# Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 25, 2012 · 614 Pa. 364 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4965431 ## Case - **Full name:** Amanda E. HOLT, Elaine Tomlin, Louis Nudi, Diane Edbril, Dariel I. Jamieson, Lora Lavin, James Yoest, Jeffrey Meyer, Christopher H. Fromme, Timothy F. Burnett, Chris Hertzog, Glen Eckhart, and Mary Frances Ballard v. 2011 LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION, Appellee 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 Judith L. Schwank, Senator John T. Yudichak, Senator Daylin Leach, Senator Lisa M. Boscola, Senator Andrew E. Dinniman, Senator John P. Blake, Senator Richard A. Kasunic, Senator John N. Wozniak, Senator Jim Ferlo, Senator Wayne D. Fontana, Senator James R. Brewster, and Senator Timothy J. Solobay 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 v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee Mayor Leo Scoda and Council Person Jennifer Mayo v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee Thomas Schiffer, Alison Bausman, Rachel J. Amdur, Joan Tarka, Lawrence W. Abel, Margaret G. Morscheck, Lawrence J. Chrzan, Julia Schultz and Shirley Resnick v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee Sekela Coles, Cynthia Jackson and Lee Taliaferro v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee Patty Kim v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee Edward J. Bradley, Jr., Patrick McKenna, Jr., Dorothy Gallagher, Richard H. Lowe, and John F. "Jack" Byrne v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee Dennis J. Baylor v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee Andrew Dominick Alosi v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee Carlos A. Zayas v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Appellee William C. Kortz, Michelle L. Vezzani, Michael E. Cherepko, Gregory Erosenko, Joyce Popovich, John Bevec, Lisa Bashioum, and Richard Christopher v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission - **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** January 25, 2012 - **Citations:** 614 Pa. 364; 38 A.3d 711 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion of the court - **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Melvin, Saylor, Todd - **Cited by:** 30 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/4965431 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - 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 conduc… - 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 an… - 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.” - noting that the Legislative Data Processing Center’s acceptance of the complete 2010 census data package as “usable” triggered, in that case, “the ninety-day period for filing a preliminary redistricting plan” ## Opinion text 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4965431. Public record. Not legal advice.