Carter v. DeGraffenreid
| Decision Date | 05 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 132 M.D. 2021 |
| 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. Veronica Degraffenreid, 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 Commonwealth Court |
Before this special panel[1] are the Preliminary Objections (POs) of Respondents Veronica Degraffenreid, 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 (collectively, Respondents), and Intervenors Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Bryan Cutler, Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Kerry Benninghoff, President Pro Tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate Jake Corman, and Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania Senate Kim Ward (collectively, Intervenors)[2] to Petitioners'[3] Petition for Review (Petition) addressed to this Court's original jurisdiction.[4]
On April 26, 2021, Petitioners filed the Petition against Respondents challenging the current congressional district map based on the 2020 Census. Petitioners identify themselves as 16 citizens of the United States (U.S.) who are registered to vote in Pennsylvania in 11 different federal congressional districts.[5] Petitioners intend to advocate and vote for Democratic candidates in the upcoming 2022 primary and general elections. Petition, ¶11.
As we detailed in the September 2, 2021 Memorandum Opinion, [6] the Petition provides details regarding the results of the 2020 Census, the dates by which the U.S. Secretary of Commerce must provide the U.S. President and the states with the apportionment data, and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of that data. The Petition further explains that, while the Commonwealth's population increased from the last decennial census, the 2020 Census shows that the Commonwealth will lose a representative seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Starting with the upcoming 2022 elections, the Commonwealth will have 17 representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1 fewer than the current 18 representatives. The Commonwealth's congressional district map must be redrawn to accommodate for the loss of a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Petitioners claim that the Commonwealth's current congressional districts are "unconstitutionally malapportioned" due to shifts in population within the Commonwealth. Petition, ¶2. They believe that the congressional districts in which they live are overpopulated, while other districts are underpopulated, and that, consequently, their votes for members of the U.S. House of Representatives are diluted. Petition, ¶¶18-21.
The Petition observes that Pennsylvania law does not set a deadline by which a new congressional district map must be put in place prior to the first congressional election following a census. According to Petitioners, it is in the best interest of voters, candidates, and the Commonwealth's entire electoral apparatus to have a new, final congressional district map in place prior to February 15, 2022, the date on which candidates may begin collecting signatures on nomination petitions for placement on the primary election ballot. Petition, ¶¶30-31.
The Petition informs that the Commonwealth's current congressional district map was drawn by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 181 A.3d 1083 (Pa. 2018) (League of Women Voters III), after the Republican-controlled General Assembly and Democratic Governor failed to agree upon a new congressional district map following the Supreme Court's invalidation of the Commonwealth's 2011 congressional district map. The current political climate has not changed since 2018, as Republican representatives maintain the majority in both houses of the General Assembly and Governor Tom Wolf is a Democrat. For these reasons, Petitioners contend that it is "unlikely" that the political branches of the government will agree upon a new congressional district map. Petition, ¶¶8, 29, 32, 42, 52.
Petitioners present four counts alleging that the current congressional district map violates: (1) Article I, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ();[7] (2) 2 U.S.C. §2c ();[8] (3) Article I, Section 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ();[9] and (4) Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution ().[10]
For relief, Petitioners seek both declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, they ask the Court to:
In response to the Petition, Respondents and Intervenors filed POs. Both Respondents and Intervenors preliminarily object on the bases that Petitioners lack standing and their claims are not ripe pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4), (5).[11]Additionally, Intervenors object on the grounds that the claims are nonjusticiable and that Petitioners fail to otherwise state a claim upon which relief may be granted.[12]
With regard to standing, Respondents and Intervenors both assert that Petitioners lack capacity to sue because they are not aggrieved. Petitioners' claims turn on one key fact - whether or not there will be a new congressional district plan in time for the 2022 primary election. Petitioners' claims are predicated on the supposition that because the General Assembly is controlled by one political party, the Governor is a member of another political party, and there has been "conflict" between these actors in the past, it is highly unlikely that Pennsylvania will enact a new congressional district plan in time for the 2022 primary election, which would cause them harm. The possible harm is wholly contingent on future events, which may never happen. Petitioners' failure to demonstrate an immediate interest defeats standing.
The hallmark of standing is that "a person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge is not 'aggrieved' thereby." William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269, 280 (Pa. 1975). An individual is aggrieved if he has a "substantial, direct and immediate interest in the outcome of the litigation." Fumo v. City of Philadelphia, 972 A.2d 487, 496 (Pa. 2009). "[A]n interest is 'immediate' if the causal connection is not remote or speculative." Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 655, 660 (Pa. 2005).
Our Supreme Court addressed standing in Office of Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223, 1229 (Pa. 2014), explaining:
In Pennsylvania, the doctrine of standing . . . is a prudential, judicially created principle designed to winnow out litigants who have no direct interest in a judicial matter. In re Hickson, [821 A.2d 1238, 1243 (Pa. 2003)]. For standing to exist, the underlying controversy must be real and concrete, such that the party initiating the legal action has, in fact, been "aggrieved." Pittsburgh Palisades Park, [888 A.2d at 659]. . . . As this Court explained in William Penn Parking Garage, "the core concept [of standing] is that a person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge is not 'aggrieved' thereby and has no standing to obtain a judicial resolution to his challenge." 346 A.2d at 280-81. A party is aggrieved for purposes of establishing standing when the party has a "substantial, direct and immediate interest" in the outcome of litigation. Johnson [v. American Standard, 8 A.3d 318, 329 (Pa. 2010)] (quoting Fumo[, 972 A.2d at 496]). A party's interest is substantial when it surpasses the interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law; it is direct when the asserted violation shares a causal connection with the alleged harm; finally, a party's interest is immediate when the causal connection with the alleged harm is neither remote nor speculative. Id. [(emphasis added).]
Here Petitioners' allegations fail to meet the immediacy test. Petitioners do not allege that they have sustained a present or imminent...
To continue reading
Request your trial