Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n
| Decision Date | 08 May 2013 |
| Citation | 67 A.3d 1211 |
| Parties | Amanda E. HOLT, Elaine Tomlin, Luis Nudi, Diane Edbril, Dariel I. Jamieson, Lora Lavin, James Yoest, Jeffrey Meyer, Christopher H. Fromme, Timothy F. Burnett, Chris Hertzog, Glen Eckhart, Joan Jessen, Elizabeth Rogan, James Hertzler, Gary Eichelberger, Barbara B. Cross, and Mary Frances Ballard, Appellants v. 2011 LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION, Appellee. Dennis J. Baylor, Appellant v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. State Representative John P. Sabatina, Jr. for the 174th Legislative District and State Representative Thomas R. Caltagirone for the 127th Legislative District, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. Thomas Schiffer, Rachel J. Amdur, Joan Tarka, Lawrence W. Abel, Margaret G. Morscheck, Lawrence J. Shrzan, Shirley Resnick, Susan Jewett, and Carl Duzen, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. Patty Kim, Appellant v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. Council President Holly Brown, Mayor Carolyn Comitta, John Hellman, Mayor Leo Scoda, Council President Rich Kirkner, Councilperson Jennifer Mayo, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. Daniel P. Doherty, Cheryl L. Nicholas, Stacy C. Hannan, Kristine L. Kipphut, Susan Saba, Tara Anthony, Paula Brensinger, and Seth D. McElroy, Petitiones, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. State Representative Angel Cruz, State Representative W. Curtis Thomas, State Representative Rosita C. Youngblood, State Representative John P. Sabatina, Jr., Angel Ortiz, Brian Eddis, Joseph F. West, Sr., and Karen A. West, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. Josh Shapiro, Leslie Richards, Daylin Leach, Samuel Adenbaum, Ira Tackel, Marcel Groen, Harvy Glickman, and David Dormont, 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 Brewster, and Senator Timothy J. Solobay, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. Tony Amadio and Joe Spanik, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee Richard Lattanzi, Mayor of the City of Clairton and Richard Ford, Councilman in the City of Clairton, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. Kathryn Vargo, Jennifer Grab, Sandra Wolfe, Antonio Lodico, Emily Cleath, Daniel McArdle Booker, Rachel Canning, and Patrick Clark, Appellants v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Shauna Christine Clemmer, PA Department of State, for Bureau of Elections, Department of State, Participant.
Kathleen M. Granahan, Linda L. Kelly, Harrisburg, PA Office of Attorney General, for Attorney General's Office, Participant.
Dennis J. Baylor, Pro Se, for Petitioner.
Samuel C. Stretton, Law Office of Samuel C. Stretton, West Chester, for John P. Sabatina, Jr., and Thomas R. Caltagirone, Petitioner.
Kelly R. Koscil, Eric Louis Ring, for T. Schiffer, R. Amdur, J. Tarka, L. Abel, M. Morscheck, L. Chrzan, S. Resnick, S. Jewett, and C. Duzen, Petitioner.
Peter M. Good, Thomas S. Lee, Caldwell & Kearns, P.C., Harrisburg, for Patty Kim, Petitioner.
Frank A. Rothermel, Bernhardt & Rothermel & Siegel, P.C., Philadelphia, for D. Doherty, C. Nicholas, S. Hannan, K. Kipphut, S. Saba, T. Anthony, P. Brensinger, and S. McElroy, Petetioner.
Margaret M. Stuski, for A. Cruz, W. Thomas, R. Youngblood, J. Sabatina, Jr., A. Ortiz, B. Eddis, J. West, Sr., K. West, Petitioner.
Adam Craig Bonin, Cozen O'Connor, for J. Shapiro, L. Richards, D. Leach, S. Adenbaum, I. Tackel, M. Groen, H. Glickman, D. Dormont, Petitioner.
Clifford B. Levine, Pittsburgh, for Senator Jay Costa, et al., Petitioner.
David J. Montgomery, Pittsburgh, for Tony Amadio and Joe Spanik, Petitioner.
J. Deron Gabriel, for Richard Lattanzi and Richard Ford, Petitioner.
Charles Anthony Pascal, Jr., for Kathryn Vargo, et al., Petitioner.
Patrick Kennedy Cavanaugh, Stephen John Del Sole, William Shaw Stickman IV, Pittsburgh, Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd, L.L.C., The Honorable Joseph A. Del Sole, for Respondent.
Mary Ann Mullaney, Brian S. Paszamant, Blank Rome LLP, Philadelphia, Brian Michael Robinson, DLA Piper US, LLP, Philadelphia, Carl Merritz Buchholz, Philadelphia, for Senator Dominic Pileggi, Respondent Amicus Curiae.
Kathleen A. Gallagher, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Pittsburgh, for Michael Turzai, as a Member of the 2011 PA Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Respondent Amicus Curiae.
BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, ORIE MELVIN, JJ.
This is the second set of direct appeals to this Court arising out of the work of the 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission (“LRC”) of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Previously, we filed a per curiam order on January 25, 2012, and declared that the legislative redistricting plan filed by the LRC on December 12, 2011 (the “2011 Final Plan”), was contrary to law under Article II, Section 17(d) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and in accordance with the directive in that constitutional provision, we remanded the matter to the LRC to reapportion the Commonwealth in a manner consistent with an opinion to follow. We filed our opinion on February 3, 2012. Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 614 Pa. 364, 38 A.3d 711 (2012) (“Holt I ”). No party sought reconsideration or reargument. As a result of this Court's order and opinion, the LRC produced a second plan which it adopted on June 8, 2012 (the “2012 Final Plan”), and these consolidated appeals arise out of challenges to that plan. After consideration of the specific challenges forwarded by appellants, and the LRC's response, we now hold that the LRC's 2012 Final Plan is not contrary to law, and the appeals are dismissed.
I. Background
The substantive task of the LRC during decennial legislative redistricting is governed by Article II, Sections 16 and 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Section 16 sets forth specific criteria the LRC must utilize in creating the legislative district map:
The Commonwealth shall be divided into fifty senatorial and two hundred three representative districts, which shall be composed of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable. Each senatorial district shall elect one Senator, and each representative district one Representative. Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district.
Pa. Const. art. II, § 16. Section 17 further describes the redistricting procedure, and specifically provides that, once the LRC has adopted a plan, “any aggrieved person” may appeal directly to this Court. Pa. Const. art. II, § 17(d). Section 17 also commands that, if that aggrieved citizen “establishes that the final plan is contrary to law,” this 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.1
By way of further background, in Holt I, we summarized the litigation over the 2011 Final Plan:
On December 12, 2011, the LRC approved its Final Plan by a vote of 4 to 1, with Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa dissenting.
Absent appeals within the thirty day period afforded by the Constitution, the Final Plan would have had force of law. SeePa. Const. art. II, § 17(e). However, twelve separate appeals from the 2011 Final Plan were filed by citizens claiming to be aggrieved, as is their constitutional right. SeePa. Const. art. II, § 17(d) (). In each appeal, the appellants filed petitions for review, against several of which the LRC filed preliminary objections. The LRC also filed a prompt consolidated answer, responding to the first eleven petitions for review. This Court then directed briefing on an accelerated schedule; all parties timely complied. The Court reserved a special session to hear oral argument on January 23, 2012, in Harrisburg, five days after briefing, and we heard argument in nine of the appeals that day....
Two days later, on January 25, 2012, this Court issued a per curiam order, declaring that the Final Plan was contrary to law, and remanding to the LRC with a directive to reapportion the Commonwealth in a manner consistent with this Court's Opinion, which would follow. See Order, 1/25/12 ( per curiam ) (citing Pa. Const. art. II, § 17(d)). Our per curiam order also directed that 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,” would remain in effect until a revised final 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Plan having the force of law is approved. See Order, 1/25/12 ( per curiam ) (citing Pa. Const. art. II, § 17(e) and Albert [ v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 567 Pa. 670], 790 A.2d [989,] 991 [Pa.2002] ). That aspect of our mandate arose by operation of law; where a Final Plan is challenged on appeal, and this Court finds the plan contrary to law and remands, the proffered plan does not have force of law, and the prior plan obviously remains in effect.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Chapman
...See League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth , 645 Pa. 1, 178 A.3d 737, 817 (2018) ("LWV-II") (citing Holt v. 2011 Legis. Reapportionment Comm'n , 620 Pa. 373, 67 A.3d 1211, 1235 (2012) ). As long as the plan that results from the political process does not "clearly, plainly, and palpably" vi......
-
Wert v. Manorcare of Carlisle Pa, LLC, 62 MAP 2014
...of the parties' arguments and relevant to the issues on which this Court granted allocatur. See Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Com'n,620 Pa. 373, 67 A.3d 1211, 1225 n. 12 (2013)(holding amicusbriefs raising issues not implicated by the parties warrant no consideration).4 Section f......
-
League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth
...Elections , 835 F.Supp.2d 563, 575 (N.D. Ill. 2011) ).Moreover, relying on this Court's decision in Holt v. 2011 Reapportionment Commission , 620 Pa. 373, 67 A.3d 1211 (2013) (" Holt II "), Legislative Respondents highlight the "inherently political" nature of redistricting, which, they not......
-
Commonwealth v. Moore
...raises this issue and because amici are not permitted to raise issues that have not been preserved by the parties, Holt v. LRC, 620 Pa. 373, 67 A.3d 1211, 1225 n. 12 (2013), we will not address this claim.8 As we discuss further below, in Watson, we reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence ......