LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS®
OF PENNSYLVANIA
226 Forster Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102-3220
717.234.1576
Making Democracy Work®
Grassroots leadership since 1920
November 18, 2011
League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania
Testimony on Preliminary Legislative Reapportionment Plans for
The Pennsylvania House and Senate
Before the 2011 Legislative Apportionment Commission
The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania appreciates this opportunity to submit
testimony regarding the Preliminary Legislative Reapportionment Plans adopted by the
Commission on October 31, 2011. The Pennsylvania League has been following the
redistricting issue for decades. In 2008 we were actively involved in drafting legislation we
believed would put an end to the highly secretive process by which legislative and congressional
districts are redrawn and result in maps that put the interests of the voters first. When our
proposed amendment to the PA Constitution failed, despite having a bipartisan list of 95 House
cosponsors, we sought to bring about reforms through legislation. A reform proposal was passed
unanimously out of the House State Government Committee but was never permitted to go to the
floor for a vote.
Determined to press on for a fair and transparent process, we met with Senate Majority
Leader Dominic Pileggi early this year with suggestions for transparency and public input.
These included creation of a website where citizens could access information as the process
unfolded and a series of public hearings in various regions of the state prior to drafting a
preliminary plan. We commend the Commission for creating the website which contains a
wealth of information. It also provides a way for interested persons to be alerted when new
information is posted. The maps allowing citizens to view overlays which compare maps of
current and proposed districts are particularly helpful. We also commend the Commission for
holding three public hearing and posting videos and testimony on the website.
Unfortunately, we cannot say that increased transparency and public accessibility has
resulted in a better product. Based on news reports and our preliminary analysis, it appears some
districts have been redrawn for the sole purpose of protecting the reelection prospects of
incumbent legislators or successors from their respective parties. If adopted, the redrawn Senate
1
District 15 would become the new poster-child for partisan gerrymandering. In Delaware
County, the tiny borough of Swarthmore would be split between two House Districts as would
Haverford Township. In all three cases, the splits have no apparent justification other than to
create safer districts for incumbents. We are sure these hearings will reveal more examples.
Partisan Gerrymandering may be good for politicians but it is not good for voters especially
when it dilutes the voting strength of cohesive communities.
Furthermore, such splits clearly violate Article II, Section 16 of the PA Constitution
which says: “Unless absolutely necessary, no county, city, incorporated town, borough,
township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district.” The
Commission has offered no justification for the above described splits. Instead, the burden of
proof has been placed on those who plan to file exceptions, to show that alternatives are possible.
This is clearly undemocratic. The sophisticated software needed to draw alternative maps is not
readily available to most citizens.
To make the process more transparent the League requests the Commission do the
following:
1. Post on the website
 all alternative plans that were considered but rejected,
 all alternative plans submitted to the Commission
 explanations for why divisions of counties and municipalities were absolutely
necessary,
 all communications to the Commission or individual Commission members
concerning redistricting, and
 all comments and testimony on and exceptions to the Preliminary Plan.
2. Hold additional hearings on the Preliminary Plans, at a minimum, in Allegheny
County and the Southeastern PA region.
In addition to prohibiting the dividing of boroughs, townships, wards, etc. unless
“absolutely necessary, Article II, Section 16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution also states that
senatorial and representative districts “shall be composed of compact and contiguous territory as
nearly equal in population as possible.” Unfortunately, there are no parameters in state law by
which to judge adherence to these criteria. If there were, the PA Supreme Court which hears
appeals to redistricting plans would have some basis on which to rule their constitutionality.
Earlier this year the League submitted a “Proposal for Fairness and Transparency for
Redistricting in 2011 which is appended to this testimony. It included recommendations for such
parameters.
One criterion, compactness or shape, is often used to show whether a district has been
created fairly or has been gerrymandered. The League recognizes that shape alone does not
2
mean a district was unfairly gerrymandered. Other considerations should take precedence over
compactness. These include population equality, adherence to the Voting Rights Act, and
keeping communities of interest including counties, municipalities and wards, etc. intact.
However, a district which has a low score on a compactness measure does indicate a need for
further examination to determine if there are alternatives that would meet the demands of other
criteria.
Numerous methods or “metrics” are available to measure compactness. Azavea, the
Philadelphia based geospacial software development company, www.Azavea.com , has a history
of measuring the compactness of redistricting plans. They have kindly provided the League with
a spreadsheet analysis of the Preliminary Legislative Redistricting plan which includes
compactness scores using four commonly used metrics. The file has four spreadsheets – current
and proposed Senate data and current and proposed House data. Azavea also calculated the
average compactness of all districts statewide using each metric. The data is summarized in a
table attached to this testimony. They show that there is not much difference in the average
compactness scores of the current and proposed House and Senate maps. On a scale of 0 to1,
with zero being least compact, the average scores range from 0.7 to 0.2 depending on the metric
used.
On the other hand, the scores of individual districts are more revealing. Azavea
identified the least and most compact Senate and House districts. Two of the metrics score
proposed Senate District 15, currently held by Senator Piccola (R-Dauphin, York), as the least
compact of all the proposed Senate Districts. All four metrics show a significant drop in
compactness from the current map. In another example, all four metrics score proposed
Philadelphia House District 202, currently held by Rep. Mark Cohen (D-Philadelphia), the least
compact of all House districts with scores ranging from near zero to 0.4. In this case all four
compactness measure fell slightly from that of the current map.
The proposed map splits tiny Swarthmore Borough between HD 161 currently
represented by Rep. Joseph Hackett (R-Delaware) and HD159, currently represented by Rep.
Thaddeus Kirkland (D-Delaware). Under all but one of the metrics used, the compactness scores
for both these districts would fall below that of the current map. Furthermore visually it appears
the map-makers went out of their way to extend the boundaries of HD 159 from Chester through
a piece of Nether Providence to capture part of Swarthmore. If the boundary needed to be
expanded because of population growth, could it not have captured more of Upper Chichester
which shares a boundary with Chester and is already partly in HD 159?
Similarly, under the proposed map, Haverford would be split between HD 163,
currently represented by Rep. Nicholas Micozzie (R-Delaware) and HD 166, currently
represented by Rep. Greg Vitali (D-Delaware). The compactness scores for both districts would
3
fall below their current levels. The total population of Haverford is 61,908, only slightly below
the 62573, the ideal size for a House District. Why did Haverford need to be split?
These are just a few examples of changes we believe merit explanation by the
Commission.
This concludes our testimony. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.
APPENDIX I
COMPACTNESS SCORES FOR SELECTED CURRENT AND PROPOSED SENATE AND HOUSE DISTRICTS
__________________COMPACTNESS METHOD_____________________________
District
Reock
Area/Convex Hull
Polsby-Popper
Schwartzberg
SD 15 Current
.312
.72
.28
.53
Proposed
.27
.48
.09
.294
HD 202 Current
.17
.37
.07
.29
.116
.37
.057
.239
.22
.48
.127
.39
.247
.427
.06
.256
.37
.76
.34
.58
.298
.666
.226
.47
.37
.79
.28
.53
.286
.62
.18
.42
.40
.73
.38
.62
.36
.726
.26
.50
Proposed
HD 161 Current
Proposed
HD 159 Current
Proposed
HD 166 Current
Proposed
HD 163 Current
Proposed
Range is 0 to 1 with a score of 0 being the least compact and a score of 1 being the most compact
4
APPENDIX I continued
COMPOSITE AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM AND MINIMUN SCORE FOR SENATE AND HOUSE DISTRICTS
Chamber
Reock
Area/Convex Hull
Polsby-Popper
Schwartzberg
Minimum
.17 (SD 3)
.34 (SD 3)
.09 (SD 3)
.292 (SD 3)
Maximum
.54 (SD 4)
.914 (SD 30)
.56 (SD30)
.75 (SD 30)
Average
.35
.668
.232
.471
Min
.17 (SD 3)
.34 (SD3)
.09 (SD15)
.294 (SD 15)
Max
.58 (SD 4)
.901 (SD 49)
.593 (SD49)
.77 (SD 49)
Avg
.374
.678
.242
.481
Min
.144 (HD 27)
.377 (HD170
.071 (HD 202)
.271 (SD 19)
Max
.614.((HD 78)
.958 (HD 68)
.678 (HD 68)
.824 (SD 68)
Avg
.38
.698
.279
.516
Min
.116 (HD 202)
.37 (HD 202)
.057 (HD 202)
.239 (HD 202)
Max
.613 (HD 90)
.948 (HD 28)
.715 (HD 28)
.846 (HD 28)
Avg
.374
.694
.268
.507
Senate Current
Senate Proposed
House Current
House Proposed
Range is 0 to 1 with a score of 0 being the least compact and a score of 1 being the most compact
5
APPENDIX II
A PROPOSAL FOR FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY
FOR REDISTRICTING IN 2011
1. In designing districts no access to or use should be made of the following
information:
(a) Party affiliation data of any political subdivision;
(b) Voting histories of any political subdivision;
(c) The location of residences of any incumbent official, candidate, or other
person;
2. Any data that is to be used in drafting a redistricting plan, the preliminary and any
revised plan, notice of commission meetings and public hearings, transcripts of
testimony presented at public meetings, and any written testimony is to be posted on
the Internet and otherwise made available to the public within 48 hours of it being
received.
3. All Commission and legislative committee meetings dealing with redistricting are to
be publicly advertised widely and open to the public.
4. All communications concerning any redistricting plan are to be in writing and made
part of the public record.
5. Prior to the drafting of a Preliminary Plan, public hearings shall be held in five
different regions of the Commonwealth to solicit public input on their expectations
relevant to redistricting.
6. Upon publication of the Preliminary Plan, a second series of public hearings shall be
held in five different regions of the Commonwealth.
7. Any Revised Plan is to be accompanied by an explanation for the revisions.
8. Apply the standards set forth in Article II, section 16 of the PA Constitution regarding
legislative districts to Congressional districts as well. If there are conflicts in meeting
these standards, require that the following criteria be applied listed in rank order:
First - All districts shall have a population as nearly equal as practicable to the ideal
population for the districts, as determined by dividing the number of districts to be
established into the population of this Commonwealth reported in the Federal
decennial census. No district shall have a population that deviates more than .75%
from the ideal population for that district nor shall the district with the highest
population deviate more than 1.5% from the district with the smallest population.
Second –Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough,
township or ward shall be divided in forming a congressional, senatorial or
representative district. No such entity shall be divided more than once until all other
entities of the same or larger population have been divided at least once.
6
Third - All districts shall be composed of geographically contiguous territory.
Districts having sections that meet only at the points of adjoining corners shall not be
considered contiguous.
Fourth - Districts shall be reasonably geographically compact in form with a
compactness measurement of not less than 15% of the total ideal measurement for the
district but the above criteria shall take precedence over compactness. The ideal
compactness measurement for any district shall be a ratio of one to one of the
dispersion of population about the population center of the district to the dispersion of
population about the geographic center of the district.
Any plan which deviates from any of these criteria shall be accompanied with a
specific explanation defining why the deviation is necessary and alternate plans that
were considered that would have avoided the deviation.
7