1991 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Com'n, In re
| Decision Date | 29 June 1992 |
| Parties | In re 1991 PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Joe Gambescia, John J. Gambescia, Philadelphia, for petitioners in No. 191 E.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Stephen J. Harmelin, David H. Pittinsky, Laurence S. Shtasel, Barbara A. Brown, Philadelphia, for Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Com'n [at all cases].
Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Atty. Gen. [at all cases].
Arthur Levy, Media, David E. Landau, Philadelphia, for petitioner in No. 200 E.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Russell Walker, pro se.
Ken Gormley, Executive Director, Legislative, Reapportionment Com'n, Harrisburg, Barbara A. Brown, Stephen J. Harmelin, Dilworth Paxson Kalish & Kauffman, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent in No. 124 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Anthony J. Martin, Martin and Martin, P.C., Monroeville, for petitioner in 132 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Stephen J. Harmelin, David H. Pittinsky, Barbara A. Brown, Philadelphia, Robert J. Cindrich, Chairman, Com. of Pa., Pa. Legislative Reapportionment Com'n, Harrisburg, for respondent in No. 132 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Jack W. Connor, Uniontown, for petitioner in No. 134 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Barbara A. Brown, Stephen J. Harmelin, Dilworth Paxson Kalish & Kauffman, Philadelphia, for respondent in 134, 135, 137, 141 and 138 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Thomas Rabbitt Zajac, Uniontown, for petitioner in No. 135 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
James T. Davis, John Purcell, Davis & Davis, Uniontown, for petitioner in No. 136 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Robert J. Cindrich, Chairman Commonwealth of Pa., Pa. Legislative Reapportionment Com'n, Harrisburg, Stephen J. Harmelin, Barbara A. Brown, Philadelphia, for respondent in No. 136 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Dante G. Bertani, Greensburg, for petitioner in No. 137 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Dante G. Bertani, Greensburg, for petitioner in No. 141 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
John H. Broujos, Carlisle, for petitioner in No. 50 M.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Arthur Selikoff, Andrew S. Gordon, Harrisburg, for petitioner in No. 52 M.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Angelo T. Almonti, Allentown, for petitioner in No. 53 M.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Frederick E. Charles, County Sol., Thomas M. Caffrey, Deputy County Sol., for petitioner in No. 54 M.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
William H. Lamb, West Chester, David Norcross, Washington, D.C., for petitioner in No. 56 M.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Andrew S. Gordon, Aruthur Selifoff, Harrisburg, F. Joseph Loeper, Drexel Hill, for petitioner in No. 57 M.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Emory W. Buck, Lansdale, for petitioner in No. 196 E.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
John Randolph Prince, III, Philadelphia, for petitioner in No. 197 E.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
J. Matthew Wolfe, Philadelphia, for petitioner in No. 199 E.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Mary F. Platt, Philadelphia, David Norcross, Washington, D.C., for petitioner in No. 201 E.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Donald R. Walko, Jr., Pittsburgh, for petitioner in No. 133 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Dennis J. Miller, Michael J. Mortimer, Pittsburgh, for petitioner in No. 138 W.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Nicholas Sellers, Villanova, David F.A. Norcross, Linda A. Long, Washington, D.C., for petitioner in No. 190 E.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Bruce S. Marks, Philadelphia, for petitioner in No. 194 E.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
William E. Miller, Jr., Donald M. Lewis, III, Harrisburg, for petitioner in No. 49 M.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Eric B. Schnurer, Philadelphia, for petitioner No. 51 M.D. Misc. Docket 1991.
Before NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ.
AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 1992, pursuant to Article 2, Section 17(d) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, this Court, after consideration of the objections raised in the above-captioned petitions, finds that the Final Plan of the 1991 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission is not contrary to law, and the Petitions for Review are denied.
The deadline of February 18, 1992 for filing of nominating petitions is hereby extended until the close of business hours on Friday, March 6, 1992.
It is further ordered that as to the nominating signatures acquired prior to the date of this order, the same shall be deemed valid as to timeliness, subject, however, to any other statutory challenge.
Opinions will follow.
LARSEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of these cases.
FLAHERTY, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of Nos. 190, 194, 196, 199 and 201 E.D. Misc. Dkt. 1991; Nos. 49 and 51 M.D. Misc. Dkt. 1991; and No. 138 W.D. Misc. Dkt. 1991.
PAPADAKOS, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of Nos. 190, 194, 196, 199 and 201 E.D. Misc. Dkt. 1991; Nos. 49 and 51 M.D. Misc. Dkt. 1991; and No. 138 W.D. Misc. Dkt. 1991.
The Reapportionment Plan at issue is the third reapportionment plan since the 1968 amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution that created the Legislative Reapportionment Commission. See Pa. Const. Art. II § 17.
The Legislative Reapportionment Commission consists of five members. Id. The majority and minority leaders of the House and the Senate, or their appointed deputies, choose the fifth member of the Commission as its chair. Id. If the Commission cannot agree on a chair, the Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution to appoint the chair. Id. 1 The Commission acts by a majority of its members. Id.
On September 25, 1991, a majority of the Commission adopted the preliminary Legislative Reapportionment Plan. After objections were filed by the petitioners and publicly heard at a meeting on October 9, 1991, the Commission adopted the final plan on November 15, 1991. That plan is now the subject of our review. Pursuant to Subsection 17(d) of Article II of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the above-captioned appellants filed appeals to this Court within thirty days. See Pa. Const. Art. II § 17. On January 25, 1992, oral argument was heard on twenty-three matters, and two matters were submitted on the briefs.
On February 14, 1992, this Court entered an order that the Final Plan was not contrary to the law and denied the appeals. In that order we stated that an opinion would follow. 2
The present issues before this Court are whether the Final Plan comports with the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions and the Voting Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1971, et seq. Twenty-five appellants raise a number of similar issues regarding different counties and representative and senatorial districts. These issues may be characterized in the following ways:
1) Did the Reapportionment Commission violate the constitutional requirement of compactness and contiguity and equality of population and the prohibition against the division of political subdivisions unless absolutely necessary?
2) Did the Reapportionment Commission's Final Plan violate Federal Constitutional law by depriving various appellants of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
3) Does the Plan fail for lack of an effective date, or in the alternative, may the court declare the effective date?
4) Is the Reapportionment Commission prohibited from renumbering even-numbered Senatorial Districts in a year in which odd-numbered seats are elected, in order to avoid the possibility of a special election?
5) Does the Final Plan reflect political gerrymandering which deprives two aspirants of their rights to run for office in their former districts?
6) Did the Final Plan violate provisions of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1971, et seq.?
7) May this Court order Discovery of the Commission members to determine motives for the Reapportionment Plan?
The Constitution of this Commonwealth directs this Court to entertain appeals from any aggrieved person within thirty days of the filing of the final plan. Pa. Const. Art. II § 17(d). "If the appellant establishes that the final plan is contrary to law, the Supreme Court shall issue an order remanding the plan to the commission and directing the commission to reapportion the Commonwealth in a manner not inconsistent with such order." Id. (emphasis added). As the Constitution clearly states, and as we have held in the past, "to prevail in their challenge to the final reapportionment plan, appellants have the burden of establishing not ... that there exists an alternative plan which is 'preferable' or 'better', but rather that the final plan filed by the Pennsylvania Reapportionment Commission fails to meet constitutional requirements." In re Reapportionment Plan for Pennsylvania General Assembly, 497 Pa. 525, 532, 442 A.2d 661, 665 (1981); see also Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 750-51, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 2330-31, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973) ( ).
Our Constitution empowers the Legislative Reapportionment Commission to reapportion the Commonwealth. Furthermore, this Court may only undertake to reapportion the Commonwealth if the Commission has not filed a plan within the constitutionally prescribed time limits, Pa. Const. Art. II § 17(g); absent that, this Court may only remand an unconstitutional plan back to the Commission for redrafting. Id. at § 17(d).
In the landmark decision recognizing the link between state legislative apportionment and the right to equal protection under the laws of the states in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n
...as November 15, 1991, twenty-seven days sooner than the 2011 Final Plan was filed. See In re 1991 Pa. Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 530 Pa. 335, 609 A.2d 132, 135 (Pa.1992) ( “ In re 1991 Plan ”); see also In re Reapportionment Plan, 497 Pa. 525, 442 A.2d 661 (Pa.1981) (“ In re 1981 P......
-
Larsen v. Senate of the Com. of Pennsylvania
...interest in his office. Sweeney v. Tucker, 473 Pa. 493, 375 A.2d 698, 713 (1977); see also In re 1991 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 530 Pa. 335, 609 A.2d 132, 140-41 (1992). Indeed, in In re Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explicitly sta......
-
Larsen v. Senate of Com. of Pa.
...officials have no constitutionally protected property interest in their elected public office, see In re 1991 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 530 Pa. 335, 609 A.2d 132 (1992), it was reasonable for them to infer that there was no constitutionally protected right to the bene......
-
Reapportionment of Towns of Hartland, Windsor and West Windsor, In re, s. 92-088
...basis for the challenged plan's failure to satisfy constitutional or statutory criteria. In re 1991 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 530 Pa. 335, 609 A.2d 132, 136-37 (1992); see In re Senate Bills 177 & 83, 132 Vt. 282, 290, 318 A.2d 157, 162 (1974) ("Whatever this Cour......
-
Where to draw the line? Judicial review of political gerrymanders.
...art. I, [subsection] 1, 26, and the free and equal elections clause, art. 1, § 5. In re 1991 Pa. Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 609 A.2d 132, 141-42 (Pa. 1992). In re 1991 Reapportionment adopted, as a construction of the state constitution, the plurality view in Davis v. Bandemer, 47......
-
The multimember district: a study of the multimember district and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
...in any inappropriate procedures while formulating a redistricting plan). (222) See In re 1991 Pa. Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 609 A.2d 132, 145-46 (Pa. 1992) (rejecting the plaintiffs claim that Gingles mandated the creation of districts with minority populations of sixty-five perce......