League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth (2018) [2011 Redistricting Plans]

Summary:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s majority—Justices Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht—concluded that the General Assembly’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan “clearly, plainly and palpably violate[d]” the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. After permitting the General Assembly and the governor a short period of time to submit a replacement plan before the 2018 primary election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court imposed its own judicially drawn “Remedial Plan.”

The Verdict:

Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may have to review challenges to congressional redistricting maps, the majority did not limit its responsibility to review or the selection of submitted plans. Instead, Justices Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht took the unprecedented step of drawing and imposing its own map, usurping the General Assembly’s authority in a violation of the state constitution and testing the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution, which tasks state legislatures with the responsibility of prescribing “the Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.”

Background:

In 2017, the League of Women Voters and 18 Democratic voters filed a lawsuit challenging the General Assembly’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan as unconstitutional, alleging that state legislators were deliberately diluting Democratic votes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction over the case and ordered the Commonwealth Court to conduct an expedited trial.

Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s majority determined that the 2011 redistricting plan was unconstitutional as violative of the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution and required the General Assembly to submit new plans within just 18 days. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court hired a professor from Stanford Law School to help them draw a “Remedial Plan” and, when the General Assembly failed to come up with its own replacement plan, the Supreme Court ordered their Remedial Plan implemented for the May 2018 primary election.

Chief Justice Saylor and Justice Mundy dissented, arguing that the Remedial Plan was an improvident “exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction” and that redistricting is “inherently” political and therefore properly left to the legislative branch. Justice Baer agreed with Justices Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht that the General Assembly’s plan was unconstitutional but would have deferred implementation of any substitute plan until after the election so that the General Assembly would have time to craft a new plan. All three dissenters believed that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should not have imposed its own plan.