Monthly Archives: February 2018

Pennsylvania Redistricting

Monday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order (with attached maps) redrawing the Congressional Districts for Pennsylvania  This order follows on last month’s decision finding that the 2011 map violate the Pennsylvania Constitution as a partisan gerrymander.  The United States Supreme Court is currently considering two cases — one argued last fall and one scheduled to be argued next month — on whether the U.S. Constitution also bars partisan gerrymanders.

I will leave it to our local experts to follow up on exactly how the new lines should impact November’s election.  The key points to make for now are:  1) this map will govern this year’s elections as filing with the Supreme Court’s including a time table for implementation of the order and candidate filing that will allow the primary to take place as scheduled; 2) the old maps were gerrymandered in such a way that the Republicans have carried 13 of the 18 districts (and the same 13) in each of the three elections so far under the old map (even though the Democrats won state-wide by 5% in 2012 and 9% in 2014 and barely lost in 2016);  and 3) in the three elections under the old map, 37 of the 39 Republican wins were by double digits (the other two involved margins of 9% and 4%).   The early numbers that I have seen from national prognosticators is that Democrats should pick up at least two seats in a 50-50 cycle and, in a cycle in which Democrats get 55% or more nationally, the Democrats would pick up an additional 2 to 3 seats (a 9-9 split or 10-8 in favor of the Democrats).  That compares to 2012 in which the Democrats got 53% nationally but still only won 5 seats in Pennsylvania.

One thing that is significantly different about the new map is that there are less weird shapes, and most of the weirder shapes in the new map comes from not splitting counties or municipalities unless such splits are absolutely necessary to maintain equality.  There is also some changes in the numbering.  As a result, some incumbents (including whomever wins the upcoming special election in Western Pennsylvania) will have to decide what district they will run in this year.  Some incumbent may be looking at a situation in which either: 1) their base is split between multiple districts; 2) they live in one district while the heart of their old district is in another district; 3) their new district contains a substantial portion of the old district of another incumbent.  As such, sitting members may have to decide between retiring, challenging another incumbent from their party, or running in a district in which they will have a difficult time running.  We may not know until filing closes on March 20 (one week after the special election) how the incumbents will reshuffle from the old seats to the new seats and whether we will have any incumbent vs. incumbent primaries or general elections.

Posted in Elections, House of Representatives, Judicial | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Pennsylvania Redistricting

Supreme Court Timewarp: Revenge of the Computer Nerds

Imagine that you are back in the mid-1980s.  Most people’s knowledge of computers comes from the movie Wargames.  Some larger business and universities had computer networks with employees having work stations, but home computing was just beginning.  Apple had just introduced the McIntosh, but, if you used a Microsoft operating system, you were using MS-DOS.  Additionally, your home computer used a dial-up modem if you wanted to communicate with other computers.  To communicate with another computer, you needed to know the phone number for that computer’s modem.  (If you were just searching to see what was out there, there were techniques and programs known to hackers to find other computers and save those numbers for later use.)  A pre-internet existed through “bulletin board systems” which allowed the posting of messages and downloading and uploading information through that system.

It was in this era that Congress passed the Stored Communications Act of 1986 as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.  While there have been some minor changes since 1986, the core provisions of that Act (codified as Sections 2701 through Section 2712 of Title 18 of the United States Code) are essentially the same as they were in 1986.

While most of the provisions of the Stored Communications Act protects the rights of those who use electronic communications, some of the sections (including Section 2703) establish the procedure by which the government can obtain stored communications when needed for a criminal investigation.  The procedures recognize that these communications might be stored in another state and require companies to honor warrants issued in the state in which prosecutors need access to those communications. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court Timewarp: Revenge of the Computer Nerds

Charlotte looking at RNC 2020 Bid

Charlotte is thinking about bidding for the 2020 Republican National Convention:

The City of Charlotte, working together with key partners and stakeholders, is evaluating options to host the 2020 Republican National Convention.

 This is the first step in submitting a proposal highlighting all that Charlotte has to offer as a convention destination.  Continue Reading...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Charlotte looking at RNC 2020 Bid

2020 Democratic Convention — Unity and Reform Commission — Part 2

One of the issues in the last several primary cycles — for both parties — have been the role of unpledged delegates.  There are several reasons why both parties designate certain party officials (and on the Democratic side, elected officials) as automatic delegates.  First, it removes these individuals from the competition for the “regular” delegate slots making it easier for grassroots activists to compete for a delegate slot.   Second, these individuals have a slightly different perspective than the voters.  While everyone wants the party to win the White House, state party officials are also responsible for winning as many down ballot races as possible.  Elected officials want to win their own races.  As such, in theory, if the leading candidate seems too extreme or flawed, the unpledged delegates could swing the nomination to the second-placed candidate.   Before 2016, the Republicans decided to bind their automatic delegates based on primary results in their state.  After 2016, some Republicans might regret that their automatic delegates no longer had that power given the continuing fiasco that is Donald Trump.  However, in neither party, the automatic delegates have ultimately supported the candidate that won the most delegates; so this theoretical power has never been used.

Even though this power has never been used to change the result, many Democrats have wanted to reduce the power of the automatic delegates.  The resolution that created the Unity and Reform Commission mandated that, while elected officials (Senators, Representatives, Governors) and distinguished party leaders (e.g., former presidents, former DNC chairs, former speakers/caucus leaders) would remain unpledged, DNC members would be pledged in accordance with the primary results.  The task for the Unity and Reform Commission was to make recommendations as to how to handle this process.  First, the recommendations distinguish between DNC members who represent the states (state party chairs and the DNC members elected by the state parties) and other DNC members (at-large members and those who represent groups of elected officials).  The “state” members will be bound based on the state results; and the “national” DNC members will be bound based on the national results.

On the issue of exactly how to bind these automatic delegates, the Commission did not reach a final recommendation but, instead, suggested two alternatives.   The first would just pool the delegate votes with no individual votes on the first ballot.  The second would create a mechanism for assigning the automatic delegates to specific candidates based on the delegates personal wishes with some random mechanism if the personal preferences do not line up with the required allocation.   Unlike regular delegates, however, the automatic delegates would be absolutely bound to these allocations. Continue Reading...

Posted in Delegates, Democratic Party, Superdelegates | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 2020 Democratic Convention — Unity and Reform Commission — Part 2