Received 2/13/2018 12:22:48 PM Supreme Court Middle District

HAN G LEY
ARONCHICK
S EGAL
PUDLIN
SCHILLER

One Logan Square
27th Floor
Philadelphia, an i9io3
zi5.568.o3oo/facsimile
www.hangley.com

ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

rni~noc~rni n, nn
I IIEF. RV HILL, N1

Mark A. Aronchick
Direct Dial: zi5.496.7ooz
E-mail: maronchick@hangley.com

IlneeiSBU Ro, Pn

r~o~visruwN, rn

February 13, Zo18

VIA PACFILE
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
601 Commonwealth Avenue
Suite 4500
P.O. Box 62575
Harrisburg, PA 17106
Re:

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, et al., v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, et al., No. 159 MM Zo17: General Assembly's Failure to Submit a
Proposed Redistricting Plan

Dear Justices:
write on behalf of Respondent Thomas W. Wolf. On January 22, this Court issued an
Order stating that, interalia,
[S]hould the Pennsylvania General Assembly choose to submit
a congressional districting plan that satisfies the requirements
of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it shall submit such plan for
consideration by the Governor on or before February 9, Zo18.
If the Governor accepts the General Assembly's congressional
districting plan, it shall be submitted to this Court on or before
February i5, Zo18.
The General Assembly did not meet the February g deadline. Instead, two individual
legislators, Speaker Michael C. Turzai and President Pro Tempore Joseph B. Scarnati, III
("Legislative Respondents"), filed a proposed map with this Court. Legislative Respondents
argued that this submission "complies with the Court's Order in substance" because it is
"produced by the legislative branch of Pennsylvania's government." Legislative
Respondents' Brief dated February 9, Zo18, at 14.

:~,.;;::

 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
February 13, ao18
Page 2

Governor Wolf rejects Legislative Respondents' proposed map because it does not
comply with the Courts January 22 Order. The proposed map was not legislation passed by
the General Assembly—Legislative Respondents concede this point. It is simply the
submission of two individual elected officials. The General Assembly never considered or
voted upon it, and President Pro Tempore Scarnati and SpeakerTurzai's status as leaders of
the majority caucuses does not, alone, give them the authority to act on behalf of the entire
General Assembly.
Legislative Respondents argue that this Court should treat their proposed map as
compliant with its Order because the General Assembly was unable to enact legislation in
time for the February 9 deadline. See Legislative Respondents' Br. at 5-8. In fact, the
General Assembly had more than enough time to enact a map between January 221 and
February 9. The General Assembly moved the Zo11 Plan through the legislative process
within eight days. See Recommended Findings of Fact dated December Zg, Zo17 ~¶100so9,112-117,121. Indeed, Legislative Respondents' counsel admitted at oral argument that
the General Assembly "would like at least three weeks" to draw a new map; this Court
allowed nearly that much time. See Oral Argument, January i7, Zo18 (Torchinsl<y) at
1:46:05.
Even if the proposed map had been properly enacted by the General Assembly,
Governor Wolf would reject it for a second reason. Mathematical analysis of the map shows
that, like the Zos1 map, it is an impermissible gerrymanderthat subsumes traditional
redistricting principles to partisan ends. While Legislative Respondents claim to have met
the "floor" set by this Court's Order in terms of compactness, contiguous districts, respect
for political boundaries, and equal population, their map clearly seeks to benefit one
political party, which is the essence of why this court found the current map to be
unconstitutional. Further, Legislative Respondents claim that their map "reduces
confusion" by Keeping almost 7o percent of voters in their current districts. This serves no
legal purpose, was not a requirement of the Court, and is merely a tool to preserve existing
districts that this Court deemed unconstitutional.

Legislative Respondents suggest that they were not required to begin drafting a
map until this Court issued its opinion on February 7. See Legislative Respondents' Br. at 6.
But the Court, in its January 22 Order, did not tell them to wait, and the Order gave
Legislative Respondents all the information they needed to proceed with the drafting
process.

„,.

 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
February i3, 2018
Page 3

While Governor Wolf remains open to discussions with the General Assembly, he
does not believe that Legislative Respondents' submission complies with this Court's Order
or the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Respectfully,
c ~.
1,/Ul

Marl<A. Aronchicl<

cc:

All counsel of record (via PacFile)

~, ~~;,