What is wrong with the Pennsylvania Redistricting System?
- Letting Politicians Pick their Voters (Case Study 2)
Pennsylvania’s 172nd State House District is a prime example of what is wrong with the current system. Until 2010, this Philadelphia House seat was held by Representative John M. Perzel, a Philadelphia Republican. He was first elected to the PA House in 1978 and eventually rose through the leadership ranks to become an important power broker. He was elected House Speaker in 2003. When the 2000 General Election brought out a large number of Democratic voters in this primarily Democratic city, he only narrowly won reelection. So, in the 2001 round of redistricting his district was severely gerrymandered to protect his incumbency in future elections. Party registration and voting history was used to literally select voters who would put him back in office. The district is far from compact and only barely contiguous. It includes only one complete Ward and parts of four Wards. In 2003 he was elected House Speaker. In 2010 he lost his bid for reelection, but only after being indicted in the government corruption scandal known as “bonusgate”.
Gerrymandering HD172 also benefited Philadelphia Democrats. By packing partisans, in this case Republicans, into one district, neighboring districts became more Democratic. Pa House District 202, represented by Mark Cohen (D-Philadelphia) is considered by one measure of compactness to be among the top 10 most gerrymandered state legislative house districts in the country
- Eliminating the Other Party’s Incumbents (Case Study 3)
As a result of nationwide population shifts identified in the 2000 census, Pennsylvania’s delegation in the U.S. House was reduced from 21 to 19 meaning two congressional districts had to be eliminated in the 2001 round of redistricting. At the time the Republicans were in the majority in both state legislative chambers and held the governorship. For this reason they were in control of which seats to eliminate and how congressional seat boundaries would be redrawn. The goal was to eliminate two Democratic seats and maximize the number of safe Republican seats. There were more registered Democrats statewide but, thanks to gerrymandering, in the 2002 elections the Republican Party ended up with 12 seats to 7 for the Democrats. By one measure of compactness, the plan made CD 12 the eighth most gerrymandered congressional seat in the country. Located in Allegheny County, this seat was held by the late Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat until his death in 2010. In 2001 the 18th CD also in Allegheny County, held by fellow Democrat, Frank Mascara, was redrawn to make it more Republican. The area that included his residence was added to CD 12. By pitting two incumbent Democrats, Mascara and Murtha, against each other the Republican were able to eliminate one Democratic District.
CD 12 is an example of a partisan gerrymander (see below).
- Diluting Voting Power by “Cracking”
The Pennsylvania Constitution has an anti-gerrymandering clause that says:
“Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district.”
(Case Study 4) The graphic below, from the Pocono Record shows how Monroe County is split into four different PA House districts and six different PA Senate Districts. Only one, the 176th HD lies entirely in Monroe County. Not one of the six Senators lives in Monroe County. When communities of interest like Monroe County, are split this way, there is not enough voting strength in any one district to hold a Senator accountable for votes that may affect the county’s interests.
The Pocono Record claims that this gerrymander’s impact cost Monroe County $6 million in slots revenue sharing in 2009. This is because the way the gambling bill is written, Monroe County which has a casino, has to share gambling revenue with its surrounding counties. It is the only county that has to do this.
(Case study 5) Another example of “cracking” is Philadelphia Ward 42 which is split into five House Districts: 179, 180, 181, 198 and 202. The graphic below shows how four of the five districts are narrowed in the area that includes Ward 42.
(Case Study 6) The 2001 Congressional Redistricting plan split 25 counties, 59, municipalities and 41 wards. Montgomery County was split into six Congressional Districts. The graphic below shows how Congressional District 8 which lies mostly in Bucks County has a section that dips oddly into Montgomery County.
- Splitting Partisans
By creating districts composed of mostly Democrats or Republican (safe seats) legislators need listen only to the concerns of their partisans. To stay elected they need to ignore the concerns of the other side. No crossing the aisles to solve problems. This leads to the political polarization that has marred political discourse
- Punishing dissidents (Case Study 7)
In Pennsylvania, the four legislative leaders on the Legislative Redistricting Commission control the redistricting process. These leaders can punish members of their respective party caucus who do not “toe the party line.”
-In 2001, the district of the independently minded Pittsburg Democrat Representative Dave Mayernick was diced into seven other districts virtually ending his political career. The district he held, HD 29 was moved across state to Bucks County.
-Another dissident Allegheny County Democrat, Ralph Kaiser, saw his district, HD 41, moved to Lancaster leaving him to face another Democrat in the 2002 election.
-That same year, an outspoken Republican, John Lawless of Montgomery County found his district, HD 150, split three ways take away his political base. He decided to change parties but narrowly lost election in the newly configured 150th District.
- Importing Constituents
Although not gerrymandering in the strictest sense, voting strength is affected by how Pennsylvania prisoners are counted in redistricting. In Pennsylvania, most prisoners cannot vote but the Census Bureau counts them as if they are residents of the community where they are housed even though they are legal residents of the places they lived before they were convicted. Because prisoners are mostly urban and minority this has the effect of diluting minority voting strength.
Furthermore, Pennsylvania’s voter registration statute states: “No individual who is confined in a penal institution shall be deemed a resident of the election district where the institution is located. The individual shall be deemed to reside where the individual was last registered before being confine in the penal institution, or if there was no registration prior to confinement, the individual shall be deemed to reside at the last known address before confinement.”
- Partisan vs. bipartisan gerrymandering
The Pennsylvania redistricting system leads to two types of gerrymandering.
Partisan gerrymandering occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship and therefore has complete control over drawing congressional district boundaries.
After the 2000 census, Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation was reduced from 21 seats to 19 seats. The Republicans controlled the State Legislature and the Governorship. By gerrymandering, they eliminated two Democratic seats. See Case Study 3. They also maximized the chances of electing more Republicans by splitting Montgomery County into six separate congressional districts. The plan merged the districts of two Democrats – Joe Hoeffel, CD 13 and Bob Borski, CD 3. The 6th CD was reconfigured to include portions of three counties.
A suit challenging the constitutionality of the 2001 Pennsylvania Congressional district plan (Vieth v. Jubelirer) was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court could not agree on a standard for finding a partisan gerrymander of violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Bipartisan gerrymandering occurs when the Democratic and Republican party leaders on the Legislative Reapportionment Commission collude to protect the incumbents of their respective parties.
This happened in 2001 when the Reapportionment Commission Chair let the Democratic leaders control redistricting in Western Pennsylvania and the Republican leader had control of Eastern Pennsylvania (see Punishing Dissidents).
