CASE SUMMARY

On December 21, 2001, several Pennsylvania voters filed a federal lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and various state officials challenging the General Assembly’s enacted congressional redistricting plan as malapportioned and as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs alleged the plan subordinated neutral redistricting criteria in order to advantage Republicans and disadvantage Democrats in violation of Article I, §§ 2 and 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. They also asserted the plan’s 19-person total population deviation was not adequately justified in violation of the one person, one vote requirement under Article I, § 2. They sought a judicial declaration the plan was unconstitutional, an injunction barring the plan from use in future elections, and an order imposing a new plan for use in the 2002 elections.

  • On February 22, 2002, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed the plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims for failure to state a valid claim but permitted their one person, one vote challenge to proceed.
  • On April 8, 2002, the three-judge district court panel struck down the congressional plan for violating one person, one vote, finding the state failed to adequately justify the plan’s deviations. The court initially enjoined the map from use, but later stayed its decision and allowed the plan to be used in the 2002 primary election as scheduled.
  • On April 17, 2002, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed a remedial congressional plan and the Governor signed it into law the next day. On January 24, 2003, the district court panel approved the General Assembly’s remedial plan and again rejected the plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on February 24, 2003.
  • On April 28, 2004, SCOTUS issued a split decision with no majority opinion effectively affirming the district court’s judgment. Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion, joined by three other Justices, stated it believed the Court should declare all partisan gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable on the grounds no sufficiently manageable and neutral standard for evaluating them had arose in the 18 years since the Court’s last partisan gerrymandering case, Davis v. Bandemer. Justice Kennedy, the fifth vote in favor of affirming the district court, wrote a concurrence explaining that the Court shouldn’t yet declare partisan gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable since it remained possible an appropriate standard for evaluating them could still emerge in the future.

CASE LIBRARY

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania - No. 1:01-cv-2439

U.S. Supreme Court - No. 02-1580