Comments on LRC Preliminary Maps

COMMENTS TO THE LRC ON PRELIMINARY MAPS Submitted by: Mark Pavlovich, Chester County Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts about the LRC’s preliminary State House and Senate maps. LRC Chair Mark Nordenberg deserves considerable credit for his efforts to bring fairness and transparency to a process inherently biased by the political priorities of the other LRC members; incumbency protection and party control. Indeed, it would have been far better if the Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Act had been passed in 2021 giving the LRC clear guidelines to follow in drawing maps in the public interest. With regard to the preliminary State House map, I am generally pleased with the results. The districts are far more compact and perform better on nearly every metric than the current maps. In my home Chester County, the proposed district lines respect municipal boundaries, keep school districts together much more effectively than the existing maps, and, based on my conversations with friends and neighbors, make sense to the people who live in them. I am particularly pleased that for the first time in decades my place of residence, West Goshen Township, is contained within one House District (156). In addition, the map no longer includes districts that span the Schuylkill River, a natural boundary that matters to the people of the region. The result is that the proposed District 26 rightly incorporates all of Phoenixville on the Chester County side of the river and places Pottstown in District 146 in Montgomery County where it belongs. While I am pleased with most of the Chester County House map, I do have a concern about the 74th and 155th Districts. As you know, there is a large minority population in Greater Coatesville. Unfortunately, the preliminary map splits these closely aligned communities into separate districts diluting their ability to choose their candidate of choice. I strongly recommend that the municipalities of Caln and Thorndale be moved from the proposed 155th District to the proposed 74th District. And as I examined other regions of the preliminary House map, I noticed that Middleton in Delaware County is divided between the 161st and 168th Districts. Similarly, Horsham in Montgomery County is divided between the 151st and 152nd Districts. Both splits seem unnecessary and should be corrected if at all possible. I am particularly concerned about Horsham as it was the former home of the Willow Grove Naval Air Station and faces unique economic and environmental challenges resulting from the base’s closure. Thank you for considering these adjustments. In sum, I believe the overall State House map levels the playing field between the parties, provides many more opportunities for minority representation, and takes seriously the Constitutional mandate for compact and contiguous districts. And it is not, as some have claimed, a gerrymander. Rather, it corrects years of gerrymandering that have distorted districts to favor incumbents and party. Unlike the preliminary House map, I am very disappointed and troubled by the preliminary Senate map. I recall that during the LRC meeting introducing the map Chair Nordenberg reflected on the influence of incumbency on its design. Upon close inspection, it is apparent that every effort was made to protect incumbents at the expense of most other redistricting principles. This is best demonstrated by the unacceptably high population disparities between districts. Despite significant population shifts from north central and western Pennsylvania to southeast Pennsylvania, overall representation in the proposed map doesn’t shift eastward or become more reflective of the Commonwealth’s current population. According to the 2020 US Census, southeast Pennsylvania counties including the Lehigh Valley gained 349,915 people since the 2010 census. And given the population declines in other areas of the Commonwealth, the southeast should be gaining at least one if not two additional senate districts. The proposed map does not reflect that growth. Consequently, most districts that contain prisons now have populations below the ideal senate district size (260,054) even greater than their prison populations. In addition, all Allegheny County districts and many in the southwest and central parts of the state are well below the target population while most districts in Philadelphia and other southeast counties have populations above the average. Based on data from the LRC website, of the ten proposed districts with the largest population variance above the ideal, 90 percent are suburban or urban districts. Furthermore, of the 28 proposed senate districts statewide that are over-populated, 64 percent are located in eastern/southeastern Pennsylvania. Meantime, 77 percent of western Pennsylvania districts are underpopulated. In effect, the map as drawn dilutes the voting power of our fastest growing regions – including my home Chester County – and maintains voting power in regions that have lost population. And my own District 19 has the map’s second highest population variance of 12,102 above the target population. At the same time, it is critical to note the disproportionate impact of population variance disparities on citizens of color. Of the eleven proposed senate districts which have minority populations of 40 percent or more (most of which are in or near Philadelphia), seven (nearly two-thirds) have an overpopulation. Though it was unlikely the mappers intention, this could be seen as an effort to “pack” voters of color. While courts have ruled that some population variance is allowable and justifiable, I would fully expect that this map, if adopted, will face legal challenges based on its significant departure from the “one person, one vote” principle. And the map may be equally suspect as a violation of the Voting Rights Act. As a result, I urge you to rework the Senate map to correct for excessive population disparities, maximize opportunities for minority representation, and recognize the Commonwealth’s population shifts. If you cannot, please adopt the State Senate map recommended to you by Fair Districts PA. It reflects input from across Pennsylvania, is based on constitutional principles (compact and contiguous), avoids unnecessary splits of communities and precincts, maximizes minority opportunities, and is not an incumbent protection plan. Thank you for your consideration.