Source: Pennsylvania Lawsuit Says House Redistricting Is Partisan Gerrymander – The New York Times
It’s interesting news for a number of reasons, but what caused me to clip and paste it here is a line from the very end of the article, where I found an engaging quote from a lawyer for the plaintiff. Which I’ve highlighted. But first you’ll need to see the previous paragraphs to understand his reference:
The Pennsylvania lawsuit relies on the freedom-of-speech argument to attack the state map of House districts. But it spurns the federal Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees in favor of those in the state Constitution, which plaintiffs say more broadly protects free speech.
Indeed, the lawsuit argues, state courts have made that explicit, particularly in a landmark decision in 2002 that stopped officials in Erie from outlawing nude dancing in an establishment called Kandyland. In that decision, the court noted the state Constitution expressly forbids muffling a citizen’s voice.
David P. Gersch, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the current map punishes Democratic voters because of their political views. “Surely the state’s voters are entitled to at least as much protection as naked dancers,’’ he said.