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

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

[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

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 
SENATOR 
JAY  COSTA, 
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. 
R. 
FONTANA, 
BREWSTER,  and  SENATOR  TIMOTHY  J. 
SOLOBAY, 

SENATOR 

SENATOR 

RICHARD 

ANDREW 

JAMES 

A. 

L. 

Appellants

No. 1 WM 2012

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

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, 

No. 2 MM 2012

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

Appellants

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

Appellee

Appellants

Appellee

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, 

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 

[J-11-2012][M.O. – Castille, C.J.] - 2

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

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

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

: : : : : : :

Appellants

Legislative Reapportionment 
Commission, dated December 12, 2011

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

v.

v.

v.

Appellee

Appellants

Appellee

Appellant

Appellee

Appellants

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

SEKELA  COLES,  CYNTHIA  JACKSON  and 
LEE TALIAFERRO, 

No. 5 MM 2012

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

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

SUBMITTED:  January 23, 2012

PATTY KIM, 

No. 6 MM 2012

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

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

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

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

[J-11-2012][M.O. – Castille, C.J.] - 3

: : : : : : : : :

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

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

: : : : : : : : : : :

v.

v.

v.

v.

Appellee

Appellant

Appellee

Appellant

Appellee

Appellant

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, 

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

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, 

SUBMITTED:  January 23, 2012

CARLOS A. ZAYAS, 

No. 17 MM 2012

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

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

SUBMITTED:  January 24, 2012

[J-11-2012][M.O. – Castille, C.J.] - 4

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

ARGUED:  January 23, 2012

: :

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

Appellee

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

EROSENKO, 
JOHN 

BEVEC, 

No. 4 WM 2012

Appellants

v.

2011  LEGISLATIVE  REAPPORTIONMENT 
COMMISSION, 

Appellee

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR

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

The  majority  opinion  is  remarkable  in many  aspects,  including  its  timeliness,  its 

scope,  and  the  passages  of  salutary  guidance  which  it  provides.    For  the  most  part,  I 

support the clarification of the appellate review for redistricting challenges, particularly in 

terms  of:    the  acceptance  that  alternate  plans  may  be  employed  by  challengers  to 

address their heavy burden of proof; the movement toward a more circumspect position 

regarding the role of population equality; and the recognition of the interplay among the 

several  requirements  of  the  Pennsylvania  Constitution  pertaining  to  redistricting.    My 

thoughts,  however,  do  not  align  with  the  majority’s  criticisms  of  the  Legislative 

Reapportionment  Commission,  inasmuch  as  I  have  limited  perspective  concerning  the 

difficulties encountered by the Commission in crafting a redistricting plan.

[J-11-2012][M.O. – Castille, C.J.] - 5

In light of the inevitability of dividing some political subdivisions in the redistricting 

exercise, the appellate review of plan challenges preeminently represents an exercise in 

line drawing.  I use this term figuratively, of course, since the Court is not generally in a 

position to draw the boundaries on a map, but it does determine the degree of latitude 

to be accorded to a legislative reapportionment commission in arranging voting district 

boundaries.    The  allocation  of  the  burdens  and  the  affordance  of  deference  in  the 

judicial  review  reflect  the  complex  nature  of  a  commission’s  task  and  the  constraints 

inherent  in  its  oversight.   Indeed,  I  had no  illusions  in  2002  that, had  the then-existing 

legislative  reapportionment  commission  narrowed  or  otherwise  altered  the  range  of 

considerations  taken  into  account  in  fashioning  voting-district  boundaries,  there  could 

not  have  been fewer  divisions.    Moreover,  with  regard  to  the  2011  Final  Plan,  I  agree 

with the majority that it is an improvement over the 2001 plan, see Majority Opinion, slip

op. at 76, which surmounted the challenges raised in the appeals before this Court.

While  the  majority  correctly  observes  that  those  challenges  were  narrower  in 

scope  than  the  lead  ones  presented  here,  consideration  of  the  overall  plan  was 

encompassed in my own review.  The concerns which I set forth in the Albert decision 

were  premised  on  such  consideration, and  I  adjudged  the  2001  plan  to  be  entitled  to 

deference.  See Albert v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Comm’n, 567 Pa. 670, 688, 

790 A.2d 989, 1000 (2002) (Saylor, J., concurring).  Ultimately, then, on the merits, and 

respecting  the  substantial  deference  which  is  to  be  accorded  to  such  a plan, I  believe 

the  2011  Legislative  Reapportionment  Plan  is  also  constitutionally  permissible.    It 

therefore follows that I remain unable to join the mandate of the Court.

[J-11-2012][M.O. – Castille, C.J.] - 6