EXHIBIT D
Legislative Reapportionment Exceptions
and Proposed Solutions
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 (update 4)
by Amanda
p. 2 Remarks
p. 3 Statewide Map: Senate Version
p. 4-8 Statewide Map: House Version
p. 9-21 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. 19-21
Compact
Contiguous
Minority-Majority Districts
District Moves
Alternate District Options
AmandaE.com
AmandaE.com
page 1 of 21
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 3 of your packet: It is not justified on the grounds of equal
population, because both plans have basically the same overall variant.
•Page 7-10: It is not justified on the grounds of compactness, because several
districts in the preliminary plan are fragmented or sprawling.
•Page 11: 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 13: It is not justified on the grounds of compactness, because several
districts in the preliminary plan are fragmented or sprawling.
•Page 14: 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 15-17: 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 12 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 18:
◊ 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 12 and 19-21 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 4 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 (update 4)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 2 of 21
Pennsylvania Senate Redistricting Holt Proposal
49
ERIE
SUSQUEHANNA
WARREN
50
CRAWFORD
BRADFORD
POTTER
20
FOREST
ELK
VENANGO
22
23
CAMERON
WYOMING
SULLIVAN
21
PIKE
LYCOMING
MERCER
CLINTON
CO
JEFFERSON
11
12
8
13
7
5
14
4
CAMBRIA
17
16
J
BLAIR
15
29
15
30
30
WASHINGTON
36
CUMBERLAND
32
46
LEBANON
HUNTINGDON
33
M
11
31
WESTMORELAND
24
BERKS
29
23
BUCKS
TG
OM
44
LANCASTER
31
ON
19
ER
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
GREENE
FRANKLIN
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
5
Percentage Largest/Smallest District is:
Overall Variant: 3.39% (was 3.90%)
45
2
5.21
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
DELAWARE
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
IL
E
AD
LP
HI
# 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
65
1
14
5.25
8
30
64
5.19
2
48
41
CHESTER
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
ADAMS
YORK
44
60
37
16
32
29
4
3
30.13
FULTON
43
11
28
52
34
30.10
FAYETTE
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
BEDFORD
6
12
17
59.23
SOMERSET
10
Y
59.3
6
2
3
1
18
19
17.7
23
22
20
16
48
DAUPHIN
17.8
21
20
28
A
17.6
9
24
24
25
42 38
AT
59.11
28
I
UN
17.11
10
26
27
27
37
39
43
12
59.5
ALLEGHENY
FF
17.17
MI
40
18
LEHIGH
SCHUYLKILL
LIN
17.26
BEAVER
CARBON
NORTHUMBERLAND
SNYDER
35
INDIANA
45
27
34
41
14
A
CENTRE
ARMSTRONG
47
UNION
BI
BUTLER
M
LAWRENCE
LU
R
OU
NT
MO
CLARION
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 (update 4)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 3 of 21
A
Pennsylvania House Redistricting: Holt Proposal
1
2
4
some VTD in 5
5
3
some VTD in 5
6
MCKEAN
WARREN
TIOGA
POTTER
BRADFORD
WAYNE
CRAWFORD
ELK
CAMERON
WYOMING
SULLIVAN
VENANGO
Ward 3
Ward 21
Ward 1
Ward 2
LYCOMING
CLINTON
CO
12
1
CAMBRIA
6
3
2
13
7
4
5
5
3
14
4
17
16
30
BLAIR
31
5
9
1
6
12
2
4
HUNTINGDON
5
Wendel
Herm
Middletown
WASHINGTON
Fort
Allen
Sibel
University
8.2
15
6
10
8.1
9
5
7 4
2
3
13
14.2
1
12.1
12.2
14
Ward 1
14.1
16
Ward 2
8
9
3
4
7
3.2
19
d
Ward
3.1
BERKS
M
1
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
VTD #5
Weavers
Old Stand
New
Stanton
13.3
War
LEBANON
2
3
4
8
8.4
11.2
11.1
13.1
13.4 13.2
19.2
PERRY
WESTMORELAND
29
32
11
12
1
15
20.18
11.5
CUMBERLAND
Upper Ed 1
OM
ER
Union Square
VTD
North
VTD #7
Y
Upper Ed 5
11
8
6
2
1
18
19
20.16
20.17
8.7
11.6
11.4
18
DAUPHIN
3
24
24
23
22
20
20.15
20.1
A
Ed
9
9
25
21
20
28
East
West
U.
26
27
27
28
17
IAT
11.3
7
ON
PT
50.5
N
JU
8
12
10
AM
LEHIGH
11.7
FF
4
H
RT
NO
SCHUYLKILL
LIN
8.3
8.6
8.5
MI
ALLEGHENY
2
3
NORTHUMBERLAND
SNYDER
BEAVER
1
A
CENTRE
ARMSTRONG
MONROE
BI
UNION
M
CLEARFIELD
BUTLER
LU
R
OU
NT
MO
CLARION
LAWRENCE
Upper
Upper
Ed
Ed
VTD South
6
3
Sporting Hill
Elm Tree Ed I
Elm Tree Ed II
LANCASTER
WD
2.1
58
66
63
50
9
9-4
9-2
21
59
22.2
57.3
61
17
4
4.2
4.14
VTD 6
4
VTD 4
FRANKLIN
VTD 2
VTD 5
ADAMS
4.13
4.8
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
6
44
4.7
18.1
31.8
25
3.7
7
5
6
3
Philadelphia County
58
12
63
9
11
25
27
23
7
2
60
8
27.3
46
51
27
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
20.15
20.1
18
42
15
4.15
4
4.2
4.14
4.13
4.8
4.20
4.19
20.17
4.1
4.12
6
44
4.7
29
7.8
7.6
19
18.8
18.13
18.3
18.15
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
41.23
41.19
41.20
55.27
55.28
57.12
57.28
57.1
57.17
57.18
41.25
41.18
40.4
41.22
23.17
31.8
25
55.26
55.7
55.4
55.5
41
3.7
3
29
23.15
18.1
31
18
32
27
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
30
36
40.4
40
2.23
2
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
2.26
2.16
2.27
1
48
26
2.25
57.18
30
36
2.23
2
26
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.16
1
48
39
PH
IL
A
L
DE
PH
# of Districts that include splits of ...
Counties: 37/203 (vs 64/203)
Municipalities: 45/203 (vs 128/203)
Wards: 37/203 (vs 87/203)
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.
5
27.19
40.3
31
8
27.3
46
51
57.1
57.17
41.16
41.21
31.1
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
60
# of splits by ...
County: 46/67 (vs 54/67)
Municipality: 25 (vs 110)
Ward: 34 (vs 133)
45
3.1-3.5
20.18
Largest: 64,063 (vs 64,422)
Smallest: 60,302 (vs 60,717)
Difference: 3,761 (vs 3,705)
Percentage Largest/Smallest District is:
Overall Variant: 6.24% (vs 6.10%)
41.16
41.21
55.25
55.6
Boundary Splits
Average: 62,573
57.12
57.28
41.25
41.20
41.22
18.17
18.16
18.14
18.9
55.10
55.29
7
7.5
14
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
47 20
15
24
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.9
62
23
23.19
16
32
34
16
30
19
28
52
55.17
55.8
41.23
41.19
41.18
55.28
41
5
27.19
40.3
40
District Sizes
65
55.24
55.16
55.15
11
17
55.19
55.18
55.13
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
2.24
28
66
10
26
27
55.22
55.2755.29
55.25
55.26
55.7
55.5
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
2
DELAWARE
City of Pittsburgh
55
55.11
55.6
55.4
23.15
45
31.1
3.1-3.5
3
1
CHESTER
31.12
31.11
31
18
18.17
18.16
18.14
14
55.21
55.12
55.8
55.10
55.3
23.18
23.17
7
31.2
31.9
55.1
55.2
23.20
23.19
18.13
65
55.24
55.23
55.20
15
24
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.1455.15
55.13
55.9
62
23
23.21
7.6
18.15
33
7.9
7.7
19
18.8
18.3
18.9
57.15
57.14
57.13
64
54
35
42
7.8
7.5
37
20
47
2.24
YORK
VTD 1
VTD 3
29
41.26
4.15
16
32
34
8
2
9
FULTON
28
52
7
43
11
6
3
1
49
13
38
5
4
53
22.5
22.1
VTD 1
don
Lyn
41.24
SOMERSET
FAYETTE
Millport
District 8
57
56
10
22
22.4
6-3 6-4
12
BEDFORD
39
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 21
IA
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
27
9
25
27
28
24
24
21
20
11
2
12
1
2
8
6
13
7
23
22
73
9
10
26
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
57
3
4
5
Wendel
Herm
Middletown
48
New
Stanton
49
Fort
Allen
Sibel
University
54
71
59
Weavers
Old Stand
58
89
52
VTD 1
VTD 6
50
VTD 4
51
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
69
by Amanda
78
AmandaE.com
72
VTD 3
VTD 2
VTD 5
90
page 5 of 21
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Map Close-Ups 2 of 4)
Eastern Half of Pennsylvania
111
110
115
114
Ward 3
Ward 21
112
Ward 1
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
124
East
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
13
14
Ward 1
14.1
16
Ward 2
19.2
132
19
rd
rd
86
102
5
3.2
143
Wa
131
3.1
Wa
22
136
135
15
14.2
1
12.1
12.2
12
104
138
183
187
125
134
129
145
126
127
4
7
130
11
9
8
4
1
16
3
2
10
18
5
VTD #5
146
106
88
98
92
Elm Tree Ed II
193
61
37
Sporting Hill
9-4
9-2
157
26
10
43
167
VTD 1
149
9
59
22.2
7
23.19
11
4.15
4
4.2
4.14
4
4.13
4.8
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
6
44
4.7
29
140
2.1
19
18.8
18.13
18.3
18.15
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
41.23
41.19
41.25
41.18
41.20
55.28
55.26
55.7
55.5
41.22
41.21
41.16
57.12
57.28
141
57.1
57.17
57.18
18
41
23.15
31.8
25
45
31
18
31.1
18.17
18.16
18.14
18.9
14
55.22
55.2755.29
55.25
55.6
55.4
23.18
23.17
7
7.5
37
20
47
15
24
55.21
55
55.11
55.10
55.3
55.1
55.2
23.20
33
7.9
7.7
65
55.24
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.8
62
23
23.21
7.8
7.6
16
32
34
8
2
9
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.1455.15
55.9
42
43
57.15
57.14
57.13
64
54
35
55.13
49
13
28
52
3
1
18.1
3.1-3.5
3
3.7
7
5
1
6
3
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
60
27
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
40.4
5
27.19
30
36
40.3
40
8
27.3
46
51
2
VTD 2
61
17
12
38
6
168
156
95
57.3
53
22.5
22.1
5
VTD 6
VTD 3
31
VTD South
3
57
56
10
22
22.4
21
166
VTD 1
VTD 4
er Ed
66
4
196
6
Upp
63
50
41.26
Millport
on
nd
152
er Ed
Upp
WD
6-3 6-4
Ly
142
58
155
99
96
District 8
29
41.24
47
VTD
North
VTD #7
70
97
41
Upper Ed 1
150
Union Square
Elm Tree Ed I
178
3
128
6
144
53
VTD #1
Upper Ed 5
103
3
5
147
13
7
6
101
2.23
2
2.24
87
199
9
Ed
14
12
8
U.
17
15
19
105
2
1
2.26
2.27
2.16
1
48
26
2.25
39
VTD 5
162
160
158
91
169
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
93
94
100
by Amanda
159
165
13
AmandaE.com
page 6 of 21
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Map Close-Ups 3 of 4)
Pittsburgh and Surrounding Area
28
30
32
27
33
8
44
21
12
10
26
27
28
25
24
24
21
20
2
28
20.1
5
14
34
38
18
16
30
19
4
25
17
20.15
6
3
24
23
4
1
20
1
13
5
19
12
2
7
23
22
11
8
6
3
15
36
20.16
45
9
9
27
7
20.17
20.18
29
32
42
31
5
9
1
3
4
6
12
2
4
35
40
5
39
Wendel
Herm
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 7 of 21
Mid
No
Upper Ed 5
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Map Close-Ups 4 of 4)
Philadelphia and Surrounding Counties
per
Up
per
Up
Ed
WD
58
151
170
66
63
200
22
22
.4
21
154
201
59
22.1
22.2
57.3
34
8
191
2
4.15
4
4.2
4.14
4
9
4.13
4.8
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
6190
44
4.7
195
20
47
29
15
24
37
19
18.8
18.13
18.3
41.23
41.19
41.25
41.18
41.20
41.22
41.21
6
41.1
173
55.7
55.3
55.4
55.1
55.5
55.2
41
23.18
23.17
23.15
31.12
31.11
31.8
25
31
18
177
45
31.1
18.17
18.15
18.16
18.14
18.1
18.9
14
55.29
55.28
55.26
7
31.2
31.9
23.21
55.22
55.27
55.25
55.6
26
1
7.6
7.5
16
32
7.7
180
55
55.11
55.10
41.
7
175
3.1-3.5
3
3.7
7
5
6
1
3
164
165
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
60188
46
51
27
40.3
2
40.4
163
161
40
8
27.3
48
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
5
182
27.19
30
36
186
2.23
2
2.24
168
28
52
3
33
7.9
181
11
192
6
7.8
179
23.19
65
24
5
43
62
23.20
55.21
55.12
55.8
23
57.18
55.24
55.23
55.20
55.15
55.14
55.9
57.1
57.17
41.
13
55.19
55.18
55.17
197
57.12
57.28
64
54
55.16
42
57.15
57.14
57.13
55.13
49
198
38
202
35
203
12
4
53
61
17
166
57
56
10
22.5
194
174
172
50
9
184
26
185
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.16
1
39
162
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
6
3
153
148
Ed
page 8 of 21
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
¬
«
Preliminary Proposal — #15
47
(colored blue)
29
¬
«
¬
«
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
Pittsburgh
36
¬
«
43
¬
«
¬
«
39
«
5¬
28
23
22
2
3
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
AmandaE.com
20
14
19
23
25
41
45
18
5.21
5.25
8
5.13
5
5.27 5.10
Philadelphia County
46
27
30
5.9
30.8
51
5.24
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
26
39
65
33
7
31
55
5.20
5.15
15
24
62
5.17
47
29
3
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
5.26
¬
«7
¬
«3
59.15
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
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
¬
«6
10
¬
«
Montgomery County
14
17
18
20
Bucks County
7
4
5.29
Greene
¬
«4
1
12
5.3
5.2
10
¬
«
21
20
28
Adams
8
30.13
Bucks County
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)
Beaver
Juniata
24
¬
«
¬
«4
Columbia
30.10
lin
Luzerne
Lawrence
page 9 of 21
2
¬
«
Luzerne
Monroe
14
Compact: Senate
(continued)
«
45
¬
« ¬
¬
«
bia
Susquehanna
d
¬
«
20
2011 Legislative
WayneReapportionment Commission Preliminary Plan
Carbon
(Senate)
n
Erie
Wyoming
Preliminary
Proposal — #14
(colored blue) Lackawanna
22
¬
«
49
¬
«
21
¬
«
50
Forest
Monroe
14
¬
«
Venango
Mercer
¬
«
Lehigh
18
¬
«
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
17
Lancaster
Lancaster
13
¬
«
¬
«
Chester
¬
«
19
AlleghenyCounty
47
¬
«
¬
«
40
13
¬
«
9
Bedford
12
4
8 3
26
7 1
Chester
44
¬
«
Fulton
5
6
15
¬
«
Lebanon
Lehigh
Berks
24
11
¬
«
¬
«
Holt Proposal
— #20
(colored green) ¬
44
36
«
12
¬
«
¬
«
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 (update 4)
39
¬
«
¬
«
13
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
¬
«
44
¬
«
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
Franklin
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
by Amanda9
¬
«
Philadelphia County
AmandaE.com
Delaware County
¬
«6
¬
«5
¬
«4
¬
«2
17
¬
«
¬
«7
¬
«3
Philadelphia County
¬
«8
page 10 of 21
¬
«
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
Crawford
¬
«
29
Preliminary Proposal — #20
(colored purple)
59.17.
27
¬
«
¬
«
Pike
Warren
Schuylkill
Luzerne
olumbia
Preliminary Proposal — #18
(colored brown)
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
24
¬
«
11
¬
«
Lebanon
15
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
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).
13
¬
«
York
28
¬
«
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
¬
«
7.8%
Philadelphia County
¬
«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 (update 4)
11
28
52
32
34
37
16
25
19
31
47 20 18
15
14
3
60
46
24
27
51
41
33
45
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
65
29
4 44 6
by Amanda
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 21
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 (update 4)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 12 of 21
65
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
Perry
Huntingdon
86
71
122
Westmoreland
4tte
59
199
137
Bedford
69
130
193
Franklin
Fulton
136
Cumberland
89
78
90
Holt131
Proposal — #189
134 (colored red)
143
Montgomery
113
8
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
7
12
10
26
27
9
9
25
27
28
24
24
21
20
11
2
2
3
20.1
14
4
17
18
16
30
19
15
20.16
20.17
20.18
29
32
31
5
9
1
6
12
2
4
3
4
5
2
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
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
East
VTD 1
VTD 6
West
VTD 4
VTD 3
VTD 2
VTD 5
AmandaE.com
1
13
5
1
20
20.15
12
8
6
7
23
22
28
1
3
176
Carbon
14Schuylkill
107
118
Bucks
147
1
64
Lackawanna
Ward 3
138
Somerset
183
Northampton
187
51
Venango
115
9 116
119
10 — #15 / 46
Preliminary
Proposal
Columbia
Butler
(colored green / brown) 122 11
Northumberland
108
Wayn
Ward 21
72
133
Montour
Snyder
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
5
3
110
page 13 of 21
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
7
Preliminary Proposal — #125
Preliminary Proposal — #43 / #97
Preliminary Proposal — #128
6
non-contiguous
5
non-contiguous
Union Square
non-contiguous
non-contiguous
Sporting Hill
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 (update 4)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 14 of 21
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 (update 4)
12
19
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
19
page 15 of 21
Minority-Majority Districts: House
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).
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.
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%
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
Philly 7
42 49
Philly 26
39 40
Philly
36 48
6.3%
37.2%
28.1%
21.4%
27.4%
27.2%
21.5%
13.3%
10.8%
8.8%
35.6%
9.9%
21.2%
23.5%
51.3%
51.6%
51.4%
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%
2.8%
6.2%
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%
6.7%
12.7%
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%
1.7%
2.5%
2.5%
1.9%
2.9%
2.1%
2.0%
1.4%
2.1%
1.8%
2.1%
2.2%
by Amanda
Philly 27
46 51 60
AmandaE.com
Philly 4
34 / Dela
Philly 6 24
44 60
page 16 of 21
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
50
.4
21
57.3
59
22.2
61
17
6
44
4.7
15
24
18.13
18.9
18.1
31
18
34
4.15
4.13
51
27
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
5
27.19
30
36
40.3
40.4
4.19
8
27.3
46
40
4
4.2
4.14
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
60
2.23
2
4.8
4.1
4.12
6
44
7.8
4.7
29
47 20
15
24
7.6
19
18.8
18.15
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
55.3
55.4
55.1
55.5
23.17
41
23.15
31.8
25
45
31
18
31.1
18.17
18.16
18.14
18.9
14
18.13
18.3
6
41.1
41.21
7
7.5
37
41.25
41.20
41.22
23.18
33
7.9
7.7
41.23
41.19
41.18
55.26
55.7
18.1
3.1-3.5
3.7
3
60
2.27
40.4
39
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
27
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
5
27.19
30
36
40.3
40
8
27.3
46
51
2.26
2.16
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
1
48
26
2.25
43
16
32
31.1
4.20
2.24
3.7
28
52
3.1-3.5
3
23.19
55.29
55.28
55.25
55.6
55.2
23.20
23.21
11
45
18.17
18.16
18.14
14
31.8
25
62
23
55.22
55.27
57.18
6
4.2
4.8
4.1
4.12
18.15
31.12
31.11
42
55.21
55
55.11
55.10
57.1
57.17
41.2
4.13
18.8
18.3
13
38
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.8
55.9
57.12
57.28
65
55.24
4
4
4.14
20
47
31.2
31.9
41
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.15
55.14
55.13
49
55.5
23.15
64
54
35
57.15
57.14
57.13
41.2
4.15
4.20
29
19
23.17
61
17
12
6
41.1
41.21
7
7.5
37
41.20
41.22
55.26
55.7
55.4
55.1
53
41.25
41.18
6
34
7.6
41.23
41.19
59
22.2
41.2
7.7
55.29
55.28
57.3
22.5
22.1
23.18
33
7.9
65
4
7.8
55.22
55.27
21
57
56
10
22
57.18
55.25
55.6
55.3
55.2
23.20
23.19
16
32
23
23.21
43
55.21
55
55.11
55.10
57.1
57.17
.4
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.8
55.9
62
50
9
57.12
57.28
22
55.24
55.16
55.15
55.14
42
11
28
52
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.13
49
13
38
64
54
35
57.15
57.14
57.13
41.2
12
4.19
53
22.5
22.1
57
56
10
22
22
2.23
2
2.25
2.26
2.16
2.27
1
48
26
2.24
9
63
39
page 17 of 21
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 (update 4)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
page 18 of 21
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal
Alternate District Boundary Options
Clinton — Centre — Huntingdon
Mercer — Butler — Venango
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:
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:
58
66
63
50
57.3
53
22.5
59
22.1
22.2
61
17
art)
13
38
n (p
guso
Fer
52
43
34
Philadelphia
34.20
34.18
34.13
34.42
34.10
4
47 20
29
19
18.8
18.13
18.3
18.15
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
23.17
34.17
34.26
34.38
34.16
34.5
34.4
34.3
34.2
34.36
34.1
4.15
31.8
25
4.13
4.19
31
18
18.16
18.1
27.19
40.3
40.4
40.14
48
2.24
2
2.25
2.27
1
26.22
VTDs in Ward 39 (part)
26.6
26
9.2
9.3
11
24
24
2
12
1
13
49
43
6
4
5
7
5
34
3
3
28
14
4
1
6
20
4
5
17
20.15
20.1
2
18
16
30
19
1
20.17
20.18
1
29
32
31
5
9
1
4.15
6
4
4.2
4.14
12
2
4.8
4
4
4.13
4.1
4.20
4.19
4.12
6
44
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
18.14
66
3
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
7
5.1
5
1
5.9
6
3
63
60
51
50
9
4.15
4
4.2
4.14
4.8
4.13
4.1
4.20
4.19
4.12
6
5
3
60
27
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
40.4
30
36
2.23
2
31.8
25
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.16
1
48
26
31.12
31.11
5
27.19
40.3
40
7
31.2
18.17
18.16
18.1
39
40.3
40.4
40
23.20
23.19
7.6
31.9
31
18
31.1
18.13
18.14
8
27.3
46
51
5.9
23
33
7.9
7.7
7.5
18.15
41.23
55.22
41.19
41.25
41.18
41.20
55.2755.29
55.28
41.22
41.16
41.21
8
57.12
57.28
5
57.1
57.17
57.18
55.25
55.6
55.26
55.7
55.4
55.5
41
23.18
7.8
19
18.8
18.3
18.9
14
55.10
55.3
55.1
55.2
23.21
43
37
20
47
15
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
7
5.1
1
2
2
55.21
55
55.11
55.8
62
65
55.24
55.23
55.20
55.12
16
29
24
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.1455.15
55.9
42
27.19
11
28
32
6
44
4.7
57.13
64
54
35
55.13
49
13
38
52
34
4
3
17
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
12
57.14
53
61
59
22.2
27
46
57.15
57.3
27.3
22.5
22.1
57
56
10
22
22.4
21
23.17
23.15
30
36
45
2.23
2
page 19 of 21
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.16
1
48
26
18.1
18.15
14
58
5
1
18.8
18.3
18.9
15
24
4.7
20
47
29
15
20.16
37
16
32
9.4
3
2
8
6
7
23
22
9
9.5
9
25
21
20
39
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
17
13
28
52
remaining VTDs
in Plum
7
9.1
12
10
26
27
27
28
4
Instead of Ward 3 in
Philadelphia being split,
District 7 in Upper Darby
might be divided. At right
is an illustration of what
this might look like:
2.26
2.16
22.2
38
3
26.10
26.15
40
2.23
59
22.1
41.26
30
36
21
22.5
41.24
51
27
.4
23.15
10
22
22
Philadelphia &
Delaware County
5
26.18
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
46
41
VTD 1, 2, 3
in Plum
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
3
9
55.5
8
4.7
27.3
50
55.26
55.7
55.4
11
4.8
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
55.6
55.3
55.1
31.1
4.1
4.12
16
41.
41.21
45
4.14
4.20
41.25
41.20
41.22
18.17
18.14
18.9
4.2
41.23
41.19
41.18
12
6 three ways,
44 split
Instead of Ward 2 being
15it might
14 be split only
24
once. This would cause Ward 26 and 39 to each be split once.
Below is an illustration
of what this might
60
8 look like:
34.9
34.28
55.29
55.28
7
7.5
37
55.22
55.27
23.18
33
7.7
7.6
16
32
23.20
23.19
7.9
55
55.25
55.2
23.21
7.8
11
28
62
23
t)
55.10
26
42
ar
55.21
55.11
57.18
41.
(p
24
49
us
on
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.8
55.9
57.1
57.17
65
55.24
55.16
55.15
55.14
55.13
Fe
rg
55.19
55.18
55.17
41.
12
57.12
57.28
64
54
35
57.15
57.14
57.13
2.24
.4
21
10
22
22
57
56
2.24
9
39
1
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal
Alternate District Boundary Options continued
Alternate
Allegheny County
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
9.2
12
remaining VTDs
in Plum
7
9.1
9.3
10
26
27
8
12
10
26
27
25
24
24
21
2
28
1
2
13
5
6
3
4
24
24
21
20
6
2
5
13
6
3
4
5
7
3
14
4
6
18
15
20.1
4
5
17
20.15
16
30
2
5
1
20
18
19
1
9.4
3
17
20.15
12
14
4
20
11
8
7
23
22
28
3
1
0.1
12
8
6
7
23
22
11
25
27
9
9
9
7
9
9.5
16
30
19
2
15
20.16
29
1
20.17
20.18
32
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
5
9
12
4
6
1
29
31
32
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
31
page 20 of 21
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal
Alternate District Boundary Options continued
1
Used in Holt
Proposal
Lehigh - Northampton - Monroe Counties
2
3
4
It shows two more options for making a district already within Lehigh County a minority advantage district.
(In the Holt Proposal this is the 133rd District.)
Both alternates divide Allentown three ways, instead of reducing it to two (as was done in the main map).
Allentown is presently (2001) divided between three districts. The alternate plans both keep Upper
Nazarath whole (it was divided in the orginal submission).
East
West
50.5
11.7
8.7
11.6
11.4
11.5
11
8
8.4
13.3
18
8.2
11.2
11.1
13.1
13.4 13.2
11.3
17
8.3
8.6
8.5
Alternate A makes #132 the minority advantage district (over 18 population 44.5% hispanic vs. 41.4%
white). It keeps the 132nd completely within Allentown, as it has been in the past. It splits one Allentown
Ward (#11) and one township (Salisbury).
15
6
10
8.1
9
5
7 4
2
3
13
14.2
1
12.1
14
Ward 1
14.1
16
12.2
Ward 2
19.2
12
2
d 3.
19
d
ar
W
ar
W
1
3.
Alternate B makes #134 the minority advantage district (over 18 population 46.1% hispanic vs. 40.1%
white). This is a bigger district shift when compared with the present (2001) configuration. It divides no
Allentown Wards but does split one township (Lower Macungie).
17
Ed
3
15
14
13
U.
19
12
Alternate A
5
9
8
4
1
8
11
7
6
2
1
Upper Ed 1
16
3
2
10
18
9
3
Alternate B
4
7
6
5
VTD #1
VTD #5
VTD #7
Union Square
2
Upper Ed 5
1
1
2
per
Up
per
Up
Ed
3
Sporting Hill
Elm Tree Ed I
3
3
4
4
W
58
137
9
9-4
9-2
21
7
4.15
4
4.2
4.14
4.8
4
4.13
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
3.7
7
5
6
3
60
138
11.7
8
11.6
11.5
11
11.3
18
3
9
1
7
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
31.8
25
45
31
18
31.1
18.17
18.16
18.14
18.1
VTDs from Ward 27 (part)
40.4
5
27.19
30
36
2.23
2
26
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.16
1
48
39
138
132
14
Ward 1
2
18.13
41
23.15
135
46.1
15
6
10
5
132
7 4
11.2
11.1
13
18.15
23.17
136
135
11.4
27
40.3
2
187
133
17
19
18.8
18.3
18.9
14
8
27.3
46
40
44.5
7.6
7.5
20
47
15
41.16
41.21
VTDs from Ward 60 (part)
51
183
29
24
41.25
41.20
41.22
55.5
3.1-3.5
3
1
136
6
44
4.7
37
16
32
34
8
2
9
187
28
52
3
1
41.23
41.19
41.18
55.28
55.26
55.7
55.4
23.18
33
7.9
7.7
11
6
4
23.20
23.19
7.8
55.22
55.2755.29
55.25
55.6
55.3
55.1
55.2
23.21
43
55.21
55
55.11
55.10
18
12
19
2
131
9
5
7 4
2
3
13
12
1
134
6
10
8
11
17
16
1
15
14
16
133
19
7
131
134
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Testimony 11/18 (update 4)
by Amanda
AmandaE.com
57.12
57.28
57.1
57.17
57.18
65
55.24
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.8
62
23
41.26
5
Ly
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.1455.15
55.9
42
57.15
57.14
57.13
64
54
35
55.13
49
13
38
VTD 1
nd
183
57.3
61
17
12
on
District 8
59
22.2
57
56
53
22.5
22.1
41.24
116
Millport
66
63
10
22
22.4
6-3 6-4
116
137
50
2.24
Elm Tree Ed II
page 21 of 21