Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Redistricting in Pennsylvania after the 2020 census

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Election Policy VNT Logo.png
Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures • Majority-minority districts • Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 • Congressional apportionment • Redistricting committees • Deadlines • 2022 House elections with multiple incumbents • New U.S.House districts created after apportionment • Congressional maps • State legislative maps • Lawsuits • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections • Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker


Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Pennsylvania.

On February 23, 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled to enact a new congressional map.[1] Over a dozen maps were submitted to the supreme court, including the map approved by the legislature. The court ultimately selected the Carter map in a 4-3 ruling, which was submitted by a group of Pennsylvania citizens who were petitioners in a redistricting-related lawsuit. Justices Debra Todd (D), Sallie Mundy (R), and Kevin Brobson (R) dissented.[2] Spotlight PA's Kate Huangpu wrote that the map is "as similar as possible to the current congressional map, with nearly 90% of residents staying in the same district."[2] This map took effect for Pennsylvania's 2022 congressional elections.

On February 4, 2022, the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission voted 4-1 to approve new state House and Senate maps.[3] House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R) voted no, while Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward (R), state Rep. Joanna McClinton (D), state Sen. Jay Costa (D), and chairman Mark Nordenberg voted yes.[3] These maps took effect for Pennsylvania's 2022 legislative elections.

Click here for more information.

Pennsylvania's 17 United States representatives and 253 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

  1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
  2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
  3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
  4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
  5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
  6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in Pennsylvania is also provided.

Summary

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On February 23, 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled to enact a new congressional map.[4] Over a dozen maps were submitted to the supreme court, including the map approved by the legislature. The court ultimately selected the Carter map in a 4-3 ruling, which was submitted by a group of Pennsylvania citizens who were petitioners in a redistricting-related lawsuit. Justices Debra Todd (D), Sallie Mundy (R), and Kevin Brobson (R) dissented.[2] Spotlight PA's Kate Huangpu wrote that the map is "as similar as possible to the current congressional map, with nearly 90% of residents staying in the same district."[2] This map took effect for Pennsylvania's 2022 congressional elections.

The state supreme court took authority over the redistricting process after Gov. Tom Wolf (D) vetoed the legislature's enacted map on January 26.[5] The Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted to approve the initial map 110-91 on January 12, and the Pennsylvania State Senate voted 29-20 to approve the map on January 24.[6][7] Following Wolf's veto, the authority for determining a new map initially rested with a lower court, but in a February 2 ruling the supreme court ruled that it would have control over the process to select a new congressional map.[8]

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Pennsylvania Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Pennsylvania Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

Governor Tom Wolf (D) said the map was a "fair map that will result in a congressional delegation mirroring the citizenry of Pennsylvania." State Rep. Seth Grove (R) said, "Unfortunately, the map chosen by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today is nothing but a partisan ploy in a process that should be free of political bias."[9]

2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[10] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[11]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Pennsylvania
District 2022 district Political predecessor district
Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party
Pennsylvania's 1st 51.8% 47.2% 52.4% 46.6%
Pennsylvania's 2nd 71.0% 28.3% 70.1% 29.1%
Pennsylvania's 3rd 90.2% 9.3% 91.3% 8.1%
Pennsylvania's 4th 58.9% 40.0% 61.5% 37.4%
Pennsylvania's 5th 65.7% 33.4% 65.1% 34.0%
Pennsylvania's 6th 56.8% 42.0% 56.9% 41.9%
Pennsylvania's 7th 49.7% 49.1% 51.8% 47.0%
Pennsylvania's 8th 48.0% 50.9% 47.3% 51.7%
Pennsylvania's 9th 31.0% 67.5% 34.1% 64.5%
Pennsylvania's 10th 47.2% 51.3% 47.8% 50.7%
Pennsylvania's 11th 38.6% 59.9% 38.3% 60.2%
Pennsylvania's 12th 59.4% 39.5% 64.5% 34.4%
Pennsylvania's 13th 26.8% 72.0% 27.2% 71.6%
Pennsylvania's 14th 33.7% 65.2% 35.7% 63.2%
Pennsylvania's 15th 30.8% 67.8% 27.5% 71.2%
Pennsylvania's 16th 39.0% 59.7% 40.0% 58.7%
Pennsylvania's 17th 52.3% 46.5% 50.7% 48.0%

Enacted state legislative district maps

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On February 4, 2022, the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission voted 4-1 to approve new state House and Senate maps.[3] House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R) voted no, while Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward (R), state Rep. Joanna McClinton (D), state Sen. Jay Costa (D), and chairman Mark Nordenberg voted yes.[3] These maps took effect for Pennsylvania's 2022 legislative elections.

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Pennsylvania State Senate Districts
until November 30, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Pennsylvania State Senate Districts
starting December 1, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Pennsylvania State House Districts
until November 30, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Pennsylvania State House Districts
starting December 1, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

Following the approval of the maps, commission Chairman Mark Nordenberg said: "I believe that we have succeeded by virtually any measure. [...] Even if imperfect, these are good maps that are fair, that are responsive to the requirements of the law, and that will serve the interests of the people of Pennsylvania for the next decade."[3] House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R) criticized the maps, saying: "Our goal is to follow the constitution. [...] This is, in my opinion, trying to make water flow uphill."[3]

Drafting process

In Pennsylvania, the statutory authority to draw congressional district boundaries is vested with the Pennsylvania General Assembly. These lines are subject to gubernatorial veto.[12]

State legislative district lines are drawn by a politician commission. Established in 1968, the commission comprises five members:[12]

  1. The majority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate appoints one member.
  2. The minority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate appoints one member.
  3. The majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives appoints one member.
  4. The minority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives appoints one member.
  5. The first four commissioners appoint a fifth member to serve as the commission's chair. If the commission is unable to reach an agreement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court must appoint a commission chair.[12]


The Pennsylvania Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and compact. Further, state legislative districts should "respect county, city, incorporated town, borough, township and ward boundaries." There are no such requirements in place for congressional districts.[12]

Timeline

According to a February 12, 2021, report from the Associated Press, Pennsylvania state Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman (R) said the state might have to postpone its 2022 primary, scheduled for May 17, 2022. "We’re not at the point where [we] have to put off the primary, but it’s something we have to consider if the data comes in so late," Corman said.[13][14]

On October 25, the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission announced it had certified U.S. Census data.[15] The deadline for the commission to draw legislative maps was 90 days after the certification of data.[16]

The Pennsylvania Department of State said congressional maps should be completed by January 24, 2022, to allow enough time before the 2022 primaries.[17]


Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

In Pennsylvania, the following committees are involved in the redistricting process: the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission, the House State Government Committee, the Senate State Government Committee, and the Pennsylvania Redistricting Advisory Council.

On September 13, 2021, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) announced the membership of the Pennsylvania Redistricting Advisory Council. According to the governor's press release, the council: "will review processes in other states that reduce gerrymandering, develop factors to determine if a plan improves the integrity and fairness and prevents the dilution of a person’s vote and offer recommendations to ensure that districts are compact and contiguous to keep communities together and ensure people are proportionally represented."


On May 3, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced the appointment of Mark Nordenberg as chair of the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission. Nordenberg, Chair of the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute of Politics, joined Sen. Majority Leader Kim Ward (R), Sen. Minority Leader Jay Costa (D), House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R), and House Minority Leader Joanna McClinton (D). The state supreme court appointed Nordenberg as chair after the four other members of the commission failed to agree on an appointment.[18]



Proposed maps

Congressional

On December 8, 2021, Rep. Seth Grove (R), chairman of the House State Government Committee, released a preliminary plan for congressional redistricting.[19] Click here to view the proposal. The Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted to approve Grove's proposed map 110-91 on January 12, 2022, and the Pennsylvania State Senate voted 29-20 to approve the map on January 24.[7][6]

On January 26, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) vetoed the map, meaning authority to choose a map was transferred to Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court. As of January 27, fourteen maps had been submitted to the court. They can be viewed here. On January 31, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court halted the lower court's consideration of the map proposals so it could rule on which court should select the map.[5] On February 2, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that it would have control over the process to select a new congressional map.[8] On February 9, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended the state's primary filing deadline in response to the redistricting delay.[20]

Street and Argall proposal

On December 9, 2021, Sens. Sharif Street (D) and David Argall (R), leaders of the Senate State Government Committee, released a congressional draft map.[21] Click here to view the proposal.

Wolf proposal

On January 15, 2022, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) released a congressional map proposal.[22] Click here to view the proposal.

Reactions

Following the release of the first congressional map on December 8, Rep. Seth Grove (R) said: "Over the last several months, advocates and everyday Pennsylvanians told us they didn’t want the process of years’ past. The people of Pennsylvania asked for increased public involvement, a map that was drawn by people, not by politicians, and the opportunity to offer comment on a preliminary plan before a final vote was taken." Rep. Scott Conklin (D) criticized the process of selecting the proposal, saying: "I have just seen the map. We actually asked if we could have a testifier on a Zoom meeting tomorrow and were denied. I had high hopes and I can’t express my disappointment that it wasn’t done in a bipartisan way."[23]

Regarding the December 9 Street and Argall proposal, The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote: "Senior Democratic operatives [...] expressed deep concern over the new draft map, with some saying it would help Republicans take control of the House in next year’s midterm elections." Street responded to this criticism, saying: "I understand we’ve got to balance the interests of making sure that we can win as many seats as we can, but we also have to be representative in the way we do that. And I think it’s been lost in the discussion.”[21]

Legislative

On December 16, Pennsylvania's Legislative Reapportionment Commission released approved draft maps for the state House and Senate. The Senate draft was approved unanimously by the commission. The House draft was approved in a 3-2 vote, with both Democrats and the tiebreaking member voting in favor, and both Republicans voting against.[24]

Reactions

House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R), a member of the Legislative Reapportionment Commission, criticized their December 16 House proposal, saying: "I see this map as extremely partisan gerrymandered. [...] The map before us is nothing short of a danger to our system of government that upends established norms and the emphasis on local control and local voices that Pennsylvanians hold dear." House Minority Leader Joanna McClinton (D) approved of the House map, saying it accounted for demographic changes in the state and "it also comports with the Voting Rights Act which requires that communities of color must have the same opportunity as other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice."[25]

Apportionment and release of census data

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.[26]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Pennsylvania was apportioned 17 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net loss of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[27]

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Pennsylvania
State 2010 census 2020 census 2010-2020
Population U.S. House seats Population U.S. House seats Raw change in population Percentage change in population Change in U.S. House seats
Pennsylvania 12,734,905 18 13,011,844 17 276,939 2.17% -1


Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021.[28][29][30][31] The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.[32][33]

Court challenges

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Post-enactment

Toth v. Chapman

On February 28, 2022, a group of Pennsylvanians, including two Republican candidates for U.S. Congress, filed an emergency filing before the United States Supreme Court challenging the enacted congressional map.[34] The filing said "this course of action is flagrantly unconstitutional and should be swiftly enjoined. Under the Elections Clause, it is 'the Legislature'—and not the judiciary—that must prescribe 'the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,' and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has no authority to impose a congressional map unless 'the Legislature' has authorized it to do so." The plaintiffs requested the court issue an injunction preventing the implementation of the congressional map the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted and holding Pennsylvania's 2022 congressional elections under a map drawn by the Pennsylvania General Assembly.[35]

On March 7, the Supreme Court declined to block Pennsylvania's congressional map.[36]

Pre-enactment

Carter v. Degraffenreid

On April 26, 2021, a group of registered Pennsylvania voters filed suit against Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth Veronica Degraffenreid in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, asking that the court "declare Pennsylvania's current congressional district plan unconstitutional; enjoin Respondents from using the current plan in any future elections; and implement a new congressional district plan that adheres to the constitutional requirement of one-person, one-vote should the General Assembly and Governor fail to do so." The plaintiffs argued that the apportionment counts released by the U.S. Census Bureau on April 26, 2021, "confirm the inevitable reality that population shifts that occurred during the last decade have rendered Pennsylvania's congressional plan unconstitutionally malapportioned." The plaintiffs added, "There is no reasonable prospect that Pennsylvania's political branches will reach consensus to enact a lawful congressional district plan in time to be used in the upcoming 2022 elections," citing partisan differences between Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat, and the Pennsylvania General Assembly, where Republicans have majorities in both chambers. In light of these circumstances, the plaintiffs asked that the court "assume jurisdiction now and establish a schedule that will enable the Court to adopt its own plan in the near-certain event that the political branches fail to timely do so."[37]

Noteworthy events

Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission voted to count incarcerated individuals at place of residence

On Aug. 23, 2021, the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission voted 3-2 to implement a measure that would count incarcerated individuals at their last known address, rather than at their place of incarceration for the purposes of state legislative redistricting. Sen. Jay Costa (D), Rep. Joanna McClinton (D), and Mark Nordenberg, the independent chair of the commission, voted in support of the measure, while Sen. Kim Ward (R) and Rep. Kerry Benninghoff (R) opposed it.[38] On Sept. 21, the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission said it would only reallocate incarcerated individuals whose sentences expire in less than ten years.[39]

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[40][41]

“ The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[42] ”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[43][44][45]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[45]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[45]

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

  1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[45][46]
  2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[45][46]
  3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[45][46]
  4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[45][46]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[47]

  1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
  2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
  3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.
See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[48][49]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[50]

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[51][52]

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[53] Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.[54] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[55]

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.[56] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.[57]

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[58]

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[59]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[60][61][62]

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[63][64][65][66]

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[67][68][69]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[70][71][72][73]

Trifectas and redistricting

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status
State Primary redistricting authority Pre-2010 trifecta status Post-2010 trifecta status Post-2018 trifecta status
Alabama Legislature Divided Republican Republican
Colorado Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission		 Democratic Divided Democratic
Indiana Legislature Divided Republican Republican
Iowa Legislature Democratic Divided Republican
Maine Legislature Democratic Republican Democratic
Michigan Legislature Divided Republican Divided
New Hampshire Legislature Democratic Divided Divided
North Carolina Legislature Democratic Divided Divided
Ohio Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission		 Divided Republican Republican
Oregon Legislature Democratic Divided Democratic
Pennsylvania Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission		 Divided Republican Divided
Wisconsin Legislature Democratic Republican Divided

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in Pennsylvania after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Pennsylvania lost one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held the governorship and both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. On December 20, 2011, the state legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett on December 22, 2011.[12][74]

On January 22, 2018, Pennsylvania's state supreme court struck down the state's congressional district map, finding that the map constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander. On February 19, 2018, the court adopted a remedial map for use in the 2018 election cycle. Pennsylvania Republicans filed suit in federal district court to prevent implementation of the new map. The district court dismissed the suit on March 19, 2018. State Republicans also petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the state supreme court's order pending appeal. The court rejected this request on March 19, 2018. For more information, see this article.

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On October 31, 2011, the politician redistricting commission issued its state legislative district proposal. The commission approved the proposal by a 4-1 vote on December 12, 2011. On January 25, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck the map down, ruling that "the lines violated state constitutional requirements of compactness and adherence to the integrity of political subdivisions." The court ordered the commission to redraw the map. The court further ordered that the state legislative district map adopted during the 2000 redistricting cycle would apply to elections taking place in 2012.[12][75]

On June 8, 2012, the redistricting commission released its amended state legislative district proposal. This map was also subject to court challenges, but these were dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on May 8, 2013. The new map took effect in 2014.[12][75]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Pennsylvania Supreme Court, "Order," February 23, 2022
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Spotlight PA, "Pennsylvania Supreme Court picks congressional map put forth by state voters," February 23, 2022
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 The Daily Review, "Final Pa. legislative maps approved by redistricting panel, but legal challenges likely," February 5, 2022
  4. ↑ Pennsylvania Supreme Court, "Order," February 23, 2022
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 WTAE, "Pennsylvania high court may step in to House districts case," January 31, 2022
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Pennsylvania State Senate, "Senate Roll Calls," accessed January 25, 2022
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Pennsylvania House of Representatives, "House Roll Calls," accessed January 13, 2022
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 CBS Pittsburgh, "Pennsylvania Supreme Court To Decide Commonwealth’s Congressional District Map," February 3, 2022
  9. ↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Pennsylvania has a new congressional map that will keep the state intensely competitive," February 23, 2022
  10. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
  11. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 All About Redistricting, "Pennsylvania," accessed May 8, 2015
  13. ↑ Associated Press, "Pennsylvania may need to delay 2022 primary, lawmaker says," February 12, 2021
  14. ↑ Pennsylvania Redistricting, "Welcome to Pennsylvania Redistricting," accessed October 3, 2018
  15. ↑ Pennsylvania Redistricting, "October 25 - Legislative Reapportionment Commission Certifies U.S. Census Data Sets As Usable," October 25, 2021
  16. ↑ WSKG, "PA Redistricting Panel Now On Deadline To Draft First Map," October 26, 2021
  17. ↑ WHYY, "Pa. lawmakers prepare for a month of intense redistricting negotiations," November 29, 2021
  18. ↑ PoliticsPA, "PA Supreme Court Selects Former Pitt Chancellor Mark Nordenberg To Chair Legislative Reapportionment Commission," May 3, 2021
  19. ↑ PennLive, "House committee chooses citizen’s map to start Pa. Congressional redistricting process," December 8, 2021
  20. ↑ U.S. News, "Court Puts Hold on Pennsylvania Primary Petition Gathering," February 9, 2022
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Democrats are suddenly fighting each other over Pennsylvania redistricting," December 9, 2021
  22. ↑ Pennsylvania Office of the Governor, "Congressional Districts Map Proposals," accessed January 22, 2022
  23. ↑ WITF, "Proposed redrawing of Pennsylvania’s congressional map draws mixed reviews," December 9, 2021
  24. ↑ Spotlight PA, "Pennsylvania redistricting: New proposed maps for state House, Senate districts released," December 16, 2021
  25. ↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Pennsylvania redistricting just got underway with the release of proposed new House and Senate maps," December 16, 2021
  26. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
  27. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
  28. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
  29. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
  30. ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
  31. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
  32. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
  33. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
  34. ↑ ABC 6, "Supreme Court asked to intervene in Pennsylvania congressional maps case," March 1, 2022
  35. ↑ Supreme Court, "Emergency Application to Justice Alito for Writ of Injunction," accessed March 2, 2022
  36. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices decline to reinstate GOP-backed congressional voting maps in North Carolina, Pennsylvania," March 7, 2022
  37. ↑ Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, "Carter v. Degraffenreid: Petition for Review Addressed to the Court's Original Jurisdiction," April 26, 2021
  38. ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Pennsylvania redistricting commission: Prisoners will be counted based on home addresses, not prison location," August 23, 2021
  39. ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Pennsylvania redistricting panel pares plan on where to count inmates," September 21, 2021
  40. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
  41. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
  42. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  43. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
  44. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.4 45.5 45.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
  47. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
  48. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  49. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
  50. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
  51. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
  52. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
  53. ↑ United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
  54. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
  55. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
  56. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
  57. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
  58. ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
  59. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
  60. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
  61. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
  62. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
  63. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
  64. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
  65. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
  66. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
  67. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
  68. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
  69. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
  70. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
  71. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
  72. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
  73. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
  74. ↑ Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  75. ↑ 75.0 75.1 All About Redistricting, "Litigation in the 2010 cycle, Pennsylvania," accessed May 8, 2015
v • e
Redistricting after the 2020 census
State-by-state
Overviews
Flag of Pennsylvania
v • e
State of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Redistricting_in_Pennsylvania_after_the_2020_census&oldid=10279887"