Commission lawyers say whole map would have to be redrawn if parts are thrown out
By Eric Boehm | PA Independent
HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday on challenges to the state’s new House and Senate districts, with a decision expected by week's end.
The court challenges are the final step of the state’s reapportionment process, which began after the 2010 census. Unless the court rules in favor of any of the challenges presented Monday, the final maps approved by the state Legislative Reapportionment Commission will become official for the next 10 years.
The challenges heard by the court Monday focused on the new plan from the state and local levels. Opponents argued that too many counties and municipalities were split by the new reapportionment plan while the movement of some districts — in particular the shifting of the 45th state Senate District from Allegheny County to Monroe County — was made for political reasons.
The Pennsylvania Constitution requires that existing political subdivisions can be divided only “when absolutely necessary” to ensure equal population in all state legislative districts.
“The starting point for this court has to be the constitutional language,” said David Montgomery, an attorney who presented one of the challenges on behalf of state Rep. Bill Kortz, D-Allegheny. “The final plan has unnecessary splits that violate the constitution, and there are specific harms to the people of the 45th District.”
Lawyers representing the state’s Legislative Reapportionment Commission, the five-member body that drew the new state House and Senate districts, said the plan meets the constitutional requirements of equal population in each district, and other concerns were secondary.
“Population balance is the pre-eminent requirement of the constitution when it comes to redistricting,” said Joseph Del Sole, one of the attorneys who argued on behalf of the commission.
The state legislative maps were drawn by a commission consisting of Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Chester; Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Allegheny; House Majoirty Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny; House Minority Leader Frank Dermody, D-Allegheny; and retired Superior Court Judge Stephen McEwen, who was appointed by the state Supreme Court as chairman.
The seven justices on the court — four Republicans and three Democrats — offered no indication of a timeline for a decision.
“We will decide with all due haste,” said Chief Justice Ron Castille, at the conclusion of the day's oral arguments.
In 2002, the court took five days to issue a decision, but any delay will cut into the state’s primary election process, which begins Tuesday when potential candidates begin circulating nominating petitions. Prospective candidates will have to begin the process without knowing for sure whether the new districts will be confirmed by the court.
If the court upholds the challenges, there is little clarity about how the process would play out.
“It’s uncharted territory,” Del Sole said. “The commission’s plan has always been approved by the court, so there is no precedent for it.”
If the maps are thrown out, the Department of the Commonwealth, which is in charge of elections, would determine if the primary elections need to be postponed. The reapportionment commission would be charged with redrawing the maps, Del Sole said.
One of the statewide challenges presented an alternative plan crafted by Lehigh County resident Amanda Holt, which attempted to reduce the number of county and municipal splits by more than half.
“We submit that the commission’s failed process produced a flawed result,” said Virginia Gibson, the attorney who argued on behalf of Holt and about a dozen other voters in the state who signed on to that complaint.
She said the commission put political concerns ahead of constitutional requirements in crafting the new districts.
Members of the commission have defended their final plan as containing fewer splits than the maps that have been used for the past 10 years.
There are more than 7,000 political subdivisions in Pennsylvania, a number which includes counties, municipalities and wards.
In general terms, the population has increased on the eastern half of the state while declining in the western half. Lawyers on both sides of the issue acknowledged at least one Senate seat had to be moved as a result of that population shift.
Challenges based on the local level dealt with the decision by the commission to divide a number of municipalities on the new state House map — including the Chester County boroughs of West Chester and Phoenixville and Upper Darby Township in Delaware County.
Those challenges argued the divisions of the municipalities were done for political purposes by dividing certain groups or attempting to combine minority voters into similar districts.
Historically, the court has rarely interfered in the redistricting process on a large scale. Political experts say cases involving the political disenfranchisement of minorities have the best chance to succeed.
William Stickman, a lawyer for the redistricting commission, said the entire plan likely would have to be redone if the court ruled in favor of any of the challenges — even those based on local issues.
“You can’t focus too narrowly on an aspect of it, but you have to look at it as an organic whole,” Stickman said. “Because each district borders districts, the failure of any given part of that plan constitutes the failure of the whole plan.”
Rather than dividing minority voters to disenfranchise them, the Upper Darby challenge argued that too many minority voters were packed into a single district.
“Certainly packing a district with minorities when they already have minority representation, and taking those minorities out of other districts, that has an impact on representation,” said James Parks, the attorney who argued the appeal before the court.
Stickman said the Upper Darby challenge would violate the requirement that each district have the same number of voters and, in turn, would result in an unconstitutional map.
Despite the controversy swirling around Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, she has not recused herself from the redistricting appeals and remained silent throughout Monday's hearing.
