League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Upholding the Free and Equal Elections Clause Against Partisan Gerrymandering

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Upholding the Free and Equal Elections Clause Against Partisan Gerrymandering

Introduction

In the landmark case League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania delivered a pivotal decision addressing the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 (the "2011 Plan"). The Petitioners, including the League of Women Voters and registered Democratic voters from each congressional district, challenged the Plan on the grounds that it constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The Respondents, comprising state officials and Republican leaders, defended the legitimacy of the redistricting process. This commentary delves into the Court's comprehensive analysis, its adherence to the Pennsylvania Constitution's provisions, and the broader implications of the ruling on democratic representation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, led by Justice Todd, concluded that the 2011 Plan violated Article I, Section 5—the Free and Equal Elections Clause—of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Petitioners argued that the redistricting Act favored Republicans by diluting Democratic voters' influence through tactics like "cracking" (splitting concentrated Democratic areas into multiple districts) and "packing" (concentrating Democratic voters into a few districts where their votes are less impactful). Despite federal courts' struggles to establish clear standards for assessing partisan gerrymandering under the federal Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution provided a workable framework for evaluating such claims. The Court found that the 2011 Plan subordinated traditional districting criteria—compactness, contiguity, and preservation of political subdivisions—to partisan objectives, thereby undermining voters' equal representation rights.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several key precedents to bolster its decision:

  • Mitchell N. Berman, Managing Gerrymandering, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 781 (2005) - Highlighting the complexities of addressing partisan gerrymandering.
  • GROWE v. EMISON, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) - Affirming states' primary role in redistricting while allowing judicial intervention when necessary.
  • VIETH v. JUBELIRER, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) - Discussing the justiciability of partisan gerrymandering claims under the Equal Protection Clause.
  • BUTCHER v. BLOOM, 415 Pa. 438 (1964) - Establishing procedural standards for redistricting remedies when the legislature fails to act.

These precedents collectively underscored the judiciary's role in ensuring fair representation and the limits of legislative authority in redistricting.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning was grounded in the Pennsylvania Constitution's explicit mandate for "free and equal" elections. By dissecting the 2011 Plan, the Court identified numerous instances where Democratic voters were strategically disadvantaged:

  • Cracking: Democratic strongholds were divided into multiple districts, diluting their voting power.
  • Packing: Concentrating Democratic voters into a few districts where their votes were less impactful, ensuring Republican dominance in the majority.
  • Irregular District Shapes: Districts like the 7th were criticized for their convoluted boundaries, which served partisan ends rather than complying with traditional districting principles.

Expert testimonies, particularly from Dr. Jowei Chen and Dr. Christopher Warshaw, provided statistical evidence that the 2011 Plan was an outlier, favoring Republicans beyond what could be attributed to natural political geography or legitimate constituency considerations.

The Court emphasized that while redistricting inherently involves political considerations, the extent to which partisan intent overrides impartial districting criteria can render a plan unconstitutional. The Major points of contention revolved around whether traditional criteria like population equality and district compactness were met and whether their subordination to partisan goals was deliberate and excessive.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future redistricting efforts in Pennsylvania and potentially other jurisdictions with similar constitutional provisions. By affirming that state constitutions can provide actionable standards against partisan gerrymandering, the decision empowers citizen groups and courts to more effectively challenge unfair districting practices.

Moreover, the ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding democratic principles, ensuring that electoral processes remain unbiased and representative. It sets a precedent for utilizing state constitutional clauses to address issues where federal standards may be insufficient or unclear.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Partisan Gerrymandering: The manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor one political party over another, typically through "cracking" and "packing" techniques.

Cracking: Splitting a concentrated voting group into multiple districts to dilute their voting power across several representatives.

Packing: Concentrating a voting group into a single district to reduce their influence in other districts.

Free and Equal Elections Clause: A provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution mandating that elections be conducted fairly, with each vote having equal weight, and prohibiting any interference that would undermine this equality.

Efficiency Gap: A metric used to measure partisan advantage in electoral maps by calculating the number of "wasted" votes for each party, indicating potential gerrymandering.

Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania marks a significant victory against partisan gerrymandering, upholding the state's commitment to "free and equal" elections as enshrined in its Constitution. By meticulously analyzing the 2011 Plan and leveraging expert testimony, the Court reaffirmed the judiciary's essential role in maintaining electoral fairness and preventing legislative overreach.

This ruling not only rectifies an unjust redistricting map but also sets a robust framework for future challenges to partisan manipulation in electoral processes. It underscores the importance of adhering to traditional districting principles and reinforces the principle that every voter's influence should remain equal and uncompromised in the democratic system.

Case Details

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA, CARMEN FEBO SAN MIGUEL, JAMES SOLOMON, JOHN GREINER, JOHN CAPOWSKI, GRETCHEN BRANDT, THOMAS RENTSCHLER, MARY ELIZABETH LAWN, LISA ISAACS, DON LANCASTER, JORDI COMAS, ROBERT SMITH, WILLIAM MARX, RICHARD MANTELL, PRISCILLA MCNULTY, THOMAS ULRICH, ROBERT MCKINSTRY, MARK LICHTY, LORRAINE PETROSKY, Petitioners v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; THE PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY; THOMAS W. WOLF, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; MICHAEL J. STACK III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA AND PRESIDENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SENATE; MICHAEL C. TURZAI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; JOSEPH B. SCARNATI III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PENNSYLVANIA SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE; ROBERT TORRES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; JONATHAN M. MARKS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF COMMISSIONS, ELECTIONS, AND LEGISLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Respondents
Year: 2018
Court: SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

Judge(s)

JUSTICE TODD

Attorney(S)

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.

Comments