Pennsylvanians share their thoughts on plans to remap the state House, Senate, and Congress.
Since policymakers responsible for redistricting government redistricting approved the initial plans nearly two weeks ago, hundreds of comments have poured in online.
Some say they support the proposed limits as is, but the vast majority of commentators say they need improvement. Many argue that some municipalities will be unfairly divided between political districts. By law, map makers must not do so “unless absolutely necessary”.
“I strongly oppose the abolition of Legislative District 82,” Susan Shearer of Juniata County wrote of the proposed state assembly map. “It takes away our easily accessible access [sic] To our elected representative… It brings me, my neighbors, and my community together, with others with whom we do not share the same community, problems or work situations.”
Others require mapmakers to ensure that lines are not tampered with, which is the practice of designing districts so that candidates for a particular political party have a better chance of being elected than others.
‘The current protection is not in [state] Amy Ruffo of Lancaster wrote that the proposed three Senate districts that would include the county could be drawn in such a way as to better reflect the urban and rural areas of Lancaster.
Still others point to data showing that the number of voters who will live in a given state’s legislative district varies greatly. This is despite the fact that the state constitution requires that districts be “as nearly equal in population as possible”.
Dave’s Redistricting App, a nonpartisan map analysis tool, shows that some proposed House districts hold several thousand more people than they should, while others contain several thousand. An analysis of the Senate map shows a similar discrepancy, although the DRA courts have generally allowed district populations to vary slightly.
“These irregularities in population consistency impair the voting power of the regions of the Southeast…especially Montgomery County. These inconsistencies must be adjusted in the next version of the map,” Phyllis Bloomberg of Bala Scynoid in Montgomery County wrote of the state Senate map.
Commentators have said similar things about the proposed congressional map.
“This seems to combine cities with large sections of rural areas. It weakens minority voices and perhaps progressive-leaning areas with right-leaning conservative areas. I don’t think that makes sense,” Frederic Weidmann wrote.
Some have pointed to Dauphin County as an example of this “agglomeration”. Under the Republican-backed map, three districts would divide parts of the province. While Harrisburg and the adjoining communities of Cumberland County will remain in the 10th Congressional District, much of Dauphin’s populated northern and eastern districts will be grouped into largely rural 13th District.
The tenth would also include all Republican-leaning York and Adams counties, which they do not currently include.
Gina Mischen writes, “This…is dividing Dauphin County to weaken its sound by bringing together instrumentals and country counties with which we have no common bond.”
The map makers, mostly state legislators, undertook to use many of the comments to draw the final maps. But the Republicans and Democrats involved in the redrawing were at odds over the implications of the new lines.
Governor Tom Wolfe, who previously indicated he would hold back on the proposed Congressional map bill until it was sent to his office, claimed Tuesday that the map is a Republican site maker.
In a letter to House Speaker Brian Cutler and Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff, Wolff stated that the Redistricting Advisory Board he convened earlier this year recommended that any Map proposal be reviewed in advance.
Wolf wrote that “Map HB 2146 falls short of this basic measure of partisan justice, giving a structural advantage to Republican candidates that far exceeds voter support for the party.”
Redistricting analysts are divided over whether that is the case.
Dave’s Redistricting App, which uses data from elections between 2016 and 2020, shows Democrats will have an advantage in nine of the proposed 17 districts, including a slight advantage in the 17th cycle. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project, which uses only data from the 2020 presidential election, shows that nine counties will lean toward the Republican Party.
But the DRA notes that the map proposal is “anti-majority,” saying “although they are likely to receive approximately 52.46% of the total vote, the Democrats are likely to win only 47.85% of the seats.”
Both organizations show that five of the 17 regions will technically be competitive enough to swing to either of the two major parties.
Rep. Seth Grove (R-York), who is leading a remap of Congress in the House, applauded again at Wolf Tuesday, inviting the governor to discuss his objections in person at a proposed Jan. 6 meeting at the Capitol.
“From the beginning of the redistricting process, the commission has endeavored to keep the public informed throughout the open and transparent process,” Grove said. As such, I hope the Governor will accept this invitation to meet and talk about the map in an open forum. “
Earlier this month, Grove said the job proposal — which made modifications to the original citizen-drawn map — was not drawn with partisan merit. He added that he hoped to reach an agreement with the governor so that the state Supreme Court would not have to step in as it did in 2018.
I think we both have the same goal: We’d like a map that the citizens would be proud of. “We have a very similar process operating in the shadows,” Grove said after the state’s House meeting.
The State Department wants the maps to be finished by January 24, in time for candidates to use them in the May primary. But Acting Commonwealth Secretary Veronica Degravenried said that date could swing if the deadline is missed. Logistical and legal barriers, including a limited number of voting days next month and a mandatory objection period for state maps, may also stand in the way of lawmakers getting the maps approved on time.
In the meantime, Pennsylvania citizens can continue to share their thoughts on online maps. By law, there is a 30-day period for comment on state maps. Public hearings to collect comments will take place on January 6 and 7.
State lawmakers have not set a strict deadline for congressional comments on the map.
Why did you contribute to map visualizations of an earlier story?