League of Women Voters of PA v. Cmwlth
178 A.3d 737 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A congressional redistricting plan violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause (Article I, Section 5) when traditional neutral districting criteria—compactness, contiguity, minimal splits of political subdivisions, and population equality—are subordinated to achieve unfair partisan political advantage, thereby diluting the power of an individual's vote.
Facts:
- Following the 2010 U.S. Census, Pennsylvania's congressional delegation was reduced from 19 to 18 seats, requiring the state to draw a new congressional map.
- In 2011, the Republican-led General Assembly passed, and Republican Governor Tom Corbett signed into law, the Pennsylvania Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 (the "2011 Plan").
- The 2011 Plan created districts with highly irregular shapes, with the 7th District being nicknamed "Goofy kicking Donald Duck."
- The Plan split 28 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties and 68 municipalities, with some counties being divided among as many as five different congressional districts.
- In the three congressional elections held under the 2011 Plan (2012, 2014, 2016), Republicans consistently won 13 of the 18 seats (72%), while Democrats won 5 seats (28%).
- In the 2012 election, Democratic candidates won a statewide majority of the congressional vote (50.8%) but secured only 5 of the 18 seats.
- The 2011 Plan redrew districts in a way that placed two incumbent Democratic congressmen, Mark Critz and Jason Altmire, into the same district, forcing them to run against each other in a primary.
Procedural Posture:
- The League of Women Voters and 18 Democratic voters (Petitioners) filed a lawsuit against state Executive and Legislative officials in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in June 2017.
- After the Commonwealth Court stayed the case, Petitioners filed an application for extraordinary relief with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the application, assumed plenary jurisdiction, and remanded the case to the Commonwealth Court to conduct a trial and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The Commonwealth Court held a non-jury trial and issued a report recommending that the 2011 Plan be upheld as constitutional.
- The case then returned to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for final adjudication and oral argument.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Pennsylvania's 2011 Congressional Redistricting Act, which results in significant partisan advantage by subordinating traditional neutral districting criteria, violate the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Todd
Yes. The 2011 Plan clearly, plainly, and palpably violates the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This clause, which has no federal counterpart and predates the U.S. Constitution, guarantees that all voters have an equal opportunity to translate their votes into representation. The court established a new standard for such claims, holding that a plan is unconstitutional if neutral criteria (compactness, contiguity, minimal splits of political subdivisions, and population equality) are subordinated to partisan gain. The court found compelling expert testimony demonstrating that the 2011 Plan was a statistical outlier that could not have been created by a process adhering to these traditional principles. Instead, the Plan's non-compact districts and excessive splits of counties and municipalities were designed to dilute the votes of Democratic citizens, creating a durable 13-5 Republican advantage that was unresponsive to the statewide vote.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Baer
Yes, the plan is unconstitutional, but the majority's test and remedy are flawed. The 2011 Plan violates the Free and Equal Elections Clause because it is an extreme partisan gerrymander where partisan goals predominated over all other valid criteria, resulting in vote dilution. However, the court should not impose a specific list of districting criteria on the legislature, as drawing districts is a legislative function under the U.S. Constitution. The dissent also objects strongly to the extremely short timeline given to the legislature to create a new map, viewing it as a violation of separation of powers that is likely to create chaos in the upcoming election cycle.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Saylor
No. The 2011 Plan should be upheld because redistricting is an inherently political task assigned to the legislature, not the judiciary. The majority's new rule, which imposes state-level reapportionment criteria onto federal congressional redistricting, is a non-textual judicial overreach. Courts have historically struggled to find a manageable standard to determine 'how much' partisanship is 'too much.' The majority's remedy, particularly the compressed timeline and the threat of a court-drawn map, represents an unprecedented judicial intrusion into the political process that fails to give proper deference to a co-equal branch of government.
Dissenting - Justice Mundy
No. The 2011 Plan should be upheld based on the principle of stare decisis. The Court's prior decision in Erfer v. Commonwealth held that the Free and Equal Elections Clause provides no more protection than the federal Equal Protection Clause, and the majority improperly disregards this precedent. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause explicitly grants the power to draw congressional districts to the state 'Legislature,' not the judiciary. By threatening to draw its own map, the Court is overstepping its constitutional authority under federal law.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark in state constitutional law, establishing that a state's constitution can provide an independent and potent basis for striking down partisan gerrymanders, even as federal courts have struggled to find a manageable standard. By decoupling Pennsylvania's Free and Equal Elections Clause from federal equal protection analysis, the court gave it independent force against vote dilution. The decision creates a new, state-specific legal test for gerrymandering based on the subordination of neutral criteria, setting a powerful precedent that could influence other state courts to use their own constitutions to police extreme partisan map-drawing.
