Pa. Supreme Court Voids Congressional Map as Unconstitutional, Orders Redrawing
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday ruled the state's current congressional map was the result of partisan gerrymandering and ordered lawmakers to redraw the districts in time for the primary election in May.
January 22, 2018 at 03:02 PM
5 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday ruled the state's current congressional map was the result of partisan gerrymandering and ordered lawmakers to redraw the districts in time for the primary election in May.
The justices ruled 5-2 in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 was unconstitutional—a victory for the Democratic voters who challenged the Republican-controlled Legislature's current districting layout.
In the court's order, the majority held the act “clearly, plainly and palpably violates the constitution of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and, on that sole basis, we hereby strike it as unconstitutional. Accordingly, its further use in elections for Pennsylvania seats in the United States House of Representatives, commencing with the upcoming May 15, 2018, primary is hereby enjoined.”
Senate Republicans did not take to the ruling kindly.
“Today's ruling by the state Supreme Court is a partisan action showing a distinct lack of
respect for the constitution and the legislative process. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overstepped its legal authority and set up an impossible deadline that will only introduce chaos in the upcoming congressional election,” said a joint statement from Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati and Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman.
The lawsuit was filed in the Commonwealth Court by the League of Women Voters and a group of Democratic voters against the state, questioning the fairness of the boundaries that make up Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District. They claimed that the Republican-controlled Legislature manipulates districts in such a way as to minimize the impact of the state's Democratic voting population.
In their complaint, the voters called gerrymandering “one of the greatest threats to American democracy” and argued that the state's Republican legislators “dismantled Pennsylvania's existing congressional districts and stitched them back together with the goal of maximizing the political advantage of Republican voters and minimizing the representational rights of Democratic voters.”
If the Legislature and the governor don't come up with a new districting plan before Feb. 15, the court said it will take matters into its own hands to “proceed expeditiously to adopt a plan based on the evidentiary record developed in the Commonwealth Court.”
The court also provided specific instructions for how the map is to be redrawn, noting that districts must be “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.”
Justice Max Baer, a Democrat, agreed with his colleagues' decision that the current map was unconstitutional, but expressed concerns that implementing the new map in time for the 2018 primary in May would cause confusion.
“It is naive to think that disruption will not occur,” Baer wrote in his opinion. “Prospective candidates, incumbents and challengers alike, have been running for months, organizing, fundraising, seeking their party's endorsements, determining who should be on canvassing and telephone lists, as well as undertaking the innumerable other tasks implicit in any campaign—all with a precise understanding of the districts within which they are to run, which have been in place since 2011.”
He continued, “The change of the districts' boundary lines at this time could result in candidates, again incumbents and challengers alike, no longer living in the districts where they have been carrying out these activities for a year or more.”
Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor disagreed with the majority's ruling, as did Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy. Both are Republicans.
While recognizing that there were questions about the “constitutional viability” of the current districts, Saylor wrote in his dissenting opinion that guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court was needed in the matter.
“My position at this juncture is only that I would not presently upset those districts, in such an extraordinarily compressed fashion, and without clarifying—for the benefit of the General Assembly and the public—the constitutional standards by which districting is now being adjudged in Pennsylvania,” Saylor said.
In a statement released Monday shortly after the decision, Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf said, “I strongly believe that gerrymandering is wrong and consistently have stated that the current maps are unfair to Pennsylvanians. My administration is reviewing the order and we are assessing the executive branch's next steps in this process.”
The Public Interest Law Center in Philadelphia represented the League of Women Voters.
“Today marks a new day in Pennsylvania,” said Mimi McKenzie, the center's legal director, in a statement Monday. “Pennsylvania's Supreme Court now leads the nation in opposing extreme partisan gerrymanders, putting legislators across America on notice that they can no longer draw maps that dilute the voices of the voters.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute readPhiladelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
3 minute readPhila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250