# Albert v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · February 15, 2002 · 567 Pa. 670 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4958493 ## Case - **Full name:** Jeffrey B. ALBERT, Thomas R. Collins, Jules Mermelstein, S. Lawrence Pauker, Robert J. Pesavento, Ira S. Tackel and Ann Thornburg Weiss v. 2001 LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION, Respondent Kenneth E. Davis, Joseph M. Manko, Charles J. Bloom, Rocco J. Burdo, Neil P. Clark, Matthew J. Comisky, James S. Ettelson, Lewis F. Gould, Evalyn B. Kadish, J. Randolph Lawlace, Ora R. Pierce, David A. Sonenshein, Felice G. Wiener, and Mary Wright, Individually and Collectively as the Board of Commissioners of The Township of Lower Merion, Township of Lower Merion, Dennis J. Sharkey, and Nora Winkelman v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent Gerald A. Francis, Jerold Novick, Jeffrey M. Lindy, David Gold, Robert McL. Boote, Kenneth L. Brier, Maxine Goldberg, Bob Gray, Mary Ellen Yuhas Hagner, Roger Moog, Judy Strazzella, Mimi Winkler, Fenton Fitzpatrick, Anne Greenhalgh, John Joseph, Lynn Manko, Bruce D. Reed, and Neighborhood Club of Bala Cynwyd v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent William J. O'Brien, II v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Respondent Senator Lisa M. Boscola, Senator Charles W. Dent, Mayor Thomas Goldsmith, Charles D. Snelling, and Lehigh Valley Coalition for Fair Reapportionment v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Respondent State Representative Kelly Lewis v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Respondent Dennis J. Baylor v. 2001 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Respondent Carlos A. Zayas and Valentin Rodgriguez, Jr. v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Respondent Langhorne Virginia Brickwedde v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Respondent In re Appeal of the Township of Ross, the North Hills School District, Yvonne Brandon, Charles Delehanty, Nelson Erb, William Linkenhiemer, Eloise Peet, Daniel L. Demarco, John A. Adamczyk, Daniel P. Kinross, James Atzert, David J. Mikec, Gerald R. O'Brien, Peter A. Ferraro, Carol A. Grom, Al Barkley, Arlene Bender, Sylvia K. Lynn, Cheri R. Neely, Jennifer M. Rush, Ted J. Zobb, Jr., Richard Pelot and Edward Wielgus v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Respondent The Board of Commissioners of Radnor Township and the League of Women Voters of Radnor Township v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission - **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** February 15, 2002 - **Citations:** 567 Pa. 670; 790 A.2d 989; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 317 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor - **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Eakin, Newman, Nigro, Saylor, Zappala - **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4958493 ## Opinion text 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4958493. Public record. Not legal advice.