HARRISBURG - In a victory for citizens' power, the state Supreme Court on Friday directed a state commission to draw up a new reapportionment plan for state legislative districts that hews more closely to all constitutional mandates.
The court said an alternate plan drawn up by Amanda Holt, a private citizen in Lehigh County, is "powerful evidence" that such a task can be accomplished.
"This (Holt) plan shows that a redistricting map could readily be fashioned which maintained a roughly equivalent level of population deviation ... while employing significantly fewer political subdivision splits," said an 87-page opinion supported by a 4-3 majority on Pennsylvania's highest court.
The opinion by Chief Justice Ronald Castille explains that the reapportionment plan for 253 districts approved in December by the Legislative Reapportionment Commission is contrary to law because it splits too many municipal boundaries and creates districts that aren't compact.
Holt submitted her statewide map as part of a group of court appeals challenging the commission plan.
"I think this is evidence that citizens can make a difference in our government," Holt said. "This is affirming that yes, citizens do have a valid role to play in the redistricting process."
Holt, a piano teacher, said she decided to draw her own map after she and friends wondered why they lived close to each other but were constituents in different legislative districts. She used an Excel spreadsheet in her work.
The court has directed that the current district boundaries set in 2001 remain in effect until a new plan is approved, but left decisions about whether a revised plan can be approved in time for the April 24 primary in the hands of the reapportionment commission, which is composed of four legislative leaders and a court-appointed chairman.
In a footnote, the opinion said any revised plan approved by the commission would still be subject to appeals before the court, thus suggesting a lengthier preparation period.
The commission issued a timetable for action, setting a Feb. 22 meeting to vote on a revised preliminary plan.
The legislative leaders who sit on the commission are split along party lines over whether candidates will have to run in districts the way they have existed for the past decade or under the revised plan. Democratic leaders favor the first approach.
House Speaker Sam Smith, R-66, Punxsutawney, has filed a lawsuit in federal court saying that using existing districts is unconstitutional because of population shifts during the past decade. Senate Republicans are following suit in federal court Monday seeking an injunction to block use of the 2001 map.
The court said issues regarding a special primary for state legislative districts or scheduling special elections for six vacant House seats are up to the "political" branches of government.
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-9, Chester, said a number of interlocking factors will be weighed in determining whether a revised plan can be ready for the April 24 primary or if a new primary date must be set. This would involve passing a law.
The commission has to look not only at its own timetable but state and federal laws governing voter registration, ballot printing, polling places and absentee and military ballots, Pileggi said.
"Certainly the April 24 date is in jeopardy," he said.
Pileggi also said that having two primaries would be hard to justify because of the costs involved.
"The Constitution lists multiple imperatives in redistricting, which must be balanced," said the opinion in a reference to districts being equal in population and avoiding splits of municipalities between districts.
Article II Section 16 of the state Constitution states that legislative districts shall be composed of contact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable and that no county, municipality and ward should be divided between districts unless absolutely necessary.
The court opinion appears to make population equality less of a priority for mapmakers, but it doesn't give the commission much practical guidance, Pileggi said. There is nothing in the opinion objecting to moving a Senate seat from western Pennsylvania to fast-growing Monroe County, he said.
The court opinion noted that three Senatorial districts in the rejected plan - the 3rd, 35th and 15th - are not compact and are shaped respectively like a wish bone, a crooked finger and an iron cross.
"We have to do it right this time," said Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-43, Pittsburgh. "A new plan should not be rammed through the process, without due consideration for what the court has said about redistricting."
House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-28, Pittsburgh, said the court is changing the reapportionment rules and applying them in a retroactive manner.
"That creates undue hardship on the citizens of Pennsylvania and the proper functioning of state government," he said.