Court Opinion

ID: 9699523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:30:27.182315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:51.941336
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Me. Justice Eagen
Dissenting in Part:
I cannot in good conscience even condone the redistricting plan of the Senate of the Commonwealth as decreed by a Majority of my brethren on the Court. As to this part of the decision, I must, therefore, emphatically dissent.
While some fixed constitutional standards were generally followed in the planning and composition of all of the senatorial districts, it is, and will be, readily apparent to knowledgeable people that in the planning and composition of districts in a substantial number of areas, considerations other than judicious and legal were regretfully permitted to interfere. As a result, the total senate plan is basically unfair, and will result in control of that body remaining in the hands of one certain political party for all future time.
The House of Representatives and the Senate of Pennsylvania have previously always legislated their own districts. That the task has been “well” done is clearly indicated by the results. With the exception of one two-year period (immediately following the Roosevelt “landslide” election of 1936), the same political party has continuously enjoyed majority control of the Senate of Pennsylvania during the present century.1 Unfortunately, today’s decree of this Court follows the same unfair pattern.
Assuming, arguendo, that the Majority’s plan for redistricting the Senate conforms to the letter of the law, it is certainly violative of the spirit of the United States Constitution and the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and presents the same *384type of situation that prompted the unprecedented, action of the United States Supreme- Court in assuming jurisdiction and ordering relief in the case of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
I fear also the constitutional validity of the Majority’s senate redistrieting plan. for. other reasons. The 1960 census population of Pennsylvania was 11,319,-366. The Constitution of Pennsylvania provides for fifty senatorial districts. The perfect representative ratio would, therefore, constitute. 226,387. While I recognize that it is impossible for very practical reasons to achieve the perfect norm, I believe that it was. incumbent upon us to do so as far as it was reasonably possible. As we stated in Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438, 465, 203 A. 2d 556 (1964), “Those whose task it is to. reapportion the Pennsylvania Legislature must approach their assignment with the understanding that they-are to create districts which are as nearly equal, in population as is practicable.’’ (Emphasis added.) To the same effect see, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 1362 (1964).
Despite this constitutional requirement, I note that in. the senatorial plan decreed by the Majority, there exists wide divergence of total population in several districts. For example, District No. 34 includes a total population, of only 205,319, while District No. 26 includes 248,695. This means that the senator in District No. 26 will represent 43,376-or 21% more people than the senator in District No. 34.
.While it may be-argued that the low composite population in District No. 34 and in similar situations was-necessarily achieved in order not to break-county lines, this position does, not hold water, particularly in reference to District. No. 26, which .is located in an area where county lines were crossed in order to reach the population figure. The-imbalance noted hardly effectuates or conforms with the equal protection provision' of the United States Constitution.

 This condition has persisted even though in recent years the political fortunes of the two major political parties have pointedly vacillated with one holding the edge in registration and voting results for a period of time, and then the other.