APPORTIONMENT AND REDISTRICTING

Position in brief
Support apportionment based substantially on the population in all voting districts, with additional consideration given to compact and contiguous territory and with respect given to municipal boundaries.

Background
Every 10 years, after the decennial census, states redraw the boundaries of congressional and legislative districts in order to meet the United States constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. In Pennsylvania, Congressional redistricting is done by statute passed by the General Assembly and approved by the Governor. On the other hand, the procedures for redrawing Pennsylvania’s State House and Senate districts are set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article II, Section 17 provides that PA House and Senate districts be drawn by a five-member redistricting commission. Four members are appointed by the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate who then select a fifth member. The Commission has exclusive authority to draw the maps. Appeals go straight to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Article II, Section 16 of the PA Constitution says that State House and Senate districts “shall be composed of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable” and that “(u)nless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district.”

Despite this Constitutional mandate many Pennsylvania House and Senate districts do not meet these standards. Instead, districts are drawn in such a way that incumbents and or candidates of a political party are protected from meaningful electoral competition. This type of redistricting is popularly known as gerrymandering. The term was coined in 1813 by combining the last name of the then governor of Massachusetts with the word salamander to describe the shape of an election district created by members of his party. Pennsylvania’s Legislative redistricting has been described as a “bipartisan incumbent protective gerrymander.” By one measurement Pennsylvania is the second most gerrymandered state in the country. Gerrymandering is one of the factors that reduce electoral competition. Until the 2006 primary election when a 2005 pay raise scandal resulted in many incumbent legislators losing their reelection bids, Pennsylvania had one of the highest rates of legislative incumbent reelection in the country. Uncompetitive elections and lack of meaningful choices results in unaccountable government, legislative gridlock and low voter turnout.

Pennsylvania’s 2001 Congressional redistricting map was appealed to the US Supreme Court (Veith v. Jublierer) and was upheld on a 5-4 split. The appeal was made by a township which was divided into four Congressional districts. One county is now represented by five different members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In this case all nine justices agreed that excessive partisanship in redistricting is unconstitutional but could not define a standard for what is excessive.

The results of this case and others show that citizens cannot rely on the courts to strike down redistricting plans based on partisan gerrymandering. Instead, citizens must find a way to control the process.

The League believes that redistricting should advance the fundamental purposes of representative democracy by giving the people a meaningful choice in electing their representatives and by holding government accountable to the people. District boundaries should meet the following standards (in order of importance):

• Protect the voting rights of minorities.
• Promote competitiveness and partisan fairness.
• Respect political subdivisions and communities of interest.
• Encourage geographical compactness and respect for natural geographic features and barriers.

The League believes that the redistricting process should:

• Assign the redistricting power to an independent commission.
• Ensure transparency of the process and a meaningful opportunity for interested parties and for the public to participate effectively.
• Conduct redistricting once each decade, following the census, with a strict timeline for completion.

Changing the way redistricting is done in Pennsylvania means amending the state constitution. A proposed constitutional amendment must be passed in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly and then go to the voters for approval at the first primary or general election that occurs at least three months after the amendment is passed. This means that for reform to have a reasonable chance of being in place for redistricting following the 2010 census, the process must begin no later than the current 2007-08 Legislative Session. To satisfy Pennsylvania’s requirements for public advertising of proposed constitutional amendments, June 23, 2008 is the latest possible date for the first passage of an amendment bill in both the House and Senate.

Four Constitutional amendment proposals have been introduced in the 2007-08 Legislative Session. SB 69 by Senator Michael O’Pake (D-Berks), which was reported out of the Senate State Government Committee on May 8, 2007, would place the power to redraw both Congressional and Legislative districts in the hands of the same type of Reapportionment Commission which now has the exclusive power to redraw Legislative district boundaries. Removing Congressional redistricting from the direct control of the General Assembly is desirable. When both branches are controlled by the same party, the process will favor the party in power. A bipartisan commission would ensure that both parties are equally represented in the process. The governor would have no role in approving any plan produced.

Two other proposals would more radically change the process. Under HB 84 sponsored by Rep. Thomas Tangretti (D-Westmoreland) and SB 346 sponsored by Senator Lisa M. Boscola (D-Lehigh) both Congressional and Legislative redistricting would be done by a Reapportionment Bureau. Its plans would be subject to approval by a majority of the House and Senate without amendment. In the event that a plan cannot get a majority of the House and Senate after being returned to the Bureau twice for revision, it can be amended. The bills would also create a five-member temporary redistricting advisory commission appointed by the legislative leadership who would then select a fifth member to serve as chair. Commission members and their relatives cannot hold public office. The advisory commission would be responsible for holding public hearings on any plan submitted to the General Assembly. The provisions of HB84 and SB346 fail the test of redistricting by independent commission. Final authority over approval of any plan rests with the General Assembly which can reject every plan submitted by the bureau and write its own plan.

HB81 by Rep. Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery) would create a nine-member redistricting commission. Eight would be the majority and minority leaders and the majority and minority whips of the House and Senate or their appointees. The Supreme Court would appoint the chairman who may not hold public office or have held a position within a political party for at least ten years prior to appointment. Its plan would also be subject to approval by a majority of the House and Senate. But if neither of two plans is approved by the legislature the matter goes to the Supreme Court which must adopt either the revised or final plan.

HB81, HB84 and SB 346 define parameters for compactness and for dividing political subdivisions and prohibit political considerations in drawing district lines. HB84 requires that districts represent communities of interest and prohibit use of political affiliations of registered voters and addresses of incumbents in drawing districts.

All three bills also provide for public input but differ as to timing. Under HB 84 and SB 346 public hearings are held after the a plan is submitted to General Assembly HB 81 provides for a public comment period on each plan which can then be revised before it is submitted to the General Assembly.

The League believes that public input should begin at the start of the process when stakeholders can alert the redistricting body to their various concerns including communities of interest that should be considered in preparing a plan. The public could also be invited to submit redistricting plans for consideration. In the public comment period following submission of a plan prepared by the bureau or commission, interested groups and individuals should also be able to submit alternate plans for consideration. The Constitution should also provide that additional provision for public input and other redistricting parameters could be accomplished through the regular legislative process.

For more information please see the following documentation:

The Shape of Representative Democracy

Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering Index White Paper

Updated 10/07

Where We Stand

Government
- Election Laws
- Judiciary
- Redistricting
- Legislature
- Municipal Gov't
- Authorities
- Initiative and Referendum
- Campaign Finance
- Lobbyist Disclosure
- Open Records
- Open Meetings

Social Policy
- Education
- Gambling
- Death Penalty
- Reproductive Choice
- Transportation
- Child Health & Welfare & Juvenile Justice
- Family Issues and Laws
- Fiscal Policy
- Collective Bargaining

Natural Resources
- Land Use
- Water
- Air
- Energy
- Waste Management