explaining that the “scope of review refers to the confines within which an appellate court must conduct its examination, i.e., the ‘what’ that the appellate court is permitted to examine, while the ‘[s]tandard of review addresses the manner by which that examination is conducted, the degree of scrutiny to be applied by the appellate court.’”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the “scope of review refers to the confines within which an appellate court must conduct its examination, i.e., the ‘what’ that the appellate court is permitted to examine, while the ‘[s]tandard of review addresses the manner by which that examination is conducted, the degree of scrutiny to be applied by the appellate court.’”
- recognizing difficulty in LRC’s task, “not only because of the political and local interests that are affected by any change in the existing scheme, but also because accommodating one [constitutional] command can make accomplishing another command more difficult.”
- acknowledging, in the context of state legislative redistricting, that redistricting “has an inevitably legislative, and therefore an inevitably political, element,” but indicating that constitutional requirements function as a “brake on the most overt of potential excesses and abuse”
- noting that constitutional restrictions in Section 16 “recognize that communities indeed have shared interests for which they can more effectively advocate when they can act as a united body and when they have representatives who are responsive to those interests.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 25th day of January, 2012, upon consideration of the petitions for review and briefs in these legislative redistricting appeals, and after entertaining oral argument on January 23, 2012, this Court finds that the final 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Plan is contrary to law. Pa. Const, art. II, § 17(d). 1 Accordingly, the final 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Plan is REMANDED to the 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission with a directive to reapportion the Com *716 monwealth in a manner consistent with this Court’s Opinion, which will follow. Id.
The 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Plan, which this Court previously ordered to “be used in all forthcoming elections to the General Assembly until the next constitutionally mandated reapportionment shall be approved,” Albert v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 567 Pa. 670 , 790 A.2d 989, 991 (2002) (quoting per curiam order), shall remain in effect until a revised final 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Plan having the force of law is approved. Pa. Const, art. II, § 17(e).
All 2012 election dates shall remain the same, with the exception of the primary election calendar, which is adjusted as follows:
Thursday, January 26 First day to circulate nomination petitions
Thursday, February 16 Last day to file nomination petitions
Thursday, February 23 Last day to file objections to set aside nomination petitions
Monday, February 27 Last day that court may fix for hearings on objections to nomination petitions
Friday, March 2 Last day for court to finally determine objections to nomination petitions
Friday, March 2 Last day for withdrawal by candidates who filed nomination petitions
Any signatures on nomination petitions dated January 24 or January 25, 2012, shall be deemed valid as to timeliness, subject, however, to any other statutory challenge.
Jurisdiction is retained.
Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting statement, in which Justice EAKIN and Justice ORIE MELVIN join.
. For administrative purposes only, we have designated the appeal in Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 7 MM 2012/ J-7-2012, as the lead case.