Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
The map that started it all
Over the next four days, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has promised to fix a problem with partisan gerrymandering of the state's 18 Congressional districts that, in a Feb. 7 opinion, it found has reached constitution-busting proportions.
This map, a 5-2 majority found, violated the state constitution's guarantee of "free and equal" elections by improperly diluting Democratic votes over the last three elections cycles.
Republicans have consistently won 13 of the state's 18 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, irregardless - the plaintiffs say - of all the political trends around them.
That decision itself - reached by the five justices who were elected to the court as Democrats - has been accused of being partisan. But this is the system we're in here in The Keystone State.
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
The court's turn
The court assigned the task of drawing a new, Congressional map for the looming 2018 primaries to the Republican-controlled General Assembly and Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf: One that doesn't put politics above compactness, preserving communities of interest or other traditional redistricting factors.
Needless to say, the governor and lawmakers were not at their bipartisan best on such an elementally partisan issue, and it didn't get done.
So, in keeping with the order, the court will now be settling the issue itself.
It has retained the services of Stanford University mapping expert Nathan Persily, and has pledged to impose new district lines by Feb. 19, just eight days before Congressional hopefuls can start gathering signatures to get on the May 15 primary ballot.
But the court has first permitted all parties with standing, including the various legislative caucuses, to submit their own fair map proposals for its consideration as part of the process.
And that, by Thursday night, had created a bit of a "Map-apalooza" here in Harrisburg.
What follows won't depend on public opinion poll, to be sure.
But we at PennLive thought you deserved to see what the sharpest political cartographers in the state - Republican and Democrat - could come up when they're purposely trying not to be seen as nakedly partisan.
The Revolutionary Road(Map)
The biggest changes by far from the current map are included in the two proposals submitted Thursday night by the plaintiffs in the case: The 18 registered Democrat voters who brought the claim that their votes were being unfairly diluted by the voter sorting prevalent in the 2011 maps.
The proposals look great in terms of observing Pennsylvania's traditional regions and preserving communities of interest. But when you stir in our most recent political history, there is a considerable breach of etiquette.
For starters, each of the plaintiff's two submissions would pit two sitting incumbents against each other, something only one of the other suggested maps does.
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
Plaintiff's Plan A
Plaintiff's Plan A, for example, would match incumbent Reps. Ryan Costello and Lloyd Smucker, both Republicans, against each other in a new 16th District running across Chester and southern Lancaster counties.
Rep. Mike Kelly, meanwhile, while still enjoying his Butler / Armstrong County base, would have to re-orient himself south and east, as opposed to the north and west he's used to as the plaintiffs create a new "Erie-anchored" district with no incumbent.
If these lines were measured strictly against the 2016 presidential vote, they break 10 districts for Trump, and eight for Clinton. That's one of the best showings out there for Democrats in all of the submissions.
(Thanks to Brian Amos, a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida, for the quick analysis.)
That's not entirely predictive of future Congressional races, of course.
Three of those eight Clinton districts would feature incumbent Republicans running to stay in the U.S. House this year, always a tall order for challengers.
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
Plaintiff's Plan B
Here, incumbent Reps. Glenn "G.T" Thompson, of Centre County, and Tom Marino, of Lycoming County, would be forced to square off against each other in a north central Pa. Republican primary this spring.
The main difference in the objectives of the two maps, plaintiiff's expert Jowei Chen stated in their submission to the court, is that Map A prioritized avoiding county splits above municipal splits, where Map B treated all splits equally.
Overall, this one also comes out to a 10-8, Trump / Clinton split based on last year's results.
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
The Republican defendants
This plan, submitted by Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, and House Speaker Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny County - the lead Republican legislative defendants in the case - was actually the first in to the Supreme Court.
It drew high marks from most independent observers for cleaning up the worst of the data-driven, voter selection that marked the 2011 maps: See the lines for the 6th, 7th, 12th and 15th districts, in particular.
But independent analysts like Amos found this plan just a little less compact than the other submissions, and also noted that when the new lines were applied to the 2016 presidential vote, the result was very similar to the current map:
Trump winning in 12 districts, and Clinton winning just six.
Republicans countered that that last factor was just a function of the Democrats' failure to build their party outside of the state's major urban centers, and argued, correctly, that their proposal is far more compact than the now-voided 2011 maps.
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
Another Republican view
This one came in from the 36 GOP voters who petitioned to intervene in the case, on the argument that they'd worked with and been represented by Congressmen elected by the current map for six years, and would see their rights compromised by an early change.
It also looks like a solid improvement over the current map, though some of the apples-to-apples comparisons with other plans weren't immediately available.
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
The Democrats weigh in
House Democrats cut the state significantly differently, and would - according to the comparison provided by last year's presidential results - result in an 11-7 split for the Republicans.
In their world, the 7th District would be anchored in Montgomery County, presumably becoming an easier pick-up for their party, and they would also swing the 6th District more their way by adding in key portions of Berks and Delaware counties.
"They (Democrats) see suburban Philadelphia becoming more Democratic, and think that just by structuring districts pretty much on the county lines as much as possible that they're going to be able to compete in all of them," said Muhlenberg College professor Chris Borick.
In many of the maps, in fact, the Republicans appear to be nearly conceding the 7th District as a potential pick-up for the Democrats, especially in light of the recent decision by incumbent Rep. Patrick Meehan not to seek a new term.
In almost every map proposal, the Lehigh Valley (Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton) is reunified after six years as a some kind of Eastern Pennsylvania snake, much to the relief of most civic leaders there.
It almost every plan it would be the most competitive district in the state, too.
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
Senate Democrats: Similar but different
Like the House D's plan, this one breaks 11-7 based on year's Trump / Clinton race, but gives the Democrats hope of being competitive in more districts than they have been in recent years.
Like the other legislature-crafted plans, it also honors the twelve U.S. House incumbents who plan to run again by not pitting any of them against each other in a survival duel.
But in this plan, GOP members like Thompson (5th) and Rep. Keith Rothfus (12th) might feel like they've been given new districts based on the large amount of new turf they would get. Both would still have safe Republican seats, however as this map continues to keep the Democrats' focus on the southeast.
The Dems' best look?
Democratic Party officials sometimes like to remind reporters that Hillary Clinton wasn't necessarily their best hand statewide. Candidates like the state row officers, they note who went three-for-three for the party that year, showed the Ds at their best.
By that barometer, the Senate Democrats' map may be one of the best for the party.
In their proposal, state Treasurer Joe Torsella - who had the party's biggest percentage margin of victory in 2016 - would have won 10 of the 18 congressional districts. He would have won in nine districts in both the Republicans' and the House Democrats' maps.
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
The Lt. Gov. weighs in
Of all the early Thursday submissions, the two that looked the most alike were the Senate Democrats' and the above, submitted by Lt. Gov. Mike Stack.
Bonus points if you can find the differences.
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
Last, but not least
Last in with a submission - and just minutes before the midnight deadline - was Wolf.
That left little chance for analysis last night, but Wolf's map actually did include two proposed districts that - to the naked eye - look a little more like specimens from the now-unconstitutional map than we expected.
Check out the 15th, which here disregards keeping Lehigh and Northampton counties whole in the name of marrying Reading with the Lehigh Valley; and the 12th, which loops from Somerset County north of Pittsburgh to the Ohio line.
Still, an obvious improvement from 2011.
It also, like the plaintiffs' maps, pits incumbents in a primary - this time Reps. Kelly and Thompson in a new 5th District.
Wolf's map, held up against last year's presidential vote, scores to 11 district wins for Trump, and seven for Clinton.
Like all of the Democrat maps, it also forces Rep. Matt Cartwright, an attorney from Moosic in Lackawanna County, to use his incumbent's edge to hold on to what could be a Republican-leaning district.
Worth remembering
Of course, how you like any of these maps probably depends hugely on where you live and how the lines treat that place.
All of these maps may be little more than placemats by Monday, when the court - via Dr. Persily - makes its choices known.
If the court is true to its word, however, expect an emphasis on compactness, contiguity and as few boundary splits as possible.
And after Monday?....
We get to the rest of the story.
Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre County, all but promised a fresh court challenge to any court-produced map Thursday, arguing that action intrudes into a legislative / executive branch function that no one asked the court to take over.
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
Which could lead us...
... back to this 2011 map for one more cycle.
If a federal court takes the GOP leaders' threatened appeal and grants a stay on state Supreme Court's order - and that is a definite if - don't be surprised if this whole thing just goes "poof" like some bad political dream.
One expensive, and time-consuming dream, too, though it does seem to have focused a lot more citizen attention on how the system works, and that's never a bad thing.
Getty Images
Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com
Tired of the fight?
Don't blame you for an instant.
Go watch the Winter Olympics. See a movie. This fight will be here when you get back. We almost guarantee it.
And come the spring, we also know there will be Congressional elections in Pennsylvania. One way or another.
Hope for the future
Borick, the Muhlenberg political scientist, said Thursday he sympathizes with candidates and supporters who are anxiously awaiting the final definition of their playing field. But he also believes the exercise may prove worth it if it all helps set better standards for redistricting in the future.
"Almost any of these iterations (of new districts) that I've seen have moved the ball in the right direction in terms of recognizing regions and allowing for natural competition," Borick said.
"Maybe that's worth the cost of some grumbling and uncertainty on the part of the campaigns."
Ad Choices