Part 4 CCFD Testimony
Part 4 Part 4 B. Exceptions to the Proposed House Districts Similar to the proposed Senate Map, the proposed House map contains numerous districts that are non-compact where the non-compactness gives rise to inferences of partisan and/or individual gerrymandering. The non-compact districts that are unexplained by geography or are leftover territory between two well drafted districts are as follows: House Districts 185, 186, 191, 192, 190, 181, 175, 177, 197, 198, 194, 162, 159, 161, 165, 168, 18, 141, 140, 142, 178, 144, 29, 143, 145, 148, 149, 154, 153, 152, 151, 61, 70, 147, 131, 134., 133, 135, 136, 137, 183, 187, 138, 99, 128, 130, 5, 124, 123, 107, 46, 38, 35, 25, 32, 33, 21, 20, 19, 24, 28, 30, 33, 60, 63, 11, 8, 65, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 17. House districts that appear to be compact and well drafted or having irregular population shares accounted for by geography, or leftover territory between two compact districts or near the border of the Commonwealth, are as follows: House districts 182, 180, 179, 200, 201, 160, 127, 129, 100, 97, 43, 99, 101, 125, 94, 47, 122, 176, 115, 189, 139, 111, 112, 114, 113, 110, 68, 108, 85, 171., 67, 66, 72, 71, 79, 78, 69, 51, 52, 40, 42, 45, 44, 39, 36, 34, 23, 27, 12, 11, 64, 1, 4, 10, and 14. V. A Judicially Manageable Standard to Evaluate Proposed Maps A partisan drafter can still violate the Pennsylvania Constitution by misapplying the four key drafting criteria. As a result, voters always must have the opportunity to argue to courts that they should examine patterns of packing and cracking. These criteria enable voters and the courts to detect and eliminate partisan drafting by creating a standard to evaluate proposed maps. As importantly, they create a judicially manageable standard. Specifically, where a drafter has used irregular or jagged edge districts to create a proposed legislative map, the irregular shapes, in and of themselves, could create a prima facie case of partisan redistricting. As set forth above, CCFD proposes the following procedure that courts can use to evaluate claims of gerrymandering. In the event of a prima facie case of gerrymandering, the proponent of the map then would need to offer a credible neutral explanation of the shape of the districts or boundary selections that would overcome the apparent violation of the neutral criteria. The opponent of the proposed map could offer partisan selection of territory and other circumstantial and occasional direct evidence to challenge the purported neutral reason(s) for a particular shape or boundary. CCFD proposes that the courts would decide by a preponderance of the evidence whether the proponent’s reason(s) are pretextual and whether the selection of particular territory was for partisan gain or to favor an individual citizen or candidate over another. The burden of proof should be no more than a mere preponderance of the evidence because gerrymandering is corrosive to democracy and can be subtle. Voting is a critical constitutional right. VI. Why Compactness Matters for Democracy Neither packing and cracking, nor distributing voters efficiently to advantage the drafter’s party, is possible if all maps are required to follow county boundaries and larger political subdivisions assembled compactly to achieve maximum compactness. In brief, partisan-drawn electoral boundaries will be replaced by mandated historic county and municipal boundaries. There are numerous ways in which compact districts enhance democracy. Counties, cities, townships, and other political subdivisions have meaning to citizens because this is where people face common problems that are often unique to their communities. Furthermore, they pay taxes and pool resources to solve those common problems. For example, common problems are solved by ensuring quality schools, preventing congested highways, promoting public transportation, reducing crime (through, among other things, parks, libraries, and after school programs), storm water management, medical care, jobs, and economic development. On many issues, the needs of communities may differ from county to county or township to township. Compact districts, based on county boundaries and other political entities, make it easier for citizens to (a) get to know the identity of their representatives, (b) visit their representatives, and (c) lobby their representatives. All three things will help citizens feel less alienated from the electoral process and make representative democracy easier for the elected official and the citizen. Compact districts also encourage candidates to run for public office. Candidates will find it easier to walk districts, meet voters in town centers or shopping areas, purchase media, and drive to events where districts are drawn in a compact manner. Candidates are encouraged to run and voters are encouraged to vote where they do not face an electoral map and elections that are tilted against their party or their political views. Non-compact maps lessen legislator dissent from party rule by allowing drafters to conceal punitive or retributive redistricting. Conversely, districts formed compactly of whole political subdivisions (counties, townships, wards, etc.) generally have well-defined and stable boundaries, thereby facilitating the following: 1) Protecting racial and linguistic minorities from having their neighborhoods fragmented by cracking or packing, thereby reducing their voice in government. Conversely, intact neighborhoods, usually formed by assembling wards and other municipal subdivisions compactly, usually preserve the electoral strength of racial and linguistic minorities. 2) Communities are much better served by using whole political subdivisions compactly as building blocks for electoral districts. Political subdivisions have historic and fixed boundaries and are not, nor should they be, infinitely malleable. 3) By denying drafters the flexibility to choose territory based upon where likely voters reside, Gerrymandering is restrained.