Corman et al v. Torres et al

Filing 1

VERIFIED COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $400, Receipt Number 0314-4346608) filed by Scott Perry, Michael Folmer, Lou Barletta, Glenn Thompson, Keith Rothfus, Ryan Costello, Lloyd Smucker, Jacob Corman, Mike Kelly, Tom Marino. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit(s) Part 1 of 3, # 3 Exhibit(s) Part 2 of 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) Part 3 of 3)(ve)

districts and nine are split into two districts. The parties, intervenors, and amici differ in
how they calculate municipal and precinct splits, and, as noted earlier, the Legislative
Respondents suggest that updated data on precinct and municipal boundaries does not
exist.

The Remedial Plan is superior or comparable to all plans submitted by the

parties, the intervenors, and amici, by whichever Census-provided definition one
employs (Minor Civil Divisions, Cities, Boroughs, Townships, and Census Places)11.
The compactness of the plan is superior or comparable to the other submissions,
according to the Reock, Schwartzberg, Polsby-Popper, Population Polygon, and
Minimum Convex Polygon measures described in the Court’s January 26 Order. Here,
too, the parties, intervenors, and amici disagree on the precise ways to calculate these
measures, and some failed to deliver compactness scores with their submissions. By
whichever calculation methodology employed, the Remedial Plan is superior or
comparable. Finally, no district has more than a one-person difference in population
from any other district, and, therefore, the Remedial Plan achieves the constitutional
guarantee of one person, one vote.
Accordingly, this 19th day of February, 2018, the Court orders as follows:
First, the Pennsylvania primary and general elections for seats in the United
States House of Representatives commencing in the year 2018 shall be conducted in
accordance with the Remedial Plan as described by the 2010 Census block equivalency
(denominated the “Remedial Plan Census Block Equivalency Files”) and ESRI shape
files (denominated the “Remedial Plan Shape Files”) uploaded to this Court’s website at
http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/cases-of-public-interest/league-of-women-

11

The Remedial Plan follows, to the extent possible, the boundaries of wards in
Philadelphia.

[J-1-2018] - 7

voters-et-al-v-the-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-et-al-159-mm-2017,

under

the

heading “Order Adopting Remedial Plan”. The Remedial Plan, in its constituent parts, is
hereby made part of this Order, and is hereby adopted as the division of this
Commonwealth into eighteen congressional districts, unless and until the same shall be
lawfully changed. For reference, images of the Remedial Plan are attached at Appendix
A, and available in high resolution at the above website; and images of the 2011 Plan
are attached at Appendix B, and available in high resolution at the above website. Also
uploaded to the above website are computer generated reports describing the Remedial
Plan, identifying (1) county/minor civil division/voting district splits, (2) census place and
municipal splits, and (3) compactness scores.
Second, Executive Respondents and Respondent General Assembly, including
its Legislative Data Processing Center (“LDPC”), 12 shall forthwith prepare textual
language that describes the Remedial Plan 13 and submit the same to the Secretary of
the Commonwealth without delay. The Secretary of the Commonwealth shall thereafter
file with this Court’s Prothonotary a certification of compliance of the preparation of the
textual description of the Remedial Plan, along with a copy of the textual description.
Third, Respondent Secretary of the Commonwealth shall, without delay, following
the preparation of the textual description of the Remedial Plan, publish notice of the
Congressional Districts in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

12

The LDPC was established under the Act of Dec. 10, 1968, P.L. 1158, No. 365, and
routinely provides technical services relating to congressional and legislative
redistricting.
13

The textual descriptions should be expressed in a form consistent with the text found
in Section 301 of the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011, 25 P.S. § 3596.301;
Section 301 of the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2002, 25 P.S. § 3595.301
(superseded); and Appendix A to the Order entered by this Court in Mellow v. Mitchell,
607 A.2d 204, 237-43 (Pa. 1992).

[J-1-2018] - 8

Fourth, to provide for an orderly election process, the schedule for the primary
election to be held May 15, 2018 for the election of Representatives to the United States
Congress shall be implemented by the Secretary of the Commonwealth and all election
officers within the Commonwealth in accordance with the Revised Election Calendar as
proposed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth and Commissioner of the Bureau of
Commissions, Elections and Legislation, 14 which Calendar is hereby approved, and is
attached to this Order as Appendix C.
Fifth, should there be any congressional vacancies existing now or occurring
after the entry of this Order, but prior to the commencement of the terms of the
members to be elected in the General Election of 2018, they shall be filled for the
remainder of the unexpired terms from the districts formerly prescribed in the
Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011, 25 P.S. § 3596.301.
Sixth, the Secretary of the Commonwealth is directed to notify this Court by 4:00
p.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2018, should it foresee any technical issues concerning
the implementation of the Remedial Plan.
So Ordered.
Jurisdiction retained.

Chief Justice Saylor and Justices Baer and Mundy file dissenting opinions.

14

The Application of Respondents Acting Secretary Robert Torres and Commissioner
Jonathan Marks for Approval of Election Calendar Adjustments is hereby granted.

[J-1-2018] - 9

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 1

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 2

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 3

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 4

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 5

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 6

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 7

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 8

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 9

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 10

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 11

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 12

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 13

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 14

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 15

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 16

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 17

APPENDIX A
The Remedial Plan
District 18

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 1

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 2

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 3

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 4

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 5

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 6

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 7

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 8

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 9

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 10

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 11

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 12

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 13

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 14

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 15

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 16

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 17

APPENDIX B
The Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011
District 18

APPENDIX C
REVISED ELECTION CALENDAR FOR
OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
2018 GENERAL PRIMARY ELECTION
First day to circulate and file nomination petitions...........................................February 27
First day to circulate and file nomination papers...................................................March 7
Last day to circulate and file nomination petitions...............................................March 20
Day for casting of lots in the office of the Secretary of the
Commonwealth for position of names on the primary ballot ...............................March 22
Date by which the Secretary of the Commonwealth must
transmit to the County Boards of Elections a list of candidates
who filed nomination petitions with him and who are not known
to have withdrawn or been disqualified .............................................................. March 26
Date by which County Boards of Elections must begin to transmit absentee
ballots and balloting materials to military-overseas voters in extremely
remote or isolated areas who by this date submitted a valid application............ March 26
Last day for withdrawal by candidates who filed nomination petitions ................March 27
Last day to file objections to nomination petitions...............................................March 27
Date by which County Boards of Elections must transmit absentee
ballots and balloting materials to all military-overseas voters who
by this date submitted a valid application........................................................... March 30
Last day that may be fixed by the Commonwealth Court for
hearings on objections that have been filed to nomination petitions................. March 30
Last day for the Commonwealth Court to render decisions in
cases involving objections to nomination petitions................................................. April 4
Last day to apply for a civilian absentee ballot.........................................................May 8
Last day for County Boards of Elections to receive voted
civilian absentee ballots .........................................................................................May 11
GENERAL PRIMARY ........................................................................................... May 15
Last day for County Boards of Elections to receive voted
military-overseas absentee ballots .........................................................................May 22

EXHIBIT K

[J-1-2018]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
PENNSYLVANIA, CARMEN FEBO SAN
MIGUEL, JAMES SOLOMON, JOHN
GREINER, JOHN CAPOWSKI,
GRETCHEN BRANDT, THOMAS
RENTSCHLER, MARY ELIZABETH
LAWN, LISA ISAACS, DON LANCASTER,
JORDI COMAS, ROBERT SMITH,
WILLIAM MARX, RICHARD MANTELL,
PRISCILLA MCNULTY, THOMAS
ULRICH, ROBERT MCKINSTRY, MARK
LICHTY, LORRAINE PETROSKY ,

: No. 159 MM 2017
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Petitioners
:
:
:
v.
:
:
THE COMMONWEALTH OF
:
PENNSYLVANIA; THE PENNSYLVANIA
:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY; THOMAS W.
:
WOLF, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
:
GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA;
:
MICHAEL J. STACK III, IN HIS CAPACITY :
AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF
:
PENNSYLVANIA AND PRESIDENT OF
:
THE PENNSYLVANIA SENATE;
:
MICHAEL C. TURZAI, IN HIS CAPACITY
:
AS SPEAKER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
:
JOSEPH B. SCARNATI III, IN HIS
:
CAPACITY AS PENNSYLVANIA SENATE :
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE; ROBERT
:
TORRES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING :
SECRETARY OF THE
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; :
JONATHAN M. MARKS, IN HIS
:
CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE :
BUREAU OF COMMISSIONS,
:
ELECTIONS, AND LEGISLATION OF
:

THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
STATE,
Respondents

:
:
:
:

DISSENTING OPINION
Filed: February 19, 2018

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR

I incorporate my comments from my previous expressions in this case in support
of my continuing disapproval of the extraordinary course of these proceedings. See
League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth, ___ Pa. ___, ___, ___ A.3d ___,
___, 2018 WL 750872, at *59-63 (Feb. 7, 2018) (Saylor, C.J., dissenting); League of
Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 175 A.3d 282, 286-87 (Jan.
22, 2018) (per curiam) (Saylor, C.J., dissenting).

The latest round includes: the

submission, within the past few days, of more than a dozen sophisticated redistricting
plans; the lack of an opportunity for critical evaluation by all of the parties; the adoption
of a judicially created redistricting plan apparently upon advice from a political scientist
who has not submitted a report as of record nor appeared as a witness in any court
proceeding in this case; and the absence of an adversarial hearing to resolve factual
controversies arising in the present remedial phase of this litigation.

In these

circumstances, the displacement to the judiciary of the political responsibility for
redistricting -- which is assigned to the General Assembly by the United States
Constitution -- appears to me to be unprecedented.

[J-1-2018] - 2

EXHIBIT L

[J-1-2018]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
PENNSYLVANIA, CARMEN FEBO SAN
MIGUEL, JAMES SOLOMON, JOHN
GREINER, JOHN CAPOWSKI,
GRETCHEN BRANDT, THOMAS
RENTSCHLER, MARY ELIZABETH
LAWN, LISA ISAACS, DON LANCASTER,
JORDI COMAS, ROBERT SMITH,
WILLIAM MARX, RICHARD MANTELL,
PRISCILLA MCNULTY, THOMAS
ULRICH, ROBERT MCKINSTRY, MARK
LICHTY, LORRAINE PETROSKY,

: No. 159 MM 2017
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Petitioners
:
:
:
v.
:
:
:
THE COMMONWEALTH OF
:
PENNSYLVANIA; THE PENNSYLVANIA
:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY; THOMAS W.
:
WOLF, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
:
GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA;
:
MICHAEL J. STACK III, IN HIS CAPACITY :
AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF
:
PENNSYLVANIA AND PRESIDENT OF
:
THE PENNSYLVANIA SENATE;
:
MICHAEL C. TURZAI, IN HIS CAPACITY
:
AS SPEAKER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
:
JOSEPH B. SCARNATI III, IN HIS
:
CAPACITY AS PENNSYLVANIA SENATE :
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE; ROBERT
:
TORRES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING :
SECRETARY OF THE
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; :
JONATHAN M. MARKS, IN HIS
:
CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE :
BUREAU OF COMMISSIONS,
:
ELECTIONS, AND LEGISLATION OF
:

THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
STATE,
Respondents

:
:
:
:

DISSENTING OPINION
Filed: February 19, 2018

JUSTICE MUNDY

I dissent from the Opinion and Order adopting the Remedial Plan created by the
Majority imposing new congressional districts for the 2018 election. In addition to the
reasons set forth in my January 22, 2018 Dissenting Statement, and my February 7,
2018 Dissenting Opinion, which I incorporate herein, I have concerns regarding the
constitutionality of the judicially created congressional districts adopted today. Despite
the Majority’s characterization that this Court “was compelled to decide whether to
perpetuate an unconstitutional districting plan . . . or to rectify the violation of our
Commonwealth’s Constitution immediately,” Majority Opinion and Order at 2, three
members of this Court cautioned restraint in favor of ensuring the preservation of the
legislative process, as set forth in the United States Constitution. U.S. CONST. art I, § 4,
cl. 1. I cannot agree that the Legislature was afforded the time necessary to accomplish
the immense task of redistricting in accordance with the criteria imposed by this
Court. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully dissent.

[J-1-2018, 159 MM 2017] - 2

EXHIBIT M

[J-1-2018]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
PENNSYLVANIA, CARMEN FEBO SAN
MIGUEL, JAMES SOLOMON, JOHN
GREINER, JOHN CAPOWSKI,
GRETCHEN BRANDT, THOMAS
RENTSCHLER, MARY ELIZABETH
LAWN, LISA ISAACS, DON LANCASTER,
JORDI COMAS, ROBERT SMITH,
WILLIAM MARX, RICHARD MANTELL,
PRISCILLA MCNULTY, THOMAS
ULRICH, ROBERT MCKINSTRY, MARK
LICHTY, LORRAINE PETROSKY,

: No. 159 MM 2017
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Petitioners
:
:
:
v.
:
:
:
THE COMMONWEALTH OF
:
PENNSYLVANIA; THE PENNSYLVANIA
:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY; THOMAS W.
:
WOLF, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
:
GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA;
:
MICHAEL J. STACK III, IN HIS CAPACITY :
AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF
:
PENNSYLVANIA AND PRESIDENT OF
:
THE PENNSYLVANIA SENATE; MICHAEL :
C. TURZAI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
:
SPEAKER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
:
JOSEPH B. SCARNATI III, IN HIS
:
CAPACITY AS PENNSYLVANIA SENATE :
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE; ROBERT
:
TORRES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING
:
SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH :
OF PENNSYLVANIA; JONATHAN M.
:
MARKS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
:
COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF
:
COMMISSIONS, ELECTIONS, AND
:
:

LEGISLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Respondents

:
:
:
:

DISSENTING OPINION
Filed: February 19, 2018

JUSTICE BAER

Throughout these proceedings, it has been my position that the Pennsylvania
Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 should apply to the impending 2018 election.
While I have expressed my misgivings with allowing an election to proceed based upon
a constitutionally-flawed map, I continue to conclude that the compressed schedule failed
to provide a reasonable opportunity for the General Assembly to legislate a new map in
compliance with the federal Constitution’s delegation of redistricting authority to state
legislatures. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4.
My skepticism regarding the time allotted the Legislature has been borne out.
Democracy generally, and legislation specifically, entails elaborate and time-consuming
processes. Here, regardless of culpability, the Legislature has been unable to pass a
remedial map to place on the Governor’s desk for signature or veto.

Under these

circumstances, Pennsylvania and federal law permit the use of the existing, albeit
unconstitutional, map for one final election. See Butcher v. Bloom, 203 A.2d 556, 568-69
(Pa. 1964) (citing Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of State of Colorado, 377 U.S.
713, 739 (1964)).
Accordingly, I cannot join this Court's order adopting a new judicially-created
congressional redistricting map for this year's primary and general elections. I emphasize
that my inability to join the Court's order in no way reflects any opinion on the specific
remedial map adopted.

[J-1-2018, 159 MM 2017] - 2