or their liberal allies are participating in an organized effort for illegal votes. 
4. Non-citizens and felons, as a group, vote overwhelmingly Democrat.  These illegal votes benefit Democrats and disenfranchise other voters, be they Green, Libertarian or Republican. 

Kudos to the American Civil Rights Union for bringing this serious matter to the public's attention.  

Lawsuit Filed to Allow Inspection of Philadelphia Voter Rolls; Possible Ineligible Voters

The American Civil Rights Union, represented by the Public Interest Legal Foundation and RNLA Advisory Council Member Linda Kerns, has filed a lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia for failure to allow public inspecting of its voter registration rolls as required by the NVRA.  For years, the number of registered voters in Philadelphia has far exceeded the percentage of eligible voters that could reasonably be expected to be registered:

For years in Philadelphia, the numbers of registered voters has nearly exceeded the number of citizen residents eligible to vote, among the highest in Pennsylvania. In response to these unusual circumstances, the plaintiff utilized protections in the National Voter Registration Act that require Philadelphia to allow physical inspection of election records related to voter registration and list maintenance programs. The plaintiff requested information from Philadelphia about tools used to ensure that non-citizens are not registering to vote, as well as other records.  

Philadelphia failed even to respond to the request, and thus the lawsuit followed.

The plaintiff in the case is the American Civil Rights Union. The plaintiff originally sent the defendant a notice letter in January 2016 describing potential violations of federal election law, asking to review election records, and seeking to discuss a cure. Philadelphia never replied.  

“Corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud. Failure to clean the rolls aggravates longstanding problems of voter fraud in Philadelphia,” said J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. “Philadelphia may not be using all the available tools to prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. Concealing list maintenance records from the public isn’t good government, and it violates Federal election law.”

Local election officials have an important duty to ensure that federal and state election laws are followed, including the laws regarding voter eligibility.  If a locality is refusing to follow federal law regarding inspection of its voter records, it may be failing to follow other important laws.  Ensuring that only eligible voters are registered to vote is key to the integrity of elections and public confidence in the electoral process.