Opinion ID: 6321625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Subordinate Historical Considerations

Text: Having determined that the Carter Plan meets or exceeds the other submitted plans in terms of its adherence to the traditional core criteria, we next consider the subordinate historical considerations which this Court and other courts have recognized as relevant considerations in designing a congressional districting plan.
As discussed above, respect for communities of interest increases an individual’s ability to elect a congressional representative who reflects his or her personal preferences based upon “the commonality of the interests shared with the other voters in the community.” Id. at 816. We observe that the Special Master found that Dr. Rodden “did not explicitly examine or appear to have considered the specific considerations that need to be taken into account when establishing that splits maintain the surrounding communities of interest.” Report at 156, FF12. Respectfully, we do not read the record to support that finding, given that Dr. Rodden elucidated several choices that he faced relating to communities of interest. For example, in forming District 7, he drew the boundaries to “unify Carbon County with the rest of the Lehigh Valley” and to keep together the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton area, which the United States Census Department recognizes as “a metropolitan statistical area.” Rodden Report at 14, 17. Similarly, the Carter Plan centers District 10 around Harrisburg, keeping the greater Capital Region intact rather than dividing the area into the Carter Plan retains Pittsburgh in a single district, it nevertheless splits Williamsport, which is in the range of the other maps which either split one or two cities. While the submitted maps split between 19 and 25 municipalities, the Carter Plan divides 23, and the 2018 Plan separates 29. In terms of wards, the Carter Plan divides 21, which is in the midrange of the submitted maps that divide from 14 to 41; the 2018 Plan split 29. In total, the Carter Plan divides 58 political subdivisions, whereas all the maps range from 49 to 79 total splits. The 2018 Plan had 72 total splits. [J-20-2022] - 34 multiple district as do some of the plans. The Plan addresses complaints raised regarding the 2018 Plan, which separated State College from its surrounding area, by placing the entirety of Centre County in District 15. In addition, unlike several of the plans, the Carter Plan does not split the City of Pittsburgh, which many, including the Special Master, have argued results in the division of a community of interest.28 Given the choices made to protect communities of interest, we conclude that the Carter Plan sufficiently considered this historical redistricting consideration.
As has been repeatedly observed by this Court and the United States Supreme Court, the preservation of prior districts is a legitimate redistricting objective, but one that is subordinate to the traditional redistricting criteria. See Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 740 (1983). As discussed supra, the Carter Plan used the 2018 Plan as a starting point with the intent of preserving district cores and boundaries as much as possible, given the population changes. The Carter Petitioners argue that the preservation of districts is beneficial in part because it “create[s] continuity for the overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania residents.” Carter Plan Brief at 6. The data presented at the hearing demonstrates that the Carter Plan “laps the field” by ensuring that 86.6 percent of the population falls in the same district as under the 2018 Plan, while the next highest plan included only 82.4 percent. Tr. at 407-408 (Dr. Moon Duchin); Rodden Response Report at 22.
28 While we do not view the splitting of Pittsburgh as a disqualifying feature as did the Special Master, we recognize that it is relevant to a plan’s consideration of communities of interest. Moreover, given the history of the recent congressional districting plans, we deem it preferable to retain it within a single district. [J-20-2022] - 35 A plan’s treatment of incumbents is a relevant consideration because it can reveal partisan bias where a map protects one party’s incumbents but pairs the other party’s incumbents against each other, absent other justification. In this case, the Special Master observed that the Carter Plan pairs two incumbent Republican representatives, opining that it does so “without any explicit or apparent justification.” Report at 204. Our review of the record does not support this conclusion. To the contrary, Dr. Rodden stated that he intentionally considered incumbent addresses when drawing the Plan to avoid “inadvertently double-bunking sitting congressional representatives in the same district.” Rodden Report at 23. Moreover, he explained that the two incumbents paired in District 15 of the Carter Plan resulted from the absorption of the former-District 12 into District 15 and surrounding districts, which was necessitated by the significant population loss in Central Pennsylvania since the 2010 Census. We find this pairing to be justified by the loss of population in this area and not suggestive of partisan bias, and we further conclude that the Carter Plan pays due consideration to incumbents.