in conducting constitutional review, this Court "must examine the final plan as a whole”
How later courts described this case
- in conducting constitutional review, this Court "must examine the final plan as a whole”
- “[The Commission] claims that ... no political subdivision was divided in forming a district unless absolutely necessary. Upon comparison of the instant Final Plan with those previously approved by this Court, we agree.”
- "[A] contiguous district [i]s 'one in which a person can go from any point within the district to any other point [within the district] without leaving the district,’ or one in which ‘no part of the district is wholly physically separate from any other part.’ ” (quoting Specter, supra, 293 A.2d at 23)
- per curiam Order of February 15, 2002
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, as I believe that it is fully consistent with this Court’s precedent governing the decennial undertaking of legislative redistricting. Nevertheless, I remain circumspect concerning the manner in which state constitutional requirements of compactness and integrity of political subdivisions have been applied by the Court in the prior decisions that are followed here, and I am receptive to the concern that the Court should not occupy an unduly passive role in the vindication of these essential precepts. I write, therefore, to express my own position that facets of the Commission’s present plan for reapportioning the Pennsylvania Legislature test the outer limits of justifiable deference, at least in the absence of some specific explanation for why the constitutional prerequisites of compactness and respect for political subdivisions cannot be accommodated simultaneous with the maintenance of substantial equality of population and enforcement of voting interests of protected groups in the manner prescribed by federal law.
Justice CASTILLE and Justice EAKIN join this concurring opinion.