Thompson should clarify view on courts

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling on 2011 state congressional maps will impact the state of democracy throughout our commonwealth, including the Centre Region. Congressman Glenn Thompson (with several other Pennsylvania congressmen) responded to the court’s ruling with curious statements about the role of the courts and popular representation. Clarifying his views on these subjects would say a lot about his understanding of nonpartisan democratic principles.

Thompson and his congressional colleagues released a statement following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Jan. 22 that held that existing congressional maps violate the state constitution’s provision for “free and equal” elections.

“Yesterday’s misguided decision,” they begin, “is an unfortunate example of the judicial branch inserting itself into the core functions of the legislative branch.” Citizens brought the suit. Their complaints against existing district maps progressed lawfully and transparently through the courts. The judicial branch did not insert itself into a critical legal dispute; the court fulfilled its essential constitutional role.

Does Thompson believe that the court should not have heard the citizens’ case? If so, on what grounds? Would he object in the same way if the court had ruled differently? Perhaps he objects to the content of the majority opinion. If so, what specific question of law does he contest, based upon his understanding of the state constitution?

Thompson and his congressional colleagues also criticize the ruling by protesting: “Today’s congressional maps were drafted and approved by both Republicans and Democrats.” That may be technically true, but the court can still rule that the maps are unconstitutional. The constitutionality of the maps is not determined by whether one, two or 20 political parties “drafted and approved them.” It’s determined by whether a majority decision, following due process, finds that those maps adhere to nonpartisan principles of law. Perhaps the congressman will explain whether he recognizes, and has confidence in, the legitimacy of the court system in this case.

Finally, Congressman Thompson and his congressional colleagues protest that the court’s decision “comes on the eve of” the 2018 midterm election: “An orderly electoral process is an essential function of our Democracy.” The word “eve” means the day or evening immediately before an event. The midterm election will take place on Nov. 6, nearly nine months after the court’s decision. That decision includes structured procedures for redrawing existing congressional maps before the election. By questioning the orderliness of the court’s guidelines, Thompson and his colleagues imply that the results of the eventual election may be corrupted. But the maps are, according to the court, already corrupt. Yes, the path forward will require difficult negotiations, but U.S. House elections occur every two years. If now is not the time to improve our democratic process with less overtly partisan maps, then when is the time?

Perhaps Thompson will clarify what, specifically, he finds disorderly about the process that the court has lawfully ordered in pursuit of “free and equal” elections. Doing so — instead of vaguely questioning the legitimacy of the court’s ruling or the integrity of the election to come — would demonstrate responsible leadership and confidence in our democratic institutions, even in the face of difficult deliberations ahead.

Thompson might wish to clarify his positions in light of the court’s ruling because he himself has suggested that the sheer size of his district poses challenges for political representation. During a rare televised town hall last summer, Thompson explained that he preferred not to hold regular town hall meetings in a district composed of 16 counties because “it would be inappropriate to favor one (county) over the other.” 2 (He explained that he preferred other types of individual, group or tele-meetings as compensatory measures.) Thompson’s reluctance is understandable.

One can drive from State College to Erie while remaining in the district — which is roughly the same driving distance as, say, State College to Canton, Ohio, to Ithaca, N.Y., to Wheeling, W.Va., or to Washington, DC. Our founders intended that representatives would regularly meet with constituents at the local level in order to represent their diverse interests and opinions in Congress. Assembling in these ways, the founders also hoped, would allow citizens to feel directly included in popular government. Effectively representing all communities in such an unusually large district must, as Thompson himself suggests, be challenging indeed. For this reason, it seems fitting for him to explain the nature of his objection to the court’s ruling, which aims to remedy obstacles to the founders’ vision of popular representation created by the composition of districts like the Pa. 5th.

Congressman Thompson’s statement casts doubt on the role of the court regarding vital matters of free and equal elections. But he himself admits that the size of the Pa. 5th Congressional District presents logistical challenges. The congressman now has the opportunity to demonstrate democratic leadership: to clarify whether he acknowledges the independent role of our courts in protecting constitutional principles of state representation, and whether he supports the nonpartisan work of establishing fairer district boundaries.

This story was originally published February 2, 2018 at 7:32 PM with the headline "Thompson should clarify view on courts."