Carter v. Chapman (2022) [2020 Redistricting Decision]

Summary:

After then Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the General Assembly’s congressional redistricting plan based on the 2020 Census, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over a case brought by Democratic voters and imposed a different plan that gave Democrats an advantage in 10 of 17 congressional districts, an increase from 9 of 17 as passed by the General Assembly. In doing so, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took redistricting out of the legislative process.

The Verdict:

Although it refrained from drawing its own maps, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s majority waded further into the political waters of redistricting, this time imposing a new standard of “partisan fairness” on top of more traditional standards of review. In the end, the state’s top court landed on a redistricting plan that happened to benefit the Democratic Party even more than the General Assembly had already done.

Background:

A decline in Pennsylvania’s population in the 2020 Census required that Pennsylvania draw new congressional maps with 17 congressional districts instead of 18. After Wolf vetoed the General Assembly’s plan, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over a case that had been filed in the Commonwealth Court seeking adoption of independently drawn maps. The Supreme Court appointed a Commonwealth Court judge as Special Master and asked her to hold an evidentiary hearing and make recommendations.

The Special Master received 13 redistricting plans and ultimately selected the General Assembly’s original map, in part because the General Assembly has the primary responsibility of drafting redistricting plans. However, the Supreme Court rejected the Special Master’s recommendation and adopted what was referred to as the “Carter Plan,” a plan devised by a political science professor from Stanford University.

Justices Mundy and Brobson, in dissent, pointed out various defects in the Carter Plan that made it less desirable than alternatives. Moreover, Justice Brobson argued more broadly that the majority had improperly taken it upon itself to choose plans based on “partisan fairness” instead of more neutral measures. Justice Todd, who would have adopted another plan, also criticized the use of “partisan fairness” as anything more than a tie-breaker.

Justice Dougherty was the only member of the majority to distance himself from the “partisan fairness” standard. Although he too voted to adopt the Carter Plan, his stated reason was that it yielded the least change from the previous congressional redistricting plan.