Rick HasenVerified account

I don't think so. Even if you read legislature to exclude the initiative process, it doesn't mean that legislature excludes application of state constitution by state Supreme Court. That position did NOT get Kennedy's approval in Bush v. Gore Article II concurrence.https://twitter.com/michaelmorley11/status/958192758564573185 …

The result of siding with Pa Republicans in this case would mean that state courts could NEVER review a state legislature's congressional redistricting plan to make sure it complies with state law and the state Constitution.

Aside from the absurdity of this position it would put an even greater burden on the Supreme Court, which would get mandatory direct appeals of these cases from three-judge federal courts. THAT cannot be appealing to Chief Justice Roberts.

Isn't the real question whether it would be constitutional for the state supreme court to redraw the district lines itself if the legislature fails to adopt a compliant plan?

I don't think so. Once one recognizes the right of the state supreme court to enforce the state constitution and state laws against the legislature, it can craft an appropriate remedy, including when legislature won't act in compliance with state law.

That's probably right, but it seems there's still likely some limit on this, right?

If the state court order violates equal protection or due process, for example. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).