Opinion ID: 6321625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Partisan Fairness

Text: We reiterate this Court’s concern that advances in mapmaking have the potential to create a plan that will “dilute the power of a particular group’s vote” despite meeting the traditional core criteria. LWV II, 178 A.3d at 817. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to evaluate proposed plans through the use of partisan fairness metrics to ensure that all voters have “an equal opportunity to translate their votes into representation.” Id. at 814. In recent years, numerous metrics have been developed to allow for objective evaluation of proposed districting plans to determine their partisan fairness. For example, some of the metrics attempt to ascertain a map’s responsiveness to voters, evaluating whether a party with a majority of votes is likely to win a majority of seats, or whether it is [J-20-2022] - 36 likely to produce “anti-majoritarian” results, without focus on exact proportionality of representation. Others attempt to measure whether and to what extent a map favors one party. In utilizing these tools, we do not prioritize one metric over another, but rather look wholistically to a plan’s performance across the assessments. Turning to the Carter Plan specifically, we initially observe that Dr. Rodden expressly stated that he “did not consider partisan performance” when drawing the map but instead considered the relevant metrics after it was completed. Rodden Report at 23. In so doing, he provided detailed assessments of several of the districts. In sum, he views the Carter Plan as producing “8 districts where Democrats are expected to win, one of which (District 8) is potentially competitive; 8 districts where Republicans are quite likely to win, two of which are at least potentially competitive (1 and 10); and one district (District 7) that is a toss-up with a very slight Democratic lean.” Id. at 25.29 Moreover, Dr. Rodden viewed the Carter Plan as “similar to that of the [2018 Plan], reflective of Pennsylvania’s statewide partisan preferences, and consistent with changes in population as they relate to partisanship.” Id. He additionally opined that based on the competitiveness of several of the districts, the Carter Plan would be responsive to changes in Pennsylvania voters’ partisan preferences. Id. Dr. Rodden’s assessment is supported by the plan’s performance on the various metrics. In contrast to some of the submitted plans, the Carter Plan consistently scores better than average on the measures and equals or surpasses the standards set by the 29 Some of the other parties and amici have oversimplified Dr. Rodden’s assessment as describing a split of ten Democratic seats and seven Republican seats; we reject that view based on Dr. Rodden’s description of the plan, which is further supported by the Carter Plan’s performance on the metric’s discussed below. [J-20-2022] - 37 2018 Plan.30 Thus, we conclude the Carter Plan is superior or comparable to the other maps in regard to partisan fairness.