Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n
| Decision Date | 03 February 2012 |
| Citation | 38 A.3d 711 |
| Parties | Amanda E. HOLT, Elaine Tomlin, Louis Nudi, Diane Edbril, Dariel I. Jamieson, Lora Lavin, James Yoest, Jeffrey Meyer, Christopher H. Fromme, Timothy F. Burnett, Chris Hertzog, Glen Eckhart, and Mary Frances Ballard, Appellants v. 2011 LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION, Appellee.Senator Jay Costa, Senator Lawrence M. Farnese, Jr., Senator Christine M. Tartaglione, Senator Shirley M. Kitchen, Senator Leanna M. Washington, Senator Michael J. Stack, Senator Vincent J. Hughes, Senator Anthony H. Williams, Senator Judith L. Schwank, Senator John T. Yudichak, Senator Daylin Leach, Senator Lisa M. Boscola, Senator Andrew E. Dinniman, Senator John P. Blake, Senator Richard A. Kasunic, Senator John N. Wozniak, Senator Jim Ferlo, Senator Wayne D. Fontana, Senator James R. Brewster, and Senator Timothy J. Solobay, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee.Mayor Carolyn Comitta, Council President Holly Brown, William J. Scott, Jr., Herbert A. Schwabe, II, Jane Heald Close, Floyd Robert Bielski, David Laleike, E. Brian Abbott, Nathaniel Smith, and W. Donald Braceland, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee.Mayor Leo Scoda and Council Person Jennifer Mayo, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee.Thomas Schiffer, Alison Bausman, Rachel J. Amdur, Joan Tarka, Lawrence W. Abel, Margaret G. Morscheck, Lawrence J. Chrzan, Julia Schultz and Shirley Resnick, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee.Sekela Coles, Cynthia Jackson and Lee Taliaferro, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee.Patty Kim, Appellant v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee.Edward J. Bradley, Jr., Patrick McKenna, Jr., Dorothy Gallagher, Richard H. Lowe, and John F. “Jack” Byrne, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee.Dennis J. Baylor, Appellant v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee.Andrew Dominick Alosi, Appellant v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee.Carlos A. Zayas, Appellant v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee.William C. Kortz, Michelle L. Vezzani, Michael E. Cherepko, Gregory Erosenko, Joyce Popovich, John Bevec, Lisa Bashioum, and Richard Christopher, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Shauna Christine Clemmer, for Bureau of Elections, Department of State.
Linda L. Kelly, Office of Attorney General, Pittsburgh, for Attorney General's Office.
Clifford B. Levine, Pittsburgh, for Costa et al.David J. Montgomery, Montgomery Law Firm, LLC, for William C. Kortz, et al.Samuel C. Stretton, Law Office of Samuel C. Stretton, West Chester, for Mayor Comitta, et al.Samuel C. Stretton, Law Office of Samuel C. Stretton, West Chester, for Mayor Leo Scoda and Council Person Jennifer Mayo.Eric Louis Ring, Bala Cynwyd, for Schiffer, et al.Robert Walter Scott, Robert W. Scott, P.C., Philadelphia, for Sekela Coles, Cynthia Jackson and Lee Taliaferro.Adam Craig Bonin, Kevin Michael Greenberg, Flaster/Greenberg, P.C., Philadelphia, for Patty Kim.Michael Churchill, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (The), Virginia A. Gibson, David Newmann, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., Philadelphia, for Holt, et al.James Manly Parks, Duane Morris, L.L.P., for Edward Bradley, Jr., Patrick McKenna, Jr., Dorothy Gallagher, Richard Lowe, John Byrne.Dennis J. Baylor, pro se.Andrew Dominick Alosi, pro se.Carlos A. Zayas, pro se.The Honorable Joseph A. Del Sole, Stephen John Del Sole, Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd, L.L.C., Pittsburgh, Charles E. O'Connor Jr., Philadelphia, William Shaw Stickman IV, Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd, L.L.C., Pittsburgh, James Richard Thornburg, for 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission.BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, ORIE MELVIN, JJ.
AND NOW, this 25th day of January, 2012, upon consideration of the petitions for review and briefs in these legislative redistricting appeals, and after entertaining oral argument on January 23, 2012, this Court finds that the final 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Plan is contrary to law. Pa. Const. art. II, § 17(d).1 Accordingly, the final 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Plan is REMANDED to the 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission with a directive to reapportion the Commonwealth in a manner consistent with this Court's Opinion, which will follow. Id.
The 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Plan, which this Court previously ordered to “be used in all forthcoming elections to the General Assembly until the next constitutionally mandated reapportionment shall be approved,” Albert v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 567 Pa. 670, 790 A.2d 989, 991 (2002) (), shall remain in effect until a revised final 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Plan having the force of law is approved. Pa. Const. art. II, § 17(e).
All 2012 election dates shall remain the same, with the exception of the primary election calendar, which is adjusted as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Thursday, January 26 ¦First day to circulate nomination petitions ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦
¦Thursday, February 16 ¦Last day to file nomination petitions ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦
¦Thursday, February 23 ¦Last day to file objections to set aside ¦
¦ ¦nomination petitions ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦
¦Monday, February 27 ¦Last day that court may fix for hearings on ¦
¦ ¦objections to nomination petitions ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦
¦Friday, March 2 ¦Last day for court to finally determine ¦
¦ ¦objections to nomination petitions ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦
¦Friday, March 2 ¦Last day for withdrawal by candidates who filed ¦
¦ ¦nomination petitions ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Any signatures on nomination petitions dated January 24 or January 25, 2012, shall be deemed valid as to timeliness, subject, however, to any other statutory challenge.
Jurisdiction is retained.
Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting statement, in which Justice EAKIN and Justice ORIE MELVIN join.
Based on the petitions, briefs, and argument, I am not persuaded that the 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Plan is contrary to law as reflected in the existing precedent. Although I am receptive to the concern that past decisions of the Court may suggest an unnecessarily stringent approach to equalization of population as between voting districts, I believe this could be addressed via prospective guidance from the Court.
OPINION
Legislative redistricting “involves the basic rights of the citizens of Pennsylvania in the election of their state lawmakers.” 1 In twelve separate matters, Commonwealth citizens, acting singly or in groups, filed appeals from the Final Plan for legislative redistricting of the Commonwealth, which was devised by appellee, the 2011 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission (the “LRC”), in response to the U.S. decennial census. In an attempt to conduct meaningful appellate review with the prospect of minimal disruption of the 2012 primary election process, this Court ordered accelerated briefing and oral argument. Expedition was required, as in all redistricting appeals, in part due to the compressed time frame in which to accomplish the task before the next election—particularly in an election year involving a presidential primary. However, the Court was aware at the outset that its efforts at expedition were incapable of avoiding interference with the primary election season because, for reasons not addressed by the LRC, the LRC failed to adopt a Final Plan in a timeframe that offered the remote prospect of appellate review before the primary season began. The LRC's inexplicable delay ensured that primary candidates who relied upon the 2011 Final Plan did so at their peril. As we discuss in detail infra, the Pennsylvania Constitution makes clear that a reapportionment plan can never have force of law until all appeals are decided, and even then, only if all challenges are dismissed. See Pa. Const. art II, § 17(e).2
In any event, fourteen days after the appeals were filed, seven days after the matters were briefed, and two days after the appeals were argued, this Court issued its mandate in a per curiam order filed January 25, 2012. That order declared that the Final Plan was contrary to law under Article...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Chapman
...change."40 In criticizing the Carter Plan, the Special Master erroneously contended that this Court rejected the least-change approach in Holt I , and therefore the Carter Plan was "developed in contravention of controlling precedent."41 But least-change was not at issue in that case. Read ......
-
City of Manchester v. State
...a statute, the presumption would be rendered meaningless. To the extent that these petitioners rely upon Holt v. 2011 Reapportionment Commission, ––– Pa. ––––, ––––, 38 A.3d 711 (2012), for this proposition, their reliance is misplaced. The redistricting plan at issue in Holt was not enacte......
-
Wilson v. Kasich
...Other states have reached [Ohio St.3d 226]this same conclusion regarding redistricting in their states. See Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm., 38 A.3d 711, 745 (Pa.2012) (“It is true, of course, that redistricting has an inevitably legislative, and therefore an inevitably polit......
-
In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176
...the basic rights of the citizens ... in the election of their state lawmakers.’ ” Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 7 MM 2012, ––– Pa. ––––, 38 A.3d 711, 716 (Pa. Jan. 25, 2012) (quoting Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438, 203 A.2d 556, 559 (1964)). The Supreme Court of Colorado h......
-
Prison Malapportionment: Forging a New Path for State Courts.
...In re Reapportionment of Colo. Gen. Assembly, 45 P.3d 1237,1241 (Colo. 2002). (159.) Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 38 A.3d 711, 716 (Pa. 2012) (quoting Butcher v. Bloom, 203 A.2d 556, 559 (Pa. (160.) Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). (161.) ALA. CONST. art. IX, [se......
-
GREENING THE TRUST: ENFORCING PENNSYLVANIA'S ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE.
...decision "obscured the manifest intent of [section 27] as expressed in its plain language" (citing Holt v. Legis. Reapportionment Comm'n. 38 A.3d 711. 759 n.38 (Pa. (45.) Id. at 945 (citations omitted). (46.) Id. at 913. (47.) Id. at 915. (48.) Id. Extraction of these resources typically re......