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

Heading: Special Master’s Rejection of the Carter Plan

Text: The Special Master rejected the Carter Plan, reasoning that in using the 2018 Plan, the Carter Plan erroneously elevated the subordinate historical considerations of preservation of prior district lines above the traditional core criteria, in violation of this Court’s decision in LWV II, which held that the historical considerations are “wholly subordinate” to the traditional core criteria. Report at 183, CL 2 (quoting LWV II, 178 A.3d at 817); 187, FF10. Specifically, she faulted the Carter Plan for “opting to draw less compact districts instead of disrupting” the district boundaries of the 2018 Plan. Id. at 186, FF9. Additionally, while acknowledging that the so-called “least-change” approach may be appropriate when applied to a legislatively enacted plan, the Special Master concluded that “choosing a plan based upon its similarity to a previously court-drawn redistricting plan is not constitutionally sound.” Id. at CL 5. She theorized that use of the least-change approach for a court map could allow a court to adopt continuously “features [J-20-2022] - 26 of its prior plan, effectively rendering impossible any future challenge to the plan.” Id. at 188, FF 11. Respectfully, this Court does not view the Carter Plan’s utilization of the 2018 Plan as a starting point to be either a prerequisite or a disqualifying attribute. Instead, we deem it to be one of several reasonable starting points. Such method is particularly useful here, considering that the 2018 Plan was adopted only four years ago and in strict conformity with the traditional core criteria explicated in LWV II. LWV III, 181 A.3d at 1086-87. Thus, the 2018 Plan provided a reasonable starting point of contiguous and compact districts that minimized divisions of political subdivisions, even if it no longer provided districts of equal population. Our decision to adopt the Carter Plan, however, is not based upon its starting point but rather its end point. Stated another way, we do not select the Carter Plan because it utilized the least change approach but because the least change approach worked in this case to produce a map that satisfies the requisite traditional core criteria while balancing the subordinate historical considerations and resulted in a plan that is reflective of and responsive to the partisan preferences of the Commonwealth’s voters, as set forth below.