State Republicans on Tuesday began the process of moving to dismiss a Democratic lawsuit that asks the state Commonwealth Court to draw Pennsylvania's redistricted congressional maps if the political branches are unable.

In filings in the state's second-highest court, the Pennsylvania Republican Party and 27 individual Republicans, including state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-12th, asked Commonwealth Court for permission to intervene in a case filed in April by 16 Democratic voters represented by the National Democratic Redistricting Committee that requests the court to redraw Pennsylvania's congressional maps if the governor and Legislature cannot draw the maps themselves.

Lawrence Tabas, chairman of the state GOP, said in a Tuesday call with reporters that the party will ask the court to dismiss the Democrats' lawsuit. He characterized the lawsuit as “a blatant effort to take away the constitutional authority of the Legislature to draw the redistricting lines for Congress” and said the Democratic petitioners “are trying to end-run the Constitution.”

Butler attorney Tom King, general counsel for the state Republican Party, described the lawsuit as “an attempt to circumvent the Constitution” during Tuesday's call.

A spokesman for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party said because the party is not involved with the lawsuit, they do not wish to comment. Catherine Lalonde, chairwoman of the Butler County Democratic Committee, did not return a request seeking comment by press time.

The lawsuit, which was filed April 26, alleges new census data “rendered Pennsylvania's (current) congressional plan unconstitutionally malapportioned,” claims “there is no reasonable prospect that Pennsylvania's political branches” will draw a map before the 2022 elections and asks the court to establish a deadline by which the political branches must adopt a districting plan and to draw it themselves if the Legislature and governor cannot meet that deadline.To the state GOP, however, the lawsuit is premature. Local-level census data is not yet available, making it impossible for the state General Assembly to begin the redistricting process. Rather than relying on facts and actual damages, the state party alleges, the Democratic petitioners filed their lawsuit based on “speculation.”“This suit is so far premature that it should be thrown out in a second,” Tabas said Tuesday. “They are bringing things on such speculation with no evidence, no backup. It is really a waste of the court's time (and) it's a waste of all the attorneys' (time) who are being involved in this as well.”Although the Republican Party's filing relies on technical grounds to ask the court to toss the lawsuit — it claims the petitioners lack standing because they have not suffered any injury from the redistricting process, which hasn't begun, and add the Democrats failed to sue all indispensable parties — Tabas and King see the lawsuit as more ideological than that.“We're not about to stay on the sidelines, and we're about to embark on this battle,” King said Tuesday. “We know that we're on the side of the Constitution.”

Tabas and King accused the petitioners of filing the lawsuit so early to “lock in state jurisdiction,” rather than battling redistricting in federal courts, and the party claims in a filing that the Democratic voters did so because “the majority of the (state) Supreme Court elected justices are enrolled members of the Democratic Party.”“We believe in playing by the rules,” Tabas said. “We believe that all citizens feel the same and should feel the same, and this is just another attempt to ignore the Constitution of the United States, to pretend that it doesn't exist and make up a new set of rules, a new game plan, just to suit the political interests of Democrats and their Democratic allies.”The party, while using strong language to denounce the April lawsuit, seems optimistic the suit will be tossed.“What I believe will happen is that the Commonwealth Court will schedule arguments on the preliminary objections that we filed, and I believe that they'll rule on those before they go forward with any kind of hearing (on the merits of the case),” Tabas said. “I'm confident that the Commonwealth Court will grant our preliminary objections and say, 'This is far too premature and the parties lack standing.'”