Opinion ID: 6321625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Description of the Carter Plan

Text: The Carter Plan was created by Dr. Jonathan Rodden, 21 who submitted an expert report and testified as to his decision-making process at the hearing in this case. Dr. Rodden explained that he used the 2018 Plan “as a guide” with the goal of “preserving 19 As described by one of the experts, a small portion of Chester County is rendered “technically non-contiguous” if the boundary between Chester County and Delaware County is used as a district boundary. In such case, that six-person portion of Chester County is “marooned in Delaware County due to a bend in the Brandywine Creek at the intersection with the [s]outhern state boundary.” Expert Report of Jonathan Rodden (“Rodden Report”) at 21. While some experts included this in the count of county splits, others did not. 20 Dr. DeFord is an assistant professor of data analytics at Washington State University. 21Dr. Rodden is a professor of political science at Stanford University and director of the Stanford Spatial Social Science Lab. [J-20-2022] - 24 the cores and boundaries of districts where feasible given equal population requirements and meeting or surpassing [the 2018 Plan’s] adherence to traditional districting criteria[.]” Rodden Report at 1. He opined that the 2018 Plan was a “reasonable starting point” because it “performed very well according to traditional redistricting criteria,” observing that it “was a compact plan” that involved “relatively few county splits and other jurisdictional splits.” Rodden Report at 6; Tr. at 88. He additionally recognized that the 2018 Plan “was broadly recognized” as a fair plan by those who study redistricting, following its use in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Id. at 89. He observed that it “produce[d] relatively competitive elections” with “outcomes that are roughly in line with overall partisan preferences of Pennsylvania voters.”22 Rodden Report at 6. Dr. Rodden provided a detailed district-by-district assessment of the adjustments needed to achieve population equality, given the different rates of population growth. Rodden Report at 8-9, 12-20. He additionally explained the rationale behind each decision to alter district boundaries, with due consideration paid to the give and take between traditional core criteria which require maximizing compactness and minimizing county splits. Id. In adjusting the 2018 Plan to the population changes of the 2020 Census, Dr. Rodden observed that Pennsylvania’s urban areas, especially in Southeastern Pennsylvania, “have experienced population growth on par with the United States as a whole” in the years since the 2010 Census. Rodden Report at 1. As a result, only minimal adjustments in the 2018 Plan boundaries were needed for the urban districts in Southeastern and Southwestern Pennsylvania to achieve the population targets under 22In those elections, the average Democratic vote share was 52.7 percent, and the Pennsylvania congressional delegation was split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, with several competitive districts. Rodden Report at 4. [J-20-2022] - 25 the 2020 Census. However, the “precipitous decline in population” in the rural areas of Central Pennsylvania required more substantial changes in those districts to achieve the necessary equal population, resulting in the absorption of former-District 12 of the 2018 Plan into the surrounding districts, Districts 9, 15, and 13. Id. at 1, 20. Dr. Rodden expressly stated that he “did not consider racial data [when] drawing districts or making adjustments for population changes in the map.” Rodden Report at 23. Likewise, he explained that he “did not consider partisan performance” when drawing the map. Id. However, after completing the map, he “was asked to evaluate the districts’ partisan performance,” which he deemed to be “consistent with and responsive to Pennsylvania voters’ partisan preferences.” Id. at 1. As incorporated into the discussion below, Dr. Rodden also addressed the plan’s performance on the requisite traditional core criteria as well as the subordinate historical considerations.