>> an all-out brawl has broken out over the new pennsylvania congressional map. what happens next, and what's the right thing to do? let's get the inside story. ♪ good morning, tamala edwards. welcome to "inside story," and we wanted to go a little bit deeper on this topic, so we've done something a little different with our news makers, one face you know and a new friend. and we've got val digiorgio, the chairman of the g.o.p., pennsylvania party and an insider. we also have joe corrigan, a senior adviser to the delaware county democratic party. >> thanks for having me. >> i'm gonna start with you, val. of course you're very unhappy with what the state supreme court has decided to do, and as i understand your argument, it's about process. this should be legislative, not judicial... >> right. >> ...that you say it was wrong for them to do this. but let's talk about the map. maybe we can even pop them up. with the old map, there was a district that people joked about, that it looked like goofy

kicking donald duck, that this had just gone so far, maybe too far. was there not an argument, especially since they've brought in an outside expert -- they didn't just sit there and try to do this themselves, they went to a person respected by both sides and said, "give us a fair map," which you now see on the right. was this technically the wrong thing to do? maybe -- is it not for the best? >> well, first of all, i would dispute that the expert was somebody accepted by both sides. we didn't know him, so number one. number two -- >> but i will say, i've seen republicans as well give him kudos for previous work. >> let's just say for the sake of argument that the other map, you know, was not -- was not contiguous and compact enough. there's a process here, and there's a legislature. there's a judicial -- there's a democratic process for fixing these things. now, for five judges on the supreme court to stand up and tell the general assembly that they know better, that in 16 days you guys have to draw a new map, and if you don't do it we're going to do it for you, under the guise of independence

when we all know this was a partisan effort started by obama and holder for "fair districting." and then to set the legislature up for failure, knowing they couldn't draw a map in that amount of time, and saying, "if you don't do it, we're gonna do it," is troubling to anybody that cares about rule of law, that cares about a constitutional republic. and what's to stop the supreme court from doing this on any number of issues that the legislature will tackle? >> does it mean anything to you that they throw out the republicans' map? they didn't like wolf's effort, they said, "never mind, we'll do something ourselves"? >> and then they picked a map that was probably as partisan as you can make it. one independent expert said, "this is the democratic party's dream." >> well, in fact, let's talk about that, joe, because the headlines from national outlets, local outlets pretty much said the same thing -- this is a win for democrats. we go from, in this area, three districts that tend to be democratic, three that are republican to at least five that are expected to go democratic, maybe even all six. how do you not see this, for the average person, as looking pretty partisan? >> well, look, we're undoing an

outrageous gerrymander from 2011, so anything that was going to be a redrawing of the map was going to look better for democrats. and, you know, for the folks who say that this is a democrat's dream, it's not. there's still more republican districts in the state than there are democratic districts. it'll be 10 trump districts for 8 hillary districts, and that still advantages republicans. i haven't lost my ability to do math. >> okay, but then let's talk about -- why is this bothering everybody now? >> sure. >> his party came to power using a map drawn by democrats. democrats voted for this map. it couldn't have passed without democratic votes in 2011. >> sure. >> why all of a sudden, 2016, 2017, 2018, this is a problem? it does look a little suspicious. >> well, it could, but it think that, tam, this isn't about the rule of law. this is about, you know, a partisan power grab. you know, the only time that,

you know, the other side wants to talk about partisan judges and activist judges -- well, they're only activist when they're democrats, and, you know, the other side has done plenty of things by judicial rule. they've dismantled the voting rights act, they allowed for citizens united, but it's on us now, apparently, to give people the right to vote who they want to vote for. >> that feels like a valid -- i need to give you an opportunity to respond. >> 200 years of precedent -- this is the way we've been doing it in this country, and now, you know, after three elections that we've had in this decade under these maps, all of a sudden it's unconstitutional. look, rule of law is important. it's what separates us from much of the rest of the world. any third-grade civics student knows there's separation of powers. so now we... one of the standards in the supreme court's decision -- well, the standard -- was "compact and contiguous." draw as few municipality precinct and county splits as possible. joe scarnati and mike turzai on the republican side present a map which had 70 splits.

>> but it was found to largely continue to do the same thing, which is keep the map looking better for republicans. >> well, there's nothing in the constitution that says it has to be better for one side or the other. the standard that they said was that it had to be compact and contiguous. then they drew a map, the supreme court, that had 93 splits, had more splits, did not minimize them, potentially violated the voting rights act. so -- and split communities of interest all across the state. >> so, here's the thing -- legal experts think that the supreme court is not going to take this. they have declined in recent days previous suits. what do you do? you're two-and-a-half months out. what are you gonna do? >> if the supreme court -- we've got two lawsuits, one in the supreme court, one in the middle district of pennsylvania for an injunction. if they don't, i guess we've got a constitutional crisis on our hands. i'll be calling for, potentially, the impeachment of justice wecht next week. >> does that just inflame things, talking about impeachment? >> this is the legislature having to make sure that its prerogatives and its power are kept in place.

what's to stop them from doing this again on any other piece of legislature? >> and shouldn't you be concerned about that? it's working out, perhaps, in your favor this time, but are you worried in 2020, 2030, what you've opened the door to could come back to bite you? >> no doubt, but what the republican party of pennsylvania is doing right now is no different than president trump questioning the integrity of a judge in hawaii because of his mexican heritage and his ability to do his job. >> don't bring racism into this. >> this is about partisanship. >> okay, that's not racism. >> you're saying that because they're democrats they are partisan, and they are going to be, you know, favoring a democratic map. >> they did. they did. >> so, val brought up the map that the senate pro tem and the house speaker submitted to the court. now, the order from the supreme court said specifically, and most legal experts would agree, that they wanted a legislative process within 18 days -- 18 days to draw a map through the legislative process, which is how every other map has been drawn thus far. joe scarnati and mike turzai decided to throw a partisan

temper tantrum and not submit a map until midnight the day it was due. i've seen them run -- >> we didn't get the order until two days before. >> i've seen them run legislation to restrict women's health within 72 hours, so when it's an attack on the civil rights of people of pennsylvania, it's done very quickly. >> obviously, you guys have very different points of view. are you worried about a challenge from the left? the common cause and naacp says they think this is not good for black voters, that they've gone from having two districts that they think represent them well to just one. >> sure. you know, it is definitely a concern to democrats that folks in the naacp would be, you know, concerned about the maps. but i'd say that, you know, across the country there are a number of districts where the representative in congress does not look like the people that they represent or the plurality of the people that they represent. in the 5th district, which is now philadelphia and delaware county, a person of color could win. in the 2nd district, where brendan boyle now represents, a person of color could win.

>> let's take a big step back. the average guy out there on the street -- he just hears it as "either party in power pushes it for what they want." >> sure. >> it gets silly. this is what happened -- it finally got to the point -- to some people, that it got silly -- and it's just more fighting, the kind of stuff that makes people not vote, not want to engage, think everybody's bad. you guys together -- is there some way we could do this where we wouldn't have to be here, where we could have something that works for you and works for you and average person out there doesn't think it's just your turn to have the ball, there. "you go, your turn. there, you go." >> i think we had that process. the fair districting process was working the way through the legislature. the general assembly was gonna get to decide this with the governor, the way it should be done. when courts hiding under the guise of independence and nonpartisanship make a partisan decision it's bad for the whole system. >> i know what you're saying, but you know right now wolf and harrisburg are not getting anything done. is there a way to take it out of this so that people get a map they can feel good about, that it makes sense to them. "these are my neighbors, they're in my district," and it doesn't have to keep sitting in -- >> allow it to proceed through

the general assembly. allow it to proceed through the general assembly. let the democratic process work. >> and there's a bill currently in the general assembly that's, you know, not gonna make it out of committee because the g.o.p. won't let it out of committee. but to establish an independent redistricting commission, that would be staffed by citizens -- >> would you support an independent commission? >> it depends on how it was drawn -- to pick 10 names out of the phone book, elect them, draw lines. remember, the idea here is to pick communities of interest, is one of the goals here. who's in the best decision to do that but elected representatives? that's the way it's been done for 200 years. to have 10 people out of the phone book who may or may not know how to do that -- >> but you do politics for a living. you know parities. your job is to get more republicans, your job is to get more democrats. >> where's his lawsuit in illinois where they have a seat that makes the 7th district look like a contiguous seat? where's that seat? but illinois is packed with democrats. this is as partisan as could be. the idea, the narrative, that they're pursuing, the greater good, is nonsense. this is partisan. >> you don't like nathan persily who drew this map from stanford. is there an outside expert everybody could agree on who

has nothing to do with politics? there are lots of people who draw maps. >> the 253 elected senators and representatives are the experts. that's why we elect them. >> well, you guys are not going to agree. i'm gonna take a break and come back to the panel who's going to continue to see if maybe they have some ideas about this. we'll be right back. >> 6abc's "inside story" is presented by temple university. ♪

when you combine the best internet with the best shows you get the best of both worlds. with the fastest internet available you will enjoy virtually seamless streaming for only $79.99 a month online with a two year agreement, and your netflix is on us for one year. and with the gigabit connection on the 100% fiber-optic network, you can stream on up to 100 devices at once. so get the fastest internet available, plus netflix, plus up to200 tv channels, plus phone, plus a two-year price guarantee. and it's all yours for just $79.99 per month online for two years with a two-year agreement. already have netflix? we'll pay for it.

so get your netflix on usfor one year. and here are 5 more reasons to switch. fios by verizon has won the jd power award for highest ranked by customers for residential internet service in the east, 5 years in a row. so experience netflix on the 100% fiber optic network made for streaming. switch to fios and get a year of netflix on us with a two year agreement. go to getfios.com to switch today. ♪

>> welcome back to "inside story." let's introduce you to the panel. we will start with george burrell... >> good morning, tam. >> ...attorney and non-profit exec. columnist christine flowers, attorney. and temple university law professor who focuses on elections, jim eisenhower, good show for you. >> yes. thank you, tam. >> and documentarian sam katz who also -- >> and an expert on losing elections. [ laughter ] >> and also on how election laws should work. let's get going on, i guess, the big question of the moment. as val pointed out, they've got two lawsuits going. most experts say, "i don't think they're going to get traction." do you agree with that, or do you think there might be a surprise here? i'll start with you, jim. >> yeah, i think that they're not likely to succeed. i've read the opinion that justice todd issued. it's 139 pages. a lot of it is maps. but it's very finely written. justice todd is a very respected justice, and she bases the entire ruling on the pennsylvania supreme court -- excuse me, the pennsylvania constitution, which is why the supreme court has already rejected an appeal here. there's no federal jurisdiction,

so i don't see any likelihood that they're gonna get a federal court involved here. >> does it mean something that alito wrote the last opinion, who was sitting on the bench right here in philadelphia? he knows this state, and he said, "we're not doing it." >> justice alito oversees the third circuit, he's from new jersey, he sat here as a federal judge before he became -- on the supreme court. yes, he knows the politics of this area very well. >> so, let's talk about -- >> i'm sorry. i will bow to jim and to sam and to george, and will say right now i think that they know a heck of a lot more about pennsylvania politics than i do. but i read the opinion as well. i even looked at the maps. and as val said, the issue is process. i don't necessarily see a federal remedy. that is a problem. you make a good point, because this decision was based entirely on the pennsylvania state constitution. but the pennsylvania state constitution does not give jurisdiction, authority, and power to a court to draw these maps. it's the legislature, and no matter how much justice todd and

those who agreed with her in the majority say that "we have the authority to do justice," you can't simply use that boot strap, a right to redraw maps, which is within the purview of the legislature. >> we'll see if the supreme court or the u.s. district court chooses to agree with that and take it up. let's talk about, immediately, what this could mean. first of all, people are trying to figure out where they run. "i was going to be in that district. now i'm over here in this district. who's running against me?" incumbents are now facing some new challenges. what does this mean for people trying to figure out with two-and-a-half months to go? are there people who will get in or will not get in? will we have as good an election with the best people stepping up, or are people going, "i can't even figure this out"? >> i think that if you want to run for public office, you don't wait for permission, and here you have an uncertain situation. if you want to be a member of congress, you need to announce your candidacy and get going. i always believe it's a lot easier to drop out than it is to drop in, and for candidate, say,

rich lazer who wants to run in a district that was very much one he could win -- he well may be able to win it -- he can't worry about that. he's got to go out, start -- he's got money. he's gonna raise money. in western pennsylvania, there's a couple of very significant changes, obviously in philadelphia there are two districts. get out, run, raise money, and commit yourself to doing it, and then the outcome will be what the outcome is. >> yeah, i'm not so worried about candidates being confused. candidates tend to be pretty facile in figuring out where they can run. >> but what about voters? are we going to see challenges after the election of people saying, "i was disenfranchised. i went to my polling spot and thought i was doing this, but i didn't have the information"? >> yeah. >> will we be back in the courts? >> how do you be disenfranchised? you go to the election -- do you really think most voters are gonna be able to make a case that they thought they were gonna vote in the 2nd district, but they found out that they were in the 3rd? >> yeah, they're gonna get a lot of communication, and the voting booths are gonna be in the same place, and i think the candidates have a clear -- they have clear parameters

to make decisions now. they're gonna run in the new districts or they're gonna run in the old district, and so you got to -- if it's a new district, you have to decide, and many of them are deciding whether they want to do it or not, particularly -- for example, in congressman brady's old district -- that district has dramatically redefined in terms of its composition, so people are deciding whether to run in that space. but i agree with sam. i mean, those folks who want -- most of the people that i know who want to run, are trying to figure out where to run. they're not figuring out whether they're going to run, though, i think that they would be smart to -- i think many of those people would be smart not run in this election. it's gonna be really complicated. >> i think tam makes a good point, though. i mean, i think that -- i mean, we're two-and-a-half months out from, you know, from an election. i don't necessarily think that -- and this is a bombshell, that you're no longer in -- i'm no longer in my district. i'm in delaware county, and my district is the one that was the most heavily impacted, i think, by this redrawing of the map, so, i mean, you know, with all

due respect to the voters, i don't think people are so well informed that within two-and-a-half months or two months they're gonna be able to get back on the page. >> it really doesn't make any difference. if you're a new candidate, whether you are a new candidate running for the first time in the old delaware county district or a new candidate running for the first time in the new district, nobody knows you anyway. >> but you will be, because neither pat meehan or bob brady are gonna -- >> nobody knows you to start in the existing district or in the new district. you still got to raise the money to get your name out there. >> can i just make one other point? if you look at this map, for the first time, you actually see something. i mean, it could be argued that -- around the edges. but you see a district in montgomery county, you see a district in bucks county, you see a district in delaware county, and you see two districts in philadelphia. whoa. >> yeah. >> if you look at paul ryan's district in wisconsin, it looks like one of the districts on this map. it's like a square. it makes sense. and these districts that we see are so ridiculous. >> right, and in the end, if you

believe the demographics in pennsylvania democrats, the republicans, in terms of votes, almost any objectively drawn map is gonna favor democrats. it just has to, given the number of democratic voters that are in the state. now, is there a partisan element to this? yeah, there is. but you've got to do that partisan element within a constitutional boundary. >> the weakness, though, in the last map is that the democratic party in harrisburg voted for it. and that's a bit of a problem, in terms of process. >> questions about that. but let's talk about some of these districts. is ryan costello pretty much done? >> he thinks he is. >> his challenger is still in his district, and it's a little bit now tipping more democratic. he could go to another district, perhaps. he probably is the person most affected around here. is he kind of toast? >> i mean, his district was already kind of -- it was just leaning republican. it wasn't solidly republican. now it's a toss-up. and judging by his reaction, i mean, he was one of the individuals calling for -- you know, implying that the justices

should be impeached. so he knows that he's on shifting ground there. and there is, you know, a democratic candidate who now, you know -- it just -- yeah, he's the one who's going to suffer the most from this. >> and four row offices in a county that has previously, not since the stone age, has elected democrats, elected four people in jobs that the party could always control. so that's a big change. >> let's talk about two issues for the democrats. are we going to see ugliness from south philly and delco, where it becomes a tug-of-war? kind of like what we saw sometimes in montgomery county over who really gets to represent this seat. it sounds like they're already biting at each other. >> well, i think there's no question that there's gonna be. we've heard delaware county leaders say that they think this is a delaware county seat and that a person from delaware county should be elected. there is going to be a sense in philadelphia, where we've had three congress people, that there still should be a congressperson who represents that district who is from

philadelphia. i think it's gonna be a really contested election, and that's gonna be the battle ground, but that's a fair battleground. people have a right to run for public office, and then the voters get a right to decide. >> i'm gonna disagree with george, because with congressman brady, it's old district, south philly. he did have part of delaware county. he always was able to keep a balance between the delaware county democrats and the philadelphia democrats. he's not going away. he's not retiring from politics. he's still chair of city committee. he's very, very adept at bringing people together, working compromises. it wouldn't surprise me that he plays a role. >> if figures out a deal. is brendan boyle in trouble? because his -- you know, usually when you're the incumbent, pretty good for you. now things have shifted such he's probably the person many people think, for an incumbent, for democrats, could most be in trouble. >> the bottom line is we've got competitive congressional districts. i mean, what a terrible idea that is. and don't forget, two years from now, there's gonna be a legislative election and there's

gonna be another reapportionment commission. and this whole thing is gonna get redone. and depending on who wins in 2020, which was always a major political initiative of the national republican party, was to build state parties to win legislative seats in order to control congressional mapping. the democrats had never woken up to that. they didn't do it in 2000. they didn't do it in 2010. i think they're gonna be in a much different position in 2020. >> i will end this topic where i ended with the two gentlemen before. the average person out here just feels as though this is political hot potato, and they don't understand why we can't just do something that kind of makes sense. they understand it's gonna be a little political. is that just the name of the game, or is there a way to do this that it's not just one more thing that tears everybody apart? or should i just be asking for a pollyannic ground here? >> we wouldn't be in this position had -- i mean, i respectfully disagree with val about the 2011 map. i mean, i'm a republican, and i clearly see that my district, at

least, looked like, you know, a rorschach blot, inkblot, you know, like a disney inkblot. and it wasn't contiguous. so, i mean, the republicans do have themselves to blame for what has happened right now. however, again, i have to come back to the issue. the supreme court did not have the right to do it. >> i know, but my question is, going forward, something new, something new. is there something new that can happen? >> i don't think voters are in chaos about this. this is an insider fight. voters aren't in chaos about what's going on in this fight. >> all right, well, let's talk about something that voters are in chaos about, which is school shootings. senator pat toomey had a bill that was up that he wanted to have stricter background checks. so you not only would get a gun check in a gun store, but if you bought online or at a gun show, wouldn't cover family sales, there would be a gun-violence task force, and withholding of federal funds for states that didn't comply. was not able to get anywhere, with some people saying, "well, you're creating a federal registry, and we don't want that." he says he wants to try again. is this his moment, or is he

going to get swatted down again? >> i heard wayne up here speak yesterday at the conservative conference, and he made this observation that i had not heard before, that, of the 50 states, only 13 participate in the pool of providing data to the federal law enforcement about gun registration and violations of gun law. the nra wants to do something significant about this issue. force and push the legislatures in those other 37 states to become participants in the federal pool of information, which would then make the possibility of background checks viable. if you have a background check and only 13 states are reporting to the fbi, what are you gonna know in a background check? so i don't think toomey's legislation solves the problem of enforcing states to participate. >> but i do think, politically, it's important for toomey to show some action here. you may recall in his campaign against katie mcginty, he pointed out his political courage and having proposed similar legislation after

sandy hook and nothing happened and she came back at him and said, "yeah, nothing happened." and it got some traction on that issue against him. so i think he's really got to do something more this time than just propose something and let it die. >> we saw something -- daryl metcalfe, who's a republican from butler county. he put out a tweet that seemed to back up this idea that the students who were speaking out from parkland were paid actors. >> this is disgrace. >> yeah. disgusting. >> is there any way to -- what do we do when our leaders are talking about this? we got 30 seconds. >> well, metcalfe is an outlier, and we were here before when he was talking about how he didn't want to be touched by, you know, a male colleague because, you know, he wasn't that way. so metcalfe is a joke, and you just discount what he says. unfortunately, there are people who are, on both sides of the issue, exploiting the youth of the children. >> all right, we have to take a break. >> but he's emulating president trump. president trump has made it acceptable to create your own facts. >> okay, last word there. we got to go.

>> 6abc's "inside story" is presented by temple university. >> that's it for "inside story. thank you for joining us. i'm tamala edwards. we'll see you next week. ♪ ♪ i'm nydia han with gray hall. coming up next on "action news" two men are targeted in a home invasion in fill but one manages to escape, to call for help, we are he live with the very latest. and roadway is shut down, after a serious crash. so far it has been a sunday soaker but good news, rain is moving out and we will have a time line, in the accu weather forecast. those stories and more next on "action news".

"action news", delaware valley's leading news program, with gray hall, nydia han, and meteorologist, chris sowers. good afternoon it is sunday february 25th i'm nydia han with gray hall. here are stories we are following for you right now on "action news" one man is tied up and beaten during a home invasion while his