PA Court Gives Us Legislative District Confusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has given us a case of legislative-district-confusion (LDC).  The LDC disease was incubated in the court and has now spread across the commonwealth.  LDC may linger in the population for some time; the cure is currently elusive.

The PA Supreme Court declared the new legislative district lines drawn by the Redistricting Commission "contrary to law" last week.  Just as candidates began the arduous task of gathering signatures on petitions that would place them on the ballot for the newly redrawn district the Court inflicted us with LDC.  They did not specify what specifically was contrary to law.  The commission, which has the task of redrawing the lines, doesn't even know where to start.  So we have the bizarre situation of candidates circulating petitions for districts that have virtually no defined boundaries.

You would think that there would be some urgency to find a cure.  The election calendar indicates that the last day to file petitions is February 14th.  Will a decision be made by the court and the commission draw up new lines in time for candidates to meet this deadline?  In some cases districts were moved from the western side of the state to the eastern side to reflect population shifts.  (The new redrawn districts were to reflect these population shifts as revealed in the 2010 census.)  Some incumbents in the west saw their districts redrawn right out from under them.  Now I hear at least one is back in the game, circulating petitions in the hope his district will reappear. 

There is "a whole lotta of 'splainin'" to do in regards to this new disease, LDC.  The PA Supreme Court promised an opinion that would explain how the new districts are contrary to law, but at a time unspecified.  This incomplete ruling by the court is a dereliction of duty and an outrage.  If the LDC disease weren't bad enough, three justices basically said they could care less.  They took off right after this incomplete ruling to go to a bar association conference in Puerto Rico.  While this trip might further their professional development and bring some insights to other lawyers at the conference, a pressing and urgent case demands their attention.  This is why they wear the robes, and it is what they get paid for.  In my opinion, they should be FIRED (and I wish it was that easy)!  We might even ask if this is an impeachable offense. At the least, we must remember this when time to vote for retention. 

Some Democrats who did not like the redrawn districts (including those who filed suit) are suggesting that we must return to the old boundaries from last year.  Indeed, the Court's brief ruling said "the 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Plan ... shall remain in effect," until they can further expound the ruling.  One of the justice-escapees, Justice Max Baer, even inappropriately declared later, "if they [the redistricting commission] can do it in time to have the elections on these lines this year, that is fine, we are open to that. But I don't see how they can do that," he told the website.

Hold on.  The redistricting was done for a constitutional purpose.  It is intended to adjust the district lines to account for population changes.  The constitution requires "one person, one vote."  That is to say, that each of the 50 state senate districts and each of the 203 state representative districts must be as close in population as practical. Then each elected representative will be representing a like number of citizens - one person, one vote.

To maintain the status quo, the district lines, is to ignore "one person, one vote," and permit disproportionate districts.  How can the Supreme Court ignore this principle and allow disproportionate districts to go on another year or two (election cycle)?  They can't if the are doing their duty.  For now we live with the dreaded LDC disease.

PA Redistricting Back to the Drawing Board

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the new legislative redistricting plan that was to go into effect for 2012 elections.  The commission has to go back to the drawing boards.  However, the Supreme Court has not yet stated what specifically needs to change.  They just announced that it was not according to the law.  Once the Supreme Court declares what needs to be fixed the redistricting commission can go back to work.  Candidates began circulating petitions on January 24th, but this is now up in the air.  Potentially there are signatures right now on petitions from people who may not be in the new redrawn districts. Yikes! What a mess.

We've heard about the dissatisfaction about the new lines by Democrats.  This is to be expected.  The Republicans had the majority on the commission.  Every ten years as we go about this exercise the party in power flexes their muscle and draws the boundaries to best suit their interest.  I must admit my biased opinion and say that it appears that with the plan the Supreme Court rejected the Republic majority showed some restraint.  It could have easily been much worse for the Democrats.  And usually the court is loathed to rule against this legislative process. This time...Surprise!

Generally, I think most disinterested people (i.e., most of the citizens of PA) would like to take the human bias out of the redistricting process.  Other states have gone to using computer algorithms to guide the process.  Humans make the final call, but an attempt is made to be evenhanded.  There is great resistance to changing the current system by those that are invested in it: the political leaders, of both parties.

I'll tell you what is most distasteful to me and I don't hear a peep about it from media or observers.  Inevitably the lines are drawn and sometimes districts moved clear across the state to accommodate sitting legislators. I don't mean just the usual drawing of the line to capture more of your party.  I am referring to the practice of overtly considering which of the incumbents is choosing to retire or being forced out one way or another (jail sometimes!).  Then the insiders feel free to eliminate that district because it does not touch them or any of their buddies already in office.  Talk about self-serving actions.  This is it.  Clearly this type of action serves the best interest of sitting legislators, not the best interest of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

A case in point is the legislative district formerly represented by Chelsea Wagner.  Well, since she was elected to County Controller the Redistricting Commission, needing to add a district in the east because of population shifts, conveniently chose her district to shift to the east.  This move was done to protect the other sitting legislators and take advantage of the open seat left by Wagner's election to Controller.  Convenient, yes. But is it in the best interest of the citizens? No.

Now that the commission is going back to the drawing board this exact accommodation will be revisited.  Not for the better.  Democrats are complaining that Senator Jim Brewster's seat need not be moved east because there are Senators in the west who are choosing not to run again (two Republicans, by the way). I suspect there will be some deals made in this regard and it will not be for the public's best interest.  It will be in the best interest of the incumbents.