Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Brennan Center for Justice...Feb 04, 2018 · A Step By Step Guide to Complying With This Court's January 22, 2018 Order in Creating New Congressional

Received 2/4/2018 2:49:25 PM Supreme Court Middle District

Filed 2/4/2018 2:49:00 PM Supreme Court Middle District 159 MM 2017

IN THE

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Middle District 159 MM 2017 LE

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA, CARMEN FEBO SAN MIGUEL, JAMES SOLOMON, JOHN GREINER, JOHN CAPOWSKI, GRETCHEN BRANDT,

THOMAS RENTSCHLER, MARY ELIZABETH LAWN, LISA ISAACS, DON LANCASTER, JORDI COMAS, ROBERT SMITH, WILLIAM MARX, RICHARD MANTELL, PRISCILLA

MCNULTY, THOMAS ULRICH, ROBERT MCKINSTRY, MARK LICHTY, LORRAINE PETROSKY, Petitioners,

v.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; THE PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY; THOMAS W. WOLF, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF

PENNSYLVANIA; MICHAEL J. STACK III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA AND PRESIDENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA

SENATE; MICHAEL C. TURZAI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; JOSEPH B. SCARNATI III, IN HIS

CAPACITY AS PENNSYLVANIA SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE; ROBERT TORRES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; JONATHAN M. MARKS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF

THE BUREAU OF COMMISSIONS, ELECTIONS, AND LEGISLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Respondents.

On Appeal from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at No. 261 MD 2017

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY

BRIAN A. GORDON (I.D. NO. 52342) GORDON & ASHWORTH, P.C. 1 Belmont Avenue, Suite 519 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 (610) 667-4500 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Concerned Citizens for Democracy

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. Introduction 4

II. A Step By Step Guide to Complying With This Court's January 22, 2018 Order in Creating New Congressional Districts 7

III. How the Court's 4 -Rule Set for Redistricting Will Greatly Reduce or End Gerrymandering. 10

A. Historical Background 10

B. The 2011 Map 13

C. How the Court's 4 -Rule Set Makes the 2011 Map Impossible 18

D. Other Reasons to Minimize the Division of Counties and Other Municipalities 20

IV. Why Incumbency Can Play No Role In Redistricting 24

V. The Importance of The Court's Rule Set 28

VI. Conclusion 29

2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Constitutional Provisions

Page

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2. 28

Pa. Const. Art. I, § 1 23, 25 Pa. Const. Art. I, § 2 23, 25 Pa. Const. Art. I, § 5 23, 25 Pa. Const. Art. I, § 20 23, 25 Pa. Const. Art. I, § 25 23 Pa. Const. Art. I, § 26 23, 25 Pa. Const. Art. II, § 16 6,11,12

Statutes 1911 Federal Reapportionment Act, The 1911 Federal Reapportionment Act, Pub.L. 62-5, 37 Stat. 13, Session 1, Ch 4, 5, August 8, 1911 11, 12

Cases Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1 (1932)

3

28 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ET AL : No. 159 MM 2017

Petitioners

v.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

AMICUS BRIEF BY THE CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY

I. Introduction

Petitioner Concerned Citizens for Democracy (CCFD) is a think-tank

composed of lawyers, computer scientists, and engineers dedicated to developing

non-partisan judicially manageable standards for redistricting in Pennsylvania.

CCFD is a non-profit unincorporated association organized under the laws of

Pennsylvania pursuant to 15 P.S. 9111 et seq. CCFD has been studying and

developing a neutral, judicially enforceable remedy to partisan gerrymandering in

Pennsylvania since February of 2017.

4

It has come to our attention, based on the Emergency Application for a Stay

to the United States Supreme Court by Legislative Defendants Michael C. Turzai

and Joseph B. Scarnati, that the Legislative Defendants and other parties may need

guidance on how to comply with the Court's January 22, 2018 Order.'

The purpose of this memorandum is to present a step by step method for

complying with the Court's Order to create a Congressional Map with districts that

are compact, contiguous, have equal populations, and do not divide counties and

other political subdivisions unless absolutely necessary to create equal population

districts. We offer this brief to let all Parties know that redistricting can be done

without further direction from this Court. We offer a methodology for creating a

Pennsylvania Congressional Map which is consistent, non-partisan [independent of

user -bias] and will withstand the scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court if the matter

is successfully appealed to that body.

As a preliminary matter, we find the claim that this Court gave too little

guidance to the Legislature on how to draw a non-partisan map which complies

with the Pennsylvania Constitution to be disingenuous. Pennsylvania Legislatures

were able to produce Congressional maps that were compact, contiguous, did not

unnecessarily divide political subdivisions and were equal in population to the

1 Scarnati and Turzai's Emergency Application for a Stay at pp. 6-7. "The court did not provide a basis for its ruling or indicate how-other than complying with the compactness, contiguity, equal -population, and subdivision integrity requirements-the General Assembly could satisfy the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Order only provides: "Opinion to follow." Id. at 3. Simply put, the General Assembly has now been placed on the clock without fulsome guidance."

5

extent reasonably practicable, with even less guidance from this Court in 1943,

1951, 1962, 1972 and 1982. See: Appendix F. PA Congressional maps from 1943

- 2011)

Specifically, the Legislative Defendants need to look no further than the

1972 Pennsylvania Congressional Map for guidance in how to construct a Map

which complies with this Court's standard. See Appendix. D, 1972 Map. The

only difference between the 1972 Map and today is the current requirement for

equal population Congressional districts that has been interpreted to mean that each

Congressional district may not vary in population by more than one person based

on the preceding U.S. Census. This goal can be accomplished by dividing one

municipality along each common Congressional district border to reach exactly

equal population districts AFTER the Defendants have complied with the other

criteria in the Court's January 22, 2018 Order.

CCFD used Article II, Section 16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the 1972

PA Congressional Map and this Court's January 22, 2018 Order in developing this

approach. CCFD can unequivocally state that:

(1) the Court's standard for redistricting gives sufficient guidance for any

person sincerely engaged in redistricting to form districts which are based on

neutral and objective standards;

6

(2) exactly equal population Congressional districts can be obtained with

the division of only a single township or ward along each common border between

two districts;

(3) creating a Map that follows this Court's January 22, 2018 Order takes

about 20 hours by hand with the aid of standard GIS software or less than an hour

with the aid of a redistricting program.2

II. A Step by Step Guide to Complying with this Court's January 22, 2018

Order in creating new Congressional districts.

Step 1: Throw out the current unconstitutional, incumbent -protecting,

partisan gerrymandered 2011 Congressional map in which the Legislature

selected the voters instead of allowing the voters to elect their Members of

Congress.

Step 2: Using the 2010 Census, assemble smaller population counties

(below the target population of 705,688 persons) into groupings and divide

larger population counties (above the target population of 705,688 persons) a

minimum number of times to create 18 roughly equal size Congressional

districts. For example, Philadelphia County, with a population of 2.16

Congressional districts may be divided ONLY 2 times; Montgomery

2CCFD's expert, Anne Hanna, created a map using this methodology with the aid of basic GIS software in twenty hours. Anne Hanna was admitted as an expert in the matter of Agre v. Wolf, ED PA No. 17-4392. Ms. Hanna is a expert in data analytics and computational science with a B.S. in Physics from California Institute of Technology, an M.S. in Physics from Univ. of Illinois and is a PhD candidate in Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology.

7

County, with a population of 1.13 Congressional districts, may be divided

ONLY 1 time; and Allegheny County, with a population of 1.73

Congressional districts, may be divided ONLY 1 time. This step will yield

an initial map with a population deviation between 5% and 10%.

Step 3: To get closer to exactly equal population districts, add or subtract

territory consisting of whole townships, boroughs, towns, or cities, along the

whole border of each divided County in a linear fashion before moving into

or out of a neighboring county. (This is an extremely important step as it

will prohibit picking and choosing territory based on past partisan voting

performance and will help to form very compact districts from the start.)

The drafter must use up ALL of the district -to -district abutting whole

townships, boroughs, towns, and cities before adding the next row of

abutting townships, boroughs, towns, and cities (one district removed from

the border districts). Continue this process down to the last whole township,

borough or city along the border of each of the 18 districts. This step will

yield an initial map with population deviations of about 2%.

Step 4: Then choose one and only one township, borough, town, or ward

along each common border between two districts to divide in order to

equalize population using census block data down to a single person. This

step will allow the drafter to get to get to equal populations + or - one

8

person (5 districts comprised of 705,687 and 13 districts comprised of

705,688 persons).

Step 5: Look at concentrations of minority voters in any relevant region of

Pennsylvania. Adjust the division of wards or other political subdivisions to

ensure that minority votes are not diluted in violation of the Voting Rights

Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973 et seq.

Notes

Where a County already has a population which is larger than the target

population, do not add population from a neighboring county. This will minimize

the number of splits of counties with larger populations as required by the Court

(Philadelphia, Montgomery, and Allegheny Counties).

A drafter may not consider partisan data in forming districts or drawing any

boundary lines and must be able to articulate a neutral non-discriminatory reason

for any choice made in the redistricting process. While the foregoing methodology

using the Court's 4 Rule Set will minimize the potential for partisan manipulation

of districts, we anticipate that legislators who are used to gerrymandering will

nevertheless try to game any system through the use of computers using partisan

voting data, or mere knowledge of voting patterns to determine where to add or

subtract whole municipalities to protect incumbents and/or pick up an additional

9

seat for their party. Therefore, any Map proven to have used partisan data or

partisan intent in the manipulation of district boundaries must be stricken.

This step-by-step approach is 100% compliant with the Court's January 22,

2018 Order (the "Court's 4 -Rule Set"). All 4 criteria are met. The requirement for

compact and continuous territory is met. The requirement for not unnecessarily

dividing Counties and other political subdivisions is met. The requirement for

exactly equal population districts is met. The requirement for compliance with the

Voting Rights Act is met.

This step-by-step approach, applied in good faith, will create stable

Congressional districts with minimal partisan effect.

A more detailed explanation for technical consultants is attached as

Appendix A. An exemplar 18 -District PA Congressional Map, as an illustration

of this methodology, is attached as Appendix B 1, B 2, and B3. The GIS data and

statistical analysis for the proposed Map, similar to the data requested of all parties,

is attached hereto as Appendix C. parts b through f. The proposed methodology

consistently results in the divisions of only 16 counties and 17 political

subdivisions.

III. How the Court's 4 -Rule Set for Redistricting Will Greatly Reduce or End

Gerrymandering.

A. Historical Background

10

To understand how the Court's 4 -Rule Set will prevent gerrymandering it

will be useful to note that during much of the last century, the Pennsylvania

Legislature was able to draw Congressional Maps that were contiguous and

compact, had roughly equal populations, and avoided splitting political

subdivisions with little guidance from this Court.

The 1911 Federal Reapportionment Act, Pub.L. 62-5, 37 Stat. 13 August 8,

1911, contained three of the four redistricting requirements found in Article II,

Section 16 of the 1968 Pennsylvania Constitution; namely the requirements that

districts be compact, contiguous and have districts with equal populations to the

extent reasonably practicable.3 The 1911 Act was deemed to have expired in the

next reapportionment act which did not contain these provisions, See: Wood v.

Broom, 287 U.S. 1 (1932). However, an examination of the Pennsylvania

Congressional Maps enacted in 1943, 1951, 1962, and 1972 reveal that, despite

this repeal, these rules continued to be followed. See: Appendix F. and the

Pennsylvania Redistricting website at

http://www.redistricting.state.pa.us/congressional-redistricting.cfm.

3 The 1911 Reapportionment Act states at Section 3. That, "... in each State entitled under this apportionment to more than one Representative, the Representatives to the Sixty- third and each subsequent Congress shall be elected by districts composed of a contiguous and compact territory, and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants. The said districts shall be equal to the number of Representatives to which such State may be entitled in Congress, no district electing more than one Representative."

11

These Maps show that the Pennsylvania Legislature had little problem

creating Congressional Maps with districts that were compact, contiguous, equal in

population to the extent reasonably practicable and did not divide political

subdivisions unless absolutely necessary. Id.

As mentioned above, the 1972 Pennsylvania Congressional Map is of

particular interest because it was drafted after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) and after the newly enacted 1968

Pennsylvania Constitution. In Wesberry the Court emphasized the need for equal

population districts to the extent reasonably practicable. The 1972 Map reveals a

sincere effort to draft Congressional districts that are both compact and avoid

splitting political subdivisions. The drafter appears to have begun with county

boundaries and added or subtracted whole townships in a compact manner along

the border of counties.

The 1982 Pennsylvania Congressional Map (Appendix F, Map No. 4.)

continued the custom of creating Congressional districts that assume all of the

requirements of Article II Section 16 and the 1911 Reapportionment Act. The

drafter, once again, appears to have begun with county boundaries and added or

subtracted whole townships in a compact manner along the border of counties.

There are some minor irregularities in the choice of which township to add to a

district which may be accounted for simply by getting closer to equal population

12

districts based upon the preceding census. Beginning with the 1992 Map4

(Appendix F, Map 6) , the Pennsylvania Legislature began to move away from

respecting County and other political subdivision boundaries and show signs of

gerrymandering in the choices made around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

From observation and historical facts, the first extreme gerrymandering in

Pennsylvania occurs in the 2002 Pennsylvania Congressional Maps (Appendix F,

Map 7. In 2002, the Pennsylvania Legislature split Montgomery County into 6

pieces after the voters of the 13th Congressional District twice elected Democratic

Members of Congress (Rep. Marjorie Mezvinski and Rep. Joe Hoeffel). The

Democratic territory from Montgomery County was distributed in the neighboring

7th, 6th, 15th, and 2nd. We also see a significant gerrymander in the southwestern

corner of the state, where Democrats from inner -ring suburbs of Pittsburgh were

added to the 14th District. This packing would have affected the composition of the

abutting 4th, 18th, and 12th Congressional Districts. The 12th Congressional District

is especially egregious and may reflect a personal gerrymander for incumbent

Representative John Murtha.

B. The 2011 Map - Patterns in Gerrymandering

4 Source: http://www.redistricting. state.pa.us/Resources/GISData/Districts/Congres siona1/1991/PDF/Cong ressionalDistricts_1991.pdf 5 Source: https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/cong_dist/cd108_gen/ind_pdf/Pennsylvania/PA_CDloc.pdf

13

None of the past maps compare to the aggressive gerrymandering found in

the 2011 Congressional Map.6 (Appendix E and Appendix F Map 8) Here, the

Republican Majority Legislature and Republican Governor employed three

techniques to dramatically increase the chances for Republican victories in 13 of

18 Congressional districts.

From careful examination of the maps and comparison to underlying

partisan data introduced at trial, it is clear that the Republican Legislature

gerrymandered the map on a state-wide basis, packing Democratic performing

territory into five seats: the 1st, 2nd, 13th,

14, A th, and, to a lesser extent, the 17th.

The Republican drafters further packed the 1st Congressional District by

attaching Democratic performing Swarthmore and Nether Providence Township in

neighboring Delaware County. This also had the effect of cleansing Democrats

from the 7th Congressional District.

The Republican drafters further packed the 2nd District by attaching

Democratic performing Lower Merion in Montgomery County to an

overwhelmingly Democratic 2nd District in Philadelphia. This also had the effect

of cleansing Democrats from the 7th Congressional District.

6 Source: http://aws.redistricting.state.pa.us/Redistricting/Resources/GISData/Districts/Congressiona1/2011 /PDF/2011-PA-Congressional-Map.pdf

14

By carefully dividing Republican and Democratic voting territory between

the 13th District and the 7th District, the Republican drafters simultaneously

constructed a Republican leaning 7th and a Democratic packed 13th. The circuitous

border on the eastern edge of the 7th, which appears as the ears and neck of the

Disney character "Goofy", is essentially a careful divide between Republican and

Democratic voting territory.

Republican drafters of the 2011 Map packed the 14th District by attaching

the City of Pittsburgh to its inner -ring Democratic performing suburbs and

excluding outer -ring Republican performing suburbs in the same county. Not

satisfied with that level of partisan manipulation, the drafters then extended the 14th

to include Democratic voting river towns along the Allegheny, Monongahela, and

Ohio rivers to cleanse Democratic votes out of the 12th and 18th Districts.

Republican drafters then assembled large portions of Democratic voting

territory in Schuylkill, Carbon, Monroe, Lackawanna, and Luzerne Counties in

order to form the 17th District.

Not satisfied with packing Democrats into these 5 districts, the Republicans

then split concentrations of Democrats in Erie County and allocated those voters to

the 5th and the 3rd Districtswhere their votes were lost in a sea of Republican

voting territory, and so, could not significantly influence election outcomes.

15

The Republican drafters split the City of Harrisburg and its Democratic

voting suburbs and divided these concentrations of Democratic voters between the

4th and 11th Districts.

The Republican drafters drew a line around the Democratic voting City of

Reading and made those votes "disappear" by adding this Democratic voting

territory to the overwhelmingly Republican voting 16th District. The same was

done with the Borough of West Chester by adding this Democratic voting territory

to overwhelmingly -Republican -voting 16th District. This configuration also made

the 7th District more Republican voting for Congressman Pat Meehan.

The Republican drafters split Democratic Stroudsburg from the 17th and

added it to the Republican majority 10th to make those votes disappear as well.

In the western part of Pennsylvania, Republican drafters split Democratic

performing territory in Washington, Greene, and Fayette Counties and added these

voters to the overwhelmingly -Republican -majority 9th District.

Not satisfied with packing and cracking concentrations of Democratic

territory, Republican drafters elongated the districts of Republican incumbents

westward in the eastern part of the State, and eastward in the western part of the

State, to add proven, durable and strongly Republican voting territory to each

Republican majority district. It was this technique that helped ensure 13

Republican Congressional victories in 2012, 2014 and 2016 regardless of the vote

16

share of each party in strong or weak years. Westward expansion of eastern

districts into rural conservative voting counties is reflected in the addition of the

"Donald Duck" portion of the 7th. Here, conservative portions of Chester,

Lancaster and Berks Counties were added to a Philadelphia suburban district.

The westward elongation of districts in the east into rural portions of

Pennsylvania is also seen in the westward loop of the 6th District into Berks and

Lebanon Counties; the westward elongation of the 15th District into rural Lebanon

and Dauphin Counties; the westward elongation of the 17th District into Schuylkill

County; the westward elongation of the 11th District into rural Dauphin, Perry, and

Cumberland Counties. In the western half of the state the elongation of districts

into to rural Republican territory is reflected in the southeastward elongation of the

3rd District into rural Clarion and Armstrong Counties; the eastward elongation of

the 12th District into Cambria and Somerset Counties; and the eastward elongation

of the 18th District into Westmoreland County.

A special mention must be given to the 12th District. If there were a

"gerrymander of the decade award" it clearly belongs to the drafters of this district.

The 12th District employs all of the aforementioned techniques of partisan

gerrymandering, with the added bonus that two incumbents in the opposing

Democratic party, Rep. Jason Altmire (D -PA 4th) and Rep. Mark Critz (D -PA

12th), were simultaneously unseated by the formation of a single District. The new

17

12th was made less Democratic by shifting additional Democratic territory into the

14th District (to the south) along the Ohio and Allegheny Rivers. The club portion

of the 12th was the result of expanding the 12th District north and south into rural

Republican voting territories of Cambria and Somerset Counties. Curiously the

new 12th District was also drawn to include the home of Speaker Mike Turzai, who

had expressed interest in running for Congress, and to exclude a potential

Republican opponent, Keith Rothfus. Turzai did not run. Rothfus won the seat

and moved into the district.

C. How the Court's 4 -Rule Set Makes the 2011 Map Impossible:

The strict application of the requirement that districts shall be composed of

compact territory and the strict application of the requirement that Districts shall

not "divide any county, city, incorporated town, borough, or ward except where

necessary to ensure equality of population" will severely hamper partisan

gerrymandering in Pennsylvania. Each of the gerrymandering techniques

displayed in the 2011 Map depends on being able to break through county and

other municipal boundaries. By starting with counties to form districts and

requiring the addition or subtraction of only whole municipalities (except for one)

along county boundaries while requiring that districts remain compact, this Court

will make it extremely difficult for gerrymanderers to ply their trade.

18

It is the combination of the rule for compactness and rule for not splitting

counties or other political subdivisions, strictly applied, that makes it nearly

impossible for gerrymanderers to pick and choose desired territory. If a drafter

cannot pick and choose territory, a drafter cannot choose territory based on partisan

voting behavior.

Compact districts would have rendered unlawful the following districts that

were elongated to add Republican voting territory for the purpose of diluting

6th, 15th, nth 9th,

th , 12th , and 3rd Districts. Democratic votes: the 7th,

Compact districts would have rendered unlawful the 1st, 17th,

13th and 14th

where Democratic tendrils were added to Democratic districts and removed from

neutral or Republican leaning districts.

Requiring a drafter to minimize county splits and form Congressional

districts using territory along the boundaries of counties before attaching other

territory further inside of a county would render unlawful the partisan manipulation

of all 18 Congressional districts. Compare 1972 Map (Appendix D) with 2011

Map (Appendix E).

In sum, the strict application of compactness and minimizing the number of

splits will geometrically and geographically prevent virtually all of the

gerrymandering (voter selection) seen in the 2011 Map.

19

More importantly, by geometrically and geographically preventing

politicians from choosing their voters based upon partisan voting history in past

elections and by insisting on boundaries composed of established municipal

boundaries, the voters will once again choose their Congressional representatives

instead of allowing politicians to choose the voters. Democracy and free and equal

elections of Congressional representatives will again be restored in Pennsylvania.

D. Other Reasons to Minimize the Division of Counties and Other Municipalities

In addition to providing an objective and historically -grounded framework

for neutral redistricting and frustrating the work of gerrymanderers, the

preservation of whole counties and other municipalities should be paramount in

drafting Congressional districts for the following policy reasons:

(1) Counties, cities, townships, and other municipalities have meaning to

citizens because this is where people choose to live and/or raise their families.


citizens because this is where people face common problems that may be unique to

their communities, such as failing schools, congested highways, the need for parks,

libraries, or after school programs, storm water management, medical care, jobs,

and economic development. On many specific issues, needs of communities may

differ from county to county or township to township.

20


citizens because this is where people pool their resources in the form of taxes to

solve common problems.

(4) Because of the above needs, it is important for citizens to know the

identity of their Congressperson and it is important for their Congressperson to

know and advocate for their communities. This is made far more difficult when

districts' shapes are attenuated or elongated to influence the outcome of elections.

(5) Compact districts based on county boundaries will make it easier for

people to visit, get to know, and lobby their Congressional representative and feel

less alienated. All of the elongated districts noted above make it very difficult for

citizens to get to know their Congressional representative and for their

Congressional representative to get to know them.

(6) Districts that begin with county boundaries establish an objective

framework to create meaningful districts that can be judicially administered. By

having clear geometric standards for keeping counties, townships and wards or

boroughs whole, additional breaks in counties, townships, wards or boroughs

become an indication of partisan manipulation. For illustration, if a map is

presented to a Court with a less obvious gerrymandered shape, such as the 6th, 16th,

17th or 11th, by requiring Congressional districts to follow county boundaries and

add or subtract territory only along county boundaries, a deviant district would

21

create a prima facie case of partisan intent which would have to be explained by

those defending the map. If the unexplained boundaries that did not follow county

borders corresponded to underlying partisan voting territory, the map should be

stricken as the product of partisan gerrymandering.

The emergence of a judicially manageable standard

This last point is extremely important for the Court and all parties to

understand on appeal. There is a nexus between the 4 -rule framework in the

Court's January 22, 2018 Order and a manageable judicial standard. The

requirement to base districts, where possible, on compact and unbroken political

subdivisions, creates a neutral objective standard to form and evaluate districts.

Neutral and objective standards gives courts important benchmarks to determine

whether gerrymandering has occurred, or at least whether a prima facie case has

been stated requiring an explanation from the drafter. In the absence of objective

standards, the courts have been unwilling to protect the rights of individual voters

from discrimination and vote dilution by legislators who choose to manipulate the

boundaries of districts to favor their own party or political allies. In the absence of

objective standards and Court intervention, the drafting of districts becomes

lawless. Might makes right. Those in power take advantage of those out of power

to rig elections and entrench positions.

22

The Court's 4 Rule Set, strictly applied, end that chaos, lawlessness and

perversion of fair elections and the subversion of democracy by allowing courts to

intervene with objective neutral standards.

The 4 -Rule Set is therefore essential to protect Pennsylvania voters and

candidates from discrimination based on their political views in violation of Article

I, Section 26 of the PA Constitution and protect Pennsylvanians from rigged

elections in violation of Article I, Sections 1, 2, 5, 20, 25 and 26 of the PA

Constitution.

More specifically, if the drafter of Congressional districts had to form

districts by assembling whole counties, compact portions of counties, and avoid

breaks in political subdivisions then a map that failed to follow these simple

standards, would create a prima facie case of partisan intent. At this point, the

drafter would be required to explain why the chosen boundaries deviated from

these standards. If the drafter fails to explain or offers an inadequate explanation,

the map should be stricken and the drafter would be sent back to redraw the map.

If the drafter of the map presented a plausible explanation for a shape that

deviated from the Court's criteria, the opposing party should then be given the

option of presenting underlying political and geographic data to show that district

boundary lines were more likely used to pack or crack concentrations of opposing

23

voters to otherwise manipulate boundaries for partisan ends. In such instance, the

map should be rejected by the Court and the drafter sent to redraw the map.

So for example, suppose a litigant complains about the 6th District in the

2011 Map. The 6th splits four counties. The 6th is visually non -compact. The 6th

District fails to adhere to any county boundaries. The 6th District is elongated with

a tail to the west. From a visual inspection alone it is clear that the drafter could

have swapped territory with the 7th to make the 6th more compact and primarily a

Chester County district but chose not to do so. Each of these attributes would

make out a prima facie case of gerrymandering.

At this point, the drafter would be required to explain why the chosen

boundaries deviated from these standards. If the drafter failed to explain the

boundary deviations, the map would fail.

If the drafter presented a non-partisan explanation of the boundary choices,

the opposing party could then present underlying political and geographic data to

showed that chosen lines which deviated from established standards were likely

used to pack or crack concentrations of opposing voters or to artificially make a

district better performing for an opposing party. If such a showing were made, the

map should be rejected by the Court and the drafter sent to redraw the map.

IV. Why Incumbency Can Play No Role In Redistricting.

24

CCFD opposes incumbency protection for the following reasons: (1)

incumbency protection is a fundamental violation of Article I, Sections 1, 2, 5, 20

and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; (2) incumbency protection reinforces past

partisan gerrymanders; (3) incumbents already enjoy a 5% to 15 % advantage over

a challenger due to name recognition, the ability to raise funds, constituent service

opportunities and party recognition; (4) the U.S. Constitution does not require an

individual who runs for Congress to reside in his or her district; and (5) providing

incumbency protection will destroy any framework for neutral objective criteria

based on the Court's 4 -Rule Set.

Article I Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that all people

are "born equal and free." If all people are equal and free, how could any court

approve an advantage for one person over another in running for elected office?7

Article I Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that "Elections

shall be free and equal..." This provision clearly means that elections shall be run

fairly and that it would be patently unfair for the Court to permit one person from

being given a governmentally sanctioned advantage over his or her rival in an

election. This would be the equivalent of saying that incumbents start on the 50

yard line of a football game and challengers start their drive on the 20 yard line.

Such a ruling would bring to life George Orwell's "Animal Farm" to Pennsylvania elections, to wit, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

25

More specifically, districts should not be drawn to favor the political party of

an incumbent. Drafting a map to give an incumbent additional territory of his or

her own party would be the equivalent of giving the incumbent an extra 20,000,

30,000 or 40,000 votes. Once again, how could any court allow an incumbent to

start on the 50 yard line on every drive down the field? Just as a Court would

never allow a candidate to steal votes after they were cast, the Court should be

equally concerned about a majority party stealing votes before they are cast by

moving the boundaries of Congressional districts to exclude unwanted opposing

voters.

Article I Section 26 prohibits discrimination against any person in the

exercise of their civil rights under Pennsylvania law. This clause states, "Neither

the Commonwealth nor its political subdivision thereof shall deny any person the

enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of

any civil right." The right to run for Congress is a civil right. An incumbent who

chooses to run for Congress is nothing more than a person choosing to exercise the

civil right of running for office. A challenger who chooses to run for Congress is

nothing more than a person choosing to exercise the civil right of running for

office. If one meets the federal requirements to run for Congress, it would be

unconscionable for any court to discriminate between these two people and make it

26

easier for one to win by designing a district with voting territory which favors his

or her own party.

Nor should districts be designed to include or exclude the home of

incumbents. This act would once again treat one citizen more equal than others.

Instead, only objective standards should be used to form districts, and candidates

can choose to move into districts, if that is their desire.

Second, incumbency protection reinforces past gerrymandering. All 18

Pennsylvania Congressional districts are the result of Republicans' successful

packing or cracking Democratic voters, or adding durable Republican voting

territory to Republican districts. Any attempt to keep these districts intact, whether

Republican or Democratic, would simply reinforce past gerrymandering of the

Congressional district map.

Third, incumbents do not need protection. Incumbent Congressional

representatives have enormous advantages in running for office. They have free

official mailings, name recognition, press coverage, an opportunity for constituent

service and an ability to raise funds which is superior to most challengers. Some

experts estimate that incumbents have a 5% to 15% advantage over challengers in

27

running for office.8 If those figures are correct, incumbents need no additional

advantages by drawing districts in their favor.

Fourth, the Constitution does not require incumbents to live in their districts.

Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires only that a Representative "be

an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen." Both Bob Brady (D PA

1st) and Keith Rothfus (R PA 12th) ran while living outside their districts and won.

Finally, providing incumbency protection will destroy any framework for

neutral objective criteria based on the Court's 4 -Rule Set. Incumbency protection

would provide an easy excuse not to follow one or more of the Court's redistricting

rules and would end up destroying the integrity of a neutral districting framework

based on drafting principles that are consistently applied.

V. The Importance of the Court's Rule Set.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has landed on a set of criteria for

redistricting that will bring order to chaos and fairness to political discrimination.

The rules will prevent the drafter's pen from being used as a political weapon

against concentrations of opposing voters. The rules are easy to use, create

objective standards to detect partisan gerrymandering and reject maps that contain

any district formed with partisan intent. It is also important to note that

Pennsylvania is not alone in applying the rules for compactness, contiguity and

8 Legislative Defendants' expert witness Professor Gimpel testified in Agre v. Wolf, ED PA 17-4392 that incumbents had a 5-15% percent voting advantage over challengers.

28

equal population in elections. 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 district. See:

https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Iowa. In addition, 23 states require their

congressional districts to be contiguous and 18 states require their congressional

districts to be compact. Id.

VI. Conclusion

The Court's 4 -Rule Set for redistricting not only creates judicially

manageable standards in Pennsylvania, it responds to Justice Kennedy's plea in

Vieth et al v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) at 317, for a neutral, workable,

judicially manageable standard to detect partisan gerrymandering and reject maps

or plans that are the product of the manipulation of districts with partisan intent.

Sadly, the Court in Vieth did not understand that the answer lay before them in the

strict application of all four criteria contained in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Gerrymandering depends on the capacity to pick and choose territory based on

voting history to generate election results that perversely favor one party over

another or favor or disfavor an individual candidate. By strictly applying rules that

are part of the fabric of both Pennsylvania Law and U.S. Law and applying the

lessons of the 1972 Congressional Map by requiring drafters to start with counties

29

to create Congressional districts and add or subtract territory along county

boundaries before moving inward within a county, this Court can make

gerrymandering geometrically and geographically difficult if not impossible.

We also urge the Court to adopt a standard of allowing no partisan intent and

no protection for incumbents in choosing district boundaries. To allow the small

amounts of partisan intent would make the process unmanageable. To allow the

protection of incumbents, who in many cases were elected as a result of

gerrymandering, would further damage the integrity of our election process.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian A. Gordon

Brian A. Gordon Gordon & Ashworth, P.C. 1 Belmont Ave., Suite 519 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 (610) 667 4500 Attorney for Concerned Citizens for Democracy

30

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Rule 2135, I certify the following: This brief complies with the

type -volume limitation of Rule 2135; this brief contains 5,717 words excluding the

parts of the brief exempted by this rule.

/s/ Brian A. Gordon

Brian A. Gordon Gordon & Ashworth, P.C. 1 Belmont Ave., Suite 519 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 (610) 667 4500 Attorney for Amicus Curaie Concerned Citizens for Democracy

31

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief

of Amicus Curiae Concerned Citizens for Democracy was served upon all counsel

of record, via electronic service, on this date.

February 4, 2018 /s/ Brian A. Gordon

BRIAN A. GORDON (I.D. NO. 52342) GORDON & ASHWORTH, P.C. 1 Belmont Avenue, Suite 519 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 (610) 667-4500

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Concerned Citizens for Democracy

32



Appendix A. CCFD A Step by Step Approach to Neutral Drafting of Districts

Technical Guide

CCFD Exemplar Map

CCFD has applied the Court's standards for Congressional District design to

the preparation of an exemplar map (see attached GIS files and images), to

demonstrate both the feasibility of applying these standards and the ease with

which it is possible to do so. The data used in designing this map is the same data

that was used by the legislature in 2011, which was made public during the Agre et

al. v. Wolf et al. (2:17-cv-04392) federal lawsuit challenging the 2011 Map.

The 18 Congressional Districts in this map satisfy the absolute population

equality standard (5 districts with 705,687 residents and 13 districts with 705,688

residents) and include one majority -minority district, as in the 2011 Map. In

addition, the districts are significantly more compact and divide many fewer

counties (16 vs. 28) and municipalities (21 vs. 68) than the 2011 Plan. In addition,

only one county, Philadelphia County, is divided between 3 Districts in this map,

while in the 2011 Plan, Montgomery County was divided among 5 Districts, Berks

County was divided among 4 Districts, and five other counties (Allegheny,

Chester, Dauphin, Philadelphia, and Westmoreland) were each divided among 3

Districts. (See attached statistical reports.)

Below, we present a step-by-step guide explaining how this map was

prepared and, consequently, how any person sincerely engaged neutral and

objective redistricting could prepare their own similar plan.

Technical guidance for map design

Based on the Court's Order, along with evidence and argumentation

presented during the trial and analysis of well -designed historical Pennsylvania

Congressional District Maps (especially the 1972 Map), CCFD believes that the

Court's requirements for Congressional Districts can be well satisfied by adopting

the following technical formulation of the Court's District design principles:

Absolute contiguity is required. Each District must consist of a single

connected piece, and point contiguity is disallowed.

Exact population equality is required. This means 5 Districts with 705,687

residents and 13 Districts with 705,688 residents.

Subject to exact population equality, each county must be divided no more

times than necessary and no more counties must be divided than necessary.

Subject to exact population equality and minimization of county splits, each

municipality (city, borough, incorporated town, or township) must be

divided no more times than necessary and no more municipalities must be

divided than necessary.

Subject to exact population equality and minimization of county and

municipal splits, each ward or precinct must be divided no more times than

necessary and no more wards or precincts must be divided than necessary.

Subject to exact population equality and minimization of political

subdivision splits, District compactness must be maximized. For a manual

map design process, a visual test can be used while designing Districts and

its effectiveness can be confirmed afterward using computed compactness

scores.

To achieve the required minimization of political subdivision splits while

maximizing compactness and achieving exact population equality, the following

technical design principles can be applied to the lines which split counties:

For any county with a population greater than a single District, as many

Districts as possible should be constructed using territory entirely inside the

county, ideally leaving only a single, contiguous "remainder" to be attached

to another county or counties. (Currently, this affects only Philadelphia,

Allegheny, and Montgomery Counties.)

No county with a population smaller than a single District should be divided

between more than two Districts.

In any case where a county must be divided, its territory should be

aggregated into adjoining Districts beginning with municipalities contiguous

with the county border and using all bordering territory before proceeding,

layer by layer, towards the center of the county.

When balancing populations between any two adjacent Districts:

o Only a single county should be split to balance the populations

between any given pair of adjacent Districts.

o The choice of which county to split and what split line to use should

be made in such a way as to improve the compactness of the two

Districts.

o The population balance should ideally be perfected to ±1 by splitting a

single precinct in a single ward of a single municipality along the

county split line, down to the census block level. Extreme

circumstances may very rarely necessitate one or two extra precinct or

municipal splits.

o No municipality smaller than two Congressional Districts, and no

ward or precinct, should be divided into more than two contiguous

regions. The two regions of any divided municipality, ward, or

precinct should be made as compact as possible given the exact

population equality constraint.

An additional legitimate consideration in Congressional District Design is

the Voting Rights Act. The only region of Pennsylvania generally understood to

include a racial or language minority group "sufficiently numerous and compact to

form a majority in a single -member district" (Gingles test) is the Philadelphia area,

which has a large African American population in the city and neighboring

suburbs.

CCFD does not wish to offer an opinion at this time on the exact district

structure or composition required to satisfy the Voting Rights Act. However,

given the geographical distribution of minority populations Philadelphia and

surrounding suburbs, it is easy to construct at least one Congressional district in

this area with a majority -Black voting age population. Other Districts in the

region, as well as the District containing Pittsburgh, will have smaller but

significant minority populations as well.

In the 2011 Plan, there was one majority -Black Congressional District: the

2nd District. Our exemplar map was constructed without reference to racial

demographics, but nevertheless resulted in a majority -minority District which

included some but not all of the territory in the 2011 Map's 2nd District. This

exemplar District has also been assigned District number 2, for easy comparison.

The exemplar 1st, 7th, and 14th Districts also have substantial Black populations,

giving these communities a strong voice in those Districts. Given the ease with

which our neutral process matched the minority representation levels of the 2011

Map, as well as the fact that that Map has not (yet) been alleged to be a racial

gerrymander, we are confident that the legislature can satisfy any potential Voting

Rights Act concerns without substantial modifications to our process.

As noted, our process is explicitly neutral and does not attempt to protect

incumbents or satisfy other partisan interests.

For similar reasons of neutrality, we concern ourselves with protecting only

the objective communities of interest specified in the Court's Order, that is to say,

political subdivisions.

Allowing consideration of more qualitatively -defined communities of

interest can substantially increase the freedom to gerrymander, so we do not

recommend use of such criteria.

Step-by-step map design process

Our map design process begins with a rough assignment of counties to

Districts. The goal at this stage of the process is to construct reasonably compact

clusters of counties with each cluster having a population within 5-10% of that of

an ideal district. Counties larger than a single District can be combined with

selected neighbors into two- or three -District sized "super Districts", which will be

divided into single Districts at the next stage. With 67 counties needing to be

divided amongst 18 Districts, a reasonable result can be achieved fairly quickly

with a little trial and error.

The second map design stage was to assign these roughed -out District

numbers to the minor civil divisions (MCDs) of each county (i.e., cities, boroughs,

towns, and townships, or the parts thereof that are inside a single county) and the

wards of Philadelphia (necessary to determine how to divide Philadelphia County).

These assignments are then refined, according to the technical guidance provided

above, to equalize District populations to within about ±1% of the ideal District

size. In equalizing populations, it is useful to begin with the most tightly

constrained regions (counties larger than a single District, which must be divided

and should completely contain one or more Districts), and then work outward from

there, dividing additional counties only as necessary and only in a compact

fashion.

Once District populations are refined to the MCD/Philadelphia ward level,

these assignments are propagated down to the precinct level and then immediately

to the census block level. At this point, it becomes easy to equalize District

populations down to the level of ±1 person. Along each county split line, a single

MCD, and, generally, a single precinct from that MCD, can be selected for division

to the census block level. With careful choice of the MCD and precinct to split and

some trial and error, it is usually easy to group the census blocks from this single

precinct into two contiguous (albeit sometimes less compact) halves in such a way

as to equalize District populations. In our exemplar map, regions with relatively

lower population density have been preferred for these census block level precinct

splits wherever possible, to minimize the number of residents affected.

In two exceedingly challenging parts of our exemplar map, slight exceptions

were made to the guideline of generally splitting one precinct of one MCD per

county split. Along the border between the 7th and 16th Districts, a second

municipality, Birmingham Township in Chester County, was split because it

contains two census blocks that are discontiguous from the rest of Chester County,

due to a bend in Brandywine Creek. These two census blocks had no official

residents listed in the 2011 redistricting data and were assigned to the new 7th

District for the sole purpose of creating contiguous Districts. The border between

the 8th and 13th Districts was also somewhat challenging because the

municipalities there have a high concentration of large -population census blocks

which were difficult to distribute in exactly the right way to achieve the necessary

population balance. Thus, three voting districts of Montgomery Township were

divided along the congressional district boundary rather than adhering to the ideal

of dividing a single voting district.

Once all census blocks are assigned into contiguous Districts in this fashion,

the map is complete.

Conclusion

This exemplar map and the process by which it was designed show that it is

absolutely possible to draw maps in compliance with the Court's Order, and that

such maps should be significantly more compact and show significantly more

respect for the political subdivisions of the state than the gerrymandered 2011

Map. At very least, any map proposed in response to the Court's order should

carry the burden of justifying any ways in which it is significantly worse than this

map in terms of compactness and county and municipal splits.

Our exemplar map also shows that it is easy to draw maps in compliance

with the Court's Order. Using no special tools other than an open -source GIS

program (QGIS) and the already existing legislative redistricting dataset, this map

was designed by a single person over the course of a few working days, using an

older laptop computer. Better hardware, more human power, and automated

assistive algorithms could speed this process considerably. Given the timetable for

the upcoming elections, there is no excuse for delay.



Proposed 2018 Congressional Districts


!strict P SiSm CSNE i20 ri1c4 Proposed 2018 Congressional

Northumberland Snyder

miata

Schuylkill


Proposed 2018 Congressional vstrtct P SiSm CSAAti rict 1 17



Appendix C. parts b through f.

b. A report detailing the compactness of the districts according to each of the

following measures: Reock; Schwartzberg; Polsby-Popper; Population

Polygon; and Minimum Convex Polygon.

The requested compactness scores for each proposed district, as well as the

minimum, maximum, and average values for all districts, are shown in the

following table

1

Table b.l. District compactness scores

District Polsby- Po pper Schwartzberg

Minimum Convex Polygon

Reock Population

Pol yg on

1 0.4640 0.6812 0.8541 0.3740 0.9565

2 0.3696 0.6079 0.7636 0.3285 0.8173

3 0.4156 0.6447 0.7599 0.4223 0.9087

4 0.2624 0.5122 0.6682 0.3509 0.6582

5 0.2964 0.5445 0.7985 0.3608 0.6812

6 0.3365 0.5801 0.7676 0.4990 0.7205

7 0.4021 0.6341 0.8373 0.5617 0.7810

8 0.4056 0.6368 0.8403 0.4523 0.8286

9 0.3759 0.6131 0.8356 0.4700 0.8427

10 0.3233 0.5686 0.7777 0.4448 0.6924

11 0.2063 0.4542 0.6509 0.4219 0.7104

12 0.2446 0.4946 0.7736 0.4430 0.5234

13 0.3606 0.6005 0.8328 0.4458 0.6608

14 0.2807 0.5298 0.8174 0.5608 0.8394

15 0.3817 0.6178 0.8784 0.5645 0.8993

16 0.3705 0.6087 0.8325 0.4876 0.8449

17 0.5157 0.7181 0.8816 0.5782 0.9190

18 0.2775 0.5268 0.7613 0.4581 0.4122

Minimum 0.2063 0.4542 0.6509 0.3285 0.4122

Maximum 0.5157 0.7181 0.8816 0.5782 0.9565

Average 0.3494 0.5874 0.7962 0.4569 0.7609

2

c. A report detailing the number of counties split by each district and split in

the plan as a whole.

16 counties are split by the plan as a whole. Philadelphia County is divided

amongst 3 districts. Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Bradford, Bucks, Centre, Chester,

Cumberland, Lancaster, Mifflin, Montgomery, Northampton, Northumberland,

Somerset, and Washington Counties are each divided between 2 districts. The

district boundary that divides each county and the counties divided by each district

are listed in the tables below.

3

Table c.l. Counties split by each district boundary

District boundary County split

1/2 Philadelphia

2/7 Philadelphia

7/16 Chester

8/13 Montgomery

8/15 Bucks

12/14 Allegheny

12/18 Washington

12/3 Beaver

6/16 Lancaster

6/15 Berks

9/18 Somerset

10/15 Northampton

10/5 Bradford

11/17 Northumberland

5/11 Centre

9/11 Mifflin

4/11 Cumberland

4

Table c.2. Counties split by each district

District Split counties

1 Philadelphia

2 Philadelphia

3 Beaver

4 Cumberland

5 Bradford, Centre

6 Berks, Lancaster

7 Chester, Philadelphia

8 Bucks, Montgomery

9 Mifflin, Somerset

10 Bradford, Northampton

11 Centre, Cumberland, Mifflin, Northumberland

12 Allegheny, Beaver, Washington

13 Montgomery

14 Allegheny

15 Berks, Bucks, Northampton

16 Chester, Lancaster

17 Northumberland

18 Somerset, Washington

5

d. A report detailing the number of municipalities split by each district and

the plan as a whole.

21 municipalities are split by the plan as a whole. 17 of these municipalities are

divided as a result of dividing counties to equalize district populations. 4 of these

municipalities (Telford, Trafford, Emlenton, and Shippensburg Boroughs) are

divided because they cross county boundaries between counties that are assigned to

different districts. No municipality is divided between more than 2 districts,

except Philadelphia, which is divided between 3 districts. The district boundary

that divides each municipality and the municipalities divided by each district are

listed in the tables below.

6

Table d.l. Municipalities split by each district boundary

District boundary Municipality split

1/2 Philadelphia

2/7 Philadelphia

7/16 Birmingham Township,

Westtown Township

8/13 Montgomery Township,

Telford Borough

8/15 Springfield Township

12/14 Etna Township

12/18 Chartiers Township

12/3 New Sewickley Township

6/16 Manheim Township

6/15 Tilden Township

9/18 Elk Lick Township

10/15 Moore Township

10/5 Canton Township

11/17 Lewis Township

5/11 Curtin Township

9/11 Wayne Township,

Shippensburg Borough

4/11 New Cumberland Township

14/18 Trafford Borough

3/5 Emlenton Borough

7

Table d.2. Municipalities split by each district

District Split municipalities

1 Philadelphia

2 Philadelphia

3 New Sewickley Township,

Emlenton Borough

4 New Cumberland Township

5 Canton Township, Curtin Township,

Emlenton Borough

6 Tilden Township,

Manheim Township

7 Birmingham Township,

Westtown Township, Philadelphia

8 Springfield Township,

Montgomery Township, Telford Borough

9 Wayne Township,

Elk Lick Township, Shippensburg Borough

10 Canton Township, Moore Township

11

Curtin Township, New Cumberland Township,

Wayne Township, Lewis Township,

Shippensburg Borough

12 Etna Township,

New Sewickley Township, Chartiers Township

8

District Split municipalities

13 Montgomery Township,

Telford Borough

14 Etna Township,

Trafford Borough

15 Tilden Township,

Springfield Township, Moore Township

16 Birmingham Township,

Westtown Township, Manheim Township

17 Lewis Township

18 Elk Lick Township, Chartiers Township,

Trafford Borough

9

e. A report detailing the number of precincts split by each district and the

plan as a whole.

Many municipalities in Pennsylvania are divided into smaller voting

divisions, but different names are used for these voting divisions in different parts

of the state. In addition, many of these voting divisions are themselves subdivided

into smaller vote tabulation districts, which also have different names in different

parts of the state. For the purposes of the present tabulation, the first (larger) level

of voting divisions will be referred to as "wards" and the second (smaller) level of

voting divisions will be referred to as "precincts".

Using these definitions, the present plan as a whole divides 15 wards and 3

precincts. The district boundary that divides each voting division and the voting

divisions divided by each district are listed in the tables below.

10

Table e.l. Wards and precincts split by each district boundary

District boundary Wards/precincts split

1/2 Philadelphia Ward 05 Precinct 27

2/7 Philadelphia Ward 26 Precinct 12

7/16 Birmingham Township Precinct 02,

Westtown Township Precinct 03

8/13 Montgomery Township Voting Districts

01, 02, and 03

8/15 Springfield Township Voting District

Middle

12/14 Etna Township Ward 03

12/18 Chartiers Township Voting District 07

12/3 New Sewickley Township Voting

District Unionville

6/16 Manheim Township District 20

10/15 Moore Township Voting District

Eastern

5/11 Curtin Township Voting District South

4/11 New Cumberland Township Ward 01

Precinct 01

11

Table e.2. Wards and precincts split by each district

District Split wards/precincts

1 Philadelphia Ward 05 Precinct 27

2 Philadelphia Ward 26 Precinct 12

3 New Sewickley Township Voting District Unionville

4 New Cumberland Township Ward 01 Precinct 01

5 Curtin Township Voting District South

6 Manheim Township Voting District 20

7 Birmingham Township Precinct 02, Westtown Township Precinct 03, Philadelphia Ward 26 Precinct 12

8 Springfield Township Voting District Middle,

Montgomery Township Voting Districts 01, 02, and 03

9 none

10 Moore Township Voting District Eastern

11 Curtin Township Voting District South, New Cumberland Township Ward 01

12 Etna Township Ward 03,

New Sewickley Township Voting District Unionville, Chartiers Township Voting District 07

13 Montgomery Township Precincts 01, 02, and 03

14 Etna Township Ward 03

15 Springfield Township Voting District Middle,

Moore Township Voting District Eastern

16 Birmingham Township Precinct 02, Westtown Township Precinct 03,

Manheim Township Voting District 20

17 none

18 Chartiers Township Voting District 07

12

f. A statement explaining the proposed plan's compliance with this Court's

Order of January 22, 2018.

The present plan was designed solely using the four traditional neutral

criteria ordered by the Court: contiguity, compactness, preservation of political

subdivisions (counties, cities, boroughs, towns, townships, and wards), and exactly

equal populations (5 districts with 705,687 residents and 13 districts with 705,688

residents, according to the redistricting data used by the Pennsylvania Legislature

in creating the 2011 Plan). A final check with demographic data was performed to

confirm that at least one majority -black district was present, as in the 2011 Plan, in

order to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. No additional factors were

considered during map design. A more detailed description of the exact

methodology used in applying these criteria is given in the Appendix to the Brief.

13

Pennsylvania C

ongressional Districts

Act 3 of 1972

lig 1011.=

a

OV

IIIMI

111PEM

M

a1.1.11 W

I111 MI

DM

EIM

MIIM

EIN

pNor

im1114

.....m.m

aintipas m

i. ;11.

......0111112111-4 totirdirairim

irm...ral

........ , AV

imm

7IMR

M

WA

IIOISIL

IN1100440141T

WIP*

lap i fah - xi Idly

wiriaiN

IT. 111411.100 A

lp pi dIWIIIIIP

MM

M W

"Mm

p IN

AW

L.' A

lai alkilbillir1401

115111 AM

P lir

''414111-4144* 1714'4.1111"1161P1

ramarlup irprivitvale Intikav*N

---'4ritl.jrlrA.Srll:!,iarosr.

IP111".71111.41_..11PPA4Ir

ilw

rxIMM

IElw

,%04141011011113

#111°"440 #> PIT

: 'Prtt:::::::ik

4 14 k -A

.1.1.1..torilkilii...1. 4111.1011t,,.

..mane.

vp ijr:t09`4.;-Ziolilly°

ialrillimilm

ilm111111 O

IL . et

-Alt-440.1114W

4a -16-401111,11----4..X6iL

OA

M4.134;40°

ita*ParahlVigria,-1411111114g011W

AIW

W-O

P,AfrA

MIN

SOrtik--V

irpolardatitalrriV* 44044:11

je-iillimm

orwzipi".46gi W

olf Vitik A

tgtopopiPiersts N

,,V567....

falkofftwittL

nipi

11111tAlfrolkim

-tm*Supw

iir/..10A

ltemflrot arii4W

-"APP4toket---0111W

-;#07.6. 0.0't-44Pfri.-- r-411,11k-alltieiatibeiA

lr+.0..4/A

VA

PAI 11116110111010%

1LO

P4.-- 1"41PA

ZA

,*":10.1*

10;41%-.4.

. 4.'

"ItrrA:--V

id7/44.11, iirlykre Jr* .1.15s1 --iii.' 1011--A

tsChikloN

oW V

ilor".. (4,R

e4*"?Jr

OtO

r,..1. '

-*Ilylara.44tp V

-

41ati4, # *

.

.wfig"*".--,atifiV

etiviSC-444%

*

41 4e410- :A

#144444. 4/11"..4141104e, -

'401:tVW

lettrAtr94111.1

". AV

* 9Z44414P4k. *A

k 41"

rlan

2 3

Al I iffk*A

Pdi.

I OP. I %

.5 4 1 OV

A I V

I A I r 4 k*

41 I F 4taiii kl" Pl 4 4134444*"

.214AV

r1 6:116W

CI

1/44%

1=0.

4 U

ekeisalaft.i

"Pennsylvania Congressional D

istricts Act 3 of 1972:' C

ongressional Redistricting,

21 June. 2012, http://ww

w.redistricting.state.pa.us/M

aps/index.cfm

Pennsylvania C


Act 131 of 2011

o_

,Itiomi=

LL

,A*w

w611101

tivaiesposemez

.:- 31

.dramispoluiptiow

omerav,

tritaihraim.s.rm

"..7 , II ..21170$1,11airgrilii,

timbarlikarirailika

alga 41.41.4

71"11.14ITItlipi

xisimm

jmniallm

_Dm

m

ima

_... O

INF

AIP

M-Z

akrUir gir *A

MU

lattir N

EW

A

gwaT

aiteryfinw4w

ww

inlover

I I 1 Tftatra M

Pit 1 Vila la A

rii hi I * 1 6 11111A

VA

I il_likr Tyielpir.

VI

-a94-111 MR

6r A jrater.M

1m

PI 111104"1.141bIkkal ;irk 4 elltntAV

A °Pe r#

:6:111-11MIM

la. m

a aim

_ 61_16i .121r4111"111"1411111S14 I

A N

renwIL

- a

sPli1111 .

or- "A

m

al loop

thoter...wom

atesireseo..west.

°Ca tralM

lig Orr ow

, 9PP

..141:-M*

".:-.V4 0-1014811111*. "..W

ir*....716. ISPO

IMM

IMM

ION

AIrdlaria M

dliAllit -'d101~101b1,14

:-.:.,MrlijslieR

-4-1126;.1,01PAt.

- V 4K

9 griSAPIV

4 lb* PAW

*,1 FAV

IAT

iOtO

r OW Si

401k. i 411V

P,kogbk N

W i

- .41#/ 40, ii./1114.

ww

""."- 41

iP 'WO

mi*;10 '.

I:041c - M

idifie -`44Pw

Aii

p-; ..e.w. 44srvist.voi,v,

vaxtefivivg. - A

. ..0i titliA

ttio lir I k A

restrdiAir.

404 IgA,,m

vik4sipik :...,

A

. . _, A

l ki WA

ri i g 41,V,fil pip

taii. lir ipN

ar A

,--,,,

11111°' AL

F. t -iirtirs7--wiltil

1.,441L

..., ga4c:JIL

illigit

4PRO

0411.4 4nktifir 7

40401110.0* -4* villit#- 44tdietN

eeki., rlan

IWO

4 W

PaUPA

I I rir) IA a*;,

jet A

. STA

141101 it) CW

.44,V, Il le41440 4 atiki 00

011.1.4040 1 all, N

O

A

WitliA

rpti)t 11114414C

00444ftit;*4 4 &

, ;1*' rPOL

atiViliV

idliti, 1 *M

gr At"

2 Rf

Ohia

Al al taldthrl rell a A

ttl01 A M

alkAl a

. . 1 ill "" °47k

"411 rj11441 °* t.


istricts Act 131 of 2011" C




aps/index.cfm

2M

Pennsylvania C


Act 119 of 1943


istricts Act 119 of 1943." C


16 Jan. 2013, http://ww


aps/index.cfm

410

4011 40 o

ME

M=

.. w

N

A

an" rabillitilla A

hrIli M

ili

bta 444LIK

er 0

....npairparsa Am

mon

, row

iwarpr6

emit

41111-ArillilkiaM

illil

is pi

al= akl

WI

mrPL

ZIPP: air a

.7. 740 Psi M

I* C

OW

"71/ininie,pi

. Will

a. NM

Mar

MS 411114fIlltferA

V

0 1.14Ir '

----. alIVA

NISH

E O

P ii 4o:w

ait mook

vverlt4 44irlorArte.

PI Ing M

., Stale&

412101 6.46

IpirAsill4kIL

ijIlivie. -20-0410a4, a visi*--114P- A

l

' iiiA igiSP

Mae. rifeN

temiffillin IN

11 V

4INitT

011141101110"* lAtakikiaffajpr

wii-va M

ON

1 IZ

OL

IMM

IIMM

Inum IM

P ' ry

tilir#11 I IISL

4152:41140 014111°114:1%

*

114Milrarlii

-4, W

illi 1111,44sir 4%

, -

1.1P -air. 4 111b, A

dW4-5W

' Ow

-.%

oir:AM

EIH

RA

'

%11.11k.

Vir,A

tera Ma** 4001"eliajA

ll* .1114WV

141art r "te.Pirri 1P#4411.;--40-10

IN"eN

ttvernOtt

AI raboit,...ip.

-40,16:0

c az,_

si Insis

, .qt ,dilk40; / igaifebisotig.w

:

h d

d Ile Fdir"*

E'

'1 gm

" IKIM

9E-v 'A

A

AO

NF IV

f A

eirlf-MA

r iiiI*4.1i0t44-E;

wreinsaN

t-4!dditit ikvtor-40

1-'--- 417

Rip..F411PrA

..1111r111*---A

-a4siriiiklipait,.4:4110.44,4,#4,,,inv*inwas.

AnalikitO

rli 10166*.

tagrAtitA

ard A

r nitostilik- -,4* iiiiw

oiiitt A

tott.wevarb,

18 '

I.allbArill

'1r V

IMO

&

SI* 46441, ?IA

labbb .4.41.4 4 s sois--

yr - aft. :,,,..N

r. ditiow

devossvaiwiteduiroof,

v 0 sAih-

1 . 4 , 47:40 e

4 44 ki A iiittsit, :;;;;;I: 9:0° 1 P

phia

V i II 1~10441.

41i A

WI "1 E

iltr

Pennsylvania C


Act 464 of 1951




16 Jan. 2013, http://ww


aps/index.cfm

'.210

404 A

ttfig .

-11Min

Min

mom

ilwips

-1---i11 111101

111 Melfrillapiinn

irl

.1411.11.11iimaillinin

lkila - M

r 11 lail gal M

Kean

m

um

4111 II . II

adtikor-

iummft.

,-. -Iiimw

rIllippil ir4_ A

t 4 m911

boilgir ivi

I 1 I ..;;A47 w

rit:NO

PIA:V

grfr"11426.

44

kli;trtivt,;* 16 -uvippi-4101 !M

EE

i em

in,...,41IPArdriihdilm

'

Ala

...i.. 16 jp

IM&

a

inirft4*..$4.111 4*

vt 1410t-Is**1

raw 411.1

L..1111

airwm

aaim e.

,'f' -P

M

Mi

iloohat M

EL

i ciiiroi

wiw

eitor.-:113$0 411,11401°-#,W

111101-16, 4.-Itek.

4'41 1

-rtosic.,41INO

R gilt. teal,,,,nrott.

um:F

AN

-NE

M

,,', ,G

IN iilltaltet .-`44

-mw

-;..4111kal a..

1' Ikii

01 WIW

I Ill gtIW

t IntiVIIE

W alt:b.

e in.. -.0$04600

vq;;

Okelto

1 _K

A II, A

illo* *W

O

it SW

IerPii" 4.11Wel-ii-0*41,00 1116.94 1.1,4146i0

--."16 4111.+1

-1WiliM

iterr 41, 444 t 4114.,19"0.'14-

411), Asi*,,,,Z

04.,;Ois

4eti v. gi16,4,4*

'4114,wilil "i'

4.! 4° 11.40; enW

V11.1'00,04401,

411

galittirlitiVitaiw

v"k. IP"

,741oren , istiatzdib.

SWA

P I* -41V

AV

A

iit 4.istin

--vtifitoriwillow

iNirtiltiritrA

r4rliti. ,,a13\r.,11.0411.144w

itielitifitestroff06 :4 67/04 0 4,4-vio II

- ,..... 4 P

wystw

iloki. pp.,. 4.01001,4.4, N

ripa 10-1

`bs 4.

ni

Pennsylvania C


Act

1 of 1962


istricts Act

1 of 1962." Congressional R

edistricting, 16 Jan. 2013, http://w

ww

.redistricting.state.pa.us/Maps/index.cfm

Iladelphia

Pennsylvania C


Act 3 of 1972


istricts Act 3 of 1972:' C




aps/index.cfm

84.r.:75th4-.-4,210

Pennsylvania C


Act 42 of 1982

A,.

II

_la, .6-sittiou_r- =

M

EW

a W

a n

mff.

o 11109111.11

a

riallattlitilkna all 1:1

Ut

'

oplailW

'

m

ilditairair %W

I nPv49111

isimaillaili

IOW

A

... A

A&

`tew

imm

ur IN

A

'IMF lidalkaiturarl't

41.1211102, .1

egg Q

1 k -ffirr41111117 ;

%a ol idm

iar lc

.

logeggro Sin& A

T

MA

W. a., 11110Parilm

e_kiff *. alPajw "4104:46111"1-41612i06

NM

I L

ii

_swam

i r.g.0091 .

is laiirk%

1-1k4w

mt#'-.7"'"A

lt, P *44114**Iii.riitb,

,

114044250.1141,00,441.14411,_A.:- w

ow"

`Am

mo

fir. a

BF

gri ler rillnidallill

111#0114105ilerin Or*

b. 116

-111,111k

Ap--2 M

IMM

E1111

4 'Nso

prilf - iti 06100041W

V

ir m

mtA

.

IIIII.11111111mt444111

*+41;

- As_avoloilis,

6v,..i--40 or.

juraishii,. ,ApiA

.Aikoollilepir:

h 7,',,. d ,704././1

.416000. , lik iffoilm

om nr-

rim 40.0

eA----rillar#46041W

ejerellt O

vp101411e704041.4-AV

ILA

sr ta ilkorle

)ip, ,IlerA

itiiviaro- ?j

AlU

rIpirgigNA

grAltat illki.1-Sie

Ji:

ekS6,110 l'k.4.11-k-all

".411441pwA

lloWifflif 4,1*;

ilige.' lirk-~"1111 w

spoi igt

moitom

r 401m

V

AT

.pii, A

V

. .

441

Areil°W

4441rie4brilli* -

.41L-0A

Terprom

r 4.404. ...-

4.,,Oraik.A

mpriV

ottros im

ir--46,e.

.

-..4""AV

At 4 tA

grty, 41M1 dit-i

v. t --Vv-I- stor#.4,401

viiii galw

,,iirawrp,_41,atitzkop,

,40114.1...74,11wirom

. le itert 4,46

--.wir lie.

061116,70tValboil"M

iltif "1111"W

r4, V

r- ' r°1)

. rl a ';) OtO

ddrleigi.6., :1,444 ft0011.,

"argif101046. 4,A

life "tO

tirVarirW

e 1 Nifi*

M S

i N I il 6 6 4 it.

' Ar4W

irkt 44 I 404 W

W1 ilb

. . : . "400 P A

VSg"rik

P. * 410

- '

, luraietlioi es

Or A

lb-. if 111






aps/index.cfm

0.14M.,.210

,ilsod --W

OM

I aparanirs.im

pr m

nimpsurem

ealut, rim

mom

mois

!wail., lim

ir .

Kean

rm

'Th

1.1 L

: 111

0111111101111CO

NV

. 111811111VA

IL

sr .=. :

. . rp,

leis malt

=rag

idIMM

MI

NI

di , A

p a aal,midrings

tter

Vilib;dairgigi" W

WI

A il ll M

FY V

de#71 t42 I I 4 141%

ji On lel glaill

1111

I MI 0 I

Arial 06 4.111.

'

--IMIV

AIM

MIE

MP

16"

,_IWIt...-tait 1°,140

IWO

AN

ION

OF

:alit 114:131%

,10 1 I i w Arm

y um

muras m

illi.

. 111140Plakk,1 13 I 1 1 ia IV

IIIWP

OO

P

-,16111wilkilillik

cdarilimaillartur

VO

ILIm

uLrw

olli .011%

.

41.0iWO

IlirON

OSPO

ISOA

rtrW

ormum

urr* m

ilmal

"/"S", .7frekA

..04,7-11°C illib,:ilteer"*-4----041t0

op &

minim

um

4 11118

Imo? _~-,tavos,..

:.....i..--Witei-lirow

oNpluelftra

.. 'ff.

intsomm

miti

41Pr livingow

irauP 0-

110.~1:41 ***T

ali" '-0:0, runt,

.-1. L

im

06

IPOnliiim

misrE

r- lir tiroP41.4

41,1ffw

rio vo, frallrigii,

batk. .v40.1T

Olip

,,,,,_ it, 0 .. V

Oljak

41410Ata

nr i ,f4..&44

41t144 irrelr 41"k;w

40. N

il

aOskttrA

IPAO

talitt 14#06,74,40 airtipo:416.:1-Staiteilta-

,41F4-

,n 'auphl

-Or

4,0 Aft

ip ot m

aw

... le

"v. ..

tip iew

lritrfarf 4

73 ai..,...a...1 itektiliterrigroc.41,4r

440:A.7,.., 04,-oeitivtiorite4?c;10A

0pitit-14%41MA&,-*

iak4 .41.:.

6,41,001.0 10.4,14.00. Aw

e,-

03

s"421ip initiPwr

. M5

01 021Ph

0410.141 Ilkai Iiir " 1

' 11 PAU

I p to. d' 40/ito Par

IPPPIP

Phia

Pennsylvania C


Enacted by O

rder of the Suprem

e Court of P

ennsylvania, 10 March 1992


istricts. Enacted by order of the Suprem

e Court on M

arch 10, 1992" C




aps/index.cfm

Pennsylvania C


Act 34 of 2002

otia_ . or

rinillMill

IM

rill lea IIW

IIIMIA

LI

inin Ili

g -,111.U

nlinrriinatiii ina

'00 11911illp ,_ m

irill m

il m

al P w

0111111iseed 01

millitM

vairkilrera or

*rte newer

Apidakitpr w

irmitafittetviej.

iallillra falai"' W

o i"en y

willabw

egis1-, a

rlisr 4

inm

1111 PI asP

V

Pr 411140-4i.iw

1 aiitt.

EIN

iAm

em 41Irim

ma

41°Alliallo1/4411*V

IIigpiw _041r

AV

ON

ratft,

I

* 411111 6"0111011206,

0,11111 ifiW

ifip, 40041 ma w

itgair.... -° 0040 1.1PIM

W-

"pi glig

!ow

_Ai a

--IN

Atig

, .

,

olL ,..16,-

ipwim

, A

mor am

is,..ii m

..' viriirrAm

maliarA

rmIlholrit

irplif/#*11 .

WikosiT

ili 4iiirr,#- * ipik

14111irminiv,V

W

jrd antiggir0171.44004pr.,..moatts4-101W

AddrA

0410.0ii 311 K

iVap E

llM w

itifit.16MIA

01 voitinif:

rind e**,,"14W

r 4-siali' ' tip

es **Imo* 'Ilirrf,10.6 A

rW40.

-WP/Ile entl 4 A

Wirr4740

- 44144' 1

$44041 Intr.6*

Alt

ilid Far I,

SO

>tb

-firle-411501.--. liqup .

-'4* 4%

.*gt AlittP401.*

SAW

- t:

r.-4',#. 40-4441.WA

_ ,i4roolk44tteis 40"414,4*-

.. IA

rdiii.41.4140AtaatrA

Ak A

IA

s it aita li air t+

- atli p,

v: 'tto tA

lk iii 4-1111 .51414641-W

irr P 5 rO

?t. , rirderkerriSfr*A

4P441441100%.

ivoct,..,Ar4r. 4*

garitir, : n Itt4ta r-cn . a V

alki4Vtir7 I 41°

ogg._.ft..4;0101..4k 4-- -...4

" AV

( 01%

IF? 04,000 ivrosovistIzto Phi

pt ia

iiirTteektot vrit

wool

oqw.

,

...d;m844;1040uA

r voillf"e**14L


istricts Act " C




aps/index.cfm

Pennsylvania C


Act 131 of 2011

II 'SA

r"li* 7- N

a 4+40 Lai

t*ilOP

OS

"16"

rian

*al Fell%

0140.144. A

VE

041**S. 4P

- h

**#

100: 40470-10.00W4W

. -W

.Flituddleler.1* P

hia


istricts Act 131 of 2011" C




aps/index.cfm

Documents

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Brennan Center for Justice...Feb 04, 2018 · A Step By Step Guide to Complying With This Court's January 22, 2018 Order in Creating New Congressional