Part 3 Analysis of each Senate district
Part 3 CCFD Testimony Part 3 IV. Exceptions to LRC Senate Map and House Map A. Exceptions to the Proposed Senate Districts At first glance, many of the 50 proposed Senate Districts are noncompact and contain jagged or non-compact boundaries that indicate partisan or individual gerrymandering or incumbent protection. They appear to have been drawn with little regard for the four primary drafting criteria of Article II, Section 16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the mandates of LWV. There is also a pattern of western districts having smaller populations than eastern districts, thus increasing the power of voters assigned to underpopulated districts and diluting the votes of all voters assigned to over-populated districts. Population equality is readily achievable with smaller variances than are included in the LRC’s proposed Senate and House maps. Specific criticism of the proposed Senate districts are as follows: Districts 1 and 8 (hereinafter, districts will be abbreviated as follows: “D1,” “D8,” etc.) - both districts violate the compactness requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution in that both D1 and D8 are unnecessary elongated to the north and south. This could be repaired by swapping territory on the west side of D1 with the middle of D8 and give the north and eastern parts of D8 to D1. These are both traditionally Democratic districts. D8 packs blacks and D1 packs whites. Both split Philadelphia wards unnecessarily. As previously noted, the absence of compact districts and arbitrary splitting of wards can be used to conceal partisan redistricting. D5, D2, D3, and D7 all violate the Pennsylvania Constitutional and Supreme Court standard by not being reasonably compact. Each of the districts are elongated from north to south and unnecessarily creates confusion among voters as to whom their representative might be. Furthermore, Philadelphia wards are split that could instead be retained in whole. The districts could be improved by swapping territory between D2 (add wards 41 and 45) and D5 (add ward 65 and the rest of ward 64). The result: D2 becomes a compact southern district and D5 becomes a compact northern district. Also, territory of D7 and D3 could be exchanged in order to make those districts more compact. In addition, it is a great loss not to use Broad Street as a dividing line between electoral districts because very few communities cross Broad Street and it would aid in people knowing the identity of their state senator. D9, D19, and D44 are elongated northeast to southwest and are not compact. These districts can be corrected by instead having a southern Chester County District, a northern Chester County district, and a Delaware County and eastern Chester County district. D6 and D10 are non-compact by being elongated from southeast to northwest. These districts can be easily repaired by swapping territory, creating a southeastern Bucks County district and a central Bucks County district. D24 is a clear Republican gerrymander. The proposed district is non-compact and crosses county borders in order to take in more conservative voting territory in northwestern Montgomery County. The district could be improved by adding territory in a layer-by-layer manner, rather than by gouging conservative voting territory all the way across Montgomery County. D48, D16, and D11 violate the Pennsylvania Constitution by being non-compact. D11 packs Democratic voters from D48 and D16. D16 appears to be a manufactured conservative district by attaching far flung portions of Berks County to Lehigh County. D16 should be composed of whole townships along the Lehigh-Berks border. D11 could consist of central and southern Berks County, formed by whole townships along the Berks-Lancaster border. D48 should be formed by adding whole townships along the Berks-Lebanon County border. D14 and D16 are also unnecessarily non-compact. D14 could be improved by swapping territory with D16 and D18, making all three more compact. A better approach to D14 would be to add whole townships and boroughs along the entire border between Northampton and Lehigh Counties. D 40 appears well drafted. D22 appears to be well drafted. D 23 appears well drafted. D15 appears well drafted. D36 appears well drafted. D28 has an irregular non-compact border with D31; both should be made more compact. D34 is concerning. Traditionally Democratic territory in the suburbs of Harrisburg appears to have been deliberately added to traditionally conservative territory of D34. A better solution would have been to add townships along the Cumberland County border in a row-by-row, layered manner. D25 and D35 are non-compact and appear to be the result of a Republican gerrymander designed to divide the more liberal State College area and to distribute many of those voters into predominantly Republican districts. Had Centre County been left whole and added to Clinton County, this would have formed a rare swing district in an overwhelmingly conservative part of the state and would have addressed the tendency of Democrats to self-pack in cities and towns. Instead, by not following the requirements of compactness and avoiding split communities, the drafter has divided Centre County into two conservative districts. The remedy would be to keep Centre County whole and add the norther border of Clarion County to D25 or combine Centre and Clinton Counties. District 49 appears well drafted. District 50 appears well drafted. District 21 is non-compact and could be improved by allowing Lawrence and Beaver Counties to remain whole and instead add the eastern portion of Crawford County to D21. By swapping portions of Butler County with Crawford County, the drafter could make both D21 and D50 more compact. Districts D45, D43, D42, and D37 all violate the Pennsylvania Constitution’s compactness requirement. Each of the districts could follow the example of D38 by simply assembling five pieces of Allegheny County in a compact manner. Whatever other objectives are being sought, it appears the drafters did not even try to make these districts compact. The problem here is that the drawing of non-compact districts for supposedly laudable goals conceals likely individual and partisan gerrymandering. The drafters should be required to go back to the drawing board for Allegheny County. D43 could become more compact by swapping territory with the northern portion of D45. D45 can become a compact southern Allegheny County Senate district. D45 could become more compact by swapping territory with D37. D37 could be more compact by placing the northern territory of D42 in D37 and the southern portions of D37 in D42. D32 and D46 appear to be the result of a convenient divide for Republican drafters. There are a number of factory towns on both sides of the Monongahela River between Fayette and Greene Counties that could have remained in one district, if the drafter kept Beaver County whole and instead split Fayette County. Keeping those factory towns together in one district also serves to keep communities of interest together, although that is a subordinate criterion. Finally, as for D30, the drafter could have made it more compact by adding all of Fulton County to D32 and making Fayette County along the Monongahela River Valley the location of the split county. This solution would have kept Beaver County whole and would have minimized the intrusion of Butler County in forming D47, making D47 more compact and respecting county boundaries.