Gerrymandering Decision Long Overdue but Could Sow Confusion, Experts Say

[caption id="attachment_11247" align="alignnone" width="620"]

Pennsylvania's congressional map. Photo courtesy of state of Pennsylvania.[/caption] Political experts say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to order an overhaul of the state's congressional map was sorely needed, but warn that the rapid pace in which the justices want the changes implemented may cause turmoil for voters and candidates alike come the May primary election. On Monday, a split court ruled in a three-page order that the current boundaries of the state's congressional districts favor Republican candidates and violated the state's constitution, although the court has yet to explain its reasoning in an opinion. The decision drew sharp rebukes from Republicans, who hold the majority in the state Legislature. After the ruling came down, Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati and Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman issued a joint statement calling the decision "a partisan action showing a distinct lack of respect for the Constitution and the legislative process." The added, "The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overstepped its legal authority and set up an impossible deadline that will only introduce chaos in the upcoming congressional election." The majority-Democratic court ordered lawmakers to come up with new plan by mid-February and called on Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, to approve it expeditiously—and if not, the justices said they will sort out the matter themselves. The court's two Republicans, Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor and Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, dissented from the majority ruling. Justice Max Baer, a Democrat, issued a concurring and dissenting statement approving of the redistricting but cautioning his colleagues about being too hasty. "It is naive to think that disruption will not occur,” he said, noting that the rapid rollout of new districts could confuse voters and undermine campaigns canvassing in one district, only to be forced, at least partially, into new territory at the last minute. Several political experts agreed with Baer's warning. G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, said pushing the deadline back by setting a later 2018 primary date would be prudent. Noting that the current congressional map, enacted in 2011, is "egregious," Madonna said the question is, "on constitutional grounds, is this ample time to modify the district and make sure the voters have sufficient time to digest the change that’s likely to take place?" He added, “I think it’s a very tight deadline and it probably would have been wiser had they allowed for more flexibility.” David Thornburgh, president of government reform group the Committee of Seventy, termed the decision "short-term pain for long-term gain." "We haven’t seen the opinion yet," he said, "I’m guessing they wanted to rip the Band-Aid off and figured there was no reason to delay." However, any mess that results from a fast redistricting shouldn't be blamed on the court, according to Jerry H. Goldfeder, a professor of political law at the University of Pennsylvania. Disputing the Republicans' claim that the court was acting politically with its ruling, Goldfeder, who served as special counsel to Andrew M. Cuomo when Cuomo was New York state attorney general, said the finger should be pointed at Pennsylvania's legislators for gerrymandering in the first place. "The court, on the other hand, is trying to mitigate the untoward politics practiced by the Legislature," he said. Goldfeder added, "They gave the Legislature a tight deadline but they also gave room to adjust the election calendar." As for whether the Democratic justices' decision was politically motivated, Thornburgh said it's unclear at present. He said having an elected Supreme Court means having politics influence the judiciary, something his organization opposes by advocating for appointed judges. "Is this an example of that? I don’t know," Thornburgh said. "The opinion hasn’t been produced yet, and to come to that conclusion you’d really have to be inside the heads of the seven Supreme Court justices." Madonna said it's likely the Supreme Court is already gathering redistricting experts to hit the ground running if the General Assembly doesn't make the deadline. A spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts said no information was available at this time. While the decision was praised for taking a concrete step to correct years of partisan gerrymandering, Thornburgh cautioned that it is not a cure-all for the state's districting woes. "It's important to recognize that this case doesn’t fix a broken system," he said. "This doesn’t take politicians out of the process, it doesn’t bring more citizen engagement in the process, so there’s more work to be done." The court's decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed in the Commonwealth Court by the League of Women Voters and a group of Democratic voters against the state, questioning the fairness of the boundaries that make up Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District. They claimed that the Republican-controlled Legislature manipulates districts in such a way as to minimize the impact of the state’s Democratic voting population. In their complaint, the voters called gerrymandering “one of the greatest threats to American democracy” and argued that the state’s Republican legislators “dismantled Pennsylvania’s existing congressional districts and stitched them back together with the goal of maximizing the political advantage of Republican voters and minimizing the representational rights of Democratic voters.”