Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

No. 1 WM 2012

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

:::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Appellants

v.

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

Appellee

JUDITH 

SENATOR 
JAY  COSTA, 
SENATOR 
LAWRENCE  M.  FARNESE,  JR.,  SENATOR 
CHRISTINE  M.  TARTAGLIONE,  SENATOR 
SHIRLEY M. KITCHEN, SENATOR LEANNA 
M.  WASHINGTON,  SENATOR  MICHAEL  J. 
STACK,  SENATOR  VINCENT  J.  HUGHES, 
SENATOR  ANTHONY  H.  WILLIAMS, 
SENATOR 
SCHWANK, 
SENATOR  JOHN  T.  YUDICHAK,  SENATOR 
DAYLIN  LEACH,  SENATOR  LISA  M. 
BOSCOLA, 
E. 
DINNIMAN,  SENATOR  JOHN  P.  BLAKE, 
KASUNIC, 
SENATOR 
SENATOR  JOHN  N.  WOZNIAK,  SENATOR 
JIM  FERLO,  SENATOR  WAYNE  D. 
FONTANA, 
R. 
BREWSTER,  and  SENATOR  TIMOTHY  J. 
SOLOBAY, 

SENATOR 

SENATOR 

RICHARD 

ANDREW 

JAMES 

A. 

L. 

Appellants

v.

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

Appellee

[J-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 31-2012] [M.O. - CASTILLE, C.J.] 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

EDBRIL,  DARIEL 

AMANDA E. HOLT, ELAINE TOMLIN, LOUIS 
NUDI,  DIANE 
I. 
JAMIESON,  LORA  LAVIN,  JAMES  YOEST, 
JEFFREY  MEYER,  CHRISTOPHER  H. 
FROMME,  TIMOTHY  F.  BURNETT,  CHRIS 
HERTZOG,  GLEN  ECKHART,  and  MARY 
FRANCES BALLARD, 

No. 7 MM 2012

:::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::

:::::::::::::::::

MAYOR  CAROLYN  COMITTA,  COUNCIL 
PRESIDENT  HOLLY  BROWN,  WILLIAM  J. 
SCOTT,  JR.,  HERBERT  A.  SCHWABE,  II, 
JANE  HEALD  CLOSE,  FLOYD  ROBERT 
BIELSKI,  DAVID  LALEIKE,  E.  BRIAN 
ABBOTT,  NATHANIEL  SMITH,  and  W. 
DONALD BRACELAND, 

Appellants

No. 2 MM 2012

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

MAYOR  LEO  SCODA  and  COUNCIL 
PERSON JENNIFER MAYO, 

No. 3 MM 2012

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

Appellee

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

J.  AMDUR, 

THOMAS  SCHIFFER,  ALISON  BAUSMAN, 
RACHEL 
JOAN  TARKA, 
LAWRENCE  W.  ABEL,  MARGARET  G. 
MORSCHECK,  LAWRENCE  J.  CHRZAN, 
JULIA SCHULTZ and SHIRLEY RESNICK, 

No. 4 MM 2012

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

v.

v.

v.

Appellee

Appellants

Appellants

Appellee

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

[J-2 thru 12, 31-2012] - 2

::::::::::::::

:::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::

:::::::::::

SEKELA  COLES,  CYNTHIA  JACKSON  and 
LEE TALIAFERRO, 

No. 5 MM 2012

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

PATTY KIM, 

No. 6 MM 2012

Appellants

Appellee

Appellant

Appellants

Appellee

Appellant

v.

v.

v.

v.

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

SUBMITTED:  January 23, 2012

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

Appellee

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

EDWARD  J.  BRADLEY,  JR.,  PATRICK 
MCKENNA,  JR.,  DOROTHY  GALLAGHER, 
RICHARD  H.  LOWE,  and  JOHN  F.  "JACK" 
BYRNE, 

No. 8 MM 2012

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

DENNIS J. BAYLOR, 

No. 9 MM 2012

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

                              Appellee

:

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

[J-2 thru 12, 31-2012] - 3

:::::::::::::

:::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::

ANDREW DOMINICK ALOSI, 

No. 10 MM 2012

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

CARLOS A. ZAYAS, 

SUBMITTED:  January 23, 2012

No. 17 MM 2012

Appellant

Appellee

Appellant

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

Appellee

SUBMITTED:  January 24, 2012

WILLIAM  C.  KORTZ,  MICHELLE 
L. 
VEZZANI,  MICHAEL  E.  CHEREPKO, 
JOYCE 
GREGORY 
LISA 
POPOVICH, 
BASHIOUM, and RICHARD CHRISTOPHER, 

EROSENKO, 
JOHN 

BEVEC, 

No. 4 WM 2012

Appellants

Appeal from the Legislative 
Reapportionment Plan of the 2011 
Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

v.

v.

v.

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

Appellee

[J-2 thru 12, 31-2012] - 4

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

MR. JUSTICE EAKIN

DECIDED: January 25, 2012
OPINION FILED: February 3, 2012

I  join  much  of  the  majority  opinion. However,  I  do  not  find  the  Legislative 

Reapportionment Commission (LRC) plan to be contrary to the Constitution, and I join in 

full the expressions of Justice Saylor in that regard.  

The process of redistricting is complex beyond words. The need to consider all 

the 

factors  necessary  – contiguousness,  compactness,  equality  of  population, 

respecting political subdivisions down to the ward level, avoiding disenfranchising racial 

and  ethnic  groups,  the  federal  Voting  Rights  Act  – makes  this  a  daunting  task  for  the 

LRC. The result of changing any one area of its plan was aptly  likened by counsel to

squeezing a water balloon: if you squeeze it here, it will bulge over there.

If you change 

one line, it causes ripples that necessitate changes elsewhere.

An  inherent  problem  in  reviewing  challenges  to  the  ultimate  plan  is  that  no 

mechanism exists for the LRC to justify or explain its considerations or decisions. For 

better or worse, there are no means for it to explain individual lines or boundaries.   It is 

never “absolutely necessary” to draw a line in any spot – it could always go elsewhere, 

but there is no process articulating what considerations were behind the decision to put 

it where the LRC did.  

Since  there is no  record,  we  cannot tell  why  the  LRC  did  what it did. This  is  a 

problem  for  both  those  who  would  challenge  the  plan  and  for  those  of  us  who  must 

evaluate those challenges. For example, the “Holt plan” was not adopted by the LRC, 

but we do not know what consideration it received. We can surmise reasons it was not 

enacted, but this is mere conjecture.

[J-2 thru 12, 31-2012] - 5

It is entirely possible that this plan, lovely on its surface, is not so beautiful when 

examined in depth – on the other hand, it may be a masterpiece. We do not know and 

are not possessed of the means to make such an evaluation, particularly given the time 

constraints cogently detailed in the majority’s opinion.

The bottom line is that we do not know whether the Holt plan, or any other plan, 

proves anything other than that it is possible to divide fewer political subdivisions. This 

in my judgment does not prove the LRC plan is unconstitutional. The bipartisan LRC, 

however, has the time, the means, and indeed the mandate to consider all options, and 

I would give it significant deference. Given that deference, the burden on challengers is 

indeed heavy and, in my judgment, has not been met in this case.

The  2011  plan  has  fewer problems  than  the  plan  we  found  constitutional  in 

Albert; it is not unconstitutional under existing precedent. While I do not quarrel with the 

majority’s  reordering  of  constitutional  priorities,  I  do  not  find  a  need  to  make  that 

reordering retroactive.

Redistricting  is  required  to  ensure  constitutional  representation  of  all  voters, 

reflecting  population  changes  that  occur  over  a decade. Computers  or  not,  drawing  a 

new plan using new rules will not happen in time for this year’s elections. Changing the 

rules  and  rejecting  the otherwise  constitutional plan  subjects  our  citizens  to  continued 

unbalanced representation. I find this result unnecessary.

As such, I cannot join the order rejecting the 2011 Legislative Reapportionment 

Plan.

[J-2 thru 12, 31-2012] - 6