Case Title: Erfer & Albert v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, PA Department of State, et al. (Dissenting Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2002-03-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-71-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT JOANN ERFER and JEFFREY B. ALBERT, Petitioners v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; MARK S. SCHWEIKER, in his official capacity as Governor of Pennsylvania; KIM PIZZINGRILLI, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; RICHARD FILLING, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation of the Pennsylvania Department of State; ROBERT C. JUBELIRER, in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania and President of the Pennsylvania Senate; MATTHEW J. RYAN, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 14 MM 2002 Application for Relief Pursuant to Section 726 of the Judicial Code DISSENTING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ZAPPALA Filed: March 15, 2002 I find that the General Assembly's plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and would remand with directions to the General Assembly to reapportion the federal congressional districts. The evidence [J-71-2002] - 2 presented before the Commonwealth Court establishes that the current reapportionment plan was formulated so as to intentionally discriminate and dilute the vote of an identifiable political group and had an actual discriminatory effect on that group.1 Although I agree with the majority's resolution of the standing issue, I feel compelled to address the overzealous nature of the arguments made in this regard. The unusual argument has been made that Petitioners lacked standing to bring this challenge to the congressional reapportionment plan because they failed to demonstrate that they have never voted for a political candidate who was not a Democrat. It is asserted that Petitioners did not establish standing to complain on behalf of the Democratic Party for that reason. It would come as a great surprise to registered Republicans or Democrats who have cast votes in elections for candidates who were not members of the same party that they are not "true" Republicans or Democrats, but instead some unidentifiable political group. It is suggested that a voter in this Commonwealth must always choose the candidate offered by his or her own party in order to be a "true" Republican or Democrat. No voter can fail to represent his or her party by selecting the candidate believed to be the best-suited to represent the citizens of this Commonwealth. In the final analysis, it is the individual who possesses integrity, sound judgment and the ability to lead, rather than follow, who will truly serve his or her constituents. These qualities are not within the exclusive domain of any political party. When voting patterns are used then as the foundation to ensure the continued success of one particular party, as here, the principles of the U.S. Constitution are defeated and we are all ill-served. 1 This case is distinguishable from Albert v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 2002 WL 241297 because there the challengers failed to establish the elements of political gerrymandering. The challengers in Albert primarily focused upon the compactness and contiguousness of their individual districts. Their claims did not object to the plan as a whole. Here, Petitioners offered sufficient evidence of the unconstitutional statewide impact of the congressional redistricting plan. [J-71-2002] - 3 The assertion that Petitioners lack standing to enforce those constitutional principles has no support in our jurisprudence. It is claimed that Petitioners failed to establish that they have standing to pursue a political gerrymandering claim because they have failed to show individualized harm and have alleged and presented only harm to a group. It is argued that the group's interest in litigation challenging a statewide plan as a partisan gerrymander could be asserted by the Pennsylvania Democrat State Committee or its leaders. As noted by the majority, this Court examined the principle of standing in the context of a challenge to the reapportionment of state legislative districts in Albert. We held that "any entity not authorized by law to exercise the right to vote in this Commonwealth lack[ed] standing to challenge the reapportionment plan." Id. at *3. This holding did not represent a new principle of law; instead it followed the well-established test for standing articulated by this Court in William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 1964 in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). We stated in Albert that it is the right to vote and the right to have one's vote counted that is the subject matter of a reapportionment challenge. Significantly, as noted by the United States Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, "the right to vote is personal" and " the rights sought to be vindicated in a suit challenging an apportionment scheme are 'personal and individual'" 377 U.S. at 554-555 (citing United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220, 227 (1916)); South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276, 280 (1950). Id. at *3. Following the narrow framework of their view of standing, Respondents have developed their argument that Petitioners have failed to demonstrate a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although this analysis would deny a registered voter the opportunity to raise a constitutional challenge on behalf of his or her political party, and limit this right to some nebulous prototype voter, this Court has not done [J-71-2002] - 4 so. Instead, we have recognized that protection is afforded to the voter, rather than to a party. In Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) (plurality opinion), the United States Supreme Court addressed an equal protection challenge to Indiana's 1981 legislative reapportionment of the state's legislative districts pursuant to the 1980 census. The appellees, several Indiana Democrats, challenged the reapportionment plan, alleging that the plan constituted a political gerrymander intended to disadvantage Democrats. A three- judge panel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana was convened to hear the claims. Elections were held under the new districting plan before the case was heard. Two years later, the divided district court issued a decision declaring the reapportionment to be unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to prepare a new plan. The United States Supreme Court reversed. A majority of the Court concluded that political gerrymandering was a justiciable question, but concluded that the district court had applied the incorrect standard in finding unconstitutional vote dilution. The context in which the equal protection challenge arose is relevant to our discussion. Indiana's legislature consisted of 100 members of the House of Representatives and 50 members of the Senate. The reapportionment plans created 50 single member districts for the Senate; in the House of Representatives, it provided for 7 triple-member, 9 double-member, and 61 single-member districts. County and city lines were not consistently followed, although township lines generally were. Each Senate district was not divided exactly into two House districts and there was little relation between the lines drawn in the Senate and House plans. When the elections were first held under the new districting plans, all of the House seats and half of the Senate seats were up for election. As described by the Supreme Court, Democratic candidates received 51.9% of the vote over all the House races statewide, but only 43 Democrats were elected to the House. In two counties, which had [J-71-2002] - 5 been divided into multi-member House districts, Democratic candidates obtained 46.6% of the vote, but secured only 3 of 21 House seats. In the races for 25 senatorial seats, Democratic candidates received 53.1% of the statewide vote, resulting in the election of 13 Democrats. The district court found support for the challengers' position in the election results and concluded that further examination of the circumstances surrounding the reapportionment was warranted. The court noted the irregular shape of district lines, the fact that multi-member districts were suspect in terms of compactness, and that district lines failed to adhere consistently to boundaries of political subdivisions.2 The court found that explanations offered for the configuration of the districts to be inadequate. These factors led the district court to conclude that the reapportionment plan had been drawn intentionally to favor Republican incumbents and candidates and to disadvantage Democratic voters. The court found this was achieved by "stacking" Democrats into districts with large Democratic majorities and "splitting" them in other districts so as to give Republicans safe, although not excessive, majorities in those districts. The U.S. Supreme Court described these tactics as familiar techniques of political gerrymandering. Democratic (or Republican, as the case may be) votes are "stacked" and "wasted" by creating districts where Democrats form majorities much greater than the 50% necessary to carry those districts. Concurrently, Republican votes are spread among districts in which they form safe, perhaps 55% majorities, and Democratic votes are "cracked" or "split" by dispersing them in such a way as to be ineffectual. 2 The district court's analysis of these factors is reflective of the type of analysis undertaken by this Court in addressing challenges to the state reapportionment plan in Albert, supra. [J-71-2002] - 6 478 U.S. at 117, n.6. The district court invalidated the reapportionment plan, finding that the plan had a discriminatory effect in that the proportionate voting influence of Democratic voters had been adversely affected. Part II of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion, which was authored by Justice White and joined by five other Justices, addressed the question of whether the case presented a justiciable controversy or a nonjusticiable political question. In addressing that issue, Justice White observed that Since Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), we have consistently adjudicated equal protection claims in the legislative districting context regarding inequalities in population between districts. In the course of these cases, we have developed and enforced the "one person, one vote" principle. See, e.g. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). 478 U.S. at 118. Justice White further explained that "in formulating the one person, one vote formula, the Court characterized the question posed by election districts of disparate size as an issue of fair representation." In such cases, it is not that anyone is deprived of a vote or that any person's vote is not counted. Rather, it is that one electoral district elects a single representative and another district of the same size elects two or more -- the elector's vote in the former district having less weight in the sense that he may vote for and his district be represented by only one legislator, while his neighbor in the adjoining district votes for and is represented by two or more. Id. at 123. "Since the achieving of fair and effective representation for all citizens is concededly the basic aim of legislative apportionment, we conclude that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the opportunity for equal participation by all voters in the election of State legislators." Id. at 123-24 (citation omitted). He noted that challenges premised upon political gerrymandering differ from those based upon claims that districts of disparate size violated the equal protection clause, stating that [J-71-2002] - 7 [n]ot only does everyone have the right to vote and to have his vote counted, but each elector may vote for and be represented by the same number of lawmakers. Rather, the claim is that each political group in a State should have the same chance to elect representatives of its choice as any other political group. Nevertheless, the issue is one of representation, and we decline to hold that such claims are never justiciable. Id. at 124 (emphasis added). The Court concluded that the fact that the claim was brought by a political group, rather than a racial group or a group claiming that a reapportionment plan diluted the weight of votes because of place of residence, simply did not justify a refusal to entertain such a claim. "That the characteristics of the complaining group are not immutable or that the group has not been subject to the same historical stigma may be relevant to the manner in which the case is adjudicated." Id. at 125. Having determined that the appellees had presented a justiciable claim, the Court then discussed whether the district court had erred in holding that the appellees had alleged and proved a violation of the equal protection clause. Part III of Justice White's opinion, however, garnered only three other votes.3 The Court was unable to reach a consensus on the issue of what a claimant must prove in order to establish vote dilution in this context. Discussion of the plurality's analysis is necessary, however, to illustrate the Court's perceived failings in the appellees' presentation of their equal protection claim. The Court agreed with the district court that in order to succeed the appellees were required to prove both intentional discrimination against an identifiable political group and an actual discriminatory effect on that group. The Court declined to overturn the district court's finding of discriminatory intent as clearly erroneous, finding that the record presented would support a finding that the discrimination was intentional. Acknowledging 3 Justices Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun joined Part III of Justice White's opinion. [J-71-2002] - 8 the political realities of districting and apportionment, and that "[t]he political profile of a State, its party registration, and voting records are available precinct by precinct, ward by ward", the Court observed that "[a]s long as redistricting is done by a legislature, it should not be very difficult to prove that the likely political consequences of the reapportionment were intended." Id. at 129 (footnote omitted).4 The Court found, however, that appellees had failed to establish a sufficiently adverse effect on their constitutionally protected rights under the equal protection clause. The district court had identified the political group suffering discrimination as those voters who voted for Democratic Assembly candidates in Indiana's 1981 election and relied primarily on the results of that single election to meet the requirements of a political gerrymandering claim.5 The Court concluded that relying upon a single election to prove unconstitutional discrimination was unsatisfactory. The Court stated, The District Court did not find that because of the 1981 Act the Democrats could not in one of the next few elections secure a sufficient vote to take control of the assembly. Indeed, the District Court declined to hold that the 1982 election results were the predictable consequences of the 1981 Act and expressly refused to hold that those results were a reliable prediction of future ones. The District Court did not ask by what percentage the statewide Democratic vote would have had to increase to control either the House or the Senate. The appellants argue here, without a persuasive response from the appellees, that had the Democratic candidates received an additional few percentage points of the votes cast statewide, they would have obtained a majority of the seats in both houses. Nor was there any finding that the 1981 reapportionment would consign the Democrats to a minority status in the Assembly throughout the 1980's or that the Democrats would have no hope of doing any better in the reapportionment that would occur after the 1990 4 The court cautioned, however, that the fact that intentional discrimination may not be difficult to demonstrate did not relieve a challenger of the burden of proof. 5 As noted above, in that election Republican candidates received 48.1% of the votes cast statewide for the House of Representatives, but won 57 of the 100 seats to be filled. As for the Senate, Republican candidates received 46.9% of the votes cast statewide, but won 12 of the 25 seats to be filled. [J-71-2002] - 9 census. Without findings of this nature, the District Court erred in concluding that the 1981 Act violated the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 135-36 (emphasis added). The Court determined that the appellees had failed to demonstrate that there had been an unconstitutional discrimination against members of the Democratic party by premising their claim solely upon the results of a single election. "[A] mere lack of proportionate results in one election cannot suffice in this regard." Id. at 139. Equal protection violations will be found only where a history (actual or projected) of disproportionate results appears in conjunction with strong indicia of lack of political power and the denial of fair representation. Id. at 139-40. The Court was not indifferent, however, to the fact that discriminatory effects need not be suffered first before an equal protection claim could be brought. "Projected election results based on district boundaries and past voting patterns may certainly support this type of claim even where no election has yet been held under the challenged districting." Id. at 40 n. 17. The case before us stands in stark contrast to Bandemer. Petitioners here have amply demonstrated that the reapportionment plan improperly diluted the votes of Democrats in violation of the equal protection clause. As required by the Bandemer court, Petitioners have established that the reapportionment plan was intentionally drawn so as to deprive the influence of Democratic voters on the political process as a whole. They have demonstrated also that the plan effectively secures an advantage to Republican candidates of 13-6 or 14-5 in the Pennsylvania congressional delegation. The continual succession of Republican candidates is also achieved by the reasonable likelihood that they will prevail in 2002 and beyond. Undisputedly, an equal protection challenge will not be sustained merely because particular candidates may not win in any given election. The U.S. Constitution was not [J-71-2002] - 10 designed to promote particular campaigns. What is at stake, and what is entitled to protection, is more sacred. It is the fundamental principle that we are governed by democracy and not oligarchy. When that fundamental principle is disregarded, as in this case, we have lost more than the representation of a Republican or Democratic elected official in the United States Congress. Here, Respondents have focused on whether individual voters may be adequately represented by any winning candidate. They have ignored, however, the more significant inquiry posed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue is not whether any elected official has the ability to represent his or her constituent. No election, and no constitution, can guarantee any voter capable representation. The issue is whether the reapportionment plan has denied voters of a fair chance to influence the political process. This inquiry focuses not on the effects of a single election, but on the election process itself. It is when this inquiry is undertaken that the constitutional flaws of this reapportionment plan are revealed. The following findings of fact made by Judge Dante Pellegrini of the Commonwealth Court demonstrate a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: Hearing Evidence 36. At the hearing, Petitioners presented evidence from six witnesses, including two sitting members of Congress, one member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, and two expert witnesses. Respondents chose to present no witnesses, but did enter into the record evidence of voter registration totals in the districts created by Act 1. 37. Registered Democrat voters in Pennsylvania frequently "split" their votes among the candidates of various parties and "cross-over" to vote for Republican candidates. Tr. at 35 (Hoeffel); Tr. at 103 (Mascara); Tr. at 196 (Ceisler); see Proposed Findings of Fact 16-19.35. [J-71-2002] - 11 38. The Pennsylvania Democrat party, according to Petitioners' witnesses, consists of "people who hold office in the Democratic party, people who aspire to hold office in the Democratic party, Democrats who have Democratic party ideals and vote Democratic." Tr. at 195 (Ceisler). 39. In Pennsylvania, only registered Democrat voters can sign nominating petitions and vote for those seeking to be nominated as the Democrat candidate for public office. Section 802 of the Pennsylvania Election Code, Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. §2832. 40. Registered Republican voters in Pennsylvania frequently "split" their votes among the candidates of various parties and "cross-over" to vote for Democrat candidates. Tr. at 194 (Ceisler); see Proposed Findings of Fact 16-19. 41. Dr. David Lublin, an Assistant Professor of Government at American University and an expert in voting rights, redistricting and the statistical study of elections and redistricting plans, testified for Petitioners concerning the likely partisan effect of Act 1. Exh. 37; Tr. at 51:6-52:11 (Lublin). 42. In analyzing Act 1, Dr. Lublin used voting data from 19 prior statewide elections - including all of the federal statewide elections and all statewide executive office races from 1990s - to analyze how the people in Act 1's districts would have voted under a variety of electoral conditions. Exhs. 39, 44, 56; Tr. at 54:13-55:11 (Lublin). Through this technique of "reaggregating" elections from the 1990s, Dr. Lublin was able to determine how particular districts in Act 1 lean (i.e., Republican or Democratic) and whether particular incumbents are likely to be re-elected. Tr. 54:15-56:12 (Lublin). 43. To determine which way districts lean, Professor Lublin computed an average of votes on a district-by-district basis and then determined how many districts performed above or below that average for a party. 44. To determine whether a particular incumbent was likely to be re- elected, Dr. Lublin also looked at the districting plan that was in effect throughout the 1990s. For those incumbents who have historically won in districts that lean against the incumbent's party, Dr. Lublin assumed they would continue to win if the district did not change very much. Tr. at 55:19- 56:12 (Lublin). 45. Petitioners also presented the testimony of Mr. Larry Ceisler, a political consultant and expert in Pennsylvania politics. Mr. Ceisler used his experience and knowledge of Pennsylvania and past elections to explain the [J-71-2002] - 12 likely impact of Act 1 as well as the impetus behind its passage. Tr. at 157:15-160:22, 165-03-04, 165:19-167:22, 168:08-19, 170:24-171:23; 173:24-174:15, 175:17-176:10, 176:20-177:12, 192:07-11 (Ceisler). The Effect of Act 1 on Party Membership on the Congressional Delegation 46. Act 1, the congressional redistricting plan passed by the General Assembly in January 2002 and signed into law by the Governor, creates only five or six districts that Democrats are likely to win out of 19, giving Republicans a 13-6 or 14-5 likely advantage in the Pennsylvania congressional delegation - even if they receive less than half the votes cast, in which case there is a reasonable likelihood that Republican candidates will be able to prevail in 2002 and beyond.6 47. Act 1 pairs two incumbent Democratic Congressmen into District 13, Congressmen Hoeffel and Borski. Exh. 7; Tr. at 18:14-18:16 (Hoeffel). Congressman Hoeffel testified that it is highly probable that Congressman Borski would defeat him in the Democratic primary but he would lose the general election to a moderate Republican from the Montgomery County portion of District 13. About 53 percent of the 13th District's population live in Montgomery County and about 47 percent live in Philadelphia. Tr. at 19:7- 19:19 (Hoeffel). Indeed, Melissa Brown, a Republican from Montgomery County, has already announced her intention to run. Tr. at 19:20-20:13 (Hoeffel). Brown, who is pro-choice, would likely defeat the pro-life Congressman Borski. Tr. at 166:07-167:22 (Ceisler). 48. Under Act 1, Congressman Holden, a Democrat, who is paired in the 17th District with Congressman Gekas, a Republican, is likely to be defeated in a seat that strongly favors the Republican. Exh. 6; Tr. at 21:15-21:18 (Hoeffel). Act 1 also pairs Democratic Congressmen Doyle and Coyne; Coyne has indicated he will retire. 49. Congressman Mascara is not paired with an incumbent, but Act 1 places him in a radically reconfigured district which heavily favors a specific Republican challenger - State Senator Tim Murphy. Tr. at 97:24-99:09, 109:15-23 (Mascara). 6 Paragraph 46 reflects the amended finding of fact submitted by Judge Pellegrini. The amendment deleted a typographical error in the original submission of his findings of fact. [J-71-2002] - 13 50. Act 1 congressional districts have wide disparities in the proportion of constituents that Democratic and Republican incumbents retain from their old districts. 51. The congressional districts drawn by Act 1 was for the purpose and intent to elect more Republican members to Congress than Democrats. See, e.g., Exhs. 6, 39, 40, 48, 50; Tr. at 53:10-15, 64:14-68:10 (Lublin); 165:03-04 (Ceisler). District Lines 52. Under Act 1, lines were drawn using census tracts rather than precincts, i.e., voting or election districts. Act 1 splits six election precincts or voting districts into multiple congressional districts, doubling the number of precinct splits in the 1992 plan. Act 1; Exh. 56 at 25, 28. 53. Act 1's District 6 is an irregular, "dragon-shaped" district that covers three counties in southeast Pennsylvania and includes several wholly distinct, unconnected communities of interest. Exh. 7; Tr. at 16:9-16:24 (Hoeffel). District 6 is centered in rural Chester County, extends deeply into Berks County, and then comes into Montgomery County at Limerick Township just below Pottstown, includes the borough of Pottstown itself, swings to the east and then down towards the south through the center of Montgomery County to pick up the county seat of Norristown and Lower Merion Township. Exh. 7; Tr. at 16:9-16:24 (Hoeffel). In so doing, District 6 combines the relatively unrelated rural parts of Chester and Berks County with the "densely settled suburban" communities of Norristown, Plymouth, Lower Merion and Narberth in Montgomery County. Exh. 7; Tr. at 16:18- 16:24 (Hoeffel). 54. Act 1 divides up western Pennsylvania as can best be seen by the jagged and irregular line between Districts 12 and 18. 55. Act 1's districts are significantly less compact than under prior plans in Pennsylvania. Professor Lublin analyzed compactness using two separate measures - "Perimeter Measure" and "Dispersion Measure" - that are generally accepted in Professor Lublin's field and widely used in redistricting cases. Exh. 42; Tr. at 78:12-78:15 (Lublin). Using Professor Lublin's "Perimeter Measure Analysis," four of Act 1's districts - Districts 1, 6, 12 and 18, are less compact than the least compact district under the 1992 plan. Exh. 42. On average, Act 1's districts are less compact than those in prior decades. Exh. 42; Tr. at 80:1-5 (Lublin). [J-71-2002] - 14 56. Act 1 divides 65 municipalities in comparison with only 13 municipal splits in the 1992-2001 map, a fivefold increase. Tr. at 177:04-12 (Ceisler). Petitioners' Alternate Plans 1 and 2 split only 18 municipalities. Tr. at 177:04- 19 (Ceisler). District 12 by itself splits more than 20 townships. Exh. 6. Act 1 also splits 25 counties into multiple districts, up from 18 county splits under the 1992 plan. Exh. 6; Exh. 56, at 25-27. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed, "the question is whether a particular group has been unconstitutionally denied its chance to effectively influence the political process." Bandemer, 478 U.S. at 132-33. The record reveals that the answer is yes. If the record of this case does not establish unconstitutional political gerrymandering, no such claim exists. This Court should not then waste its valuable judicial resources entertaining illusory claims that, in reality, can never be established. Thus, I dissent.