Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf on Tuesday rejected a revised version of the congress of the map presented by the state’s Republican legislature after independent analyses have estimated that the new card has been just as biased in favor of the GOP as the old card. “As the 2011 card, the card presented to my office by the Republican leaders is still a gerrymander,” Wolf said in a statement. “Their map clearly seeks to take advantage of a political party”. In addition to the external analyses, the governor’s office, presented the findings of the Tufts University mathematician Moon Duchin. Duchin used an algorithm to generate “million of alternative plans of delimitation of constituencies”, according to the state’s traditional redistricting criteria. The new carte d’s “bias in favor of Republicans is extremely unlikely that, by chance,” Duchin writes, putting the chances of such a map to about 0.1 percent. The new card “is indeed an extreme outlier, with a decidedly partisan tilt, which cannot be explained by the Pennsylvania political geography, or the application of traditional districting principles.” Last month, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled that the districts of the congress-led legislature Republican following the 2010 Census have been an illegal partisan gerrymander that has deprived the state’s the voters of their right to participate in the “free and equal” elections. In every election since the map was drawn, Democratic candidates won almost 50 percent of the overall condition of the Home of the popular vote, but picked up five of the state’s 18-STATES of seats in the House. The republicans accomplished this feat in 2011 by the drawing sprawling, irregularly-shaped boundaries of the district to pack Democratic voters into the smallest number of districts possible. The districts have become the target of national jokes, earning nicknames such as “Goofy kicking Donald Duck.” After the court’s decision, Republican leaders of the end of the last week has presented a new map with much more compact border that they have said is consistent with the court’s command. “The project of the card is fully compliant with all the measures issued by the applicant’s experts in the case as well as the tests set forth in the majority opinion by the Supreme Court of pennsylvania.,” said Drew Crompton, general counsel to Pennsylvania’s state Senate Republicans, in an e-mail. However, an analysis by redistricting expert Brian Amos of the University of Florida has found that the new districts were almost exactly the same composition partisan than the old ones. That makes it unlikely the new card would be to change the partisan disparity at the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision. Redistricting, experts point out that it’s perfectly possible to draw a politically skewed districts without resorting to the weird, vast shapes. Gerrymandering is a function both of who draws the maps and their objectives to their development. When politicians draw political districts, as is the case in most states, there’s a strong incentive for them to draw boundaries that disadvantage their opponents. Unless Pennsylvania’s the governor and legislators are able to resolve their differences by Thursday, the Supreme Court of the state will take control of the process of redistricting with the assistance of Nathaniel Persily, a redistricting expert at Stanford University who has worked on redistricting cases in a number of other states. The court will have to move quickly. Any new card will need to be in place before Pennsylvania voters head to the primary in May.