Capitolwire
HARRISBURG (May 8) – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday morning issued a 6-0 ruling upholding the Legislative Reapportionment Commission’s second attempt at producing new state legislative districts.
The decision appears to end nearly 15 months of uncertainty following the Supreme Court’s February 2012 decision throwing out the first LRC map and leading to elections held in 2012 on the 2001 maps.
Amanda Holt, whose challenge led the Supreme Court to throw out the initial LRC map, said she was “disappointed,” and planned to appeal the decision, presumably to federal court.
Adam Bonin, a Philadelphia-based attorney who represented Montgomery County Commissioner Josh Shapiro in an appeal, believes the state Supreme Court’s ruling is the final stage.
“It’s a bad day for those of us who believe voters should be choosing legislators and not the other way around,” he said.
The decision by Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron Castille stated: “After consideration of the specific challenges forwarded by appellants, and the LRC’s response, we now hold that the LRC’s 2012 Final Plan is not contrary to law, and the appeals are dismissed.”
His opinion was joined by Justices J. Michael Eakin, Max Baer, Debra Todd and Seamus McCaffery. Justice Thomas Saylor also wrote a concurring opinion. Saylor and Eakin voted for the first plan of the commission which lost on a 4-3 vote when Castille joined the Democrats. The opinion stated that former Justice Joan Orie Melvin took no part in the case. She voted with Saylor and Eakin on the first case, against Castille, Baer, McCaffery and Todd.
The court indicated those who challenged the second reapportionment plan did not meet their burden to prove the new plan is contrary to requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution regarding reapportionment.
The opinion states: “Although we view the question to be close, we ultimately conclude that the appellants have not proven that the 2012 Final Plan is contrary to law on grounds that it contains political subdivision splits that are not absolutely necessary.”
Added Castille: “Unlike in Holt I, this is not a case where the challengers’ presentation ‘overwhelmingly’ shows the existence of political subdivision splits that rather obviously were not made absolutely necessary by competing constitutional, demographic, and geographic factors, and indeed where it was ‘inconceivable’ that the number of subdivision splits was ‘unavoidable. … The pure mathematics are not nearly as dramatic with the 2012 Final Plan.’”
Castille’s decision also said political motivations were constitutional as long as they “did no violence” to the constitutional hurdles reapportionment plans must surmount.
Castille wrote: “Presumably, innumerable maps could be drawn, motivated exclusively by the perceived political advantages they offer to one party or another, which do not do violence to the constitutional restrictions imposed by Section 16; the Constitution does not ban such political efforts.
“But, this does not mean that a desire to protect incumbency, or to preserve prior district lines, or to maintain the political balance from a decade before, can go further and excuse a plan that achieves those political ends by doing unlawful violence to the restraints specified in Section 16.
“Assume a redistricting map in place which one party views as unfairly balanced (politically) to solidify or ensure the power of another party. In the next redistricting process, the party that considers itself aggrieved by the old map can seek to rework the map to accomplish what it views as a restoration of political balance – or even to tilt the balance more heavily in its favor. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent such a politically-motivated effort – so long as it does not do unlawful violence to the core restraints expressed in Section 16. In short, there is no “preference for incumbency” or preservation of party representation restraint in our” state constitution.
Bonin said it was somewhat gratifying to see the court uphold the first Holt decision but in applying that same standard the court should have rejected the revised plan as well.
“It’s particularly problematic for the citizens of Montgomery County who lack one state senators who is responsive to their needs and their needs only,” he said, referring to the fact that in the map, the 800,000-plus resident county has no senator who represents only Montgomery.
But Bonin also spoke for many challengers with his initial reaction when asked about the decision: he blew a raspberry into the phone.
The court in February 2012 sided with those who challenged the initial LRC district map. Those challengers at that time successfully argued the maps did not comply with Pennsylvania Constitution requirements that the maps be “composed of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable,” and that political subdivisions should not be divided to form districts “unless absolutely necessary.”
MORE TO BE ADDED LATER
