While we’re on the subject, it might be worth noting that the re-drawing of voting districts in Pennsylvania is not Constitutional…because it was done by the court, not legislature.

(The supreme court’s weighted ‘D’, but Republicans won the state electorally in 2016.)

The (weighted Democrat) state supreme court jumped on the term “fair and equal” in its state constitution, and re-drew districts because of what wasn’t fair and equal in the last election cycle…according to their standards…of proportional representation.

But that standard applied across all state districts doesn’t reflect voter preference, if 1 or 2 districts are overly weighted, and remaining districts are closely won by opposition.

It’s much the same argument against the electoral process used by Democrats, only applied on a state level, but it does not adequately reflect overall voter preferences.

A great example demonstrating this is discussed in an article at NRO…a state with five districts of 100,000 per district, where one party wins 1 district by 80,000 votes, but lose the other 4 by 49,000 votes in each. Proportionally, that party won 276,000 votes state-wide (55%), so by judiciary reasoning there should be 55% representation by that party.

But four districts went for the other party by a 51% majority, which would mean in such a statewide government that 80% of representatives should be from that party. Thus, the proportional representation flaw is exposed…but Democrats will keep trying.

That said, constitutionally, supreme courts don’t have power to re-draw districts.

PERIOD.

FULL.STOP.