EXHIBIT C
Legislative Reapportionment Exceptions
and Proposed Solutions
by Amanda
Contents
Introduction
It is possible to more closely adhere to all five redistricting laws, even when
staying within the same overall variant used in the House and Senate
preliminary plans instead of the larger variant allowed by the courts. Based
on these findings, the deviations from the law in the preliminary plan do not
appear to be justified.
One of these laws makes it clear that no splits of political subdivisions are
allowed unless leaving them whole creates a district which violates one of
the other constitutional requirements of being compact, contiguous, or of
equal population.
It reads: “Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town,
borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or
representative district.”
“Absolutely necessary” and “only a few” are not interchangeable terms. The
term “absolutely necessary” means that there is no other recourse available
while “only a few” simply means that the quantity is limited.
If the law is being upheld first and foremost by this Commission, then each
political subdivision split in the preliminary plan will be found “absolutely
necessary” for the purpose of preserving equal population or creating
contiguous and compact districts.
My examination of the preliminary plan, however, did not find this to be the
case. The following pages present these findings along with a proposed map
that illustrates a solution to these issues.
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
p. 2 Remarks
p. 3 Statewide Map: Senate Version
p. 4-8 Statewide Map: House Version
p. 9-20 Exceptions, Comparisons, Solutions
Senate
p. 9-10 Compact
p. 11 Minority-Majority Districts
p. 12 District Moves and Alternate District Options
House
p. 13 p. 14 p. 14-17
p. 18
p. 19-20
Compact
Contiguous
Minority-Majority Districts
District Moves
Alternate District Options
AmandaE.com
AmandaE.com
page 1 of 20
Remarks
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for the time and efforts you are
investing in this redistricting process.
In looking at the proposed maps and listening to their presentation on Oct. 31, it
appeared and sounded like they were created with the primary goal of protecting
as many incumbents as possible (regardless of party affiliation) unless population
changes made this impossible and forced a district move.
Fortunately, appearances can be deceiving. So I examined each preliminary plan
to see if there was a constitutionally justifiable cause for the proposed district
boundaries.
The PA Constitution gives one underlying rule (that no political subdivision be divided
in forming a district) with three possible exceptions to that rule – equal population,
compactness, and contiguousness. In addition, there are the requirements of the
Voting Rights Act to follow.
Senate
The preliminary Senate plan contains 39 districts that include county splits instead of
the 21 in the proposal before you. It divides double the number of municipalities and
splits 27 wards instead of 4.
Is the higher number of divisions in the preliminary Senate plan justifiable on
constitutional grounds?
•Looking at Page 2 of your packet: It is not justified on the grounds of equal
population, because both plans have basically the same overall variant.
•Page 8-9: It is not justified on the grounds of compactness, because several
districts in the preliminary plan are fragmented or sprawling.
•Page 10: It is not justified on the grounds of the Voting Rights Act, because both
plans have the same number of minority-majority districts with the same minority
statistics.
•Page 12: It is not justified on the grounds of compactness, because several
districts in the preliminary plan are fragmented or sprawling.
•Page 13: It is not justified on the grounds of contiguousness, because four
districts in the preliminary plan appear to contain portions that are not connected
with the rest of the district.
•Page 14-16: It is not justified on the grounds of the Voting Rights Act, because
the preliminary plan dilutes minorities by failing to make them the percentage of a
district’s population required by law.
The proposed solution before you fulfills each constitutional requirement and abides
by the Voting Rights Act while still respecting political subdivision boundaries.
Following these Constitutional rules resulted in a few additional or alternate district
moves.
•Looking at Page 11 of your packet: Not one but two Senate districts move from
western portion of the state. One went to the Adams/York County area. The other
went to the Luzerne/Monroe County area. Also one district from Philadelphia
shifted to Chester County.
•Page 17:
◊ While four House districts made significant moves, only one came from
Allegheny County. The fourth district move came from Beaver County.
◊Lehigh County’s population did not require a new district be moved into the
county (portions of 7 districts already cover the county and the population
only requires 6). Instead, meeting Constitutional requirements gave the
district to the eastern side of Berks County.
◊There were also 3 additional districts that moved to neighboring counties.
Lastly, page 11 and 18-19 show some alternate ways to draw a few districts while still
meeting constitutional requirements.
House
It is this Commission’s sworn duty to uphold the PA Constitution above party loyalty
or interests. It is your first duty to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth. I appeal to your integrity
as individuals and your duty as elected public servants that you remove the personal
and party preferences apparently clouding your vision and place an adherence to the
Constitution first and foremost in your loyalty regardless of the consequences.
Is the higher number of divisions in the preliminary House plan justifiable on
constitutional grounds?
•Looking at page 3 of your packet: It is not justified on the grounds of equal
population, because both plans have basically the same overall variant.
Adherence to the law should not depend on party convenience, partisan benefit, or
job security. Instead, fidelity to the law should be the impartial guide and prominent
presence self-evident in any approved redistricting plan.
The preliminary House plan contains 64 districts that include county splits instead of
37. It divides 110 municipalities instead of 27 and 133 wards instead of 37.
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 2 of 20
Pennsylvania Senate Redistricting Holt Proposal
49
Erie
S u s q u eha n n a
M cKea n
W arre n
50
C ra W f ord
Tioga
P otter
B rad f ord
Wayne
20
Forest
Elk
Venango
22
23
C amero n
W y om i n g
S u ll i va n
21
L ac k a wa n n a
Pike
L y com i n g
M ercer
C l i n to n
13
14
C ambr i a
J
B la i r
15
W estmorela n d
30
M
on
Bucks
tg
y
19
59.9
59
59.21
17
59.19
12
59.17.
17.27
17.16
17.16
59.16
59.20
17.23
17.25
17.20
49
Gree n e
Fra n k l i n
City of Pittsburgh
Philadelphia County
58
12
38
10
50
59.2
4
59.2
1
9
59.18
17.7
59.3
59.16
17.18
12 17
59.1
17.25
59.
17.
17.27
17.16
17.23
59.20
17.20
49
38
7
14
4
1
27
23
42
31
5.13
5.24
5.9
30.8
30.16
30.15
30.14
30.17
30.12
30.7
30.3
30.1
30.9 30.6
30.2
30.11
30.5 30.4
5.14
5.22
5.28
5.11
5.7
5
5.5
40
5.4
45
2
5.21
Percentage Largest/Smallest District is:
Overall Variant: 3.39% (was 3.90%)
30.14
30.7
30.3
30.1
30.9 30.6
30.2
30.11
30.5 30.4
5.14
5.22
5.11
5.7
5.6
5.8
9
D elaware
19
42
5.5
25
62
55
5.4
5.20
5.15
5.21
5.1
5.18
39
8
7
65
41
45
5.17
5.23
5.16
5.19
2
1
26
54
23
33
7
31
18
5.27 5.10
5.26
5
5.12
5.3
5.2
5.28
5.29
30.16
30.15
30.12
36
# of splits by ...
County: 21/67 (vs 28/67)
Municipality: 2 (vs 4)
Ward: 4 (vs 27)
Average: 254,048
5.13
5.24
5.9
30.8
30.17
48
66
3
Ph
4
2
i ladelph
# of Districts that include splits of ...
Counties: 21/50 (vs 39/50)
Municipalities: 2/50 (vs 7/50)
Wards: 5/50 (vs 10/50)
5.1
5.18
1
26
5
1
14
5.25
8
30
64
5.19
2
48
65
41
C hester
20
47
15
24
27
Largest: 258,354 (vs. 258,927)
Smallest: 249,882 (vs 249,205)
Difference: 8,472 (vs 9,722)
5.27 5.10
5.16
5.12
5.6
5.8
36
8
25
5.25
8
30
55
6
Boundary Splits
33
7
31
62
28
46
51
40
District Sizes
5.26
46
51
47 20 18
14
5.29
60
30.13
3
29
15
24
19
23
5.20
5.15
29
4 44 6
5.23
32
34
5.3
5.2
15
30
19
37
16
42
5.17
28
52
16
20
43
11
17
18
30.10
28
13
64
54
35
17.21
17.22
17.24
17.29
3
61
17.14 17.13
17.28
17.16
57
56
17.4
17.12
17.10
17.15
5
59.1
1
59
2
13
7
5
5
2
59.6
59.7
59.1
23
22
59.2
21
20
59.9
59.
59.8
59.14
3
59.2
17.5
17.9
3
59.25
53
17.2 17.1
17.3
17.8
59.10
59.1
59.12
4
10
59.2
59.4
22
21
8
17.6
9
12
59.1
6
17.17
28
11
24
24
25
17.11
9
27
66
63
17.26
26
27
A dams
Yor k
44
60
37
16
32
29
4
3
30.13
F u lto n
43
11
28
52
34
30.10
Fa y ette
26
35
17.21
17.22
17.24
17.29
13
38
13
58
61
17.14 17.13
17.18
57
53
17.4
17.12
17.10
17.2817.15
59.7
59.15
59.22
59.24
59.6
17.1
17.3
17.5
17.9
59.8
59.14
59.25
17.2
59.10
59.13
59.12
56
10
59.1
59.2
59.4
22
59.18
25
5
63
50
9
21
B ed f ord
6
12
17
59.23
S omerset
10
omer
44
L a n caster
31
33
11
36
C u mberla n d
32
24
B er k s
L eba n o n
H u n t i n g do n
W ash i n g to n
46
29
15
P err y
31
59.3
12
7
4
16
29
17.7
11
8
5
17
30
23
17.8
6
2
3
1
18
19
17.6
23
22
20
59.11
21
20
28
17.11
9
24
24
25
42 38
16
48
D a u ph i n
ata
59.5
28
i
un
18
Northampto
L eh i g h
17.17
10
26
27
27
37
39
43
12
n
17.26
A lle g he n y
ff
ia
Mi
40
C arbo n
S ch u y l k i ll
lin
M o n roe
45
North u m berla n d
S n y der
35
Indiana
14
27
34
41
B eaver
ur
Union
C e n tre
A rmstro n g
47
nto
C lear f i eld
B u tler
u mb
Mo
L awre n ce
L u z er n e
C ol
J e f f erso n
C lar i o n
3
Based on these number comparisons (and the details on subsequent pages), it
appears that the political subdivision splits in the preliminary Senate plan are not
justified based on legal and constitutional requirements.
39
Note: A list of the specific cities, boroughs, and townships used within each county
and district is available upon request. It was too lengthy to include in this summary.
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 3 of 20
ia
Pennsylvania House Redistricting: Holt Proposal
1
2
4
some VTD in 5
5
3
some VTD in 5
6
Erie
S u s q u eha n n a
M cKea n
W arre n
Tioga
P otter
B rad f ord
Wayne
C ra W f ord
Forest
Elk
C amero n
W y om i n g
S u ll i va n
Venango
L ac k a wa n n a
Ward 3
Ward 21
Ward 1
Ward 2
Pike
L y com i n g
M ercer
C l i n to n
1
C ambr i a
6
3
2
13
4
5
B la i r
P err y
W estmorela n d
31
2
4
3
Middletown
W ash i n g to n
Fort
Allen
Sibel
14.2
1
12.1
12.2
14
14.1
Ward 1
16
Ward 2
3.2
19
d
Ward
3.1
War
B er k s
L eba n o n
2
H u n t i n g do n
5
Wendel
Herm
15
6
10
8.1
9
5
7 4
2
3
University
1
8
9
3
4
7
M
17
15
19
14
13
12
11
7
6
5
9
8
4
1
16
3
2
10
18
6
on
Bucks
tg
VTD #1
5
Upper Ed 1
omer
VTD #5
VTD
North
VTD #7
y
Weavers
Old Stand
New
Stanton
C u mberla n d
Union Square
Upper Ed 5
4
8.2
13
1
15
6
5
9
13.3
3
16
12
8
8.4
11.2
11.1
13.1
13.4 13.2
Ed
12
14
4
17
20.18
29
11
12
D a u ph i n
U.
11
7
5
3
30
20.16
20.17
32
11.5
18
n
Ju
7
8
6
2
1
18
19
8.7
11.6
11.4
11.3
24
24
23
22
20
20.15
20.1
50.5
19.2
9
9
25
21
20
28
East
West
L eh i g h
11.7
27
27
28
1
n
17
i ata
4
Northampto
S ch u y l k i ll
lin
8
12
10
26
ff
2
3
C arbo n
8.3
8.6
8.5
Mi
1
ia
B eaver
M o n roe
North u m berla n d
S n y der
Indiana
A lle g he n y
ur
Union
C e n tre
A rmstro n g
nto
C lear f i eld
B u tler
u mb
Mo
L awre n ce
L u z er n e
C ol
J e f f erso n
C lar i o n
Upper
Upper
Ed
Ed
6
VTD South
3
Sporting Hill
Elm Tree Ed I
Elm Tree Ed II
L a n caster
WD
2.1
58
66
63
50
9
9-4
9-2
21
59
22.2
57.3
61
17
Gree n e
VTD 4
Fra n k l i n
VTD 2
VTD 5
A dams
5.9
34.17
34.26
34.38
34.4
34.3
34.2
34.36
7
1
34.5
6
34.1
3
4.15
4
4.2
4.14
4.13
4.8
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
6
44
4.7
60
24
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
46
51
27
40.4
40.14
30
36
18.1
31.12
31.11
31.8
25
City of Pittsburgh
Philadelphia County
58
12
63
9
11
25
27
23
7
2
42
7.8
34.18
34.13
34.42
34.10
34.17
34.9
34.16
34.5
34.4
34.3
34.2
34.36
34.1
20.17
20.18
3
29
4.15
4
4.2
4.14
4.13
4.8
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
6
44
4.7
60
15
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
46
32
27
24
30
36
40.4
40.14
48
18.13
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
55.27
55.28
57.12
57.28
57.1
57.17
57.18
41.25
41.20
41.22
41.16
41.21
55.25
55.6
55.26
55.7
55.4
55.5
41
23.17
31.8
25
2.23
2
2.25
23.15
18.1
31
18
Percentage Largest/Smallest District is:
Overall Variant: 6.24% (vs 6.10%)
41.23
41.19
57.12
57.28
57.1
57.17
57.18
41.25
41.18
41.20
55.28
41.22
41.16
41.21
41
ia
5
2.23
2
2.25
2.26
2.16
2.27
1
26.22
VTDs in Ward 39 (part)
26.6
26
39
Ph
i ladelph
# of Districts that include splits of ...
Counties: 37/203 (vs 64/203)
Municipalities: 46/203 (vs 128/203)
Wards: 37/203 (vs 87/203)
31.1
Based on these number comparisons (and the details on subsequent pages), it
appears that the political subdivision splits in the preliminary House plan are not
justified based on legal and constitutional requirements.
2.27
1
26.22
Average: 62,573
55.22
55.2755.29
55.25
55.26
55.7
55.5
18.17
18.16
18.14
2.26
2.16
# of splits by ...
County: 46/67 (vs 54/67)
Municipality: 27 (vs 110)
Ward: 37 (vs 133)
45
26.10
26.15
40
18.15
41.23
41.19
41.18
5
27.19
40.3
31
8
27.3
19
18.8
18.3
18.9
14
55.10
55.29
7
7.5
47 20
29
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
51
7.6
55
55.22
23.18
33
7.9
7.7
55.21
55.11
55.3
55.1
55.2
23.20
23.21
43
37
2.24
34.20
34.28
26.18
15
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.9
62
23
23.19
16
32
34
16
30
34.26
18
19
34.38
20.15
20.1
28
52
55.17
55.8
Largest: 64,063 (vs 64,422)
Smallest: 60,302 (vs 60,717)
Difference: 3,761 (vs 3,705)
65
55.24
55.16
55.13
11
17
55.19
55.18
55.15
49
57.15
57.14
57.13
64
54
35
55.14
13
38
14
4
57.3
61
17
12
5
1
20
20.16
59
22.2
3
28
56
53
22.5
22.1
13
41.26
22
.4
21
10
22
22
8
6
57
41.24
21
20
24
24
50
9
12
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
28
66
10
26
27
Boundary Splits
55
55.11
55.6
55.4
55.2
23.15
45
31.1
D elaware
District Sizes
55.21
55.12
55.8
55.10
55.3
55.1
23.18
23.17
7
31.2
31.9
31
18
18.17
18.16
18.14
26.10
26.15
C hester
14
27.19
48
40
18.13
65
55.24
55.23
55.20
8
27.3
40.3
2
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.13
55.9
62
23.20
23.19
7.6
18.15
33
7.9
7.7
19
18.8
18.3
18.9
57.15
57.14
57.13
64
54
55.1455.15
15
23
23.21
7.8
7.5
37
47 20
29
2.24
4
3
5
VTD 6
34.10
34.9
9
Yor k
VTD 1
VTD 3
34.42
26.18
34.13
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
34.18
41.26
34.20
34.28
16
32
34
8
34.16
F u lto n
28
52
7
2
35
42
43
11
6
3
1
49
13
38
5
4
41.24
S omerset
Fa y ette
VTD 1
don
Lyn
53
22.5
22.1
12
District 8
57
56
10
22
22.4
6-3 6-4
Millport
B ed f ord
VTDs in Ward 39 (part)
26.6
26
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
39
Note: A list of the specific cities, boroughs, and townships used within each county
and district is available upon request. It was too lengthy to include in this summary.
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 4 of 20
3
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Map Close-Ups 1 of 4)
Western Half of Pennsylvania
1
2
1
2
4
some VTD in 5
5
3
some VTD in 5
6
4
64
68
67
6
17
8
66
7
76
63
75
9
64
77
14
74
171
11
12
60
82
15
16
62
55
79
8
7
12
9
25
27
28
24
24
21
20
11
2
12
1
2
8
6
13
7
23
22
73
9
10
26
27
6
3
4
5
5
3
28
20.1
14
4
1
20
1
17
20.15
18
16
30
19
81
15
20.16
20.17
20.18
29
32
31
46
5
9
1
12
2
6
80
56
4
3
4
57
5
Wendel
Herm
Middletown
48
New
Stanton
49
Fort
Allen
Sibel
University
54
59
71
Weavers
Old Stand
58
89
52
VTD 1
VTD 6
VTD 4
50
51
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
78
69
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
72
VTD 3
VTD 2
VTD 5
90
page 5 of 20
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Map Close-Ups 2 of 4)
Eastern Half of Pennsylvania
111
110
115
114
Ward 3
Ward 21
Ward 1
112
Ward 2
113
120
84
83
121
119
118
117
176
139
109
107
189
1
2
3
85
123
122
4
116
137
109
East
124
West
50.5
133
8.7
11.7
11.6
11.5
18
8
8.4
8.2
11.2
11.1
13.1
13.4 13.2
11.3
11
11.4
8.3
8.6
8.5
17
13.3
6
10
8.1
9
5
7 4
2
3
15
12.2
14
14.1
Ward 1
16
Ward 2
19.2
132
19
rd
rd
86
102
5
3.2
Wa
143
131
3.1
Wa
22
136
135
14.2
1
12.1
13
12
104
138
183
187
125
134
129
145
126
127
9
3
87
13
103
7
11
7
6
101
5
9
8
4
1
10
128
6
5
144
53
VTD #1
Upper Ed 1
VTD #5
61
106
37
Sporting Hill
98
9
59
22.2
61
17
12
6
4
28
52
3
7
1
34.20
34.18
34.13
34.42
34.10
34.9
34.28
34.16
4
3
34.5
34.4
34.3
34.2
34.36
7
5
1
23.19
6
34.1
3
4.15
4
4.2
4.14
4.13
4.8
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
6
44
4.7
60
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
46
27
15
2.1
40.4
40.14
48
19
18.8
18.13
18.3
18.15
41.23
41.19
41.25
41.18
41.20
55.28
55.26
55.7
55.5
41
41.22
41.21
41.16
57.12
57.28
141
57.1
57.17
57.18
18
7
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
55.22
55.2755.29
55.25
55.6
55.4
23.15
2.25
31.8
25
45
31
18
31.1
18.17
18.16
18.14
18.1
2.26
2.16
2.27
1
26.22
26.10
26.15
40
2.23
2
36
55.21
55
55.11
55.10
55.3
23.18
23.17
5
27.19
30
18.9
14
8
27.3
40.3
2
VTD 6
37
47 20
29
24
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
51
5.9
7.6
55.1
55.2
23.20
33
7.9
7.7
65
55.24
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.8
55.9
62
23
23.21
7.8
7.5
16
32
34
8
2
9
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.13
42
43
11
57.15
57.14
57.13
64
54
35
55.1455.15
49
13
38
VTD 1
VTD 2
57.3
53
22.5
22.1
5
57
56
10
22
22.4
21
166
168
156
95
VTD 1
2.24
167
41.26
10
43
41.24
Millport
on
nd
66
26.18
157
26
6-3 6-4
96
Ly
VTD 3
140
Upp
63
50
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
9-2
District 8
149
34.17
9-4
47
31
VTD South
58
155
99
6
3
WD
41
196
er Ed
Upp
er Ed
70
97
Elm Tree Ed II
193
142
152
34.26
92
29
150
Union Square
Elm Tree Ed I
VTD
North
VTD #7
Upper Ed 5
146
88
VTD 4
178
3
147
130
16
3
2
18
34.38
199
4
Ed
14
12
8
U.
17
15
19
105
2
1
VTDs in Ward 39 (part)
26.6
26
39
VTD 5
167
160
158
91
169
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
93
94
by Amanda
100
159
165
13
AmandaE.com
page 6 of 20
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Map Close-Ups 3 of 4)
Pittsburgh and Surrounding Area
28
30
32
27
8
44
21
28
9
25
24
24
21
20
2
1
2
6
3
13
4
5
5
19
23
4
1
20
12
8
6
3
28
11
7
23
22
14
24
34
25
17
20.15
20.1
9
10
26
27
27
33
7
12
18
19
38
16
30
15
20.16
36
20.17
45
20.18
29
32
31
42
5
9
1
6
12
2
4
35
3
40
4
5
39
Wendel
Herm
Mid
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 7 of 20
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Map Close-Ups 4 of 4)
Philadelphia and Surrounding Counties
Upper Ed 5
No
per
Up
per
Up
3
Ed
WD
153
58
151
148
170
66
63
200
50
9
22
22
.4
21
154
59
22.2
57.3
61
17
34
4
9
34.13
34.42
34.10
34.17
34.16
34.26
34.9
164
34.5
7
5
34.4
34.3
34.2
34.36
3
6
1
34.1
3
191
5.9
165
34.18
4.15
4
4.2
4.14
4.13
4.8
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
6
44
190
4.7
60
15
24
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
188 46
51
27
40.14
163
48
161
40
2.23
2
186
26.22
26.10
26.15
18.13
55.22
55.29
65
41.23
41.19
55.28
55.26
55.7
55.3
41.25
41.18
41.20
55.27
41.22
41.21
6
41.1
173
55.4
55.1
55.5
55.2
41
23.18
23.17
23.15
7
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
180
55
55.25
55.6
31.8
31
18
31.1
25
45
177
18.17
18.16
18.14
18.1
175
182
36
40.4
5
27.19
30
7.6
7.5
18.3
18.15
23.19
33
7.9
7.7
19
18.8
18.9
14
8
27.3
40.3
2
47 20
29
2.24
34.20
34.28
37
195
26.18
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
8
2
34.38
1
32
7.8
181
16
179
55.10
26
7
168
28
52
62
23.21
43
11
192
6
3
55.8
23.20
57.18
41.
5
55.13
23
55.21
55.11
57.1
57.17
55.24
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.9
197
13
38
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.15
55.14
42
57.12
57.28
64
54
203
49
198
202
35
57.15
57.14
57.13
24
12
166
4
53
41.
194
57
56
10
22.5
22.1
174
172
201
2.25
2.26
2.16
184
2.27
1
VTDs in Ward 39 (part)
26.6
26
39
185
162
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
6
Ed
AmandaE.com
page 8 of 20
2.1
Lycoming
Clinton
Compact: Senate
Montour
Union
34
¬
«
Mifflin
27
¬
«
Monroe
2011
Legislative Reapportionment Commission P
45
(Senate)
14
¬
«
Butler
¬
«
Carbon
Several Senate districts are not compact in the obvious sense of the word, especially when compared
side by side with what the Holt proposal
illustrates to be possible. A sampling of these are below. Based on these findings, the political subdivision splits within most Senate districts are
Northumberland
not justified based on the constitutional requirement
of compactness.
49
Erie
Armstrong
¬
«
Snyder
¬
«
29
¬
«
Beaver
Juniata
¬
«
Cumberland
¬
«
¬
«
37
Allegheny
¬
«
Potter
18
21
¬
«
¬
«
Butler
10
¬
«
Bucks
Armstrong
47
¬
«
¬
«
Adams
¬
«
¬
« ¬« ¬
6
«
¬
«5
17
¬
«4 ¬
¬
«¬
«
2
3«
¬
«
8¬
«
¬
«
26
¬
« ¬
«7 ¬
Westmoreland
«1
19
9
¬
«
¬
«¬«
¬
« ¬
43
«
¬
«
37
¬
«
Allegheny
Cambria
Westmoreland
Lancaster
Washington
13
¬
«
Fayette
¬
«
¬
«
Delaware
¬
«
12
Bucks County
28
Pittsburgh
36
¬
«
43
¬
«
¬
«
39
«
5¬
23
22
2
3
Greene
¬
«4
5
16
15
30
Philadelphia County
12
10
26
27
9
27
28
6
8
2
7
5
3
14
4
1
17
18
20
12
13
23
22
11
24
24
25
21
20
28
26
¬
«
13
¬
«
¬
«
19
12
¬
«
¬
«6
¬5
¬
«4 2 «
«
«3 ¬
¬
«78 ¬
¬
«¬
«1
Somerset
¬
«
9
Philadelphia County
Delaware County
16
15
31
2
30
19
29
23
31
58
59.21
59.11
59.3
17.7
17.8
17.6
17.11
59.5
17.14 17.13
59.7
59
59.25
59.19
17.27
17.16
17
12
59.17.
17.18
17.16
59.16
59.20
17.23
17.25
49
13
38
61
17.20
43
11
3
20
14
19
23
25
41
45
18
5.21
5.25
8
5.13
5
5.27 5.10
46
27
30
5.9
30.8
51
30.16
30.15
30.14
30.17
30.12
30.7
30.3
30.1
30.9 30.6
30.2
30.11
30.5 30.4
5.14
5.22
5.28
5.11
5.7
5.16
5.12
5.6
5.8
5.5
5.1
5.19
5.4
2
36
5.18
1
48
40
5.26
Philadelphia County
5.24
26
39
65
33
7
31
55
5.20
5.15
15
62
5.17
47
29
24
5.29
AmandaE.com
37
16
32
6
5.23
28
52
44
60
42
64
54
35
17.21
17.22
17.24
17.29
4
57
53
17.4
17.12
17.10
17.2817.15
17.17
59.24
59.6
17.26
59.9
17.1
17.3
17.5
17.9
59.8
59.14
59.18
17.2
59.10
59.13
59.12
59.23
56
10
59.1
59.2
59.4
22
34
by Amanda
66
63
50
9
21
5.3
5.2
¬
«7
¬
«3
59.15
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
29
23
17
¬
«
32
¬
«
¬
«
59.22
12
¬
«
¬
«6
5
17
¬
¬
«
¬
«4 2 «
«
3¬
7 ¬
«
¬
«
26
¬
«
¬
«8 1
17
¬
«
44
¬
«
Chester County
13
19
Montgomery County
12
¬
«6
10
¬
«
Montgomery County
14
17
18
20
Bucks County
7
4
1
Adams
8
30.13
10
¬
«
21
20
28
11
6
15
¬
«
31
¬
«
York
33
¬
«
24
¬
«
11
Fayette
9
24
Franklin
Fulton
Holt Proposal — #35
«
(colored blue) ¬
46
¬
«
24
Dauphin
Perry
Cumberland
38
¬
«
12
25
Huntingdon
16
¬
«
40
¬
«
10
27
Blair
Bedford
Somerset
39
¬
«
42
¬
«
27
35
Juniata
AlleghenyCounty
37
¬
«
26
Cambri
Mifflin
30
39
32
47
¬
«
Holt Proposal — #38
(colored green)
Northu
Snyder
Philadelphia
Greene
Washington
Union
Centre
Indiana
40
¬
«
44¬
38
«
42
¬
«
43
¬
«
28
Holt Proposal — #15
46
(colored grey)
Mo
Clearfield
34
¬
«
41
¬
«
12
Montgomery
Beaver
Lycoming
Jefferson
24
¬
«
Lawrence
38
36
¬
«
York
Indiana
Clinton
46
Chester
33
Cameron
Elk
Venango
Berks
Tioga
25
¬
«
Forest
Clarion
11
¬
«
42
¬
«
16
McKean
Mercer
Lebanon
15
31
¬
«
50
¬
«
¬
«
Preliminary Proposal — #35
41
(colored blue)
Warren
Crawford
Lehigh
40
48
¬
«
Dauphin
Perry
Northampton
Preliminary
Schuylkill Proposal — #38
(colored blue)
Preliminary Proposal — #15
47
(colored blue)
24
¬
«
¬
«4
Columbia
30.10
lin
Luzerne
Lawrence
page 9 of 20
2
¬
«
Luzerne
Monroe
14
Compact: Senate
(continued)
«
45
¬
« ¬
¬
«
bia
Susquehanna
d
¬
«
20
2011 Legislative
WayneReapportionment Commission Preliminary Plan
Carbon
(Senate)
n
Erie
22
¬
«
49
¬
«
olumbia
18
¬
«
Crawford
21
¬
«
¬
«
29
50
Forest
Monroe
14
¬
«
Venango
Mercer
¬
«
Lehigh
25
¬
«
Elk
45
Carbon
¬
«
20
¬
«
Wayne
23
¬
«
Wyoming
Lackawanna
Sullivan
Cameron
16
Susquehanna
Bradford
Tioga
Potter
22
¬
«
Pike
Lycoming
Clinton
Clarion
Luzerne
Jefferson
38
¬
«
42
¬
«
43
¬
«
Berks
Cambria
¬
«
36
¬
«
¬
«
44
32
¬
«
Greene
13
¬
«
¬
«
Chester
¬
«
19
AlleghenyCounty
47
¬
«
¬
«
40
13
¬
«
Bedford
17
Lancaster
Lancaster
9
12
4
8 3
26
7 1
Chester
44
¬
«
Fulton
5
Franklin
15
¬
«
Lebanon
Lehigh
Berks
24
11
¬
«
¬
«
Holt Proposal
— #20
(colored green) ¬
44
36
«
12
¬
«
¬
«
44
¬
«
36
¬
«
9
6
11
¬
«6
12
8
13
23
22
2
7
5
3
14
4
1
17
18
16
15
30
19
46
¬
«
29
23
31
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
39
¬
«
¬
«
13
by Amanda
19
¬
«
12
¬
«
¬
«6
5
17
¬
«
¬
«
¬
«4 2
«
7 ¬
«3 ¬
¬
«
26
¬
«
¬
«8 ¬
«1
Montgomery County
Chester County
24
24
25
21
20
Chester
19
¬
«
Philadelphia
Delaware
28
¬
«
Delaware
24
¬
«
10
¬
«
10
27
27
Lancaster
13
¬
«
10
¬
«
12
¬
«
«6
¬
«5 ¬
17
¬
«4 ¬
¬
«
2
8¬
«3«
¬
«
26
¬
«
7 1
¬
«
¬
«
¬
«9
12
¬
«
Philadelphia
16
12
20
¬
«
Adams
Bucks
Montgomery
¬
«
York
33
Philadelphia
11
¬
«
26
28
12
Bucks County
43
¬
«
28
31
¬
«
18
¬
«
16
¬
«
2
Pittsburgh
42
¬
«
29
¬
«
48
¬
«
Dauphin
Perry
Cumberland
6
Delaware
38
¬
«
37
¬
«
10
¬
«
¬
«
6
¬
«
¬
«
¬
«
¬
«
5
¬
«
¬
«
4
17
«¬
¬
¬
« ¬
«
¬
«
«
2
¬
«
«
¬
«
¬
« ¬
3
¬
8¬
«¬
«
«
¬
«
26
¬
«
¬
« ¬
7
«
1
¬
«
19
9
¬
«
¬
«
Montgomery
Fayette
Holt Proposal
— #18
Montgomery
10 (colored yellow)
Bucks
Somerset
36
Juniata
Huntingdon
¬
«
¬
«
Washington
46
¬
«
Bucks
Mifflin
Blair
Holt Proposal — #45 (or #14)
39
¬
«
24
(colored red)
11
Westmoreland
30
¬
«
35
Philadelphia County
¬
«9 AmandaE.com
Delaware County
¬
«6
¬
«5
¬
«4
¬
«2
17
¬
«
¬
«7
¬
«3
Philadelphia County
¬
«8
page 10 of 20
¬
«
1
58
66
63
50
9
59.10
59.13
59.12
59.9
59.6
17.2
59
17.27
17.16
17
12
17.23
17.25
13
49
43
11
28
16
61
17.20
17.21
17.22
17.24
17.29
38
52
57
53
17.4
17.12
17.14 17.13
17.18
17.16
59.16
17.1
17.3
17.10
17.2817.15
59.7
59.15
59.22
59.21
59.20
17.5
17.9
59.8
59.14
59.23
59.25
59.18
56
10
59.1
59.2
59.4
22
21
59.3
Allegheny
24
¬
«
Indiana
16
17.7
37
¬
«
11
¬
«
¬
«
Northampton
Schuylkill
17.8
40
¬
«
18
¬
«
41
¬
«
17.6
Lehigh
59.11
47
Northumberland
Snyder
17.11
¬
«
29
¬
«
Beaver
34
¬
«
59.5
Berks
Armstrong
45
¬
«
Carbon
17.17
Schuylkill
Northampton
Monroe
59.24
Butler
27
¬
«
Union
Centre
14
¬
«
Columbia
Montour
Clearfield
17.26
Lawrence
59.19
anon
Northampton
McKean
59.17.
27
¬
«
¬
«
Pike
Warren
Schuylkill
Luzerne
Preliminary Proposal — #20
(colored purple)
Preliminary Proposal — #18
(colored brown)
Wyoming
Preliminary
Proposal — #14
(colored blue) Lackawanna
37
64
54
35
42
7
23
33
45
62
55
41
65
Huntingdon
48
¬
«
Dauphin
Perry
¬
«
Berks
31
¬
«
Minority-Majority Districts: Senate
Cumberland
¬
«
36
Lancaster
Bedford
Franklin
Fulton
¬
«
33 plans hadAdams
The Senate minority-majority districts in both
basically the same
minority population numbers (see charts below, statistics are for all districts
containing a portion of Philadelphia).
24
¬
«
11
¬
«
Lebanon
15
13
¬
«
York
28
¬
«
10
¬
«
Bucks
Montgomery
12
¬
«
¬
«6
5
¬
«
4
17
¬
«¬
Term
¬
«
2
3«
8
¬
«
Minority-Majority¬
District,
as
defined
by Federal Law, is
¬
«
26
«
7 1
¬
«
¬
«
when
a
minority
can
compose
a
50%
plus 1 of the over 18
19
¬
«
¬
«9
population within one district. See Bartlett v. Strickland,
44
¬
«
Chester
Philadelphia
Delaware
129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).
But in the Holt Plan, the districts were more compact, avoided more ward
divisions, and had populations closer to the average district size. The visual
comparison (at right) illustrates this.
12
¬
«
¬
«6
16
¬
«
It is my conclusion that the shape and divisions within each district are not
justified based on the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.
¬
«5
¬
«4
Bucks County
¬
«
¬
«
11
10
¬
«
24
Voting Age Population in Preliminary Proposal
#2
#3
36
¬
«
White
34.8%
26.2%
Black
21.4%
56.0%
13
Hispanic
¬
«
Chester County
¬
«
¬
«
¬
«6
5 28.1%
38.7% ¬
73.0%
37.9%
17
¬
«
« ¬
«4 2
¬
« 59.4%
53.7% 11.3% ¬
353.3%
7 ¬
«
«
26
¬
« 7.9% ¬
«8 ¬
2.6%
«1 2.5% 3.2%
9
¬
«
44
#4Montgomery County
#5 12
#7
#8
Philadelphia County
#1
66.1%
¬
«7
¬
«3
13.1%
35.2%
9.8%
Asian
19
¬
«
6.7%
6.0%
3.1%
6.2%
4.3%
Delaware County
7.1%
11.1%
Other
1.9%
2.0%
1.8%
1.7%
2.2%
1.8%
2.0%
¬
«2
17
¬
«
Philadelphia County
7.8%
¬
«8
58
¬
«
1
66
63
50
9
57
56
10
59
.1
.24
59
59
17.8
17.6
17.7
.3
.8
59.9
59.6
17.10
17.15
.15
.19
59.16
17.18
12 17
59
17.23
17.25
59
.17
.
17.27
17.16
17.16
17.20
17.21
49
17.22
17.24
17.29
Black
23.1%
50.6%
52.8%
10.1%
51.3%
50.9%
Hispanic
35.3%
4.5%
11.6%
6.5%
2.8%
4.8%
Asian
5.4%
4.8%
8.3%
6.3%
5.7%
8.9%
Other
1.5%
2.1%
2.3%
1.6%
2.3%
2.0%
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
11
28
52
32
34
37
16
25
19
31
47 20 18
15
14
65
41
33
45
29
4 44 6
3
60
46
24
27
51
30
5.13
5.24
5.9
30.8
30.16
30.15
30.14
30.17
30.12
30.7
30.3
30.1
30.9 30.6
30.2
30.11
30.5 30.4
5.14
5.22
5.28
5.11
5.7
5
5.8
5.27 5.10
5.16
5.1
5.12
5.6
5.5
5.19
5.4
2
5.18
1
48
40
5.21
5.25
8
36
AmandaE.com
7
23
62
55
5.20
5.15
33.5%
42
64
54
35
5.17
37.9%
43
5.23
75.5%
13
38
5.26
25.0%
#8
5.3
5.2
38.0%
#7
5.29
34.8%
#5
3
#4
30.1
#3
30.10
White
#2
61
17.14 17.13
17.28
59.7
59
22
59.
.21
17.17
59
59.14
59
59.20
17.4
17.12
17.11
.11
59
59.12
23
59.
59
59.25
59.18
53
17.2 17.1
17.3
17.5
17.9
.5
.13
17.26
59.10
59
59
21
Voting Age Population in Holt Proposal
59.2
59.4
22
26
39
page 11 of 20
Pennsylvania Senate Redistricting Proposal
District Moves
Alternate District Boundary Options
From Western PA
Both proposals (the preliminary and Holt) found it necessary to move
district #45 from Allegheny.
Northeast Corner
It might be argued that one
additional county should be
divided (to avoid a three-way
division of Luzerne) and to
create populations closer to
the average.
The Holt proposal also found it necessary to merge #21 and #25 into
one district, leaving one unassigned district number (because of a
combination of constitutional considerations).
From Eastern PA
Because of a combination of constitutional considerations, Philadephia
went from 7 to 6 districts, moving district #1 out of Philadelphia.
Below is an illustration of what
this might look like:
Used in Holt
Proposal
12
10
26
27
9
27
28
6
12
8
13
23
22
11
24
24
25
21
20
2
7
5
3
14
4
1
28
17
18
20
16
15
30
19
29
23
31
In the Oct 31 meeting, it was mentioned that some on the Commission
felt that Monroe required the new seat, others felt like Adams-York area
required it. Based on my findings, both are correct. Both regions should
receive a new district based on constitutional considerations. Both may
receive one because of constitutional consideration in Western PA.
58
66
63
50
59.3
17.7
17.8
17.6
17.11
59.11
59.19
59.17.
17.17
17.27
17.16
17
12
17.23
17.25
17.20
49
43
11
20
5.29
30.16
30.15
30.13
30.14
30.12
30.7
30.3
30.1
30.9 30.6
30.2
30.11
30.5 30.4
5.14
5.22
5.28
5.11
5.7
5
5.5
57
53
42
64
54
23
62
55
65
41
33
7
31
25
45
18
5.21
5.1
5.19
5.4
2
36
5.18
1
48
40
19
5.27 5.10
5.16
5.12
5.6
5.8
5.26
5.13
5.24
5.9
30.8
30.17
5.20
5.15
14
5.25
8
30
5.17
47
15
24
27
5.3
5.2
6
30.10
46
51
37
16
32
29
44
60
5.23
28
52
4
3
35
17.21
17.22
17.24
17.29
13
38
61
17.14 17.13
17.18
17.16
59.16
17.4
17.12
17.10
17.2817.15
59.15
59.22
59.24
59.6
59.5
59.9
59.7
59.20
17.1
17.3
17.5
17.9
59.8
59.14
59.21
17.2
59.10
59.13
59.12
59.23
59
59.25
59.18
56
10
59.1
59.2
59.4
22
17.26
9
21
34
26
39
To South-Central PA
District #25 moves to Adams/York area.
To Eastern PA
District #45 moves to Luzerne/Monroe area. The specific county
depends on how numbers are assigned. Constitutional considerations
created some district shifts in the area. #14 and #45 are assigned to
the Luzerne district and the Carbon/Monroe/Luzerne district. A case
may be made for each region getting either district number.
Alternate
District #1 moved to Chester County, because of an opening created
through constitutional considerations.
Fe
rgu
so
n
(pa
rt)
uson
Ferg
t)
(par
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 12 of 20
65
3
110
some VTD in 5
6
Wyoming
Forest
Compact:
House
111
Elk
quehanna
63
66
Clearfield
(colored blue)
113
Lackawanna
62
119
57
Carbon
Cambria
118
176
189
79
Blair
80
81
Juniata
82
86
71
122
Westmoreland
4tte
59
8
199
137
Bedford
69
130
193
Franklin
Fulton
136
Cumberland
89
78
90
Holt131
Proposal — #189
134 (colored red)
143
Montgomery
145
114
120
121
112
123
12
124
Beaver
Adams
Holt Proposal — #82
(colored red)
91
53 144 29 178
28
146 70 61 151
31
142
140
26
157
18
148
155 167
152
141
173
149 Philadelphia
ster 45
156
168 165
184
158
162
160 159 Delaware
3
Monroe
Arm
60
138
183
Lehigh
Northam
Allegheny
16
28 187
136
30 33 133
54
131
Dauphin
32
5 44 27 20 134
34
104
145
Berks
Montgomery
25
126
Lebanon
38
103 105
12946 40 130
102
5
14756 53 14
15
101
39
35
87
106
128
146
48
5870 61 1
37
88
97
26
49
98
99
157 148
Washington
125
92
47
196
95
93
169
Chester
Lancaster
York
Ward 1
Ward 2
155 167
43
41
45
149 P
156 52
168 165
158
1
Fayette
160 159 Dela
100 50 13
94
Greene
Holt Proposal — #15 / #46
(colored bright yellow / green)
51
8
28
24
24
21
20
9
9
25
2
5
14
4
1
20
17
20.15
18
20.1
16
30
19
15
20.16
20.17
20.18
29
32
31
5
9
1
6
12
2
4
3
4
5
17
15
19
14
13
12
4
5
9
8
4
1
8
11
7
6
2
1
16
3
2
10
18
9
3
4
7
6
5
Union Square
Sporting Hill
Elm Tree Ed I
Elm Tree Ed II
9-4
9-2
6-3 6-4
Millport
on
District 8
nd
Ly
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
East
VTD 1
VTD 6
West
VTD 4
VTD 3
VTD 2
VTD 5
1
2
3
28
12
13
7
23
22
11
8
6
2
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
7
12
10
26
27
27
1
3
176
Carbon
14Schuylkill
107
118
Bucks
147
1
64
Lackawanna
Ward 3
138
Somerset
183
Northampton
187
51
113
9 116
119
10 — #15 / 46
Preliminary
Proposal
Columbia
Butler
(colored green / brown) 122 11
Northumberland
108
Venango
115
Ward 21
72
133
Montour
Snyder
Perry
Huntingdon
Monroe
Lehigh
26
171
Mifflin
73
112
55
Preliminary
Proposal — #82 Union
Centre
(colored purple)
85
Pike
Indiana
121
77
139
114
120
74
Preliminary Proposal — #189
115
Armstrong
0
7
Lycoming
Numerous House districts are not compact in the obvious sense of theClinton
word, especially
when compared side83
by side with what the Holt proposal
76
illustrates to be possible. A sampling of these are below. Based on these findings, the political subdivision splits within most House districts are not Luzerne
Lawrence
Jefferson
justified based
on theWayne
constitutional requirement of compactness.
109
Clarion
g
117
Mercer
Sullivan
84
Cameron
75
Wayn
page 13 of 20
6
3
4
5
Contiguous: House
Three House districts appeared to contain non-contiguous portions in the preliminary proposal.
These portions should be made contiguous.
4
Preliminary Proposal — #125
Preliminary Proposal — #43 / #97
Preliminary Proposal — #128
6
5
non-contiguous
non-contiguous
Union Square
non-contiguous
Sporting Hill
non-contiguous
Elm Tree Ed I
non-contiguous
Holt Proposal — #125
Holt Proposal — #43 / #97
Holt Proposal — #128
Elm Tree Ed II
contiguous
contiguous
17
15
19
14
13
12
6
5
1
11
7
9
8
4
3
2
9-4
9-2
still non-contiguous.
according to census, no one lives
on that square, but if an issue,
label non-contiguous square H97
and place with district #97.
6-3 6-4
16
50.5
10
18
Millport
n
o
nd
District 8
Ly
17
contiguous
contiguous
contiguous
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 14 of 20
Minority-Majority Districts: House
Preliminary Plan
43.4
Allentown, Lehigh County
11
11.4
In the corner of each version is the percentage of the over 18 population which is in the
Hispanic minority.
8
8.4
11.5
11.3
17
8.7
11.6
8.3
8.6
8.5
11.7
The following illustrations show that a higher minority presence than what the Commission
found possible can be reached in Allentown by following the traditional redistricting
principle of keeping Wards whole.
10
8.2
11.2
11.1
10.1
9
5
7 4
2
3
8.1
16
12
18
12
8.2
11.2
11.1
8.1
9
5
7 4
2
3
13
1
14
16
17
11.4
18
12
8.7
11.6
11.5
11
8
8.4
8.2
11.2
11.1
13.1
13.4 13.2
11.3
11.4
11
8.4
8.3
8.6
8.5
16
17
11.5
8
15
6
10
11.7
18
13
14
11.6
11.3
17
1
8.7
8.3
8.6
8.5
9
5
7 4
2
3
11
11.7
8
14.1
50.5
15
6
14
1
Version used in Holt Proposal
47.8
10
14.2
19
Alternate with 2 Ward Splits
46.1
6
6.1
13
18
The minority district is colored blue and shown in its entirety. Only the portion of #132
(colored green) in Allentown is shown.
Alternate with 0 Ward Splits
15
6.2
10.3 & 4
13.3
8.1
9
5
7 4
2
3
13
15
6
10
14.2
1
12.1
12.2
14
14.1
16
19.2
19
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
19
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
12
19
page 15 of 20
Minority-Majority Districts: House
Term
Several House districts failed to meet the minority-majority requirements of the 2009 judicial ruling (see definition of term at
right). The numbers that fell short are marked in yellow or pink on the chart below.
Minority-Majority District, as
defined by Federal Law, is
when a minority can compose
a 50% plus 1 of the over 18
population within one district.
See Bartlett v. Strickland, 129
S.Ct. 1231 (2009).
The Preliminary Proposal failed to create minority-majority districts in 5 instances where the Holt proposal found it possible
(often by simply following other traditional redistricting principles). The dilution of minorities is in violation of the Voting Rights
Act and should be corrected.
Neither plan found it possible to reach the minimum requirements for a minority-majority district in #103, #159, or in east
Delaware (Preliminary #164, Holt #161).
In these areas, then, any dividing of political subdivisions is not justified on the grounds of adhering to the Voting Rights Act.
Voting Age Population in Preliminary Proposal
#19
#24
#103
#127
#22
#159
#164
#191
Delaw.
Delaw.-U.
Darby
Philly 3 Dela.
Pitt
Pitt-Penn
Dauphin
Berks
Lehigh
White
48.1%
33.4%
39.2%
40.7%
42.0%
42.0%
33.6%
Black
46.0%
60.2%
41.2%
9.5%
11.0%
49.2%
Hispanic
2.2%
1.7%
13.8%
47.2%
43.4%
Asian
1.5%
2.3%
3.2%
1.2%
Other
2.1%
2.4%
2.5%
1.4%
#180
#179
#185
#186
#188
Philly 27
46 51
#192
Philly 4
34 52
#190
Philly 6 44
52 60
#181
#195
#197
#198
#200
#201
#203
Philly 14
20 37 47
Philly 16
28 29 32
Philly 19
42 43
Philly 12
13 17
Philly
22 50
Philly 17
49 59
Philly 10
35 61
Phily 7
23 33
Philly 23
54 62
Philly 26
40 / Del.
Philly 27
36 48
6.2%
18.2%
30.0%
41.3%
30.0%
36.3%
11.8%
12.4%
36.3%
18.6%
4.9%
20.5%
19.3%
8.5%
6.6%
44.8%
85.4%
18.7%
38.9%
50.4%
51.2%
42.2%
82.5%
79.2%
46.9%
74.1%
36.6%
73.2%
75.0%
69.9%
77.6%
5.8%
5.2%
2.2%
58.1%
20.8%
2.4%
5.4%
3.9%
2.2%
2.3%
11.3%
2.9%
54.2%
2.6%
2.3%
12.4%
7.6%
2.0%
1.2%
14.0%
4.1%
3.8%
7.7%
4.1%
11.2%
14.5%
1.3%
3.7%
3.5%
2.4%
3.1%
1.7%
1.2%
7.1%
5.8%
1.6%
1.7%
2.5%
2.0%
1.2%
2.6%
1.8%
2.2%
3.2%
2.2%
2.4%
2.0%
2.0%
1.2%
2.1%
2.3%
2.1%
2.4%
#127
#133
#159
#161
#191
#180
#197
#185
#186
#188
#164
#190
#192
#195
#181
#198
#200
#201
#203
Philly 28
38 52
Philly 11
16 29 47
Philly 19
37 43
Philly 12
13 17
Mont. /
Philly 50
Philly 10
22 59
Philly
35 61
Voting Age Population in Holt Proposal
#19
#24
#103
Pitt
Pitt-Penn
Dauphin
Berks
Lehigh
Delaw.
Delaw. /
Darby
Philly 3 U Darby
Phily 7
23 33
White
42.9%
44.4%
37.2%
35.4%
34.5%
45.8%
45.4%
20.7%
19.8%
Black
50.0%
50.7%
43.4%
10.6%
11.7%
46.1%
49.1%
62.1%
Hispanic
2.0%
1.3%
13.2%
51.1%
50.3%
5.4%
2.1%
Asian
2.9%
1.4%
3.6%
1.4%
1.7%
1.2%
Other
2.1%
2.3%
2.6%
1.5%
1.9%
1.6%
Philly 26
39 40
Philly
36 48
6.3%
34.6%
32.5%
21.4%
27.4%
27.2%
21.5%
13.3%
10.8%
8.8%
35.6%
9.9%
21.2%
23.5%
51.3%
51.1%
50.6%
68.0%
62.7%
53.9%
71.3%
79.8%
34.2%
85.2%
55.2%
84.8%
49.5%
4.3%
51.1%
32.1%
3.5%
3.9%
2.7%
3.0%
3.4%
2.3%
3.0%
50.8%
2.6%
2.6%
2.3%
15.0%
1.5%
10.5%
4.3%
8.4%
9.0%
11.1%
5.3%
2.0%
12.6%
2.9%
1.9%
2.8%
1.3%
4.6%
0.8%
12.2%
1.9%
2.4%
1.3%
1.8%
1.8%
1.9%
2.5%
1.9%
2.9%
2.1%
2.0%
1.4%
2.1%
1.8%
2.1%
2.2%
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
Philly 7
42 49
AmandaE.com
Philly 27
46 51 60
Philly 4
34 / Dela
Philly 6 24
44 60
page 16 of 20
Minority-Majority Districts: House
Philadelphia
It is possible to have 16 minority districts in Philadelphia. Two seemed to place a higher priority on minority considerations vs.
other traditional principles than what the Courts consider preferable, so were not used. The one (#194) has no minority presence
in the Holt Proposal. The other (#203) was left with a 49.5% minority presence (just shy of the letter of the law requirement).
The side by side illustrations below show two versions of the Philadelphia map — the one used in the Holt Proposal and the
alternate that makes #194 a minority district (around Ward 21 and 22).
Note that many of these districts are more compact than the districts proposed in the preliminary plan.
Version used in Holt Proposal
Alternate with additional Minority District
58
58
66
66
63
34.3
34.1
4.15
4
4.2
4.14
4.13
4.8
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
6
44
4.7
15
24
18.9
14
31.8
25
18.1
52
31
18
34
34.20
34.18
34.13
34.42
34.10
34.9
34.28
34.16
34.5
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
40.4
30
36
48
34.3
2.23
2
2.25
34.1
3
4
4.2
4.14
4.13
4.8
4.19
4.1
4.12
4.7
60
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
2.27
46
27
40.4
40.14
48
39
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
W
a
(p rd
art 12
)
in
18.15
41.25
41.20
41.22
6
41.1
41.21
55.3
55.4
55.1
55.5
23.17
41
23.15
7
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
41.23
41.19
41.18
31.8
25
45
31
18
31.1
18.17
18.16
18.1
5
2.23
2
2.25
2.26
2.16
2.27
1
26.22
26.10
26.15
40
18.13
18.14
18.9
14
27.19
30
36
19
18.8
18.3
55.29
55.28
55.26
55.7
23.18
33
7.9
7.7
7.6
8
27.3
40.3
VTDs in Ward 39 (part)
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
Ds
15
24
26.6
26
7.8
7.5
37
47 20
29
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
1
26.22
6
44
51
2.26
2.16
4.15
4.20
26.10
26.15
40
5
27.19
40.3
40.14
8
27.3
2.24
51
27
26.18
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
46
34.4
34.2
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
60
43
55.22
55.27
55.25
55.6
55.2
23.20
23.19
16
32
31.1
34.36
3
28
62
23
23.21
11
45
18.17
18.16
18.14
13
38
26.18
34.17
34.26
34.38
34.4
34.2
18.13
31.12
31.11
42
VTDs in Ward 21 (part)
55.21
55
55.11
55.8
55.10
57.18
65
55.24
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.13
55.9
57.1
57.17
6
34.5
34.36
18.15
41
23.15
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.15
55.14
49
55.5
57.12
57.28
41.2
34.16
18.8
18.3
31.2
31.9
23.17
64
54
35
57.15
57.14
57.13
4
34.9
34.28
20
47
29
19
55.1
53
61
17
12
6
41.1
41.21
7
7.5
37
VTDs in Ward 21 (part)
41.25
41.20
41.22
VTDs in Ward 17
(part)
41.2
34.10
7.6
41.23
41.19
41.18
6
7.7
55.29
55.28
55.26
55.7
57
57.3
55.4
23.18
33
7.9
55.22
55.27
55.25
55.6
55.3
55.2
23.20
23.19
7.8
55.21
55
55.11
55.10
59
VTDs in Ward 22
(part)
41.2
34.42
4
34.13
23
23.21
43
41.2
34
34.18
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.8
55.9
62
22
21
65
55.24
55.16
55.15
16
32
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.13
42
11
28
52
54
35
55.14
49
13
38
64
VTDs in Ward 21 (part)
57.18
56
10
VTDs in Ward 22
(part)
57.1
57.17
2.24
61
17
57.14
57.13
50
9
57.12
57.28
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
59
22.2
12
34.20
53
22.5
22.1
57.15
34.17
21
57.3
34.26
.4
57
56
10
22
22
34.38
9
63
VT
50
VTDs in Ward 39 (part)
26.6
26
39
page 17 of 20
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal
District Moves
From Western PA
The Preliminary Proposal found it necessary to move district #5 from Crawford as well as #22 and #45 from Allegheny County.
The Holt Plan found it necessary to move only one district from Allegheny. The other district came from Beaver County (#10).
This is because in the preliminary proposal, 7 districts span two counties (Allegheny and another) while in the Holt proposal only
1 district spans two counties allowing the other districts to remain all within only one county. The consolidated span is between
Beaver County and Allegheny, which resulted in one district being moved from Beaver County and one from Allegheny County.
It also was necessary to shift several districts within the county to meet compact or whole political subdivision requirements. In
two cases (#64 and #72), this moved said districts to nearby counties (from Venango/Butler to just Butler and from Cambria to
Fulton/Franklin).
From Philadelphia PA
The Preliminary Proposal and Holt proposal agree on moving district #169.
It also was necessary to shift several districts within the county to meet compact or whole political subdivision requirements. In
one instance (#116), this caused a district move from Luzerne to Monroe.
To Eastern PA
The Preliminary Proposal moved district #22 to Lehigh County. This was not necessary. The population in Lehigh County
necessitates it have 5 complete House districts and part of a 6th district. It currently (2001) has a presence in 7 districts. This
means that one district (likely #135) should have no portion within Lehigh County and another district already within Lehigh
County should be moved into Allentown.
Instead of Lehigh County, #22 should move to Berks County. Presently (2001), the eastern portion of Berks includes portions
of 3 different districts (#124, #134, and #187). The fragments of these districts in Berks should be eliminated and those three
fragments combined into one new district.
The Preliminary Proposal and Holt plan both moved district #169 to York and #10/#45 to Chester. District #5 moved to roughly
the same Berks County area (in the Holt plan it also catches population overflow from Lancaster and Lebanon).
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 18 of 20
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal
Alternate District Boundary Options
Mercer — Butler — Venango
Clinton — Centre — Huntingdon
It might be argued that Venango, as a smaller county, should
be left whole and Mercer and Butler should each be divided
one more time instead. Below is an illustration of what this
might look like:
It might be argued that one municipality should be divided to
create more compact districts with populations closer to the
average. Below is an illustration of what this might look like:
Fe
rg
us
on
(p
ar
Fe
t)
art)
n (p
so
rgu
Fe
rg
us
on
(p
ar
uso
Ferg
t)
rt)
a
n (p
VTD 1, 2, 3
in Plum
8
remaining VTDs
in Plum
7
9.1
9.2
12
9.3
10
26
27
25
27
28
24
24
21
20
11
2
12
1
2
8
6
13
7
23
22
9
9.5
9
9.4
6
3
4
5
7
5
3
3
28
14
4
1
6
20
4
5
17
20.15
20.1
2
18
16
30
19
15
20.16
1
20.17
20.18
1
VTD 1, 2, 3
in Plum
29
32
31
8
5
9
1
6
9.2
remaining VTDs
in Plum
9.3
10
26
4
27
24
21
20
24
11
6
2
5
12
1
2
8
13
7
23
22
9
9.5
9
25
27
28
4
7
9.1
12
12
2
3
9.4
6
3
4
5
7
5
3
3
28
14
4
1
6
20
4
5
17
20.15
20.1
2
18
16
30
19
15
20.16
1
20.17
20.18
1
29
32
31
5
9
1
6
12
2
4
3
4
5
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 19 of 20
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal
Alternate District Boundary Options continued
For the sake of more compact districts,
it may justify splitting Plum Twp. and a
ward in Penn Hills. The adjusted districts
are colored Green, Pink, and Red. (see
illustration at right)
Used in Holt Proposal
VTD 1, 2, 3
in Plum
8
remaining VTDs
in Plum
7
9.1
9.2
12
9.3
10
26
27
7
9
12
9
10
26
9
25
24
24
21
2
12
1
2
8
6
13
7
23
22
11
5
28
24
21
20
6
3
25
27
11
1
2
13
9.4
6
3
4
5
7
5
3
3
4
5
28
14
4
1
6
14
4
20
2
12
8
6
7
23
22
3
1
24
9
9.5
8
7
20
4
5
17
2
17
20.15
20.15
1
Alternate
Allegheny County
18
16
30
19
18
15
20.1
16
30
19
15
20.16
1
20.17
29
20.18
32
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (corrected)
5
9
6
1
29
31
32
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
31
12
4
6
page 20 of 20