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.