168th Legislative District
To the Times: On Thursday, the Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Commission approved preliminary maps for the new state House along party lines. Proponents of these maps will extol the virtues of maintaining communities of interest, limiting municipal splits and competitiveness, but sadly when it comes to our local 168th District, the proposed map fails on all three counts. Communities of interest is an ambiguous term often used in the process of mapping new districts. However, if it is to mean anything, it should value not just municipal and county borders, but also school district borders. A school district certainly provides a sense of community with an important joint interest. Additionally, the top expenditure in a state budget is on education, so when drawing new lines for representation, school districts serve a critical function in how they are best represented. Representatives with multiple districts and limited portions of the school district will not always have their best interest in mind. The current proposal divides the Rose Tree Media School District into three different legislative school districts and the RTM School District would not be a majority of any single district, unlike the current maps where the district is whole and makes up a majority of the 168th Legislative District ensuring that the district has a clear and powerful voice in Harrisburg. The same problem exists in the Marple-Newtown School District, where the proposed map splits the school district into three legislative districts. Currently, Marple-Newtown is in two legislative districts. Secondly, the proposed new maps include a 168th District that splits Middletown. While not included in the proposed new version of the 168th, Marple continues to be split in the proposed map. So, while the mapmakers and their proponents argue that this map is better for municipal splits, two significant municipalities in Delaware County are split for partisan gains. Additionally, these municipal splits are the gateways to the school district splits that are so problematic from a representation and governance standpoint. The proposed new district also adds 33,000 new people – removing 33,000 existing people- with the addition of Radnor, which has never been in the 168th Legislative District and has no common school system, community hospital or youth programs with the other communities in the district. Finally, many of the proponents of the new map have claimed that this map is more competitive. Additionally, this map fails on competitiveness in the 168th District. The current district slightly favors Democrats from a registration of composite results standpoint, but nonetheless is represented by a Republican – perhaps the “model definition” of competitiveness. Sadly, the newly proposed district would move from leans Democrat to solidly Democrat. If democracy is intended to be a battle of ideas, you need opposing sides in order for that to function. The proposed district would shortchange the voters of the 168th District of that robust and useful debate by turning it into a one-party district. In the coming weeks, the Legislative Redistricting Commission will announce hearings for concerned citizens to voice their grievances with the current proposal. Additionally, the commission is accepting written comments on the plans from the public at their website at Legislative Redistricting | Welcome to Pennsylvania’s Redistricting Website (state.pa.us). I ask those impacted by this proposal, especially residents of the RTM School District, to let your voices be heard and tell the commission that the preliminary 168th District plan is not only harmful to local residents, but it also violates the very standards that the Commission set out for itself. Tom Danzi, Middletown