Source: https://paablog.com/lwv-v-pa-diving-into-the-case/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 13:54:04+00:00

Document:
In this Part 3 of our series exploring gerrymandering through the case of LWV v. PA, we explain the current procedural status of LWV v. PA, and explore the arguments related to the General Assembly’s request to stay. For more information on redistricting and the concept of justiciability in gerrymandering cases, refer to Parts 1 and 2 of this series.
Responsive pleadings in the case took two forms, answers and preliminary objections. The Attorney General on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Governor preliminarily objected pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1516(b) to their inclusion in the suit on grounds that they had no involvement in the redistricting and thus are not proper parties. The Secretary and the Commissioner, pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1516(b), filed an answer and new matter requesting judgment in their favor because they likewise allege they are not proper parties. The Lieutenant Governor also answered the petition for review, but requested the court consider Petitioners’ claims and grant appropriate relief to address constitutional infirmities.
lack of standing to challenge the redistricting plan on a state-wide basis (as opposed to district by district).
In response to pleadings that the Governor, Commonwealth, Secretary and Commissioner are not proper parties, Petitioners’ replies sought to keep these parties in the case. Petitioners also opposed the General Assembly’s preliminary objections and requested a briefing schedule.
A group of republican voters applied to intervene in the case pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2327-28. This intervention is scheduled to be argued on October 4, 2017.
Prior to the responsive pleadings, the General Assembly requested stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of a similar case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court – Gill v. Whitford. No rule of appellate procedure specifically allows for stays in original jurisdiction matters, and no rule of civil procedure specifically allows courts to stay proceedings pending the outcome of another case. Instead, the power to stay proceedings is inherent in the court’s power to schedule disposition of cases to advance a fair and efficient adjudication. See, e.g., Israelit v. Montgomery County, 703 A.2d 722, 724 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (“Trial courts have the inherent power to stay proceedings in a case pending the outcome of another case, where the latter’s result might resolve or render moot the stayed case.”).
The application for stay will be argued on October 4, 2017. The Commonwealth Court may stay LWV v. PA pending the outcome of Gill v. Whitford if it finds Gill v. Whitford “might resolve or render moot” LWV v. PA. While Gill v. Whitford is a gerrymandering case that challenges political redistricting in Wisconsin, the redistricting challenges in that case are based solely on the U.S. Constitution, while challenges in LWV v. PA are based solely on the Pennsylvania Constitution, which oftentimes provides broader protections than the U.S. Constitution as we saw during our Constitution Week series.
The primary obstacles gerrymandering opponents face in both cases relate to justiciability – whether there is a manageable standard courts can apply to resolve a gerrymandering case, what that standard may be, and what evidence may meet it. In Part 2, we discussed that while at the state and federal level gerrymandering cases are currently considered justiciable, this status at the federal level remains in question because a majority of the Court has never agreed on a manageable standard. Moreover, while Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has twice held that gerrymandering cases are justiciable, in doing so it framed its manageable standard based on the standard a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court set forth in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); a standard a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices seem to have since rejected in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not addressed the issue since that time.
Thus, the General Assembly in its application for stay argues that if the U.S. Supreme Court in Gill v. Whitford determines that case to be non-justiciable, then LWV v. PA will be rendered moot. However, this argument appears unavailing – the Court’s determination in Gill v. Whitford will, at most, be of persuasive value to the Commonwealth Court because the Commonwealth Court is faced with justiciability claims related to Pennsylvania’s court system and violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Remember from Part 2 of our series that Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has held that justiciability questions are not constitutional issues, unlike at the federal level (separation of powers of the federal courts versus state legislatures), but instead issues of the courts’ own prudential concerns. In addition, Pennsylvania courts may interpret the Pennsylvania Constitution to give additional rights to citizens, meaning that it could find equal protection or free speech rights impinged under a different – and justiciable – standard than the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the federal counterparts. If the Commonwealth Court determines the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protection of voting rights than its federal counterpart, especially as to the free speech claims (we discussed these rights in our Constitution Week series), it could find the claims in this case justiciable regardless of the findings in Gill v. Whitford.
The General Assembly also argues that if the U.S. Supreme Court does determine the claims in Gill v. Whitford are justiciable, it may establish the standards that govern equal protection and free speech claims. However, like the counterargument discussed above, these determinations would not be binding on the Commonwealth Court’s determination as to a violation of rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously determined Pennsylvania’s equal protection rights to be equivalent to those under the federal constitution, it (or the Commonwealth Court) could change that determination based on the facts of the case before it. In addition, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has interpreted free speech protections under the Pennsylvania Constitution to be broader than those under the U.S. Constitution, although it has not yet applied those protections in the voting rights arena.
Both LWV v. PA and Gill v. Whitford are scheduled for oral argument next week. Check back often for the next post in our series where we will provide analysis of both arguments.
For additional coverage of gerrymandering in Pennsylvania, see this article from PennLive.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.