The U.S. Supreme Court is expected this month to issue rulings on three high-profile cases, and U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, R-York County, is asking constituents to weigh in on the issues while emotions are high.
Perry said Monday that the high court's rulings could evoke responses from the legislative branch, and he wants to know where the 4th Congressional District falls on affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act and same-sex marriage.
He said he suspects a majority of his constituents share his positions on the issues, though he could face some opposing views from moderates and liberals.
Conservative research group The Heritage Foundation recently gave Perry a score of 92 -- leading Pennsylvania's delegation in the 113th Congress -- on the Heritage Action Scorecard. It measures how conservative members of Congress are based on their votes, co-sponsorships and other legislative activity.
The cases: In the affirmative action case Fisher v.University of Texas, white undergraduate Abigail Fisher was denied admission and is challenging the college's use of race in admissions.
Justices are also likely to rule on Shelby County v. Holder, a challenge to a section of the Voting Rights Act that calls for federal officials to approve voting procedure changes in several districts in states with a history of racial discrimination -- in this case, Shelby County, Alabama.
Proponents say the rule protects minority voters from changes meant to deter their votes, while opponents say it's unconstitutional and unfair to treat some districts and states differently than others.
Rulings are also expected in a challenge to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law the Obama administration is not defending, and on Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.
Perry declined to comment on each of the cases, saying he hadn't heard all of the testimony, but he provided positions on the issues.
His positions: On affirmative action, Perry said he's in favor of a "level playing field" for everyone, and protected classes were needed historically. But he said he thinks those days have "run their course."
Perry said it's also "time to move on" from the special provisions under the Voting Rights Act, calling it a "dark cloud over the states that remain on the list."
There's no need for the federal government to pre-approve voting rule changes if those who create the rules aren't breaking any laws, he said.
And on gay marriage, Perry isn't opposed to civil unions that give gay couples the same government perks, but he said he doesn't want those unions to be called marriages.
"Marriage has a definition," he said. "A definition must mean something or it means nothing."
Marriage is between a man and a woman, he said.
"If they want to call it a civil union, that's fine."
Perry is asking constituents to visit perry.house.gov or his social media sites or call one of his offices to engage.
-- Reach Christina Kauffman at firstname.lastname@example.org.