Case Law League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth

League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth

Document Cited Authorities (70) Cited in (44) Related

Andrew David Bergman, Esq., Michael Churchill, Esq., Benjamin David Geffen, Esq., Public Interest Law Center, John Arak Freedman, Esq., David Paul Gersch, Esq., Daniel Frederick Jacobson, Esq., R. Stanton Jones, Esq., Mary M. McKenzie, Esq., John Robinson, Esq., Elisabeth S. Theodore, Esq., for Petitioners.

Mark Alan Aronchick, Esq., Claudia De Palma, Esq., Michele D. Hangley, Esq., Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Thomas Paul Howell, Esq., Governors Office of General Counsel, Timothy Eugene Gates, Esq., Ian Blythe Everhart, Esq., Kathleen Marie Kotula, Esq., Pennsylvania Department of State Pennsylvania Office of General Counsel, for Governor Wolf, Robert Torres, Jonathan Marks, Respondents.

Clifford B. Levine, Esq., Alex Michael Lacey, Esq., Alice Birmingham Mitinger, Esq., Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Lazar Melton Palnick, Esq., for Lt. Governor Stack, III, Respondent.

Jonathan F. Bloom, Esq., Karl Stewart Myers, Esq., Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, L.L.P., for Pennsylvania General Assembly, Respondent.

Kathleen A. Gallagher, Esq., Carolyn Batz McGee, Esq., Russell David Giancola, Esq., Jason Raymond McLean, Esq., Cipriani & Werner, P.C., John E. Hall, Esq., Patrick T. Lewis, Esq., Robert J. Tucker, Esq., Effrem Mark Braden, Esq., for Speaker of the House Michael C. Turzai, Respondent.

Jason Torchinsky, Esq., Shawn Sheehy, Esq., John Patrick Wixted, Esq., Brian S. Paszamant, Esq., Jason Adam Snyderman, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for President Pro Tempore Joseph B. Scarnati, III, Respondent.

Lawrence J. Tabas, Esq., Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Timothy James Ford, Esq., Rebecca Lee Warren, Esq., for Brian McCann, et al, Intervenors.

Irwin William Aronson, Esq., John R. Bielski, Esq., Lauren Miller Hoye, Esq., Amy Louise Rosenberger, Esq., Ralph J. Teti, Esq., Alaine S. Williams, Esq., Willig, Williams & Davidson, for AFSCME Council 13, et al., Amicus Curiae.

Robert A. Atkins, Esq., Andrew J. Ehrlich, Esq., Nicholas Groombridge, Esq., Michael Pernick, Esq., Pietro Signoracci, Esq., Jordan Berson Yeager, Esq., Curtin & Heefner LLP, for Political Science Professors, Amicus Curiae.

Richard L. Bazelon, Esq., Bazelon Less & Feldman, P.C., for The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, Amicus Curiae.

Martin Jay Black, Esq., Dechert LLP, for Common Cause, Amicus Curiae.

Thomas M. Bondy, Esq., Hannah Garden–Monheit, Esq., Alison Melissa Kilmartin, Esq., E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Esq., for Grofman, Bernard, Amicus Curiae and Gaddie, Ronald Keith, Amicus Curiae.

Edward Diver, Esq., Peter E. Leckman, Esq., Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C., for Campaign Legal Center, Amicus Curiae.

James Christopher Martin, Esq., Traci Sands Rea, Esq., Colin Emmet Wrabley, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, for The Pittsburgh Foundation, Amicus Curiae.

Witold J. Walczak, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union, for American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae and American Civil Liberties Union, National, Amicus Curiae.

Brian Anthony Gordon, Esq. Gordon & Ashworth, P.C., for Concerned Citizens for Democracy, Amicus Curiae.

SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE TODD

It is a core principle of our republican form of government "that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around."1 In this case, Petitioners allege that the Pennsylvania Congressional Redistricting Act of 20112 (the "2011 Plan") does the latter, infringing upon that most central of democratic rights—the right to vote. Specifically, they contend that the 2011 Plan is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. While federal courts have, to date, been unable to settle on a workable standard by which to assess such claims under the federal Constitution, we find no such barriers under our great Pennsylvania charter. The people of this Commonwealth should never lose sight of the fact that, in its protection of essential rights, our founding document is the ancestor, not the offspring, of the federal Constitution. We conclude that, in this matter, it provides a constitutional standard, and remedy, even if the federal charter does not. Specifically, we hold that the 2011 Plan violates Article I, Section 5—the Free and Equal Elections Clause—of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The challenge herein was brought in June 2017 by Petitioners, the League of Women Voters3 and 18 voters—all registered Democrats, one from each of our state's congressional districts—against Governor Thomas W. Wolf, Lieutenant Governor Michael J. Stack, III, Secretary Robert Torres, and Commissioner Jonathan M. Marks (collectively, "Executive Respondents"), and the General Assembly, Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph B. Scarnati, III, and House Speaker Michael C. Turzai (collectively, "Legislative Respondents").4 5 Petitioners alleged that the 2011 Plan violated several provisions of our state Constitution.

On January 22, 2018, this Court entered a per curiam order6 agreeing with Petitioners, and deeming the 2011 Plan to "clearly, plainly and palpably violate[ ]" our state Constitution, and so enjoined its further use.7 See Order, 1/22/18. We further provided that, if the General Assembly and the Governor did not enact a remedial plan by February 15, 2018, this Court would choose a remedial plan. For those endeavors, we set forth the criteria to be applied in measuring the constitutionality of any remedial plan, holding that:

any congressional districting plan shall 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, 1/22/18, ¶ "Fourth."8 Our Order indicated that an opinion would follow. This is that Opinion, and we emphasize that, while explicating our rationale, nothing in this Opinion is intended to conflict with, or in any way alter, the mandate set forth in our Order of January 22, 2018.9

I. Background
A. Redistricting Mandate

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires that a census be taken every 10 years for the purpose of apportioning the United States House of Representatives. Following the 2010 federal census, Pennsylvania's share in the House was reduced from 19 to 18 members.10 As a result, the Commonwealth was required to redraw its congressional district map.

Pennsylvania's congressional districts are drawn by the state legislature as a regular statute, subject to veto by the Governor.11 While this process is dictated by federal law, it is delegated to the states. The federal Constitution's Elections Clause provides that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof," unless Congress should "make or alter such Regulations." U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. Pursuant to the Elections Clause, Congress passed 2 U.S.C. § 2a, which provides that, following the decennial census and reapportionment, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall "send to the executive of each State a certificate of the number of Representatives to which such State is entitled" and the state shall be redistricted "in the manner provided by the law thereof." 2 U.S.C. § 2a. If the state does not do so, Representatives are to be elected as further provided in Section 2a.12

B. Plan Passage

The 2011 Plan, Senate Bill 1249, was enacted on December 22, 2011, setting forth Pennsylvania's 18 congressional districts.13 In the November 2010 general election, voters elected Republicans to majorities in both houses of the General Assembly and elected a Republican, Tom Corbett, as Governor. Thus, in 2011, the Republican-led General Assembly was tasked with reconstituting Pennsylvania's congressional districts, reducing their number by one, and adjusting their borders in light of population changes reflected by the 2010 Census. On May 11, June 9, and June 14, 2011, the Pennsylvania House and Senate State Government Committees held hearings on the subject of redistricting, for the ostensible purpose of receiving testimony and public comment on the subject of redistricting generally. On September 14, 2011, Senate Bill 1249, Printer's Number 1520, principally sponsored by the Republican leadership, was introduced, but contained absolutely no information concerning the boundaries of any congressional districts. On December 7, 2011, the bill was brought up for first consideration, and, on December 11, 2011, for second consideration.

Thereafter, the bill was referred to the Senate State Government Committee, where, on December 14, 2011, it was amended and reprinted as Senate Bill 1249, Printer's Number 1862, now providing proposed boundaries for each of Pennsylvania's 18 congressional districts, before being reported...

5 cases
Document | Pennsylvania Supreme Court – 2022
Carter v. Chapman
"... ... , in her Official Capacity as the Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Jessica Mathis, in her Official Capacity as Director for ... plan, this Court was tasked with that "unwelcome obligation." League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth , 645 Pa. 1, 178 A.3d ... "
Document | North Carolina Supreme Court – 2022
Harper v. Hall
"... ... ; and Damon Circosta, in his official capacity North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc.; Henry M. Michaux, Jr.; Dandrielle Lewis; ... League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Pennsylvania , 645 Pa. 1, 178 A.3d 737, 804 (2018) ... to end "the dilution of the right of the people of [the] Commonwealth to select representatives to govern their affairs," League of Women ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Supreme Court – 2021
Commonwealth v. Talley
"... ... or presumption great." But in the 1998 general election, a majority of Pennsylvania's voters approved an amendment that added new language to Article I, Section 14, the relevant portion of ... states that have identical or similar provisions, which may be helpful and persuasive." League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth , 645 Pa. 1, 178 A.3d 737, 803 (2018). i. The meaning of "proof is ... "
Document | Wisconsin Supreme Court – 2021
Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n
"... ... , Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, Voces de la Frontera, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Cindy Fallona, Lauren Stephenson, Rebecca ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court – 2022
Crawford v. Commonwealth
"... ... of certain fundamental rights reserved to the people in Article I of our Constitution." League of Women Voters v. Com. , 645 Pa. 1, 178 A.3d 737, 803 (2018). Citing Ortiz , the Majority ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 46 Núm. 1, January 2023 – 2023
LIQUIDATING THE INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATURE THEORY.
"...Erfer v. Commonwealth, 794 A.2d 325 (Pa. 2002); Parella v. Montalbano, 899 A.2d 1226 (R.I. 2006); League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737 (Pa. 2018); Pearson v. Koster, 359 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. 2012); League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner, 172 So.3d 363 (Fla. 2015); Johnson v...."
Document | Núm. 55-1, 2020
The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions
"...(2015) (upholding the constitutionality of Arizona's independent redistricting commission).14. See League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737, 801-02 (Pa. 2018) (holding that the state's redistricting plan violated the state constitution's "Free and Equal Elections Clause").15. Se..."
Document | Núm. 111-4, April 2023 – 2023
The Rise of the Hal-mander: Is Gerrymandering by Algorithm the Next Frontier of Partisan Gerrymandering?
"...an admission of partisan intent and statistical analysis of thousands of simulated maps); League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737, 821 (Pa. 2018) (concluding gerrymander was partisan when statistical analysis of simulated maps showed traditional districting principles we..."
Document | Núm. 68-6, 2019
Partisan Gerrymandering and the Constitutionalization of Statistics
"...138 S. Ct. 2679 (2018); Whitford v. Gill, 218 F. Supp. 3d 837, 927 (W.D. Wis. 2016); League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737, 741 (Pa. 2018). 15. See infra Section I.B.16. See, e.g., Benisek v. Lamone, 266 F. Supp. 3d 799, 801 (D. Md. 2017).17. 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018). Th..."
Document | Vol. 130 Núm. 5, March 2021 – 2021
Prison Malapportionment: Forging a New Path for State Courts.
"...Jurisdiction, Holbrook v. Pennsylvania, No. 184 MD 2020 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Feb. 26, 2020). (187.) See League of Women Voters v. Pennsylvania, 178 A.3d 737 (Pa. (188.) Petition for Review, supra note 186, at 3 (citing 25 PA. CONS. STAT. [section] 1302(a)(3) (1970)). (189.) Id. at 35. (190.) Id...."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 46 Núm. 1, January 2023 – 2023
LIQUIDATING THE INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATURE THEORY.
"...Erfer v. Commonwealth, 794 A.2d 325 (Pa. 2002); Parella v. Montalbano, 899 A.2d 1226 (R.I. 2006); League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737 (Pa. 2018); Pearson v. Koster, 359 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. 2012); League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner, 172 So.3d 363 (Fla. 2015); Johnson v...."
Document | Núm. 55-1, 2020
The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions
"...(2015) (upholding the constitutionality of Arizona's independent redistricting commission).14. See League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737, 801-02 (Pa. 2018) (holding that the state's redistricting plan violated the state constitution's "Free and Equal Elections Clause").15. Se..."
Document | Núm. 111-4, April 2023 – 2023
The Rise of the Hal-mander: Is Gerrymandering by Algorithm the Next Frontier of Partisan Gerrymandering?
"...an admission of partisan intent and statistical analysis of thousands of simulated maps); League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737, 821 (Pa. 2018) (concluding gerrymander was partisan when statistical analysis of simulated maps showed traditional districting principles we..."
Document | Núm. 68-6, 2019
Partisan Gerrymandering and the Constitutionalization of Statistics
"...138 S. Ct. 2679 (2018); Whitford v. Gill, 218 F. Supp. 3d 837, 927 (W.D. Wis. 2016); League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737, 741 (Pa. 2018). 15. See infra Section I.B.16. See, e.g., Benisek v. Lamone, 266 F. Supp. 3d 799, 801 (D. Md. 2017).17. 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018). Th..."
Document | Vol. 130 Núm. 5, March 2021 – 2021
Prison Malapportionment: Forging a New Path for State Courts.
"...Jurisdiction, Holbrook v. Pennsylvania, No. 184 MD 2020 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Feb. 26, 2020). (187.) See League of Women Voters v. Pennsylvania, 178 A.3d 737 (Pa. (188.) Petition for Review, supra note 186, at 3 (citing 25 PA. CONS. STAT. [section] 1302(a)(3) (1970)). (189.) Id. at 35. (190.) Id...."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Pennsylvania Supreme Court – 2022
Carter v. Chapman
"... ... , in her Official Capacity as the Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Jessica Mathis, in her Official Capacity as Director for ... plan, this Court was tasked with that "unwelcome obligation." League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth , 645 Pa. 1, 178 A.3d ... "
Document | North Carolina Supreme Court – 2022
Harper v. Hall
"... ... ; and Damon Circosta, in his official capacity North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc.; Henry M. Michaux, Jr.; Dandrielle Lewis; ... League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Pennsylvania , 645 Pa. 1, 178 A.3d 737, 804 (2018) ... to end "the dilution of the right of the people of [the] Commonwealth to select representatives to govern their affairs," League of Women ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Supreme Court – 2021
Commonwealth v. Talley
"... ... or presumption great." But in the 1998 general election, a majority of Pennsylvania's voters approved an amendment that added new language to Article I, Section 14, the relevant portion of ... states that have identical or similar provisions, which may be helpful and persuasive." League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth , 645 Pa. 1, 178 A.3d 737, 803 (2018). i. The meaning of "proof is ... "
Document | Wisconsin Supreme Court – 2021
Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n
"... ... , Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, Voces de la Frontera, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Cindy Fallona, Lauren Stephenson, Rebecca ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court – 2022
Crawford v. Commonwealth
"... ... of certain fundamental rights reserved to the people in Article I of our Constitution." League of Women Voters v. Com. , 645 Pa. 1, 178 A.3d 737, 803 (2018). Citing Ortiz , the Majority ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex