2 Burst results for "Valentino Degeorge"
"valentino degeorge" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"If each date you know that govern game exactly and the actual process itself. So the two thousand and ten election was used not just in terms of the bringing the tea party to power, the ideological conservatism, that it represents go headlines. Yeah, just to piggyback on that. Just one thing that I think we saw with Pennsylvania's, you know, you know, one of the most agree GIS gerrymandered maps in the country. We see one party control, right? We see that the Republicans controlled the house, the Senate, the governor's office, and you know, they made the laws. They made the rules and there was no really check combined. Democrats would do. That's being nonpartisan ab- now you're not being partisan, but the Democrats have done that. So already pointed out, there's a district in Maryland. Yeah. So this is not partisan both parties. We'll do this. Well, that's exactly the point I wanted to go to because if regardless of party, if the party has the power, it seems very natural. In terms of American politics try to consolidate that power, but but you know, when Republicans do it and there have they have done here in Pennsylvania. Democrats have done it elsewhere. People keep talking to me about Maryland, California, back in the eighties and nineties. But the point is, is that is there a way to come up with a fair system that does mostly remove politics from the equation? And and here let me just let me just do some limit. Let me play for you a little bit of tape here. This is again Valentino degeorge. Oh, he's the GOP chairman of Pennsylvania, and he basically just takes. He takes issue with that entire question because he says it's perfectly fine. With legislators, creating districts, and he really opposes the idea of any other systems, specifically, an independent citizens commission, which we'll talk about here in a second. He poses other systems to draw future congressional maps, and here's what he said. So legislators are in the best position to draw lines and look the end of the day, heaven forbid, politics should enter into a piece of legislation that draws part, you know, political maps stunned over the country. Democrats join maps to their favors in other states, look Marilyn. So you know, this is nonsense. This was part of a Barack Obama, Eric Holder, fair districting plan. They called it to take back congressional seats and they've done it here in Pennsylvania. That's fell to Georgia, Pennsylvania GOP chair. So Lindsey, Lazar ski. He's he basically says, we know the state the best we should draw the maps. But there is this other idea about an independence, it isn't commission. What would that look like in Pennsylvania? I just have to say, I love that operatic music behind veils. And it was. It was a Columbus Day festival in Philadelphia. Taking me there to south Philly. So you know a group in Pennsylvania, fair district's PA for a number of years now they've been trying to. Change the Pennsylvania constitution and to implement an independent citizens commission that would actually draw the lines and they've modeled this after California, and this is really a grassroots organization. You see them at street fairs. You see them at avent's canvassing and you know they, they're asking the legislators to basically vote against their interests to form this commission. As you pointed out it, there is a such a commission in California made up of appointed independent citizens. And I think some several other couple other states in the west have similar similar commission. So do they work though? Have they created fairer districts if you talk to the people on the commission? Yes. If you talked to voters. Yes. I think a key difference between Pennsylvania and California is that in Pennsylvania, there's no referendum. So basically to get that process in place, the state legislature would have to. Pass a constitutional amendment, and then it would go to the voters in a referendum, and there's no guarantee. There's no guarantee that an independent commission itself would be truly independent. By somebody that that that's or hold positions by virtue get on get on the commission by virtue of a position they already hold or you could have state lawmaker leaders appoint a few. You could have different groups. Yeah, it it can get. It can get complicated, but here's what's fascinating until Baker versus car supreme court decision..
"valentino degeorge" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"This is on point and Meghna trucker. Bardy. We're broadcasting today from the studios of WHYY in Pennsylvania because we're talking about gerrymandering and Pennsylvania's adventures in redistricting and really what effort or what impact that's had on Pennsylvania politics on representation here in the keystone state and what impact it could have as the discussion about gerrymandering and redistricting is taken to the national level. I'm joined here today by Lindy Lazar ski. She's a multimedia journalist for WHYY and also for keystone crosswords immediate nonprofit. That's really focused on the state's political challenges. We're also joined by Terry Madonna, he's a professor of public affairs and the director of the center for politics and public affairs at Franklin and Marshall college as well. Now, Lindsay and Terry, I just wanna play a little bit of tape for you because we were talking about at the very beginning of the conversation how Pennsylvania's gerrymandered districts were struck down in January of this year by the state supreme court. And this weekend we actually caught up with Valentino degeorge oh, he's the chairman of the Republican party for the state of Pennsylvania and he's previously called in. I've seen this in your reporting. Lindsay heath call. He called the January twenty eighteen ruling a hyper partisan decision by an activist judicial bench, and he followed that up with us this weekend. And here's what he said. There's nothing in the Pennsylvania constitution, which says the maps have to be fair, whatever fair means to these judges took upon themselves to say, fairness means, you know what we think it means and they drew in the process. What was what one analyst called the Democrats dream map. So it was. It was just that a. It was just take an unconstitutional taking a power by the supreme court. This Valentino degeorge. Oh, the chairman of the Pennsylvania GOP. No, Lindsey, Lazar ski. Let me just get some impressions here from you because first of all, when did Georgia talks about this new map that the state supreme court drew? They didn't necessarily want to have to do that. They want. They sent it back to the legislature to draw a new map, but that didn't work out. Yes. So the time line here was it was pretty much a crunch so around January. Well, on January twenty. Second, the decision came down that the two thousand eleven map deprived Pennsylvania voters of the right to free and equal elections and basically gave Republicans and unfair advantage and deluded. The Democrats votes, and basically they gave about a month in between that time to come up with a new map, so they kicked it back to the legislatures said, okay, guys, you know, give us your best shot that didn't happen. And we saw these. These contingencies of different groups handing in maps and just to those Republican controlled legislature, but Pennsylvania has democratic governor. Now they were supposed to agree on a new map, the couldn't, yes. The governor was supposed to approve the math that the legislature came up with. It didn't happen. Didn't happen the first of all the legislature didn't do it. The legislative leaders did it. It was never passed by the general assembly in the form of a law which is what is required and the supreme court. In all fairness to both sides is supreme court, did not give the legislature. I think adequate time they come up with a map even if the legislature could have come up with a map when when and they went back to this clause in the constitution known as free and equal, which had never been applied in that way before I'm not suggesting what the court did was wrong, a merely suggesting that they went back into the eighteenth century for the original. The constitution defined it there. You both about that because you know we've course had other cases that have worked their way through the federal system to the United States Supreme court, but Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvanians who brought this case deliberately chose not to do that because they saw the Pennsylvania state constitution has having stronger voter protections that even the US constitution, but but tears indicating here that, but this was a novel read Olympic constitution. Well, I think you also have to look at the makeup of the Pennsylvania supreme court. There are five Democrats on the court and to Republicans on the court. So we also see this change in the makeup of the Pennsylvania supreme court..