League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Following the 2010 census, the congressional map in Pennsylvania was drawn and approved by the Republican governor, state house, and state senate. The map consistently delivered positive outcomes for Republican candidates. Despite only winning 49%, 55%, and 54% of the vote in the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections respectively, the Republican party retained 72% of Pennsylvania’s congressional seats each time.  

On June 15, 2017, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, along with a group of voters, filed suit in the Commonwealth Court, asserting the map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the state constitution. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the 2011 map violated the Pennsylvania constitution’s Free Expression and Association Clauses, Equal Protection Guarantees, and Free and Equal Elections Clause. 

Defendants, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, the Speaker of the Pennsylvania House, and the Pennsylvania Senate Pro Tempore, asked to pause the case because the Supreme Court was planning to hear a case called Gill v. Whitford. This case also concerned the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering, and the defendants thought the Supreme Court’s decision in that case could affect the decision in this case. The Commonwealth Court held a trial in December 2017 and ruled that the League had not shown the 2011 map violated the Pennsylvania constitution. Furthermore, the court concluded that, since it could not come up with a rule to determine which partisan considerations were allowed and which were unconstitutional gerrymandering, it couldn’t make rulings on partisan gerrymandering. 

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court then heard arguments in the case and ruled the gerrymandered maps were unconstitutional under the Free and Equal Elections Clause. The court determined that this clause requires elections in Pennsylvania to be free from discrimination and vote dilution.

Partisan gerrymandering, the court found, dilutes votes both by putting voters in districts in which their political preference is that of the vast majority—meaning that their vote will be wasted on a candidate who would win anyway—and by putting voters in districts in which their political preference is a minority view, which means that their chosen candidate would never be able to win. Finally, the court articulated a set of criteria that could not be subordinated to partisan aims in districting. Districts were required to be compact and contiguous, have roughly equal populations, and respect the boundaries of counties, cities, and municipalities as often as possible. 

The court enjoined use of the map for the 2018 elections and ordered the General Assembly to submit a new map for the governor’s approval. The court appointed a constitutional law scholar to help the court create a map if the General Assembly failed to submit a new map. 

The General Assembly failed to submit a new map, leading the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to adopt its own remedial map. The speaker of the Pennsylvania House and the Pennsylvania Senate President Pro Tempore asked both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court to place the ruling on hold to prevent the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling from affecting the 2018 elections. When both courts rejected this claim, the speaker and the president pro tempore asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on the merits, which the Court refused to do. 

Ultimately, the remedial maps created by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court--which were not gerrymandered and reflected the state’s communities of interest and partisanship--were used for the 2018 elections.