Pa. redistricting case may set path for U.S. on role of politicsBy Amy Worden
Published December 10th 2003
HARRISBURG - Less than a year before the 2002 general election, state Republicans presented their new map of Pennsylvania's congressional districts.
It was immediately apparent the map would shake the political landscape, and it did: Two longtime Democratic congressmen lost their jobs that fall, and Republicans dominated the new delegation sent to Washington earlier this year.
Angry Democrats challenged the new map in court, arguing it was the result of blatant partisan gerrymandering.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in that case, which will determine how big a role party politics can play in the drawing of voting districts. Legal experts say that it ranks among the most important cases the court has considered in the realm of politics in the last half-century - and that its decision will shape the electoral process for decades.
"Either way the court rules, it will determine the rules of competition for the foreseeable future," said Nathaniel Persily, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor and a leading expert on election law. "That is, whether legislatures can manipulate [district] lines with abandon or whether the courts will become entrenched players in the redistricting controversy."
In 1986, the Supreme Court, which has historically ruled legislators may not discriminate on the basis of race in redistricting, held that some political influence is acceptable in partisan redistricting. But the court was not specific about what constitutes partisan gerrymandering.
Now the questions are: How much is too much partisan influence, and who, if anyone, should police the political parties drawing the maps?
State Republicans argue the judiciary should not decide such claims because the redistricting process is inherently political.
"Political matters ought to be decided by the political branches," said John Knorr, chief deputy attorney general, who is representing the state executive leaders in the case.
The court should intervene only in the most egregious cases where the democratic process has broken down, Knorr said.
But Democrats say the current state map meets that test. In their brief, the appellants called the map the result of "gerrymandering so severe that it threatens fundamental constitutional principle of majority rule."
The Pennsylvania dispute was ignited by the map drawn by the Republican legislature and approved by then-Gov. Mark Schweiker, a Republican, after the 2000 census.
In April 2002, a federal panel found the original Pennsylvania map unconstitutional. The court said the unequal-size districts violated the federal mandate of "one man, one vote," but it was allowed to remain in place through the November election.
Republican lawmakers responded by altering some of the districts slightly to balance the population distribution, and that plan, upheld by the federal court, is now being challenged by the Democrats.
Before 2002, Pennsylvania's legislative districts were uniform and contiguous. The new Republican map sliced through counties, townships and neighborhoods, leaving oddly shaped districts resembling half-finished jigsaw puzzles.
In one district, southeast of Pittsburgh, the new line ran down the middle of the street where then-U.S. Rep. Frank Mascara, a Democrat, lived.
Democrats say the bizarre district shapes reflect the partisan process that shifted the balance of Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress.
Before the November 2002 election, the state's almost evenly divided electorate voted in 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats. After the state lost two seats because of declining population, Pennsylvania voters elected 12 Republicans and seven Democrats.
Here's why: The Republican plan paired three sets of Democratic incumbents and placed a fourth Democratic incumbent in a district drawn to favor a senior Republican incumbent. They also drew two new open seats for two Republican state senators to run in.
"When you calculatedly 'pack and crack' districts all the way across the state, it says to Democrats, you devalue my vote," said Robert Hoffman, a counsel for the plaintiffs.
The reshaped districts effectively ended the careers of veteran Pennsylvania lawmaker Mascara, who was defeated by fellow incumbent Democrat Frank Murtha, and Rep. Robert Borski, who decided to retire rather than run against fellow Democratic incumbent Joseph Hoeffel.
Borski, the senior Democrat on an important House transportation subcommittee, said the plan ultimately hurts the state in Washington.
"The guy who took my spot on the committee is from Illinois," he said. "He's going to be sure to take care of his state."
Attorneys for the Democrats are asking the court to establish neutral criteria for determining the shape of future districts.
"We hope the court will clarify what it said 17 years ago - that there is a limit on how far you go to protect partisan goals when redrawing district maps," said Paul Smith, an attorney with Jenner & Block representing the plaintiffs, Richard and Norma Jean Vieth of Lancaster County and Susan Furey of Montgomery County. "Legislators in a number of states, including Pennsylvania and Texas, will be in office because of partisan gerrymandering, not because they were elected by a majority of the people."
The Pennsylvania Democrats' original lawsuit, filed when Schweiker was in office, has placed Gov. Rendell in the awkward position of being a defendant in a case brought by his own party.
In a letter to the court, Rendell said he declined to file a brief because the legislation creating the districts was signed into law before he took office.
"Had Gov. Rendell been in office it is highly unlikely the congressional districts would be described as they are," wrote Rendell's chief counsel, Leslie Anne Miller.
The high court is not expected to rule in the case until after the state's April 27 congressional primaries.
If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, other states will flood the court with requests to strike down their maps, Persily said.
The most notable case is Texas, where Republicans won approval of a redistricting plan that Democrats say could endanger several of their 17 congressional seats.
The Texas House Democratic caucus filed a brief in support of the Pennsylvania Democrats, saying their case also demonstrates the need for the Supreme Court to clarify constitutional restraints on partisan redistricting.
Persily said political parties in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois and Maryland also will likely file suits seeking to invalidate their maps.
It was immediately apparent the map would shake the political landscape, and it did: Two longtime Democratic congressmen lost their jobs that fall, and Republicans dominated the new delegation sent to Washington earlier this year.
Angry Democrats challenged the new map in court, arguing it was the result of blatant partisan gerrymandering.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in that case, which will determine how big a role party politics can play in the drawing of voting districts. Legal experts say that it ranks among the most important cases the court has considered in the realm of politics in the last half-century - and that its decision will shape the electoral process for decades.
"Either way the court rules, it will determine the rules of competition for the foreseeable future," said Nathaniel Persily, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor and a leading expert on election law. "That is, whether legislatures can manipulate [district] lines with abandon or whether the courts will become entrenched players in the redistricting controversy."
In 1986, the Supreme Court, which has historically ruled legislators may not discriminate on the basis of race in redistricting, held that some political influence is acceptable in partisan redistricting. But the court was not specific about what constitutes partisan gerrymandering.
Now the questions are: How much is too much partisan influence, and who, if anyone, should police the political parties drawing the maps?
State Republicans argue the judiciary should not decide such claims because the redistricting process is inherently political.
"Political matters ought to be decided by the political branches," said John Knorr, chief deputy attorney general, who is representing the state executive leaders in the case.
The court should intervene only in the most egregious cases where the democratic process has broken down, Knorr said.
But Democrats say the current state map meets that test. In their brief, the appellants called the map the result of "gerrymandering so severe that it threatens fundamental constitutional principle of majority rule."
The Pennsylvania dispute was ignited by the map drawn by the Republican legislature and approved by then-Gov. Mark Schweiker, a Republican, after the 2000 census.
In April 2002, a federal panel found the original Pennsylvania map unconstitutional. The court said the unequal-size districts violated the federal mandate of "one man, one vote," but it was allowed to remain in place through the November election.
Republican lawmakers responded by altering some of the districts slightly to balance the population distribution, and that plan, upheld by the federal court, is now being challenged by the Democrats.
Before 2002, Pennsylvania's legislative districts were uniform and contiguous. The new Republican map sliced through counties, townships and neighborhoods, leaving oddly shaped districts resembling half-finished jigsaw puzzles.
In one district, southeast of Pittsburgh, the new line ran down the middle of the street where then-U.S. Rep. Frank Mascara, a Democrat, lived.
Democrats say the bizarre district shapes reflect the partisan process that shifted the balance of Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress.
Before the November 2002 election, the state's almost evenly divided electorate voted in 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats. After the state lost two seats because of declining population, Pennsylvania voters elected 12 Republicans and seven Democrats.
Here's why: The Republican plan paired three sets of Democratic incumbents and placed a fourth Democratic incumbent in a district drawn to favor a senior Republican incumbent. They also drew two new open seats for two Republican state senators to run in.
"When you calculatedly 'pack and crack' districts all the way across the state, it says to Democrats, you devalue my vote," said Robert Hoffman, a counsel for the plaintiffs.
The reshaped districts effectively ended the careers of veteran Pennsylvania lawmaker Mascara, who was defeated by fellow incumbent Democrat Frank Murtha, and Rep. Robert Borski, who decided to retire rather than run against fellow Democratic incumbent Joseph Hoeffel.
Borski, the senior Democrat on an important House transportation subcommittee, said the plan ultimately hurts the state in Washington.
"The guy who took my spot on the committee is from Illinois," he said. "He's going to be sure to take care of his state."
Attorneys for the Democrats are asking the court to establish neutral criteria for determining the shape of future districts.
"We hope the court will clarify what it said 17 years ago - that there is a limit on how far you go to protect partisan goals when redrawing district maps," said Paul Smith, an attorney with Jenner & Block representing the plaintiffs, Richard and Norma Jean Vieth of Lancaster County and Susan Furey of Montgomery County. "Legislators in a number of states, including Pennsylvania and Texas, will be in office because of partisan gerrymandering, not because they were elected by a majority of the people."
The Pennsylvania Democrats' original lawsuit, filed when Schweiker was in office, has placed Gov. Rendell in the awkward position of being a defendant in a case brought by his own party.
In a letter to the court, Rendell said he declined to file a brief because the legislation creating the districts was signed into law before he took office.
"Had Gov. Rendell been in office it is highly unlikely the congressional districts would be described as they are," wrote Rendell's chief counsel, Leslie Anne Miller.
The high court is not expected to rule in the case until after the state's April 27 congressional primaries.
If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, other states will flood the court with requests to strike down their maps, Persily said.
The most notable case is Texas, where Republicans won approval of a redistricting plan that Democrats say could endanger several of their 17 congressional seats.
The Texas House Democratic caucus filed a brief in support of the Pennsylvania Democrats, saying their case also demonstrates the need for the Supreme Court to clarify constitutional restraints on partisan redistricting.
Persily said political parties in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois and Maryland also will likely file suits seeking to invalidate their maps.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.