# Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 25, 2012 · 614 Pa. 364 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4965433 ## 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:** Concurring in part by Saylor - **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/4965433 ## 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 Justice SAYLOR, concurring and dissenting. 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. 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, at 755-56, 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4965433. Public record. Not legal advice.