Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, leading one of the appeals to the Legislative Reapportionment Commission’s final district plan, seems to be feeling pretty vindicated after reading the majority opinion. “We agree,” said Costa in a written statement. “The court emphasized that splits of political subdivisions should be avoided unless ‘absolutely necessary.’”
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, who spoke to reporters from his office in Glen Mills, said he would emphasize that the Court made no mention of House and Senate districts that would have been picked up from one side of the state and dropped down on the other side.
“I can’t find a single word that objects to any of the seats that were moved,” said Pileggi. He said he was hoping for more “objective guidance addressing revisions” to the redistricting plan from the state Supreme Court justices. Barring that, he was ready to make one other conclusion from the 87-page majority opinion: that more population deviation between districts would be acceptable to the court, if it would reduce the number of county, municipality, and ward splits.
Pileggi said he and House Majority Leader Mike Turzai are filing a federal suit on Monday to request that the existing district lines not be used for any future election because population differences vary so much as to violate the “one person, one vote principle.” Commissioners on the LRC have received a proposed timetable for drafting a new redistricting plan by February 22.
At the very end of the state Supreme Court’s majority opinion comes this footnote, though, which suggests approving and implementing a preliminary plan won’t be as easy as voting ‘aye’ on February 23:
“We note that once the LRC approves a new preliminary plan, the Constitution affords persons aggrieved by the new plan a right to object, before the plan is finally approved by the LRC, and to a subsequent right to appeal to this Court. Should such appeals be filed, we will decide them with alacrity, as we have decided the ones before us.”
What does this mean for the primary election in late April, given that House and Senate districts are in limbo?
“Certainly the April 24th date is in jeopardy,” said Pileggi.
Here’s Senate Minority Leader Costa’s entire statement:
"The Supreme Court said that the Reapportionment Commission has more work to do. And, we agree.
The court has required a plan with fewer splits, more compact and contiguous districts, and, that while population deviation is a consideration, it is equal to other constitutional provisions. Importantly, the court emphasized that splits of political subdivisions should be avoided unless "absolutely necessary."
The commission needs to get to work and proceed mindfully and cooperatively with respect for citizen input, the constitutional provisions regarding fairness and equity and the court's guidance. As the Supreme Court held, the LRC must draw lines that respect the language in the Constitution.
We have to do it right this time. This is an opportunity to draw districts reflecting the court's guidance or citizens will, once again, legitimately challenge the plan’s legality. A new plan should not be rammed through the process, without due consideration for what the court has said about redistricting.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that the statewide district map of the General Assembly must respect our citizens."
