Interactive: Compare the new map with the proposed fixes for Pa.’s gerrymandered congressional map Pennsylvania’s most recent map of congressional districts was declared an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander by the state Supreme Court, sparking a nasty political and legal fight, and setting off a scramble to draw a new map for the 2018 midterm elections. Click here to compare the new map, the proposals from the participants, and the 2011 plan.

Instead, they echo the concerns of State Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R., Jefferson) and House Speaker Mike Turzai (R., Allegheny) about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s actions: By imposing a tight timeline for the legislature to draw a new map, and then drawing its own map for use in the upcoming elections, the state Supreme Court has essentially acted like a legislature, taking power that the U.S. Constitution gives to state legislatures to run elections and draw congressional maps.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court exceeded its authority in implementing its own plan — particularly in doing so without allowing the General Assembly a meaningful opportunity to enact a new, compliant plan,” McCollum and the elder Thornburgh wrote in their brief, filed Friday.

It was the first of several filings submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in a high-profile redistricting case that has already reshaped the 2018 elections. After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court imposed its new map, Scarnati and Turzai asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene to block the map, setting the clock back and reusing the 2011 map one more time. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked for responses to that request, due Monday afternoon.

The participants in the original Pennsylvania case filed their responses Monday. Gov. Wolf and other members of the executive branch ask the court not to block the map, as do the Democratic voters who brought the original state case in the first place and Democratic Lt. Gov. Mike Stack.

Meanwhile, a group of Republican voters and state officials asked the court to stop the new map.

And other groups also filed friend of the court briefs in support of the Republican lawmakers: the state Republican Party, the American Civil Rights Union, and the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, the conservative group based in St. Louis and founded by Phyllis Schlafly.

Monday’s filings represented the latest in a sequence of legal maneuvers. A few weeks ago, after the state high court overturned the map, Scarnati and Turzai asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Alito also requested responses that time, then ultimately denied the request without comment.

This second attempt uses essentially the same legal argument as the first, with the main difference being “ripeness” — the idea that the first request raised hypothetical issues, while the new one is based on actions that did occur.

Legal experts have said that U.S. Supreme Court intervention is unlikely.

With responses in hand, the court has no formal deadline for deciding whether to step into the case, but is likely to do so within just a few days because of the fast election timeline ahead, experts and court observers said. Candidates have already begun circulating papers to get on the ballot under the new map, and the primary election is scheduled for May 15.