West Chester appeals split between 156th and 160th

As explained in “The latest on redistricting” (Nov. 29), the Harrisburg plan to redistrict PA House districts splits East Bradford, Westtown, West Chester in Chesco and Upper Chichester in Delco.  Just in the 156th and 160th districts, that’s four municipalities split for manifest political purposes in violation of the state constitution.

Residents of the Borough of West Chester, drawn from both proposed districts and from the two main political parties plus Independents, today filed a petition for redress of a state administrative action (that, it seems, is the proper term, not “suit” and not “appeal”). 

The petition—along with others from a similarly divided Phoenixville and from Amanda Holt (see my Nov. 29 post)—goes straight to the PA Supreme Court for rapid action, as the primary election season is upon us.

Many of us suspect that higher-level courts are becoming appendages of political parties.  For those who believe in the primacy of constitutions and the separation of powers, this is a tragedy.  Still, one can always hope that a majority of the 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats on the PA Supreme Court will see this issue the way the petitioners do.

The legal arguments in the petition set forth by attorney Sam Stretton are so interesting and weighty that I wanted to give somewhat lengthy excerpts. 

It also serves as a historical reminder of why West Chester was divided into voting wards over 20 years ago, and why any change to the wards (which is imminent, as required by the census results) requires court approval.

After the initial legal information, we get to…

Relevant Procedural Background

17. Pursuant to Section 17(a) of Article 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, in 2011, the year following the Federal decennial census, the 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission was constituted tor the purpose of reapportioning the Commonwealth.

18. Pursuant to Article 17(c) of Article 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Commission approved a preliminary reapportionment plan on October 31, 2011, by a 3 to 2 vote, with Commission members Costa and Dermody dissenting (“Preliminary Plan”).

19. The Preliminary Plan was not revealed to the Senate and House minority leader members of the Commission until one half-hour in advance of the time scheduled for voting on the Preliminary Plan and no meaningful opportunity for review of the Preliminary Plan was provided.

20. The Commission conducted public hearings on the Preliminary Plan on November 18 and November 23, 2011, and allowed for the submission of written comments and concerns.

21. During the course of the hearings, witnesses from across the Commonwealth testified as to the importance of not dividing political subdivisions unnecessarily….

General Statement of Objections to the Final Reapportionment PIan Splitting The Borough of West Chester in the 1561th Legislative District into the New 156th and new 160th Legislative Districts

24. The Petitioners object to the determination that divides the Borough of West Chester, the County seat of Chester County, in half placing three Wards into the new 160th Legislative District and four Wards into the new 156th Legislative District….

27. The said division violates the Pennsylvania Constitution under Article 2, Section 16.

28. This Constitutional section prohibits the division of townships and boroughs in forming a Representative District.

“The Commonwealth shall be divided into fifty senatorial and two hundred three representative districts, which shall be comprised of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable. Each senatorial district shall elect one Senator, and each representative district one Representative. Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district.” Article 2, Section 16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (emphasis supplied)….

30. The Petitioners have prepared an alternative plan, which maintains the Borough of West Chester in one Legislative District….

31. There is no absolute necessity for dividing the Borough of West Chester.

32. Further, the Borough of West Chester, in 1987, was the subject of Court decisions and Findings that there had been 100 years of voting discrimination against the minority population. See In the Matter of Petition to Establish Wards in the Borough of West Chester, 36 Chester County Reporter 12 (1988)….

33, That decision found there had been intentional discrimination and disenfranchisement of the minority population.

34. The current division in West Chester will divide the minority voting block and minority voters.

35. This objection being made now is that, because there has been a finding in the past of racial discrimination, the Borough of West Chester should not be divided.

36. Further, this would violate Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. For a district with a history of racial discrimination, there has to be a preclearance.

37. There is such a finding of past voting discrimination based on race in the Borough of West Chester, as referenced in the aforementioned In the Matter of Petition to Establish Wards In the Borough of West Chester Opinion.

38. The Petitioners object based on case law in Pennsylvania, which precludes gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic bases.

39. Because of the past history of discrimination and because the minority population is split with the current gerrymandering in the Borough of West Chester, the Petitioners contend that this will dilute the voting strength of minorities in the new Legislative Districts. See In Re Reapportionment Plan for the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, 442 A.2d 661, 668 (Pa., 1981).

40. The Petitioners contend that the aforementioned new reapportionment fences out racial and/or ethnic groups with a purpose to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population in the new Legislative Districts….

42. The Petitioners object in that the division of the Borough of West Chester, which is primarily a Democratic borough where all elected officials are from the Democratic party, was an attempt by the Republican party to dilute the Democratic strength in the 156th Legislative District and was done solely for the purpose of ensuring that a Republican will win the two new divided Districts, the 156th and 160th.

43. The Petitioners contend that there was no good faith effort by the Respondent, 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, in establishing equal districts when they divided the Borough of West Chester in half.

44. The Petitioners object in that the redistricting and cutting in half the Borough of West Chester fails to note that the County seat and Borough is a community that needs to be within one Legislative District to protect its shared interests.

45. Splitting the district into a lower halt, the 160th, which goes into Delaware County and which has no connection with Chester County, ignores the community interest and Borough interest.

At the end comes the section “Relief Requested by the Petitioners,” which naturally requests that the Borough be put back entirely into the 156th legislative district.

If the petition is granted, it will mark an important moment in state history: a strong against gerrymandering.  All citizens would benefit.  We all should have the right to live in legislative districts that, as required by the state constitution, are compact and contiguous and do not split up our municipalities.