League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Com. of Pa.

181 A.3d 1083
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 19, 2018·No. No. 159 MM 2017·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM

*1084By Order dated January 22, 2018, this Court announced that the Pennsylvania Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011, 25 P.S. §§ 3596.101 et seq . (the "2011 Plan"), clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. This adjudication was based upon the uncontradicted evidentiary record developed in the Commonwealth Court, wherein the Petitioners established that the 2011 Plan was a partisan gerrymander and that this gerrymander was extreme and durable. It was designed to dilute the votes of those who in prior elections voted for the party not in power in order to give the party in power a lasting electoral advantage. In stark contrast, Article I, Section 5 of our Constitution provides: "Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage." Pa. Const. art. I, § 5. On this record, it is clear that the 2011 Plan violates Article I, Section 5, since a diluted vote is not an equal vote.

Having determined that the 2011 Plan violates our Constitution, the question of the appropriate remedy remained. This Court was compelled to decide whether to perpetuate an unconstitutional districting plan, which would result in the unlawful dilution of our citizens' votes in the impending election, or to rectify the violation of our Commonwealth's Constitution immediately. So stated, our choice was clear. As this Court has aptly recognized, the fundamental rights guaranteed by our organic charter "cannot lawfully be infringed, *1085even momentarily." Pap's A.M. v. City of Erie , 571 Pa. 375, 812 A.2d 591, 607 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In our January 22 Order,1 this Court directed that, "should the Pennsylvania General Assembly choose to submit a congressional districting plan that satisfies the requirements" of that Order, the General Assembly was to submit such a plan to the Governor on or before February 9, 2018. If the Governor accepted the General Assembly's congressional districting plan, this Court ordered such plan to be submitted to the Court on or before February 15, 2018. Thus, the General Assembly had a full eighteen days to submit a plan to the Governor, and the Governor had five days to consider and approve or disapprove the General Assembly's plan.2

This Court recognized that the primary responsibility for drawing congressional districts rested squarely with the legislature, but we also acknowledged that, in the eventuality of the General Assembly not submitting a plan to the Governor, or the Governor not approving the General Assembly's plan within the time specified, it would fall to this Court expeditiously to adopt a plan based upon the evidentiary record developed in the Commonwealth Court. We also offered the opportunity for parties and intervenors to submit proposed remedial districting plans to the Court on or before February 15, 2018. The Court specified that, to comply with the January 22 Order, any remedial congressional districting plan, whether enacted by the General Assembly and Governor or submitted by the parties and intervenors, should consist of:

congressional districts composed of compact and contiguous territory; as nearly equal in population as practicable; and which do not divide any county, city, incorporated town, borough, township, or ward, except where necessary to ensure equality of population.

Order of January 22, 2018, at Paragraph "Fourth". Furthermore, the Court advised the Executive Branch Respondents to anticipate that a remedial congressional districting plan would be available by February 19, 2018, and they were directed to take all measures, including adjusting the election calendar if necessary, to ensure that the May 15, 2018 primary election would take place as scheduled under that remedial districting plan.

The Court issued a supplemental Order on January 26, 2018, in which the Court appointed Professor Nathaniel Persily as an advisor to assist the Court in adopting, *1086if necessary, a remedial congressional redistricting plan.3 Moreover, in that Order, we directed the Pennsylvania General Assembly and/or its Legislative Data Processing Center to submit to the Court data files containing the current boundaries of all Pennsylvania municipalities and precincts. In response, counsel for the General Assembly indicated no such current files existed.4

Thereafter, on February 7, 2018, this Court filed its Opinion in support of the January 22 Order, setting forth its legal rationale for determining that the 2011 Plan is violative of our Constitution.5 In explaining the Court's rationale, we emphasized that nothing in the Opinion was intended to conflict with, or in any way alter, the mandate contained in the January 22 Order.

Neither the General Assembly nor the Governor sought an extension of the dates set forth in our January 22 Order. The General Assembly failed to pass legislation for the Governor's approval, thereby making it impossible for our sister branches to meet the Court's deadline. As a result, it has become the judiciary's duty to fashion an appropriate remedial districting plan, and this Court has proceeded to prepare such a plan, a role which our Court has full constitutional authority and responsibility to assume.6

Pursuant to the January 22 Order, certain parties, the intervenors, and several amici submitted to the Court proposed remedial districting plans for the Court's consideration, all of which were carefully reviewed by the Court.7 Proceeding expeditiously, the Court prepared a constitutionally *1087sound plan in accordance with our announced criteria.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Com. of Pa., 181 A.3d 1083 (Pa. 2018).

181 A.3d 1083 (League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Com. of Pa.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Black Political Empowerment Project v. A. Schmidt
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
Allegheny Reprod. Health v. PA DHS
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
Carter, C., Pets. v. Chapman, L.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2022