League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth
175 A.3d 282 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 clearly, plainly, and palpably violated the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, rendering it unconstitutional for use in future elections.
Facts:
- The Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011, establishing the electoral boundaries for the state’s seats in the United States House of Representatives.
- The congressional districts created by the 2011 Act were alleged to be unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- A special election for Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District was scheduled for March 13, 2018, which would proceed under the existing 2011 districts.
- The primary election for May 15, 2018, was approaching, requiring candidates to campaign and organize within the existing district boundaries.
- Voters, candidates, and political parties had been operating under the 2011 congressional map for several years since its enactment.
Procedural Posture:
- A Petition for Review was filed, challenging the constitutionality of the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011.
- The Commonwealth Court (a lower state appellate court) developed an evidentiary record and made proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the challenge.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania assumed extraordinary jurisdiction over the matter (bypassing the usual appellate route through the intermediate appellate court).
- Oral arguments were presented to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on January 17, 2018.
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 the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 clearly, plainly, and palpably violate the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, making it unconstitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 clearly, plainly, and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Court found as a matter of law that the Act was unconstitutional and enjoined its further use in elections for Pennsylvania seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, starting with the May 15, 2018, primary. The Court ordered the Pennsylvania General Assembly to submit a new congressional districting plan by February 9, 2018, for the Governor's approval. If the Assembly failed to do so or the Governor did not approve, the Court would expeditiously adopt a plan based on the evidentiary record. The Court also specified that any new plan must 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. The Court retained jurisdiction and noted that a full opinion would follow.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Baer
Yes, Justice Baer concurred with the conclusion that the districts set forth by the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 are unconstitutional and joined the Court's invitation for the Legislature and Governor to craft constitutional maps, acknowledging redistricting as a legislative function. However, Justice Baer dissented from the directive that the primary election proceed with new maps on May 15, 2018. Citing Butcher v. Bloom, Justice Baer argued that implementing a new map so close to the primary risks 'serious disruption of orderly state election processes and basic governmental functions.' Concerns were raised about candidates who have been campaigning for months no longer living in their districts, potential voter confusion, the special election in the 18th Congressional District, and the immense pressure and likely litigation that the compressed timeline would face. Justice Baer also disfavored moving the primary election, suggesting that applying the holding to the 2020 election cycle would allow ample time for compliance and reduce voter confusion.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Saylor
No, Chief Justice Saylor dissented from the Court's decision to upset the districts in such an extraordinarily compressed fashion without clarifying constitutional standards. He argued that the Court should have stayed the matter pending guidance from the United States Supreme Court in Gill v. Whitford and Rucho v. Common Cause, noting recent federal court stays in similar cases. Chief Justice Saylor emphasized that crafting congressional district boundaries is a 'quintessentially political endeavor' assigned to state legislatures by the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 4). He highlighted traditional redistricting criteria such as avoiding pitting incumbents against each other, maintaining the cores of prior districts, and preserving communities of interest, citing Karcher v. Daggett and Evenwel v. Abbott. He concluded that legislators are in a superior position to address such interests and that the Court should have exercised restraint, particularly given the timing of the challenge to a 2011 plan and the proximity of the 2018 election cycle.
Dissenting - Justice Mundy
No, Justice Mundy joined Chief Justice Saylor's dissenting statement and additionally expressed concern with the vagueness of the Court’s order. Justice Mundy argued that despite declaring the 2011 map unconstitutional, the Court failed to identify the specific provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution it violated. This vagueness was problematic because the parties raised several state constitutional claims (Speech Clause, Free Association Clause, Elections Clause, and Equal Protection Clause), each requiring a different mode of analysis. Justice Mundy believed this lack of specificity failed to provide essential guidance to the General Assembly, the Governor, or the Court itself on how to create a constitutional map. Furthermore, Justice Mundy was troubled by striking down the map so close to the midterm elections and viewed the implication that the Court might draw its own map as raising a serious federal constitutional concern under the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause (Art. I, § 4, cl. 1), citing Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redist. Comm’n. For these reasons, Justice Mundy found the Court's approach imprudent.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant assertion of state judicial power in the realm of redistricting, particularly in declaring a legislative map unconstitutional under state law without explicit guidance from federal courts on partisan gerrymandering. It sets a precedent for state supreme courts to intervene in the legislative function of drawing electoral maps, especially when those maps are deemed to 'clearly, plainly and palpably' violate the state constitution. The order also highlights the tension between judicial remedies and the practical realities of election administration, as demonstrated by the dissenting and concurring opinions regarding the timing and feasibility of implementing new maps. Future cases will likely refer to the criteria for a constitutional redistricting plan laid out by the Court, emphasizing compactness, contiguity, population equality, and minimizing the division of political subdivisions.
