Carter v. Chapman
| Decision Date | 23 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 7 MM 2022 |
| Citation | 270 A.3d 444 |
| Parties | Carol Ann CARTER, Monica Parrilla, Rebecca Poyourow, William Tung, Roseanne Milazzo, Burt Siegel, Susan Cassanelli, Lee Cassanelli, Lynn Wachman, Michael Guttman, Maya Fonkeu, Brady Hill, Mary Ellen Balchunis, Tom DeWall, Stephanie Mcnulty and Janet Temin, Petitioners v. Leigh M. CHAPMAN, in her Official Capacity as the Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Jessica Mathis, in her Official Capacity as Director for the Pennsylvania Bureau of Election Services and Notaries, Respondents Philip T. Gressman; Ron Y. Donagi; Kristopher R. Tapp; Pamela Gorkin; David P. Marsh; James L. Rosenberger; Amy Myers; Eugene Boman; Gary Gordon; Liz McMahon ; Timothy G. Feeman; and Garth Isaak, Petitioners v. Leigh M. Chapman, in her Official Capacity as the Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Jessica Mathis, in her Official Capacity as Director for the Pennsylvania Bureau of Election Services and Notaries, Respondents |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Martin Jay Black, Esq., Dechert LLP, Andrew Michael Rocco, Esq., Benjamin David Geffen, Esq., Mary M. McKenzie, Esq., Public Interest Law Center (The), for Amicus Curiae Khalif Ali, et al.
Adam Craig Bonin, Esq., The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin, for Amicus Curiae Charlene David, et al.
Thomas E. Breth, Esq., Thomas W. King III, Esq., Jordan Peter Shuber, Esq., Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham, LLP, for Amicus Curiae Leslie Osche, et al. (Citizen-Voter).
Michael Coard, Esq., for Amici Curiae Black Clergy of Philadelphia & Vicinity, NAACP Philadelphia Branch.
Kathleen A. Gallagher, Esq., Russell David Giancola, Esq., Gallagher Giancola LLC, for Amici Curiae Haroon Bashir, Valerie Biancaniello, Tegwyn Hughes, and Jeffrey Wenk.
Brian Anthony Gordon, Esq., Gordon & Ashworth, P.C., for Amicus Curiae Concerned Citizens for Democracy.
Sean Michael Gresh, Esq., Begley, Carlin & Mandio, LLP, for Amicus Curiae Michael Brill, et al.
John P. Lavelle Jr., Esq., for Amicus Curiae Joseph Amodei, et al.
James McCune, Esq., Bowles Rice LLP, for Amicus Curiae Diana Irey Vaughn, et al.
Michael Wu-Kung Pfautz, Esq., City of Philadelphia, for Amicus Curiae Philadelphia County Board of Elections.
Nicholas Michael Centrella Jr., Esq., Duane Morris LLP, for Delaware County Board of Elections.
Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Esq., Mitchell Law PLLC, Walter S. Zimolong III, Esq., Zimolong LLC, for Possible Intervenor Daniels, Teddy.
Bernard T. Kozykowski Jr., for Amicus Curiae Bernard T. Kozykowski Jr
Jessica Amunson, Esq., Lindsay Harrison, Esq., Sam Hirsch, Esq., Tassity Johnson, Esq., Claire Lally, Esq., April Otterberg, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, Shannon Elise McClure, Esq., Devin Michael Misour, Esq., Kim M. Watterson, Esq., for Petitioner Philip T. Gressman, et al.
Robert Joseph Clark, Esq., Michael R. McDonald, Esq., Paul Keller Ort, Esq., Marcel S. Pratt, Esq., Edward David Rogers, Esq., Ballard Spahr, LLP, Raisa M. Cramer, Esq., Christina A. Ford, Esq., Jyoti Jasrasaria, Esq., Abha Khanna, Esq., Lalith D. Madduri, Esq., Joseph N. Posimato, Esq., Elias Law Group LLC, Matthew P. Gordon, Esq., Perkins Coie, LLP, for Petitioner Carol Ann Carter, et al.
Marco Santino Attisano, Esq., Flannery Georgalis, LLC, Kevin Michael Greenberg, Esq., Anthony Michael Pratt, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Clifford B. Levine, Esq., Emma Frances Elizabeth Shoucair, Esq., Dentons Cohen Grigsby, Corrie Allen Woods, Esq., Woods Law Offices PLLC, for Respondent Jay Costa, et al. & Senate Democratic Caucus.
Daniel Thomas Brier, Esq., Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP, Matthew S. Salkowski, Esq., Lam Dang Truong, Esq., Pennsylvania House of Representatives, David Samuel Senoff, Esq., for Respondent Joanna McClinton.
Jeffry William Duffy, Esq., Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Patrick T. Lewis, Esq., James Guthrie Mann, Esq., Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Robert J. Tucker, Esq., for Respondents Bryan Cutler, Kerry Benninghoff.
Caleb Curtis Enerson, Esq., Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, 16th Floor, Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA, John Brent Hill, Esq., Hangley, Aronchick, Segal, Pudlin & Schiller, for Respondents Jessica Mathis, Leigh M. Chapman.
Matthew Hermann Haverstick, Esq., Shohin Hadizadeh Vance, Esq., Joshua John Voss, Esq., Kleinbard LLC, Samantha G. Zimmer, Esq., for Respondent Guy Reschenthaler, Jeffrey Varner, Tom Marino, Ryan Costello, Bud Shuster (Congressional Intervenor).
Anthony Richard Holtzman, Esq., Jonathan Richard Vaitl, Esq., K & L Gates LLP, for Respondents Jake Corman, Kim Ward.
Kathleen Marie Kotula, Esq., Pennsylvania Department of State, for Respondent Bureau of Elections.
Dimitrios Mavroudis, Esq., Caroline Layne Rice, Esq., Robert Andrew Wiygul, Esq., Hangley, Aronchick, Segal, Pudlin & Schiller, Jessica Ann Rickabaugh, Esq., Joe H. Tucker Jr., Esq., Tucker Law Group, LLC, for Respondents Tom Wolf, Jessica Mathis, Leigh M. Chapman.
OPINION
Pennsylvania's current congressional districting plan is irrefutably unconstitutional based upon the reapportionment of the House of Representatives following the 2020 Decennial Census conducted pursuant to Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Due to this Commonwealth's loss of population relative to the nation as a whole, Pennsylvania's allotted number of congressional representatives declined from eighteen to seventeen. As a result, Pennsylvania now requires a new congressional districting plan drawn with only seventeen districts for the upcoming May 17, 2022, Primary Election.
Because the General Assembly and the Governor failed to agree upon a congressional redistricting plan, this Court was tasked with that "unwelcome obligation." League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth , 645 Pa. 1, 178 A.3d 737, 823 (2018) (" LWV II "). This is not uncharted territory, as a similar scenario unfolded following the inability of the political branches to enact a plan in the wake of the 1990 Decennial Census. In Mellow v. Mitchell , 530 Pa. 44, 607 A.2d 204 (1992), this Court assumed plenary jurisdiction of an action originating in the Commonwealth Court and designated a Commonwealth Court judge as master to conduct hearings, make findings of fact, and render conclusions of law before the Court decided on an appropriate redistricting plan. Mellow , 607 A.2d at 206. The same procedure was adhered to in this case.
Our Special Master expended tremendous effort by expeditiously conducting hearings, making extensive findings of fact, providing a comprehensive report to this Court analyzing the merits of the various congressional redistricting plans submitted before it, and ultimately recommending the adoption of the plan created by the Pennsylvania Legislature in House Bill 2146 ("H.B. 2146"), which Governor Tom Wolf vetoed on January 26, 2022. We acknowledge and thank her for her effort.
After deliberating and affording due consideration to our Special Master's findings and recommendation and reviewing de novo the relative merit of the submitted congressional plans, the Court respectfully declined to adopt the Special Master's analysis and ultimate plan selection. Rather, on February 23, 2022, we entered a per curiam order, directing that the Pennsylvania primary and general elections for seats in the United States House of Representatives commencing in 2022 shall be conducted in accordance with the plan submitted to the Special Master by the Carter Petitioners, who we name herein below ("Carter Plan").1 Our order indicated that an opinion would follow, and this opinion is filed in accordance therewith.
In full cognizance that the redistricting of congressional districts falls squarely within the purview of the General Assembly, U.S. CONST., art. I, § 4, cl. 1, we have fulfilled our obligation to select a redistricting plan only because the Legislature was unable to do so.2 In making our selection, we were guided by our decision in LWV II , where we applied the traditional core districting criteria requiring that congressional districts be compact, contiguous, as nearly equal in population as practicable, and which minimize divisions of political subdivisions, while taking into consideration the subordinate historical considerations, such as communities of interests, the preservation of prior district lines, and the protection of incumbents. LWV II , 178 A.3d at 816-17. Finally, we have ensured that the congressional districting plan that we adopted does not violate Pennsylvania's Free and Equal Elections Clause by "dilut[ing] the potency of an individual's ability to select the congressional representative of his or her choice," id. at 816, and complies with the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301.3
This Court acknowledges that there is no perfect redistricting plan. Each map involves trade-offs between the requisite traditional core redistricting criteria, as well as the subordinate historical redistricting considerations. The task of balancing these criteria and considerations is better suited to the Commonwealth's political branches, rather than the judiciary. Nevertheless, given our unwelcomed circumstance, we have endeavored to adopt a plan that, as phrased in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth , 645 Pa. 576, 181 A.3d 1083, 1087 (2018) (" LWV III "), is "superior or comparable" to all of the plans submitted on the designated criteria.
As evidenced by the views expressed by our esteemed colleagues and the Special Master, reasonable minds can disagree in good faith as to which submitted plan best balances the requisite criteria and considerations. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth below, we adopt the plan submitted to the Special Master by the Carter Petitioners as the 2022 Congressional Redistricting Plan.
This matter commenced on December 17, 2021, when two separate petitions for review...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harkenrider v. Hochul
...¶ 6, 868 S.E.2d 499, 510 [2022] ; Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commn. , 2022 WI 19, ¶ 3, 972 N.W.2d 559 ; Carter v. Chapman , ––– Pa. ––––, 270 A.3d 444, 450 [2022] ).18 Delaying a remedy until the next election would substantially undermine the People's efforts to temper partisan gerryma......
- Arlet v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.
-
Robinson v. Ardoin
... ... Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S.Ct. 879 ... (2022)(granting legislators' motion to intervene to ... defend the redistricting plan); Carter v. Chapman , ... 270 A.3d 444, 453 (Pa. 2022) (granting intervenor status to ... the Speaker and Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania ... ...